I believe that passenger preference for jet engines (vs. turbo props) is fairly well documented. But is there a difference, in passenger preference, when it comes to where the jet engines are mounted (wing vs. rear of fuselage)? I vaugely recall an airline executive commenting (back in the day) about how the popularity of the ERJ was due in some part to the fact that passengers liked feeling as though they were on a more traditional airliner (with engines hanging from the wings).

Note that I'm talking about the average, run-of-the-mill passenger... not the folks here on the forum. (I recently went out of my way to try to get a flight on a Brasilia... and I'm sure many on here would do the same.)

The reason I ask is because I've seen a couple of threads regarding Bombardier's next move, and whether it might be a re-engined CRJ or maybe a shortened C-series (among other things). The CRJ, with new engines, would presumably continue to seat 68-78 (for the -700) and 76-90 (for the -900). But, if there exists a passenger preference for more "traditional" airframes with engines on the wings, would Bombardier benefit more from just shrinking the C-series to find a sweet spot between the CRJ-700 and -900? A "C-75" that could seat 75-90 passengers and directly compete (in terms of engine location) with the E-175E2?

In my mind, the pecking order for passenger preference has always been:
Widebody > Single Aisle, Wing Mounted > Single Aisle, Rear Mounted > Turbo Prop
(777 > 737 > CRJ/MD-8* > EMB-120)

Is that accurate? If so, should Bombardier be shifting focus to more "traditional" airframes? (I know that MD-8*, CRJ, DC-9 airframes are pretty traditional in many regards, but I think you understand what I'm asking.)

Cheers.

Passengers I think typically prefer wing mounted engines. I've flown on more MD-80/ DC-9 flights than I can remember and I personally love sitting in the rear. I love the sounds back there. But for the average passenger, the noise is bothersome and loud. Even though if you sit forward of the wing, they are some of the quietest planes ever. Rear engine mounted planes are being considered obsolete and outdated by today's standards unfortunately.

Real talk: the vast majority of passengers don't know or care about any of that. They just want the best price that fits their schedule.

I also think the main reason passengers prefer wing-mounted aircraft is that the engines are further away from the cabin, so the engine noise is less noticable. It already matters if you're flying a 737 or an A320, the A320 engines are slightly further away from the cabin than the 737 engines and therefor the A320 is more quiet inside.

Also for some passengers the fact that they can see the engines makes a difference. Not that they can do anything about it, but it's a satisfying thought to know they are in place.

^^^^^ This

You said it yourself OP. The run of the mill passenger and not the people on the forum.

The people on here are the only ones who would devote more than a nano seconds thought on the subject.

The run of the mill passenger can't find the baggage hall let alone have an opinion as to where they best enjoy the placement of a jet.

303dk wrote:

Real talk: the vast majority of passengers don't know or care about any of that. They just want the best price that fits their schedule.

Exactly. Passengers don't know where the engines are until they see the plane, and are unlikely to book one over the other for that reason. It's similar to questions a few years ago about whether passengers preferred four-engine planes vs. twins. Answer really is that they don't know or care.

NoTime wrote:

But, if there exists a passenger preference for more "traditional" airframes with engines on the wings, would Bombardier benefit more from just shrinking the C-series to find a sweet spot between the CRJ-700 and -900? A "C-75" that could seat 75-90 passengers and directly compete (in terms of engine location) with the E-175E2?

A shrink of the C-Series would be so horribly inefficient that it wouldn't get any sales. Airlines only care about passenger preference to the extent that they can make money off of it. Since engine location isn't a thing they can monetize, they're going to be interested in what planes are more efficient/more capable. A 75-seat CSeries would have nearly all the operating costs of a CS100, all the capital costs, and 70% of the revenue potential. Not exactly a winning formula. See also: 737-600, A318.

303dk wrote:

Real talk: the vast majority of passengers don't know or care about any of that. They just want the best price that fits their schedule.

I think that`s spot-on.

For me, it's rear-mounted all the way although the only time I really thought I have to die was on a 1time MD-80 from CPT to JNB. I sat in row 1 and after take-off it was so quiet in the front that for a second I actually thought that both engines had failed.

My one and only flight on a 717 was in the second to last row of a DL 717......no window view at all as the engine mounted right outside.......didn't enjoy the flight one bit....on the whole I think the 717 was a nice plane but not if you're sitting in the last two rows......

Rear mounted jets are great if you sit up front. The plane is so quiet. I have been right near the engine on a 717. It is loud and the thought of an engine failure always crosses my mind.

As far as the general public, a few years back, some friends flew on a route that may have had A340's. I asked them if they had flown on an A330 or A340. I got a blank stare from both. Then I asked if the plane had 2 or 4 engines. Once again I was greeted with a blank stare. It like asking someone how many cylinders did the last bus you were on have. Most people don't know or care.

I`d have to agree with the consensus of the replies that most people could care less what they travel on.
Given the choice I`d be happy not to sit in the back half of a rear engined plane due to the extra noise &
vibration associated with that type.

Northwest1988 wrote:

Passengers I think typically prefer wing mounted engines. I've flown on more MD-80/ DC-9 flights than I can remember and I personally love sitting in the rear. I love the sounds back there. But for the average passenger, the noise is bothersome and loud. Even though if you sit forward of the wing, they are some of the quietest planes ever. Rear engine mounted planes are being considered obsolete and outdated by today's standards unfortunately.

The MD-80 is so loud in the rear I actively avoid the type. Yes, those who sit in the front love the type. Above 85db causes hearing loss (I used to be deputized safety for flight test and personally know people with permanent hearing loss.

There are weight and drag advantages to engines on the wings. For example, anti-ice the wings with rear mounted engines is begging to go electric.

Even the tail cargo MRJ has wing mounted engines. Judging from Honda jet sales, wing mounted engines are desirable for business jets.


As less hearing damage occurs, society is developing a preference for quite. For example, the global express sales took off after insulation improvements. The G650 was developed to fix G550 noise issues by the engines.

I doubt we'll see anything bigger than a hundred seater with engines anywhere but under the wing until lifting buddies or BWBs enter service.

Lightsaber

Personally, I like two on the wings and one in the tail. But since there aren't many of those around anymore, I'd go with rear-mounted engines over wing-mounted engines for the most part.

Aside from price, the general public has pretty arbitrary preferences for plane types. My sister and her husband like the MD80/717 not because of the engines, but because they can sit together in a 2-seat configuration. As another example of arbitrary preference, one of my friends thought AA was unsafe because "it looks like the plane's about to fall apart," referring to the unpainted fuselage.

As for me, I tend to prefer E-jets over CRJs, but mostly for comfort reasons. I don't fly out of anywhere with a lot of MD80/717s, but if I did, I'd probably pick them just because I, too, like the 2-seat configuration, and I just haven't flown on that many DC9s.

Can someone correct the impression that T-Tails (and their ability to Deep-Stall) made them less desirable an option, than the conventional design, that we see today?
This would essentially eliminate the use of tail-mounted engines, in new commercial designs - as we have seen of late (at least on the commercial operator side).

In the business jet market - they are by far the most common design, and I can see where it is advantageous to business jet operators (as tail mounted engines are not possible on many of those frames).

I used to have colleagues sensitives into hubbing at certain airports because there the feeder service is predominantly through aft-mounted engined aircraft, as others mentioned they preferred hubbing through airports where feeders are wing mounted aircraft. Reason is engine vibration noise, it is true forward of the cabin you do not feel a thing (similar feeling to an electric golfcart), but if it happens your seat is at the back then vibration noise would not be so comfortable. I tried most aft seat on a CRJ, vibration noise was horrible; in a CRJ for over wing seat the engine noise is comparable to a wing-mounted engines, noise goes to silent only when you are forward of the cabin.

intotheair wrote:

Aside from price, the general public has pretty arbitrary preferences for plane types. My sister and her husband like the MD80/717 not because of the engines, but because they can sit together in a 2-seat configuration.

Though, totally anecdotally - they are my favorite type to fly on (in the sector) for that reason as well. Having worked with many families traveling, it was always a bit easier to accommodate to travel with a family/kids and the relative 'limit' of people in rows, with kids (or 'strangers' sitting next to you) was limited also. Interestingly, ATL will be continue to be blessed with the experience, for decades to come.

intotheair wrote:

As for me, I tend to prefer E-jets over CRJs, but mostly for comfort reasons.

The E170 is really such fun to be on. They really did take a vantage of the customer's needs in larger windows, 2x2 seating, decent sized bathrooms (considering the sector), and in most cases the flight times were not too severe. I'm partial to them, as they also have the added benefit of being a little zippy. The E190s are superb. I actually think, though, that they are not a good comparison to the CRJs.

From a design perspective - the CRJs should be compared to the ERJs (ERJ135/140/145). Even there, the ERJs had an advantage in comfort (with a 2x1 configuration).

The C-Series vs the E2s is where the competition will really be. I can't wait to see how it shapes up.

Swiss+CSeries;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH3fKSPpFhw

Embraer;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTNnNmRxNpo

intotheair wrote:

I don't fly out of anywhere with a lot of MD80/717s, but if I did, I'd probably pick them just because I, too, like the 2-seat configuration, and I just haven't flown on that many DC9s.

If you do, fly up front. Walk back to the lav/galley - and see the difference. It really is impressively quite up front (for a design of that time/age and into the modern era). It wasn't until the 787/A350 era aircraft that we get that, on a large/better scale. The 717, though (and having flowing on every iteration of the DC-9) perfected the art, and provided a refreshing modern experience when it was debuted. Even today, it's a sleek and modern aircraft - and worth the ticket, if you have the chance. They will be, based out of ATL with DL for quite some time, and they are usually operated on tolerable (less than 3 hour) runs, for decent prices. Wait a little, and perhaps you'll be able to do an ATL run where you can compare the C-Series and the 717. God Bless Atlanta!

Rajahdhani wrote:

intotheair wrote:

As for me, I tend to prefer E-jets over CRJs, but mostly for comfort reasons.

The E170 is really such fun to be on. They really did take a vantage of the customer's needs in larger windows, 2x2 seating, decent sized bathrooms (considering the sector), and in most cases the flight times were not too severe. I'm partial to them, as they also have the added benefit of being a little zippy. The E190s are superb. I actually think, though, that they are not a good comparison to the CRJs.

From a design perspective - the CRJs should be compared to the ERJs (ERJ135/140/145). Even there, the ERJs had an advantage in comfort (with a 2x1 configuration).

The C-Series vs the E2s is where the competition will really be. I can't wait to see how it shapes up.

I always felt E-jets & CRJ flight dynamics are both similar to a big civil aircraft of the B727/MD80/A320/B737 category, both have a comfortable stable ride all through flight phases like what you feel riding a big plane; trying ERJ's I would see their flight dynamics more like a race car during take-off, climb, descent & landing, during straight flight phase it will be as if you are riding a horse when plane happens to get into a bumpy air stream.

I remember reading back in the 60s with Boac was in hindsight actually more profitable using vc10 vs 707 etc because passengers preferred the quieter cabin.
Although they cost more to operate apparently the figures showed a higher load factor that paid for the extra fuel.
There were instances where passengers changed their itinerary to fly at a different time when the vc10 was available.

Rajahdhani wrote:

intotheair wrote:

As for me, I tend to prefer E-jets over CRJs, but mostly for comfort reasons.

The E170 is really such fun to be on. They really did take a vantage of the customer's needs in larger windows, 2x2 seating, decent sized bathrooms (considering the sector), and in most cases the flight times were not too severe. I'm partial to them, as they also have the added benefit of being a little zippy. The E190s are superb. I actually think, though, that they are not a good comparison to the CRJs.

From a design perspective - the CRJs should be compared to the ERJs (ERJ135/140/145). Even there, the ERJs had an advantage in comfort (with a 2x1 configuration).

The C-Series vs the E2s is where the competition will really be. I can't wait to see how it shapes up.

Swiss+CSeries;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH3fKSPpFhw

Embraer;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTNnNmRxNpo

I think it's absolutely fair to compare the CRJ-700/900/1000 with the E-jet. The large CRJs and the E-jets are of the same vintage, similar capacity, range, and mission profile. On the same hand, it's absolutely fair to compare the CRJ-100/200 with the 50-seat ERJs, as those are the same capacity and of the same vintage. Maybe BBD made a mistake not building a new fuselage for the large CRJs, but I also think Embraer also didn't really have a choice, as the ERJ cross section probably was too narrow to try to scale it up all the way to 76+ seats.

As for my preferences, I prefer E-jet > A320 (unless in UA's slimlines) > 737 > CRJ700/900 > Q400 > CRJ200. I've never flown in an ERJ, so I can't really comment on the comfort of that cabin.

I prefer rear mounted engines. I was on a HA 712 last Wednesday. Sitting up in 4F it was so quite you could hear a pin drop up front. Even at take off power you could barely hear the engines.

77H

Last few rows on a 737-200 were at least as loud if not louder than the rear of a DC-9, especially on takeoff. I've sat in the last 2 or 3 rows on KLM Fokker 70s several times recently and they're no louder than many aircraft with wing-mounted engines.

I wonder if some of the replies to this thread aren't giving passengers enough credit regarding how they make their decisions. While I'm sure the majority of them don't pay a lot of attention the first time they fly an airline or a particular route (giving, as others have already said, more importance to price and schedule), I wonder if the type of airplane wouldn't start to factor in a bit more if the passenger flew the route a few times? And perhaps wondered why airline X was apparently flying the same route with an airplane that looked "more like an airplane", while he/she was stuck on airline Y, which was flying this other airplane with engines on the back?

With the proliferation of airfare booking websites, which show the type of aircraft being booked, I would also expect there to be a small, but sizeable segment of the customer base who do at least give that sequence of letters and numbers ("737", "A320") a passing look... and might start connect that with what their airplane looks like. And, of course, with sites like routehappy, it might only take a few people who ARE concerned about engines on the rear of the plane, to get some other folks to start noticing it.

I don't know... I was just curious, and I appreciate all of the responses.

Most people can't tell the difference between an MD-80 and a 747, but it doesn't matter anyway because most routes are often operated by a single A/C type, or at most a handful. With the MD-80's being phased out, most people will become even more clueless as to the type. Here in TPA, we have the luxury of having the ATL shuttle operated by the A320, A321, 717, 737, 757, and the MD-80/90. People have a wide range of A/C to pick from, and this results in a large number of people picking their A/C, more than you would think. I know that people who fly premium are often aware, and pick the MD-90. However, into airports like LAX and MIA, A/C type is generally limited to the 739ER and A319, so there is no preference for engine placement per say. Regarding pax appeal, well, I'll leave you with this:

The primary factor on rear engine vs underslung is cost to build and operate. Passenger comfort does not enter into it. Rear engine requires stronger tail section, fuel lines running there (bigger anyway, since many a/c have the apu in the tail), etc. Also - it is harder to put large bypass engines back there. The T-tail also requires a different structure, though I'm not sure it is more costly.

303dk wrote:

Real talk: the vast majority of passengers don't know or care about any of that. They just want the best price that fits their schedule.

My girlfriend, who describes the difference between a 77W and A320 as "maybe smaller", happened to be looking over my shoulder as I opened this thread. Her response upon reading the first sentence was a groan and the following: "I have only one preference: safe"

I truly enjoy reading these sorts of discussions. However, in the interest of making the Civil Aviation forum a little less cluttered, this thread, and others like it, belongs in Travel, Polls & Preferences.

Cheers!

NoTime wrote:

With the proliferation of airfare booking websites, which show the type of aircraft being booked, I would also expect there to be a small, but sizeable segment of the customer base who do at least give that sequence of letters and numbers ("737", "A320") a passing look... and might start connect that with what their airplane looks like. And, of course, with sites like routehappy, it might only take a few people who ARE concerned about engines on the rear of the plane, to get some other folks to start noticing it.

I don't know... I was just curious, and I appreciate all of the responses.

This is actually probably a pretty good point. I'd be willing to bet that there's a strong correlation between how much one flies and how much one cares about the aircraft type. If you're only flying once a year to Orlando or Mallorca, you probably don't give a damn what plane you fly or how many people the budget airlines try to pack into a narrowbody. But even the people who fly just a few times a year to visit family and friends probably notice to some degree what sort of plane they're flying. I think many people in the US know what a 737 is, and many people probably choose an airline like Southwest because they know they aren't going to get stuck on an RJ or a prop. But those same people probably couldn't spot the difference between a 737 and an A320 or a 757 if they were standing in the In-n-Out parking lot at LAX.

KTPAFlyer wrote:

Most people can't tell the difference between an MD-80 and a 747, but it doesn't matter anyway because most routes are often operated by a single A/C type, or at most a handful.

There's certainly more homogeneity now than in the past, and that may be true in some places, but even between major US cities, there's a lot of choice when it comes to aircraft type. Between LA and DEN (a market I know well), I can choose to fly A CRJ200, CRJ900, E175, A319/320/321, 733/73G/738/739, 752/753, and a 772. Though I would agree that a fair number of people probably choose an aircraft type paired with their preferred airline. I'd say of these options, many probably actively book away from the CR2, but the other aircraft type options are more than acceptable to the rest.

I still have a soft spot for the avro rj100.

A mini queen of the skies, with its for engines it looks so grown up! And the roof mounted wings offer a good view out of the cabin for many!

Wow isnt it a bit early to call turbo props the winner here. Jets have redeeming qualities in terms of passenger preference

BartSimpson wrote:

I sat in row 1 and after take-off it was so quiet in the front that for a second I actually thought that both engines had failed.

Not related to the thread at all but that was my first experience on an A330 after a lot of flights on 737s and 767s...

Entering rabid pedant mode...

Tedd wrote:

I`d have to agree with the consensus of the replies that most people could care less what they travel on.

They could NOT care less. It's could NOT - not "could care less". If they could care less then that means THEY CARE!


And rabid pendant mode off.

Clipper101 wrote:

I always felt E-jets & CRJ flight dynamics are both similar to a big civil aircraft of the B727/MD80/A320/B737 category, both have a comfortable stable ride all through flight phases like what you feel riding a big plane; trying ERJ's I would see their flight dynamics more like a race car during take-off, climb, descent & landing, during straight flight phase it will be as if you are riding a horse when plane happens to get into a bumpy air stream.

You're right! The difference is actually noticeable during weather. On the CRJs (less so than the ERJs), you did feel the jolts. Though most were annoyed, or disheartened - I loved it. It felt, so truly like being on a business jet that I didn't mind the difference.

As for the CRJs - the CRJ-900s really surprised me. Not as modern a feel (smaller windows, smaller/less airy cabin) but once up, handled its own quite well. It was certainly a magnificent detail better than the CRJ-200s!

All in all, I refrain from fretting against the smaller aircraft - because in most cases, it was the most that the airline could support. It was either than, or Greyhound.

intotheair wrote:

I think it's absolutely fair to compare the CRJ-700/900/1000 with the E-jet. The large CRJs and the E-jets are of the same vintage, similar capacity, range, and mission profile. On the same hand, it's absolutely fair to compare the CRJ-100/200 with the 50-seat ERJs, as those are the same capacity and of the same vintage. Maybe BBD made a mistake not building a new fuselage for the large CRJs, but I also think Embraer also didn't really have a choice, as the ERJ cross section probably was too narrow to try to scale it up all the way to 76+ seats.

As for my preferences, I prefer E-jet > A320 (unless in UA's slimlines) > 737 > CRJ700/900 > Q400 > CRJ200. I've never flown in an ERJ, so I can't really comment on the comfort of that cabin.

Not 'absolutely fair' but I agree with you 99.8% (I'm just being stubborn!). You're right - the 'transition' on the Embraer side happened earlier (and very likely becuase stretching the Bandierante to the ERJ, to something else - would be limiting). In that respect, many CRJ-700/900/1000 compete head to head with the E-170/190 - head to head. It would have been more appropriate to make the distinction there.

As for the ERJ - I would recommend the flight. They're not meant for long flights, but they are superb in good weather. Admittedly, I have had my fair share of bad weather in them, and they handle well - but it's an experience for inexperienced fliers. Still, fantastic aircraft.

Big question for me... I tend to love the ultra-quietness of the forward part of the cabin of a rear-engine jet; and the very last rows of said 'crafts for..err..the very opposite reason!
Engines under the wings seem to give out "less of a character" to the aircraft to me, but on the other hand make cabin noise somewhat 'better distributed', thus inherently making fewer passengers extremely bothered by extreme noise... and yes, on some aircraft the very aft rows are/were so noisy you could easily get headache/ear pain (DC-9/15 takes the cake for me).
The quietest cabins?...nothing beats (excuse the present tense) the forward cabins of the HS Trident or the One-Eleven..even at full take off power (which, admittedly, was not much..!) all you could hear was a gently carpeted wooshing sound coming from far aback.. and no rattly panels nowhere! Those were no Boeings!!!

[

quote="f4f3a"]I remember reading back in the 60s with Boac was in hindsight actually more profitable using vc10 vs 707 etc because passengers preferred the quieter cabin.
Although they cost more to operate apparently the figures showed a higher load factor that paid for the extra fuel.
There were instances where passengers changed their itinerary to fly at a different time when the vc10 was available.

[/quote]

it's true. People got out of their way to fly on the super-quiet, super-smooth VC-10. It's a fact that people were -until its retirement- still demanding to be booked on this aircraft, even when the alternative was the 747. This is one reason why the type was still regularly scheduled into JFK well into the early '80s. The aircraft offered amazing comfort, both in terms of quietness (even at the back, as the engines were a good few meters behind the last few passenger rows, and even behind galley, doors and toilets..), as well as ride-quality (even in turbulence) because of the amazing wing design.

I think this proves that a part of the travelling public (especially the regulars) do actually care which aircraft they fly on. It's not always true that all 'average Joes' don't care... It's true that it's getting more and more difficult to fly on different aircrafts, and jets in general tend more to look like one-another these days, with engines slung under the wing...

oldannyboy wrote:

Big question for me... I tend to love the ultra-quietness of the forward part of the cabin of a rear-engine jet; and the very last rows of said 'crafts for..err..the very opposite reason!
Engines under the wings seem to give out "less of a character" to the aircraft to me, but on the other hand make cabin noise somewhat 'better distributed', thus inherently making fewer passengers extremely bothered by extreme noise... and yes, on some aircraft the very aft rows are/were so noisy you could easily get headache/ear pain (DC-9/15 takes the cake for me).
The quietest cabins?...nothing beats (excuse the present tense) the forward cabins of the HS Trident or the One-Eleven..even at full take off power (which, admittedly, was not much..!) all you could hear was a gently carpeted wooshing sound coming from far aback.. and no rattly panels nowhere! Those were no Boeings!!!

Over-wing engined aircraft noise concentration is opposite to the Aft-engined aircraft as the noise concentrates in cabin area forward of engine intakes, as you go aft past the engine intake engine noise suddenly drops. Therefore, logically if you have premium cabin product which is popular then I would conclude definitely premium passengers would make preference to Aft-mounted engined aircraft. Yes the entire cabin is forward of engine intakes, but it is a long distance to forward cabin, unlike wing-mounted engines.

I do not know the situation for VIP private aircraft in the class of Learjet, Gulfstream, Dassault … etc., but I know above rule applies to VIP aircraft that are wing-mounted since some VIP fitters offer enhanced insulation blankets for enhanced noise atmosphere at least in forward cabin as it is located forward of engine intakes. But looking at the bright side, as engine technology is developed with the advent of the seemingly quieter GTF engines, possibly this could also prove unnecessary for generation of VIP equipped with GTF. Still if you have GTF on your aft-mounted engined aircraft noise could logically prove lower, but then you could still have the vibration question.

303dk wrote:

Real talk: the vast majority of passengers don't know or care about any of that. They just want the best price that fits their schedule.

Most don't care but probably more than you think do. I've been seated in the back of a mad dog several times, and each time a seatmate or someone on the other side made comments about the noise.

DFW789ER wrote:

I've been seated in the back of a mad dog several times, and each time a seatmate or someone on the other side made comments about the noise.

At this point, excluding the 717, the youngest MD aircraft you can fly is 16 years old and, correct me if I'm wrong, powered by an engine design that is now pushing 30. Current 737's are powered by an engine that was released in the early 2000's. While the A320 shared the same engine type as the MD-90, newer birds are still getting newer engines.

Newer birds also get newer cabins, better overhead bins with more storage space, and the thousand little enhancements to passenger comfort that manufacturer slip into production aircraft. Furthermore, at this point most of the aircraft you are likely to fly on with tail mounted engines are in the twilight of their career, and it is not worth the major capitol investment to get their cabins up to par. The passenger experience will be altered much more by age of aircraft than location of the engine.

Clipper101 wrote:

Over-wing engined aircraft noise concentration is opposite to the Aft-engined aircraft as the noise concentrates in cabin area forward of engine intakes, as you go aft past the engine intake engine noise suddenly drops.

Not exactly... I've noticed you get the buzzsaw if you're at the front of, say, an A320 series... but that goes away once you're at altitude. On the other hand, I've also endured the unending deafening roar you get at the back of the 777 (since you have clear line of sight to the exhaust gases leaving the nozzle). That just never shuts up while you're in cruise, so I find that a lot more annoying!

NameOmitted wrote:

DFW789ER wrote:

I've been seated in the back of a mad dog several times, and each time a seatmate or someone on the other side made comments about the noise.

At this point, excluding the 717, the youngest MD aircraft you can fly is 16 years old and, correct me if I'm wrong, powered by an engine design that is now pushing 30. Current 737's are powered by an engine that was released in the early 2000's. While the A320 shared the same engine type as the MD-90, newer birds are still getting newer engines.

Not to nitpick -and regardless of subsequent upgrades to the designs- , but technically the V2500 and CFM 56 belong to the same era...and actually the V2500 was developed quite a number of years later than the CFM..

Newer birds also get newer cabins, better overhead bins with more storage space, and the thousand little enhancements to passenger comfort that manufacturer slip into production aircraft. .

What manufacturers are not telling you is what newer aircrafts are NOT getting though, which is better soundproofing... Solid, old-age soundproofing would be way too heavy for the new designs. One reason why often new-gen 737s are noisier than Classics...

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Entering rabid pedant mode...
They could NOT care less. It's could NOT - not "could care less". If they could care less then that means THEY CARE!
And rabid pendant mode off.

Thank you, thank you!

And this is one of the issues nobody should never refrain from caring less about!

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Entering rabid pedant mode...

Tedd wrote:

I`d have to agree with the consensus of the replies that most people could care less what they travel on.

They could NOT care less. It's could NOT - not "could care less". If they could care less then that means THEY CARE!


And rabid pendant mode off.

I certainly find this post strange. While I made a mistake, I wouldn`t have expected to illicit such a response.
Only you will know the reason for it, but I find it unfriendly, & definitely not in the spirit of being part of this group.

Tedd wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Entering rabid pedant mode...

Tedd wrote:

I`d have to agree with the consensus of the replies that most people could care less what they travel on.

They could NOT care less. It's could NOT - not "could care less". If they could care less then that means THEY CARE!


And rabid pendant mode off.

I certainly find this post strange. While I made a mistake, I wouldn`t have expected to illicit such a response.
Only you will know the reason for it, but I find it unfriendly, & definitely not in the spirit of being part of this group.

illicit = illegal
elicit = bring out

NameOmitted wrote:

DFW789ER wrote:

I've been seated in the back of a mad dog several times, and each time a seatmate or someone on the other side made comments about the noise.

At this point, excluding the 717, the youngest MD aircraft you can fly is 16 years old and, correct me if I'm wrong, powered by an engine design that is now pushing 30. Current 737's are powered by an engine that was released in the early 2000's. While the A320 shared the same engine type as the MD-90, newer birds are still getting newer engines.

Newer birds also get newer cabins, better overhead bins with more storage space, and the thousand little enhancements to passenger comfort that manufacturer slip into production aircraft. Furthermore, at this point most of the aircraft you are likely to fly on with tail mounted engines are in the twilight of their career, and it is not worth the major capitol investment to get their cabins up to par. The passenger experience will be altered much more by age of aircraft than location of the engine.

True, but there are still a lot of rear engined regional jets out there. When the CRJ900's dy up, I doubt we'll see any new rear mounted engines, unless COMAC figures out how to sell planes in the U.S.

Tedd wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Entering rabid pedant mode...

Tedd wrote:

I`d have to agree with the consensus of the replies that most people could care less what they travel on.

They could NOT care less. It's could NOT - not "could care less". If they could care less then that means THEY CARE!


And rabid pendant mode off.

I certainly find this post strange. While I made a mistake, I wouldn`t have expected to illicit such a response.
Only you will know the reason for it, but I find it unfriendly, & definitely not in the spirit of being part of this group.

Correcting the spelling or grammar is fun for some, an attempt to convey superiority over another.. Yes it is unfriendly and annoying.

Airlines buy aircraft based on how much profit they think they will generate. I am quite sure that the number of passengers who will refuse to fly on a given flight because of the type of plane, for whatever reason, is infinitely small, and probably equaled by the number that will actually seek that type out. So airlines are going to buy based on operating economics, and that will always favor the engine under the wing. The 737 was going to mimic the DC-9 with two tail mounted engines until Joe Sutter proved that by putting them under the wing they could gain two rows of seats for the same aircraft empty weight. The same holds true today; the tail mounted engines require more structure, and hence weight, in the fuselage, the tail, AND the wings (because having the engines on the wings relieves the bending moment at the wing root, and causes less stress on the wing spars because the weight is borne partway out the span.) So I do not expect any more new airliners to be designed with tail-mounted engines, regardless of whether or not they are more popular with passengers.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Not exactly... I've noticed you get the buzzsaw if you're at the front of, say, an A320 series... but that goes away once you're at altitude. On the other hand, I've also endured the unending deafening roar you get at the back of the 777 (since you have clear line of sight to the exhaust gases leaving the nozzle). That just never shuts up while you're in cruise, so I find that a lot more annoying!

The buzzsaw is much more distinctive in V2500 powered 320s than it is in CFM powered birds. I'll be sitting in row 34 of a 77L for 14 hours later today, so I'll get back to you on how loud that is

I was under the impression that a the rear engine T-tail design (everything else being equal) is slightly less efficient than an underwing design. The primary reason is on an underwing design the horizontal stabilizer is lift positive (lifts tail up) while a T-tail design is lift negative (pushes tail down). I could see that force down as fairly substantial and could be easily be an equivalent to several thousand pounds of weight.