4 ms·

Why can't they just have a standard mount like an LCD panel?

• ChuckMcM 11y ago
  It isn't the mount that is at issue, it is stresses on the airframe. Different engines stress the airframe in different ways leading to different failures.
• WalterBright 11y ago
  Consider that the engines for the Me-262 turned out to be heavier than anticipated, throwing the center of gravity off. The easiest fix was to sweep the wings back, inadvertently discovering the advantages of swept wings for high speed flight.
• Gibbon1 11y ago
  I upvoted cause not dumb question. Yes they do to an extent. One of the major reasons the engines are mounted on pylons is exactly to make maintenance and replacement easy.
  • nether 11y ago
    Yeah, it's a fair question. Most are unused to weight optimization. It's why everything in a commercial jet down to the forks served with meals is purpose designed for aviation.
• nether 11y ago
  You actually could. It would take a very strong, very heavy airframe that could handle any stresses generated by the intended selection of engines. It would just be overbuilt and get terribly fuel hungry for most engines, while being optimum for one. This isn't financially acceptable for an industry where operating costs are razor thin (all driven by the fact that a $10 difference in airfare can mean losing a passenger). Aircraft safety margins are 1.5 (built to handle 1.5x the maximum expected load), while bridges are 5+. The latter aren't constrained by weight, so you might as well go to town with a cheap, heavy design. A lower safety margin is only acceptable though when the expected loading is extremely well defined with very low uncertainty. This takes extensive testing (years for an aircraft), basically reducing the sigma by increasing the sample size.