Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

rear engined jets

Wikiposts
Search
Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

rear engined jets

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 17th Jun 2005, 13:00
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: cheshire
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
rear engined jets

on rear engined jets, whether they are 2 or 3 engined jets, how is the aircraft counter- balanced to stop them sitting on their tails?
opnot is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2005, 13:09
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Same as anything else you need to balance. You set the lever arm pivot point ( wing and wheels ) further aft. That way the mass forward counters the mass aft.
Bealzebub is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2005, 22:36
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In other words, most of the fuselage is ahead of the wing.
barit1 is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2005, 23:20
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Coventry
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Your talking about being sat on the ground I suspect? hopefully anyway!.....Dead basic this, but look where they stuck the main undercart! Remember the the see-saw?
Regards
Yorky
Yorky Towers is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2005, 23:46
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
On some of the smaller rear engined jets you have to be careful with the loading. On the lear if you have the fuselage tank full and the wings not so full a strong wind can leave it on its butt. Or even fully fueled with the baggage compartment full it is wise to have the co-pilot sitting in the front to counter balance before loading the pax.
NZLeardriver is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2005, 06:43
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,821
Received 271 Likes on 110 Posts
Maintenance people (I won't dignify them by calling them 'engineers') managed to write-off a perfectly serviceable RAF VC10 in 1997 by failing to carry out the mandatory defuelling checks prior to maintenance. As a result, the aircraft sat on its tail and was later scrapped.

The station commander tried to stop people taking photos, but was too late. I'm sure the picture is somewhere on the web.
BEagle is online now  
Old 18th Jun 2005, 07:12
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: I don't know...
Age: 59
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
727's have a habit of sitting on their tail's

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/073989/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/213691/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/352366/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/173776/M/

..v.
twenty eight is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2005, 10:35
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
We never had a problem with the B727 in 30 years of operation by following the procedure of ensuring that the rear stairs were down and locked until the aircraft was loaded within limits.

Regards,

Old Smokey
Old Smokey is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2005, 11:21
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Long ago and far away ......
Posts: 1,399
Received 11 Likes on 5 Posts
barit1

"In other words, most of the fuselage is ahead of the wing."

I think what you meant was that most of the fuselage is ahead of the WHEELS. That is the pivot point when the aircraft is on the ground. It may coincide with the wing ........................
MrBernoulli is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2005, 11:37
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
mea culpa - originally I didn't see this as a ground handling question.

Remember parked C-54's with a long support pole hanging from the tailskid? If loading + wind conspired to make it a taildragger, it could only move an inch or two.

I've seen photos of 747F's on the tailskid. Not pretty! Time to reinvent the wheel?
barit1 is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2005, 13:04
  #11 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: various places .....
Posts: 7,187
Received 97 Likes on 65 Posts
... he who doesn't use a tail stand for unloading freighters is a man of faith ... often misplaced ...
john_tullamarine is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2005, 13:58
  #12 (permalink)  

Freight God
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: LS-R54A
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You can actually off- and load a freighter without any stand. Provided you understand the term 'sequential off-/loading' to the exact meaning of the term. Same goes for pax aircraft. That is why most of them have a belly hold aft AND forward...
Hunter58 is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2005, 14:20
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: near an airplane
Posts: 2,794
Received 52 Likes on 42 Posts
The station commander tried to stop people taking photos, but was too late. I'm sure the picture is somewhere on the web.
BEagle, here you go:


From Pete Dorward's excellent site WWII Airfields of Oxfordshire
Jhieminga is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2005, 15:55
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Thailand
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
All I know about rear engined aircraft is that they never seem to make anyone much money! I am sure statistics will prove me wrong but the general impression I get is that all operators of such aircraft are loss makers. Tell me I'm wrong, as I'm sure you will!
rubik101 is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2005, 18:04
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Since the ERJ-135/40/45 and CRJ-200/700/900 types are all rear engined, and since the regional operators have been one of the few parts of the American industry to make money in recent years (LCCs being the others) I don't see a correlation between "rear engined" and "loss making".

In fact, given how many loss making flag carriers operate wide bodied aircraft, which are all underwing engined, it's closer to being the other way around - operators of rear-engined aircraft may be MORE likely to be profitable today.
Mad (Flt) Scientist is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2005, 20:15
  #16 (permalink)  

Freight God
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: LS-R54A
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wasn't the 727 for a loooooooong time the money maker for a loooooot af airlines?

And the MD80 was a really good aircraft for AA at the time they bought the many they have.

Not to speak of the DC-9. Delta, Eastern and many other were really please with them.
Hunter58 is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.