I can understand the advantage of tail mounted engines regarding the reletive assymetric thrust problems associated with an engine failure. However, this design creates other problems.
The MD 81/2/3 series were a nightmare to load. When empty they were so tail heavy ballast was often required to bring them into CG limits and, as most of you will know, usable ballast on an airport is as rare as rocking horse s***. The 111s at least had the use of the centre and (where fitted) aux fuel tanks to be used as ballast. When desperate, we used barrels of demin water sometimes used to boost the engines on restricted take-offs (do you remember those days ExSimGuy??) as ballast.
I digress, the MDs, when full had so many pax forward of the wings and such tiny aft holds that they usually flew on the forward limits of the CG. Good design feature? I think not.
Remember the FAA certifications of these a/c? How many did they lose?
Have never felt safe in one.