They all look the same!

Discussion on Specific Aircraft Types. Close up photos particularly welcome. Please keep ON TOPIC :)

Re: They all look the same!

Postby chornedsnorkack » Sun Dec 27, 2009 3:37 pm

There has never been a widebody aircraft with tail-mounted engines, point is, there are reasons for this.


And how does the performance of a BAC 3-11 compete against Airbus 300?


As pointed out, it was never built so the question is mute :-?

Matt



What was the reason it was not built?
chornedsnorkack
1st Lieutenant
1st Lieutenant
 
Posts: 381
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 4:35 am

Re: They all look the same!

Postby Hagar » Sun Dec 27, 2009 3:53 pm

There has never been a widebody aircraft with tail-mounted engines, point is, there are reasons for this.


And how does the performance of a BAC 3-11 compete against Airbus 300?


As pointed out, it was never built so the question is mute :-?

Matt



What was the reason it was not built?

I think that was mainly political.
Image

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group
My Google Photos albums
My Flickr albums
User avatar
Hagar
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 30853
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:15 am
Location: Costa Geriatrica

Re: They all look the same!

Postby OVERLORD_CHRIS » Sun Dec 27, 2009 10:40 pm

Having the engines half way out along the wings make it fairly inefficient if one fails. Having them close to the centreline of the aeroplane, such as a DC-9, VC10, BAC 1-11 & 727, means it has a lot less of an effect should you lose an engine. In a 4 jet in the configuration of the A340, 747 and 707 type, lose two on one side, and compared to say the VC10/IL62, life could be very interesting, and lead to a very aching leg! :)
This fact has yet to stop any 4 engine plane, let alone a twin engine plane. On September 11th when all flight got ground a watched a C-5B land with #1 & #2 motors flamed out, only had the right side, and it made a perfect landing like all were still working, they just landed long since only the reverser's on the one side worked.


That was landing, which is quite a different kettle of fish to take off. Having chatted to some USN 707-frame drivers last year in the desert, their biggest fear was losing two on take-off. Not guaranteed to ruin your day, but certainly going to make it more difficult.

As for the initial part of your reply, I guarantee that at some point, it has.


Here you go, when GE was testing the GE-90 for 777, they mounted it on the 747, and since it was so powerful they cut the regular 747's motors and just flew it around on one motor. They show it around the 2:40 mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tT5EZ5itYH4

When I was in technical school, we were told that Boeing flew the 777 on a test flight on one motor just to show that it could operate safely on one motor for extended periods of time. But I can't find that Information.
Last edited by OVERLORD_CHRIS on Sun Dec 27, 2009 10:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
OVERLORD_CHRIS
Major
Major
 
Posts: 1136
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 10:56 am
Location: Chalreston SC

Re: They all look the same!

Postby DaveSims » Sun Dec 27, 2009 11:23 pm

Having the engines half way out along the wings make it fairly inefficient if one fails. Having them close to the centreline of the aeroplane, such as a DC-9, VC10, BAC 1-11 & 727, means it has a lot less of an effect should you lose an engine. In a 4 jet in the configuration of the A340, 747 and 707 type, lose two on one side, and compared to say the VC10/IL62, life could be very interesting, and lead to a very aching leg! :)
This fact has yet to stop any 4 engine plane, let alone a twin engine plane. On September 11th when all flight got ground a watched a C-5B land with #1 & #2 motors flamed out, only had the right side, and it made a perfect landing like all were still working, they just landed long since only the reverser's on the one side worked.


That was landing, which is quite a different kettle of fish to take off. Having chatted to some USN 707-frame drivers last year in the desert, their biggest fear was losing two on take-off. Not guaranteed to ruin your day, but certainly going to make it more difficult.

As for the initial part of your reply, I guarantee that at some point, it has.


Here you go, when GE was testing the GE-90 for 777, they mounted it on the 747, and since it was so powerful they cut the regular 747's motors and just flew it around on one motor. They show it around the 2:40 mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tT5EZ5itYH4

When I was in technical school, we were told that Boeing flew the 777 on a test flight on one motor just to show that it could operate safely on one motor for extended periods of time. But I can't find that Information.


That was probably part of the 777's ETOPS certification.  Many years ago, aircraft were required to have four engines for long overwater flights (think 747).  About 20-30 years ago, the FAA changed the rule, as aircraft such as the 757/767 came out and were more than capable of flying on one engine for extended periods of time.
User avatar
DaveSims
Major
Major
 
Posts: 2350
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 2:59 am
Location: Clear Lake, Iowa

Re: They all look the same!

Postby OVERLORD_CHRIS » Mon Dec 28, 2009 2:37 pm

[quote]
That was probably part of the 777's ETOPS certification.
Image
User avatar
OVERLORD_CHRIS
Major
Major
 
Posts: 1136
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 10:56 am
Location: Chalreston SC

Previous

Return to Specific Aircraft Types

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 315 guests