Why Have Rear-mounted Engines Become So Rare?

[flying bug]

Not being a pilot I wonder why the mainstream big airline aircraft nowadays are no longer designed with rear mounted engines. Are they less comfortably or less feasably to fly? Has it an economical background?

I always preferred the rear mounted engine jets since they were much softer in cabin insonorisation.

I will not forget my two very first flights when I was a teenager: It was on a LH B737 from DUS to HAM when I thought "wow! How steep it climbs, but how loud it is" and then I had a connection to HEL with an AY DC9-50 and I thought "wow, how elegant and soft a ride this is!"

At times I preferred Alitalia to LH since the Italians operated DC9 and not B737. But except for Fokker F28 there is no more occasion to fly this sort of aircraft now. Why is that?

 

[ISP]

You should fly US Airways a bit more often... you are 99% likely to fly on one of their rear engine "spacious" RJ's

 

[mga707]

You should fly US Airways a bit more often... you are 99% likely to fly on one of their rear engine "spacious" RJ's

But not to/from Germany...yet! 😉

MD-80s are still quite common on this side of the pond as well (thanks mainly to the huge fleets of AA and DL), but not as common in Europe, although they are still operated by SAS and Alitalia, possibly a few others.

I agree with our German friend--I've always preferred the engines in the back as well, as long as I'm not in the last couple of rows right between 'em!

 

[flying bug]

I've always preferred the engines in the back as well, as long as I'm not in the last couple of rows right between 'em!

Well, I recall one Alitalia flight to Rome when I was seated exactly there - I was fascinated about the interferences of the engines, especially during approach, I mean you could literally hear the aircraft "work".

But I honestly doubt I would like that nowadays - I seem to have been less stressed out twelve years ago ;-)

 

[Spark]

I think alot has to do with engine designs.
The fans are getting bigger and more efficient.
Air flow is also a factor.

 

[faver]

i have some ideas for maybe why, but

i think the first main reason is just the type of planes that have them are older models and louder and not as new.. with the exception of the B717. not a bad model, smaller but still nice.

Midwest just started service not to long ago in here at SNA orange county, and two seats to a row on each side, nice. but smaller. and quiter. so just depends whats going on. when one plane as a good model going for awhile it stays that way. untill a big demand or something comes up to change to something different.
if ya can understand what i just said. LOL. well thats about as much as i can think for now on that.

 

[A/C FIXER]

There is an airline over across the pond that is buying several of AA's F28-100s, 16 of them I believe, AA operated the dog snot out of them, but we kept them in excellent condition. We did have a few problems with the A/C packs on hot days, but then that aircraft really wasn't designed to be flown here in the southwest and its high temps, it was designed for europe and its milder climates, also for that matter the FAA said that in order for it to fly here it would have to be equiped with thrust reversers, the carbon fiber brakes worked just fine, but what the Feds say goes.

 

[flying bug]

We did have a few problems with the A/C packs on hot days, but then that aircraft really wasn't designed to be flown here in the southwest and its high temps, it was designed for europe and its milder climates, also for that matter the FAA said that in order for it to fly here it would have to be equiped with thrust reversers, the carbon fiber brakes worked just fine, but what the Feds say goes.

What does "packs" mean in this context - and why isn't the F28 designed for hot weather (true - the Dutch climate is mild, but the F28 isn't designed to operate only in the Netherlands, for which extension you need no aircraft ;-)?

DC9 and Caravelle had thrust reversers, right?

 

[A/C FIXER]

What I was refering to was the airconditioning packs, AA had some trouble with the original packs that came with the plane from Fokker, we installed a larger capacity system that helped keep the aircraft somewhat cooler. The system had to fit in an area about 3'x2'x2', sort of like packing 10lbs of manure in a 5lb bag.
As for the DC9 and Caravelle, both were operated in the US, and with the exception of the "baby 9s" the -10 model, they were somewhat heavier than the F-100.

 

[X-U]

While I'm not an aeronautical engineer, I would suppose that mounting the engines on the wing provides the following benefits: a wider center of gravity (cg)envelope and a higher maximum zero fuel weight. Engines are very heavy, mounting them near the tail shifts the center of gravity aft. By mounting engines on the wing, they are closer to the center of lift thus minimizing the effects of their weight on the cg and allowing more flexibility in the loading of the aircraft. By moving the engines off of the fuselage and mounting them on the wing, the maximum zero fuel weight (zfw) can be increased. ZFW as the name implies, is the maximum the airplane cane weigh without fuel. If you held a piece of paper in your hands, and had a friend put increasing amount of weight on the center of the paper, it would eventually rip. Wings are similar. Too much weight in the fuselage area would over stress the wings and their attach points. Fuel is distributed in the wings to spread its weight out over the area of lift, by moving the engines off of the fuselage and out onto the wings, the overall weight is being more evenly distributed on the lifting surface (wing).