Originally Posted by
FlightDetent
guess the tail-mounted engines have a bit of geometrical protection, so statistic would leave the wing-mounted, underslung to compare.
The sooner we get back to business as usual, the better.
Amen on second comment.
As to first comment, aft engines have negligible if any geometric protection from a birds trike. They are sensitive to ice shedding from wings, from debris from main gear, and have more problematic uncontained failure collateral damage issues. They add to wing bending moment issues, not relieve them. There is a different thrust couple which benefits rudder size and they add to stability generally... Except in reverse... Where they characteristically disturb rudder effectiveness. An engine failure on a tail mounted design will need similar inputs from the pilot, as the design is optimised or should be to have enough but not too much authority. Excessively sized rudder or vert stab have their own impact on other bits of stability.
As for Hull integrity, the 320 appears to fare well. There are too many concertina shaped debris fields from the early NGs to be too comfortable with the fiasco of the ring frame/CAM/hand "forgeing" to be comfortable with a comparison between the two.
The structural deformation is a complex process, but where the kitsets occur at the same place repeatedly, there would be merit in contemplation. Or not. Where the Hull has zigged and zagged, the events are generally survivable unless you happen to be right at the failure point. Hit hard enough and it it irrelevant, humans are squishy outers with soft centers, and take so much before it ends on tears.