4 ms·
This article has an error. It claims that an advantage of a fuselage-mounted engines is that the wings don't "have to support the extraneous weight" but that's
by mazugrin2 5y ago
This article has an error. It claims that an advantage of a fuselage-mounted engines is that the wings don't "have to support the extraneous weight" but that's completely false. Mounting the engines on the fuselage requires stronger wings because the fuselage is now a lot heavier, requiring a significantly stronger wing root.
Putting as much of that weight in the middle of each wing means that the weight is closer to the center of lift. Imagine a bridge with a span between two supports - placing the load above each support is a lot different from placing that load right in the middle of the span.
- SkyPuncher 5y agoThis article is really bad. I ride a rear-engine plane every time I fly. We live in a small town and the airline only flies small planes into larger hubs.
- tobmlt 5y agoMaybe I missed something but the article mentions that the rear engine design lives on in smaller jets for reasons similar to why it appeared in the first place.
- tobmlt 5y agoYep. I saved that text as I was passing through the article to say something along these lines. To bend over backwards for the article anyway, there may be some merit to the idea that “ Wings on an aircraft with rear-mounted engines can be simpler since they didn't have to support the extraneous weight.” —- but they left out the language: “when on the ground”! Everything you say is right, and captures the driving concerns of the design much better. But perhaps there is some possibility of optimizing (the given overall rear engine design) a bit more for a no lift load case when the engines aren’t there on the wings because when producing no lift, you have no “dead load” to counterbalance with attendant stresses going opposite to what they do under lifting conditions. Eh? I know it’s a stretch.
- Sebb767 5y ago> but they left out the language: “when on the ground”! Even on the ground this is not true when the gear is mounted below the wings.
- lisper 5y agoAlso, the engines are very light relative to the weight of the payload.
- wolverine876 5y ago> Even on the ground this is not true when the gear is mounted below the wings. Above or below, it would seem to be the same amount of stress where the wing joins the fuselage?
- dTal 5y agoThey meant as opposed to under the fuselage. If the wings are directly supported, the root does not bear the weight. ...how exactly are you imagining gear above the wing?
- WalterBright 5y agoIt's also why the wings are gas tanks.
- renewiltord 5y agoThis comment pointed out a misconception I didn’t even know I had. I imagined the wings hanging off the plane like cantilevers. But the wings are the ones where the lift is. Logically the middle is the thing hanging off the wings when in flight. Neat to find a cognitive error like that that I didn’t even know I had. Thanks.
- jamincan 5y agoPerhaps the wings are simpler because they don't have the engine pylon structures and the associated wiring/hoses for the engines, not because of the weight of the engines as the article states.
- benhurmarcel 5y agoThe pylons for aft-mounted engines are anything but simple also.
- rdiddly 5y agoOn the other hand, if we change the word from 'weight' to 'thrust' it becomes an accurate-ish statement.
- MaxikCZ 5y agoBut wings are not only major producer of lift, they produce the most of drag as well.
- wolverine876 5y agoI was wondering what the basis of the article is: personal expertise? research? It's not the former: > Sydney-based writer and photographer, Michael Gebicki has been writing travel articles since 1982 and is Traveller's resident Tripologist.