Discussion
Old news perhaps but does anyone think it will catch on?
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/04/18/22...
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/04/18/22...
JuniorD said:
Old news perhaps but does anyone think it will catch on?
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/04/18/22...
with todays engines they don't need or even 3http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/04/18/22...
Edited by Mojocvh on Wednesday 28th July 20:24
The most comfortable aircraft I have travelled on are the BAC 1-11 and DC9. These have all of their engines at the rear and are much, much more quiet in the cabin than anything today with wing mounted engines. I used to fly a BAC 1-11 and DC9 regularly and in the 1st row it was as if the aircraft didn't have any engines it was so quiet, even on take off, hardly a wisper. Even further back, much less noise than current 319/320/321, 737/757/767 etc.
I would have thought also that with wings completely free of engines that they were much more efficient.
I would have thought also that with wings completely free of engines that they were much more efficient.
Silver993tt said:
The most comfortable aircraft I have travelled on are the BAC 1-11 and DC9. These have all of their engines at the rear and are much, much more quiet in the cabin than anything today with wing mounted engines. I used to fly a BAC 1-11 and DC9 regularly and in the 1st row it was as if the aircraft didn't have any engines it was so quiet, even on take off, hardly a wisper. Even further back, much less noise than current 319/320/321, 737/757/767 etc.
I would have thought also that with wings completely free of engines that they were much more efficient.
I used to travel on the rear engined Fokker jets ("100"'s I think), they had extremely quiet cabins and were a real joy on early morning starts.I would have thought also that with wings completely free of engines that they were much more efficient.
Hmmm not sure about this.
For all intents and purposes this is about noise? Against increased maintenance and more weight - I don't believe shaving weight from the landing gear etc can equal the design either.
As the article did say, this is about punting an idea and protecting it, nothing wrong with that I guess however I'm sure airbus won't be forgetting how the 777 destroyed the A340 too soon. Also killed the MD11 I think.
Bit like the easyJet "ecojet" nice idea but noise and green credentials come way down the bean counters list of priorities.
For all intents and purposes this is about noise? Against increased maintenance and more weight - I don't believe shaving weight from the landing gear etc can equal the design either.
As the article did say, this is about punting an idea and protecting it, nothing wrong with that I guess however I'm sure airbus won't be forgetting how the 777 destroyed the A340 too soon. Also killed the MD11 I think.
Bit like the easyJet "ecojet" nice idea but noise and green credentials come way down the bean counters list of priorities.
grumbledoak said:
Wasn't the high-up rear engine on the MD11 a reason for them rolling over? I'm sure we just had a thread on a recent crash...
Don't recall the similarly configured DC-10 having a "bounce and roll" problem. I think poor tailplane and elevator authority seems to be the main culprit in these MD-11 accidents.The Airbus proposal reminds me a bit of this - on a much larger scale -
Oops - hadn't spotted the earlier He-162 picture. Great minds etc.
Edited by Eric Mc on Thursday 29th July 11:56
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff