Advantages of underslung engines...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Location Location
Age: 48
Posts: 62
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Advantages of underslung engines...
Chaps,
Been trying to get as full an answer as poss to this classic tricky-interview-question...
What are the advantages of underslung engines as opposed to tail/fuselage mounted?
My thoughts so far...
1. Shorter longditudinal distance to CofG resulting in smaller pitching moment for given engine mass.
2. Ease of access for maintenance.
3. More flexibility in selection of engine size than fuselage mounted engines (or indeed engines mounted inside the wing!).
4. Reduced damage to structure in the event of an engine fire/ mech fail.
5. Helps reduce wing bending.
Offering it across for a bonus point...
r2
Been trying to get as full an answer as poss to this classic tricky-interview-question...
What are the advantages of underslung engines as opposed to tail/fuselage mounted?
My thoughts so far...
1. Shorter longditudinal distance to CofG resulting in smaller pitching moment for given engine mass.
2. Ease of access for maintenance.
3. More flexibility in selection of engine size than fuselage mounted engines (or indeed engines mounted inside the wing!).
4. Reduced damage to structure in the event of an engine fire/ mech fail.
5. Helps reduce wing bending.
Offering it across for a bonus point...
r2
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Location Location
Age: 48
Posts: 62
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gas path,
thanks for the swift reply!
how does an underslung engine design result in a cleaner wing?
Nice thoughts re the wing fence vs pylon - hadn't thought of that!
thanks for the swift reply!
how does an underslung engine design result in a cleaner wing?
Nice thoughts re the wing fence vs pylon - hadn't thought of that!
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ditching- engines knocked off at pylon reducing weight and damage to fuselage on entry to water allowing plane to float more easily.
Pylon much narrower than engine meaning wing structure less interfered with by engine. Also pylon good place to access fuel/hydraulic/air lines and place firewall.
Pylon much narrower than engine meaning wing structure less interfered with by engine. Also pylon good place to access fuel/hydraulic/air lines and place firewall.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sucks in all the FOD
Potential danger to ground crews / departure / pushback
potential of engine explosion and fire
737 engines probably reponsible for about one death a year caused by careless ground crews being sucked in.
Potential danger to ground crews / departure / pushback
potential of engine explosion and fire
737 engines probably reponsible for about one death a year caused by careless ground crews being sucked in.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4. Reduced damage to structure in the event of an engine fire/ mech fail.
Plus at least the fuel is in the wing, a decent distance from an aft-mounted engine. Fires on underwing engines are a tad close to the fuel tank ...
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plus at least the fuel is in the wing, a decent distance from an aft-mounted engine. Fires on underwing engines are a tad close to the fuel tank ...
r2
1 - Think about pitch couples with low thrust lines
2 - Yep
3 - Maybe
4 - Very likely
5 - Big advantage
As has been mentioned, engine struts can act as fences - look at B747 obrd strut inbrd edge. Clean wings (rear engines) often require fences for airflow control anyway.
Engine inlet incidence is easy to design for best ram recovery and short inlet leads to low air handling losses, but short inlet path can mean unstable air doesn't "have enough time" to sort itself out leading to potential problems at the compressor face.
Engine fuel feed lines are short and can be run through tanks for most of the path - an advantage in case of a line leak/fracture. Pod engines can usually produce considerable power without tank boost pumps.
While pods generally require LEDs and flaps to be split into several parts, this is no bad thing for redundancy and, anyway, swept wings often require it, especially flaps.
1 - Think about pitch couples with low thrust lines
2 - Yep
3 - Maybe
4 - Very likely
5 - Big advantage
As has been mentioned, engine struts can act as fences - look at B747 obrd strut inbrd edge. Clean wings (rear engines) often require fences for airflow control anyway.
Engine inlet incidence is easy to design for best ram recovery and short inlet leads to low air handling losses, but short inlet path can mean unstable air doesn't "have enough time" to sort itself out leading to potential problems at the compressor face.
Engine fuel feed lines are short and can be run through tanks for most of the path - an advantage in case of a line leak/fracture. Pod engines can usually produce considerable power without tank boost pumps.
While pods generally require LEDs and flaps to be split into several parts, this is no bad thing for redundancy and, anyway, swept wings often require it, especially flaps.
PPRuNeaholic
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Cairns FNQ
Posts: 3,255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ditching- engines knocked off at pylon reducing weight and damage to fuselage on entry to water allowing plane to float more easily.
I readily concede that the aircraft ditched at a higher speed than normal, due to (apparently) loss of power to flaps/spoilers, etc., but the fact seems to remain that the engine pod hit the water first. The result was that the aeroplane broke up quite quickly and dramatically.
This prang might not be typical of the way in which the aeroplane should've been ditched but it's already in the accident records, unfortunately.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Derbyshire
Age: 67
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
excuse me for butting in
Didn't at least onaircraft suffer total hydraulics loss because a fan blade shredded the hydraulic lines in the rear tail section? and become un flyable?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: n ireland
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For structural reasons you want to put the heavy bits (engines) distributed across the bit that generates the lift. This also reduces the moment of inertia in the pitch axis, making the aircraft respond quicker in this axis. (But MI is increased in roll axis, of course)
Also from the flyability angle, the C.G. is nicely below the Center of lift. (stability at constant speed*)
Now look at a DC9
If you start to separate the engines from the wing then you have to make the structure between the two a bit stronger (stronger=heavier->bad)
Also, as you have mentioned, the wing will bend a bit more.
You have to keep the engines low on the fuselage so you end up with a T-tail (inspection and service issues, stall characteristics).
All the control runs from the cockpit are longer, not just the engines but the wings too. The only advantage I can see is that the undercarriage is quite short.
There's another problem - it would be difficult to scale up a DC9 to 777 size. On a 777, the large bypass ratio engines are suspended so there is nearly zero bending moment at the attach point on the wing. If you stuck them at the back you would have to build some sort of triangular structure to partially support them from underneath or suspend them from above because the engines are heavier and stick farther out.
*though the aircraft is more stable at constant speed, thrust changes will cause pitch changes
Also from the flyability angle, the C.G. is nicely below the Center of lift. (stability at constant speed*)
Now look at a DC9
If you start to separate the engines from the wing then you have to make the structure between the two a bit stronger (stronger=heavier->bad)
Also, as you have mentioned, the wing will bend a bit more.
You have to keep the engines low on the fuselage so you end up with a T-tail (inspection and service issues, stall characteristics).
All the control runs from the cockpit are longer, not just the engines but the wings too. The only advantage I can see is that the undercarriage is quite short.
There's another problem - it would be difficult to scale up a DC9 to 777 size. On a 777, the large bypass ratio engines are suspended so there is nearly zero bending moment at the attach point on the wing. If you stuck them at the back you would have to build some sort of triangular structure to partially support them from underneath or suspend them from above because the engines are heavier and stick farther out.
*though the aircraft is more stable at constant speed, thrust changes will cause pitch changes
Last edited by Big-Flame-Out; 26th Aug 2007 at 20:30. Reason: extra thoughts...
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southampton,hampshire,england
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry....not a pilot.....but I read that in certain circumstances an underslung engine could separate [drop off] but the wing remains undamaged and the aircraft is flyable.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: North America
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re : Hydraulic lines
True. DC-10. Unlikely on 727
Also killed rear occupants on dc-9 or md-80 I believe.
I guess they could enter the fuel tank on underwing designs. Clearly the underwing design has won for airliners. Handling the Big Jets has a good discussion on the merits and flaws of each design.
Engine separation has been a characteristic of jet engines for a long time. They'll also nicely separate from the tail.
True. DC-10. Unlikely on 727
Also killed rear occupants on dc-9 or md-80 I believe.
I guess they could enter the fuel tank on underwing designs. Clearly the underwing design has won for airliners. Handling the Big Jets has a good discussion on the merits and flaws of each design.
Engine separation has been a characteristic of jet engines for a long time. They'll also nicely separate from the tail.
