Originally Posted by
tdracer
There are numerous design considerations that going into the design and location of the gearbox and other accessories (cross-engine debris, cooling, fire protection being just a few) - and as DR noted I don't think doing a go-around after a wheels up landing is one of them.
Many larger engines (larger than a CFM - e.g. PW4000, GE90, GEnx) have the gearbox located on the core instead of the fan case - but that's done for aerodynamic drag reasons (smaller diameter nacelle), not any consideration of wheels-up damage. On CFM sized (and smaller) engines there simply isn't enough room to make a core mounted gearbox practical. Similarly the 3 spool RB211 and Trent engines have a relatively fat core that also makes a core mounted gearbox impractical. The 737 engines have 'split' accessories on the fan case - instead of at ~six o'clock, they're moved to ~4 and 8 o'clock - but that's done for ground clearance - not for any consideration of a wheels up landing - furthermore there is a great deal of plumbing and wiring crossing the six o'clock so I doubt it would fare any better in a similar scenario.
The designs of pod mounting engines are fine and with the A320 provide adequate clearance even with a high g landing with relevant strut compression. The issue here is that the aircraft for an unknown reason landed with out it gear extended, either in norm config or alternate. You can build as many safe guards as you like to mitigate landing with gears still retracted but why would anyone want to design a plane purely for crash landings when multiple failures (either of systems or system overides) would look to be the likely cause.