thanks for posting the picture of the honda jet...wondering about that for awhile!.
instead of talking about the engineering thing about where the engines go, consider:
if the 737 put the engines on the tail, like a DC9 or BAC1-11, the vertical fin/rudder would have been much smaller...and the rudder problems might not have brought down those planes ( PIT and Colorado springs). Boeing wanted something that looked like a boeing and not a douglas.
With engines out on the wings you do get some advantages...but there is a bigger distance from the centerline of the craft and then you need a bigger rudder to handle the engine out scenario.
If an engine breaksup on the wing, hot bits might hit the wing and the fuel (british air tours b737-200). If it breaks up on the tail, it might cut control cables to rudder and elevator ( dc9 MKE?)
If a tire (tyre) blows on a DC9 the rubber might go into the engine. (by the way, the dc9/md80 has tail mounted engines)
Put the engines on the tail and you have to balance it with something in front.
While I understand why planes like the 777 and 747 have engines on the wings, planes down around the 737 and MD80 could go either way...and given the choice I like the engines in the tail.
Quieter for one! Can't suck a ground worker into the engines on a DC9/MD80 (not without a ladder!) unlike the 737.
But IF I designed a plane today, I think I might like the engines like the BAC lightning. One on top of the other ( with fantastic shielding between)...mounted on the tail, if you lost an engine you wouldn't need RUDDER. Maybe a little elevator trim. I think there is a euro fighter being designed that way now.
regards
jon