Why not tail jets?
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles, USA
Why not tail jets?
As I look at the new A350/B787 developments I can't help but wonder why they don't stick the engines in the back a la DC-9/CRJ? Benefits would be:
1. Lesser noise in cabin.
2. You can have bigger fans, which equals better economy without risking having them scrape on the ground and/or have to make tall landing gears.
3. Better view for passengers.
4. Lesser structure to support engines, thus lighter.
5. Less asymmetrical thrust problems.
Why is this design getting abandoned?
1. Lesser noise in cabin.
2. You can have bigger fans, which equals better economy without risking having them scrape on the ground and/or have to make tall landing gears.
3. Better view for passengers.
4. Lesser structure to support engines, thus lighter.
5. Less asymmetrical thrust problems.
Why is this design getting abandoned?
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,777
Likes: 9
From: Blighty
Some answers to some of your questions.
1. Less noise? I used to fly the VC10. The compressor noise in the rear of the cabin was horrendous.
4. This isn't correct. As wing mounted engines are hung from where the lift is being generated, there is less supporting structure required than if you mopunted them on the fuselage. The loads paths will have to be beefed up to transfer the weight to the wings. The VC10 weighed 7 tonnes more than the equivalant size B707 - most of this was the added structure to support the engines.
1. Less noise? I used to fly the VC10. The compressor noise in the rear of the cabin was horrendous.
4. This isn't correct. As wing mounted engines are hung from where the lift is being generated, there is less supporting structure required than if you mopunted them on the fuselage. The loads paths will have to be beefed up to transfer the weight to the wings. The VC10 weighed 7 tonnes more than the equivalant size B707 - most of this was the added structure to support the engines.
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
From: Inter Nations
Try to put two 777 engines on the tail. Firstly, way to heavy. Will need to be compensated for balance and secondly, the structure needed to support such a weight and force generated is insane asfor DANs reasons.
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,269
Likes: 79
From: Denver
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles, USA
I don't buy that. Having an engine closer to the fuselage will require less structural support than hanging it 10ft out on a wing. The moment you have to carry is much bigger the further out it gets.
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 943
Likes: 442
From: Austria
Adam,
consider the bending moment at the wing roots. With tail-mounted engines, the wing roots carry the fuselage, the tail and also the rather heavy engines; consequently the structure has to be rather strong and heavy.
Now if the engines are installed on the wings, the wing roots only have to bear the fuselages and tails weight - the weight of the engines is carried by the wings themselves internally, so the structure can be much lighter.
Additionally, the wings themselves will be lighter with wing-mounted engines. Consider that lift is generated all over their surface and they are hinged to the fuselage only at one side - there is a substantial bending moment involved. Now, one can either slap the engines to the tail and reinforce the wing structure or simply use the weight of the engines. By attaching them as far outboard as possible on the wings, much of that bending moment will be countered. Of course, placing them too far out will cause large yaw in case of an engine failure, requiring a large, heavy and drag-inducing rudder as compensation. Compare the DC-10 with its small vertical stabilizer and #1 and #3 rather close to the fuselage and the L-1011 with the way larger fin and the wing engines further out:
Photos: Boeing MD-10-10F Aircraft Pictures | !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Photos: Lockheed L-1011-385-3 TriStar KC1 (500) Aircraft Pictures | !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
consider the bending moment at the wing roots. With tail-mounted engines, the wing roots carry the fuselage, the tail and also the rather heavy engines; consequently the structure has to be rather strong and heavy.
Now if the engines are installed on the wings, the wing roots only have to bear the fuselages and tails weight - the weight of the engines is carried by the wings themselves internally, so the structure can be much lighter.
Additionally, the wings themselves will be lighter with wing-mounted engines. Consider that lift is generated all over their surface and they are hinged to the fuselage only at one side - there is a substantial bending moment involved. Now, one can either slap the engines to the tail and reinforce the wing structure or simply use the weight of the engines. By attaching them as far outboard as possible on the wings, much of that bending moment will be countered. Of course, placing them too far out will cause large yaw in case of an engine failure, requiring a large, heavy and drag-inducing rudder as compensation. Compare the DC-10 with its small vertical stabilizer and #1 and #3 rather close to the fuselage and the L-1011 with the way larger fin and the wing engines further out:
Photos: Boeing MD-10-10F Aircraft Pictures | !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Photos: Lockheed L-1011-385-3 TriStar KC1 (500) Aircraft Pictures | !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Joined: Feb 2002
Aviation Qualifications: AME
Posts: 4,175
Likes: 1,101
From: UK
Compare the DC-10 with its small vertical stabilizer
Of course the L1011 had a better engine too so less chance of an assymetric condition developing in the first place.
Head down, incoming...
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles, USA
OK, I suppose you might get slight economics-of-scale structural advantages by hanging them on the wing.
This is the old "you can lift yourself by pulling your hair upwards"-gag in a new form. The weight the wing has to carry is the total weight of the aircraft, no matter where the engines are and it has to be structurally accounted for. Or are you telling me that if you put fuel in the wings, or engines, that weight doesn't count?
The only reason fuel is carried in the wings, is because it's a good place to hide it. A 1000lbs of fuel in the wing is a 1000lbs of weight, no matter where you put it.
You are aware that the wing is lifting the fuselage, not the other way round?
The only reason fuel is carried in the wings, is because it's a good place to hide it. A 1000lbs of fuel in the wing is a 1000lbs of weight, no matter where you put it.
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
From: West of Offa's dyke
OK, I suppose you might get slight economics-of-scale structural advantages by hanging them on the wing.
This is the old "you can lift yourself by pulling your hair upwards"-gag in a new form.The weight the wing has to carry is the total weight of the aircraft, no matter where the engines are and it has to be structurally accounted for. Or are you telling me that if you put fuel in the wings, or engines, that weight doesn't count?
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,204
Likes: 2
From: Seattle
The only reason fuel is carried in the wings, is because it's a good place to hide it. A 1000lbs of fuel in the wing is a 1000lbs of weight, no matter where you put it.
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,581
Likes: 0
From: flyover country USA
The heaviest part of the wing is the wing root, which is designed around the bending moment from carrying the fuselage and all it contains. Look up Zero Fuel Weight - this determines the size of the spar etc. at the wing root.
If the engines are tail-mounted, then their mass must be counted as part of this load. In addition, there is heavier aft fuselage structure, and weight & balance issues to consider.
OTOH, if the engines are hung on the wing, the load on the center section is reduced, all else being equal.
If the engines are tail-mounted, then their mass must be counted as part of this load. In addition, there is heavier aft fuselage structure, and weight & balance issues to consider.
OTOH, if the engines are hung on the wing, the load on the center section is reduced, all else being equal.
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,246
Likes: 202
From: Here and there
Originally Posted by AdamFrisch
I don't buy that. Having an engine closer to the fuselage will require less structural support than hanging it 10ft out on a wing. The moment you have to carry is much bigger the further out it gets.
Last edited by AerocatS2A; 30th July 2012 at 10:21. Reason: Tone of post made more friendly.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
From: Between a Rock & A Hard Place
just to add a slightly less technical note here, can you imagine trying to carry out the loading plan and weight & balance calculations with around 14 tonnes of jet engine aft of the centre of gravity?? Before taking fuel and passengers into account you will need to have 14 tonnes of freight in the front hold!!! Unless the wings are mounted further aft and that creates its own problems.
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 17,701
Likes: 2,045
From: Reading, UK
Can't help but notice that "tail jets" work for all the exec jets from the little Cessna 510 up to the Bombardier Global Express (nee CRJ), they all have rear mounted engines.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
From: Houseville UK
Very Funny David.
Of course underwing engines would not fit that, but do the technical arguements previously expressed in favour of underwing still apply to smaller airframes in theory?
Was the VFW614 an act of misplaced teutonic determination to bolt the jets to the wings?
Of course underwing engines would not fit that, but do the technical arguements previously expressed in favour of underwing still apply to smaller airframes in theory?
Was the VFW614 an act of misplaced teutonic determination to bolt the jets to the wings?