Why are the jet-engines placed there? Wings vs Tail

www.cambly.com/...
Have you ever wondered why some aircraft have their engines mounted under the wings while others mount them at the back of the fuselage?
In this video I will dive into the MANY different reasons there are for aircraft manufactures to choose one design over the other.
I will also tell you some of my Boeing handling secrets as well as crucial knowledge about super-stalls and other nasty stuff.
To join the discussion after and ask me follow-up questions, just tag @mentour in the Mentour Aviation app. Dont have the app? Use the links below for a free download! 👇🏻
📲IOS: appstore.com/m...
📲Android: play.google.co...
I want to send a special THANK YOU to the channels from which I have borrowed some material for todays video. Make sure to do me a favour and check them out! 👇🏻
AA Productions
Link : vimeo.com/8511733
Air-clips.com
/ @airclipscom
Learn Engineering
/ @lesics
Pilot Report
/ @thepilotreport
Joe Muschnik
/ @joemuchnick
Understanding Airplanes
/ @understandingairplanes

[@MentourPilot]

Did you like this info? Consider joining my Patreon crew and support my work 🙏 www.patreon.com/Mentourpilot

[@kamilpawel9606]

And why are some Boeings have the engines in the wrong place and they fall down from the sky last 3 years😀

[@bigdofba]

Which did you prefer to fly?

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

Why did wingroot engines like with the comet go out of style? Or bottom of the plane installations ala the planned american Concorde competitor SST? In military planes they seem to work pretty well. Are there concerns with the available room for payloads or maybe regarding crashing?

[@richy77g99]

Thank you ! This question seriously bugged me for some time, ha. I would see planes with the engines off the fuselage and wonder how there could be such a big difference in engineering between jets. I mean one would have to be the clear winner for performance, economy etc. I guess the answer is complex. It would seem to me that the foreign object damage issue you mentioned. Would make the back mounted engines a far superior design, except from potentially making stall situations worse. Hmmm. In any case I really appreciate the video. Awesome job

[@spacewitchvulcan]

I hear home. Are ye a bit Irish?

[@DarylMT]

"The reversers could throw up loads of gravel and S-H-I-T from the ground" Is that a pilot technical term? lol

[@taxfraudpro]

Sierra Hotel India Tango

[@vehicleboi5598]

DARYL MT Socialmedia Hating Inclean language in Teaching

[@fatherofdragons5477]

@@taxfraudpro Sierra Hotel India Trivago

[@RideAcrossTheRiver]

@@vehicleboi5598 SMHILIT?

[@stainless0521]

HAHAHAHAHAHHAA

[@jacktion1546]

I was incredibly nervous my first time flying alone. I happened to be sitting next to a pilot, who noticed I was nervous and decided to tell me about the physics of flight and gave me a general sense of the systems in place on a jet. One of the things he told me was that if the engines failed, planes with wing-mounted engines were very good at gliding, while planes with rear-mounted engines were not.

[@overcomingobstaclescreates1695]

Those aboard BA009 in 1982 can attest to this.

[@tedarcher9120]

That doesn't make sense. Tail engined aircraft have a cleaner wing

[@Sagan_Starborn]

@@tedarcher9120 It is about their centre of gravity, and the location of their aero surfaces. A T-Tail plane has stabilisers way off the line of mass and so have an outsized torquing moment.

[@tedarcher9120]

@@Sagan_Starborn how does that affect gliding though? Stabilisers are producing downward torque anyway to compensate lift, if anything T-tais have lower drag because they need smaller tails

[@jacktion1546]

@@tedarcher9120 It’s about weight distribution.

[@websurfin9575]

This pilot is really great. Love all his vids! Flying on the Boeing 717 is allot of fun as it brings back memories from years ago when flying on many DC-9 fan-jets!! Please keen these vids coming!!

[@HenriqueCarneiroM]

Rear mounted engine planes also have the advantage of having a lower clearance height from the ground...making boarding and loading cargo less complicated and available with cheaper equipment...”Oh but the 737 has that goal as well” But they had to flatten the nacelle to make it less complicated. However, flying one of those is totally different from a wing mounted engine plane, as you have bigger torque arm acting on the longitudinal axis of the plane.

[@MentourPilot]

Correct! I knew I forgot something!!

[@MiguelOliveira-yb6rq]

Also since the aircraft is lower the main gear and nose gear will be shorter thus reducing weight.

[@hc8714]

loading cargo really does not need much equipment and wing mount engines are really not any significant factor, but it is PITA for maintenance and that matters a lot.

[@sparkplug1018]

Ground clearance of the engine nacelle wasn't an issue until they started mounting high bypass engines on it, the 100 and 200 had no issues at all with that.

[@lordporcupine8767]

The 717 F100 airframes are pretty inefficient for lift when operating at high ambient temp compared to 737 A320.

[@captaincurle4529]

Something I've always wondered about. Pretty much every jet engine creates a "buzzing" sound at high/full power. If you haven't already, could you please explain what causes that buzzing noise? Thanks in advance!

[@PakistanIcecream000]

Good video. The value of your videos is superior than flightchannel's where nothing is spoken.

[@andrewwilliams9477]

Thank you for this interesting and informative video. I guess the Lockheed Tristar combined the best and worst features of both engine mounting arrangements, since it had both under-wing and tail mounted engines. I think there was a flight where a Tristar aircraft suffered a stuck elevator but the pilots were able to control pitch using thrust differential between tail and under-wing engines to make a successful landing. So, maybe an argument for having that engine layout as well.

[@alvaneev3454]

The main reason for engines are mounted under the wing is help in balancing pitch down moment of Lift created on the wing. It reduced balance drag by reducing angle of attack of horizontal stabilizer and allow to save a lot of fuel.

[@bctesla]

Love your channel I subbed . Your knowledge and passion is obvious . I love learning about Aero Science ,

[@kurtbuck3275]

DC-9 / MD-80 are my favorite airplanes.

[@vinaysapre6192]

Mentour, that was a T tail plane crashed due to faulty jack screw of horizontal stabilizer.Could that plane bde saved or landed safely ?

[@thomasfritz6425]

Do you still fly ? It must be awesome to view things from the cockpit. Had a chance to watch the Concord land once amazing how it looked upside down as it circled first.Thanks Mentour Pilot your an awesome dude Sir.

[@viggosimonsen]

What about stability? Usually, if you have a rear-mounted propulsion, you will have an unstable acceleration,, like in a RWD car. Is that also an issue in an aircraft, calling for special handling by the pilot?

[@IamtheBurceDickenson]

Rear mounted engine design was dictated by the need to operate from smaller airports that may not have the best facilities and equipment for fueling, baggage handling, and jetways etc. Without engines under the wing the body of the plane can be lower to the ground making loading and servicing easier.

[@chanman819]

For regional and executive jets, the tail-mounted engines also means the aircraft doesn't need much ground clearance, which makes air stair design much simpler, and a useful feature for many of the smaller airports both types fly out of.

[@koborkutya7338]

plus a smaller (thus lighter) gear assy

[@MagMan4x4]

"gravel and shit from the ground" LOL I laughed

[@noisycarlos]

Made me look, lol.

[@HelloKittyFanMan.]

Haha, yeah, because this guy seems too refined to say "shit," huh? LOL!

[@philippeschouten]

I had to play that back a couple of times to make sure

[@Lokrion]

That shit would definitely hit the fan

[@Jokalido]

I was going to write the same!

[@d.peters6075]

T-tail planes just look so much cleaner and the ride is more entertaining as a pax. You are being pushed into your seat as the raw power forcing you into the air is behind you and you are being shoved into the air...whereas when the engines are on the wing, you don't get the same sensation and its like being pulled into the air. Me...I am an absolute T-tail fan. Love my Mad Dogs/Diesel 9s/Boeing's red headed stepchild 717, the 727s, ERJ/CRJ (although it isn't as raw, or obvious, of a sensation as in the MDs and 27s) and the bizjet world.

[@LiamRobinson]

Some shake your stick Others push your stick away Airbus just unplugs your stick and tells you to go sit in the corner.

[@davidbutera5985]

Lol

[@keiceefitero1047]

*.*

[@keiceefitero1047]

* *.* *

[@carlopampuri1317]

"Why are you calling me, mum?" "Your plane asked me to"

[@H.R.King.]

Lol

[@edgarguinartlopez8341]

Hi, thanks for the video. However, there is a notable advantage of the rear-mounted design over the wing-mounted design that I wish to add. The wing design is much simpler, resulting in a stronger, lighter, and aerodynamically better wing. Even being small, the under-wing engine produces some aerodynamic interference on the wing at high angles of attack. In addition, part of the flaps are directly in the path of the engine blast, which makes complex its design. Also, the airflow under the wing must be slower than the airflow over it to be effective (as you know), and the engine blast makes the opposite effect on the part of the wing affected by its trajectory even at higher speeds, at lower is worse. Another undesirable effect of under wing engines is that they produce huge torsional forces in the wing structure during accelerations and decelerations, such as when using the reversers making even complex it design. Just observations, and sorry the long message. Thanks again.

[@PlymouthNeon]

wonder if that's why McDonnell Douglas successfully got away with never redesigning the DC9 wing and only making stretched variants, because the wings were apparently efficient as-is.

[@MultiClittle]

@@PlymouthNeon "got away with" sounds like they *should have* but didnt redesign them. but as you say, they didnt need to bc they had a decent design already.

[@mostafakarandi363]

Edgar you are supposed to be an aviation designer or something similar very nice comments you had . thank you

[@edgarguinartlopez8341]

​@@mostafakarandi363 Hi… I wish! But I´m not... sorry for that. I´m an industrial designer specialized in the field of machinery construction... I have some experience in sugar cane harvesters and bikes manufacturing. However, airplane construction is my passion, so I spent my last 24 years trying to understand that. As result I was invited to do some 3D analysis about nose cowling aerodynamics, cabin structure and ergonomics in a light aircraft project designed by an aeronautical engineer friend of mine (A great opportunity for me). That aircraft is almost finished and waiting for final approvals to perform its maiden flight. For that project my friend was invited to Oshkosh Air Venture; quite an honor of course… It is my hope to be able to design and build my own light aircraft someday :)

[@PauloSergioMDC]

Dunno about lighter. Without the engine counteracting aerodynamic forces, the wing is, in fact, stiffer and heavier.

[@mostafakarandi363]

your explanations are really wonderful for curious and interested guys thanks a lot captain 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏

[@emily36130]

"you can mount larger engines under the wing" 737: Am I a joke to you?

[@NeonBeeCat]

*MAX 8 intensifies*

[@malayacristal]

@@NeonBeeCat OMFG. 🤣

[@RRR66620]

LOL

[@elcapitanyandel]

Yep then came the MAX 8.. we all know what happened after that

[@freddyferrillo9704]

Lol. But he means for the final design. If designed right, you can put as big an engine you want under the wing. Not adding bigger engines after the fact. That's what Boeing did to the 737.

[@Schtuperfly]

Also, high mounted engines coast better in water landings and can be destroyed by ice coming off the wings.

[@Schtuperfly]

Well there was a case of a tail engine Mcdonald Douglas that had the engines die of ice but also there was a A-10 pilot who went off range during training maybe to look at the fresh powder in the mountains because he was a avid skier who I therefore suspect might also have been a unfortunate victim of icing flaking off the wings. The Air Force blamed the kid, very sad.

[@kamalmanzukie]

@@Schtuperfly finish the story!

[@maxboya]

@@Schtuperfly not enough detail lol

[@lukej557]

Probably safer for emergency landings on land where the landing gear failed as well

[@ytstolemyname]

But you lose water propulsion ability

[@olegfedorov3225]

Good example of the benefits of high tail engines is A-10. It can take off from basically any flat surface close to battlefield, even in desert. No wonder US military is fighting very hard to keep it in service despite new fancy F-35.

[@BudKingUK]

"4 engines" *youtube subtitles: 4 indians*

[@mr.communist3906]

I saw that lol

[@FtwNil]

They are race obsessed after all.

[@和平和平-c4i]

Even for Google, the state-of-the-art speak-to-text model they use is very funny and unreliable. Sometimes it is even funnier and write inappropriate obscenity.

[@handsomechocolatebar276]

in the engine

[@BudKingUK]

@@和平和平-c4i I really feel for people depending on them due to disability, it must be a really wtf situation sometimes.

[@Idiyotyt287]

ilyushin il-62 has 4 engines in the back

[@crazytactics3603]

Did he just say "shit", when talking about sucking things up from the ground in reverse thrust for the under wing engines? That's hilarious, i dont know why, just unexpected i guess. lol. Love Mentour!

[@MentourPilot]

Haha! Glad I could bring a laugh to you.

[@markofexcellence5209]

He said sheeeet 😂😂😂😂

[@robertlee9395]

It was a "slip" of the tongue! Off the tarmac, on a hot day, after a bad meal!

[@earlystrings1]

In most germanic languages (including apparently aviation English), 'shit,' 'Scheisse,' what ever is a very mild expletive, like merde in French. In English it's stronger.

[@aqimjulayhi8798]

That 'shit' caught me off guard and made me repeat and laugh. Love these videos. :D

[@RajinderSingh-ui9rj]

❤. Your video are very knowledgeable for aviation and very interesting too,

[@billhughes5489]

You might mean this site to be a mentor for budding pilots but I am enjoying it immediately. I am a 72 year old retired train driver with an interest in aviation and I find the site to be extremely interesting.

[@MentourPilot]

Great to hear!! Welcome to the channel!

[@majortom4543]

he sometimes is racist with people who dont work or have the hobby of flying. We also like watching the videos you know? And i understand everything he says.

[@algrayson8965]

Major Tom - What does racism have to do with technical interest?

[@majortom4543]

Al grayson You tell me! I just know im here to learn about aviation and really like Mentour Pilots videos, but sometimes he makes bad comments about us. (people who havent ever piloted a plane)

[@mikehook4830]

MT: based on what appears to be the intent of your comment, "racist" is probably not the correct term. "critical" might be more along the line of what you intended.

[@이주연-x4x]

Mentour: large fans on the 737 GE9X: A 737 fuselage can fit inside inside of me and so can the engine!

[@noahway13]

The higher mounted engines have thinner air to deal with.

[@Zan0s]

I passed my PPL today! :D

[@MentourPilot]

Congratulations!! Welcome up in the sky as commander!

[@Zan0s]

Mentour Pilot Thank you so much. I love your videos.

[@ShayneSpackman]

Zan0s Congratulations! Getting my PPL was one of the funnest, most rewarding things I've ever done. How about you? Terrifying, to have that final check-ride, especially when you realize in the air that your instructor forgot to train you in one particular maneuver and now you're being tested on it. In my case I had to do a full slip down to the 500' markers and come within tolerances. Managed to do it though on my first try. I told my check-ride lady that I hadn't been trained on that before I did it too! She looked nervous and she squirmed right before I straightened her back out, but I'm pretty sure that helped me with the PPL at the end. :)

[@shivan4627]

All the best

[@rezzielibiran3617]

Wish you luck for your flight with captain!

[@OvidiuHretcanu]

13:21 "over-explanation"?! ... that's the very reason why we are on your channel!

[@sunnyscott4876]

Never liked airplanes with engines mounted in the back. It just looked odd to me and made me uncomfortable.

[@thebaze]

Very interesting video, thanks. You missed a important point though: The body of airplanes with back mounted engines can be placed lower, so many of those planes have their own stair to enter at the front. This gives more flexibility at smaller airports or airports far off with no big infrastructure. The Boeing 737 had very small engines in earlier versions for the same reasons, and then they had big problems placing the new and bigger engines below the wing for the NG/MAX. That's why they are oval and not round at the front.

[@younusnishat6594]

Gv

[@WilliamJones-Halibut-vq1fs]

The 737 engines could also be serviced by a technician standing next to the engine.

[@AaaaNinja]

Sounds like you've been watching a lot of youtube. In fact, doesn't this guy have another video explaining exactly this?

[@lofficer11]

Cannot be placed lower than wing mounted. He has covered your topics

[@ejetramos9886]

@thebase and @william he has a video exactly stating that... welcome to the Mentour Channel

[@modspell]

GingerPilot talks to me like I’m intelligent. Bless his heart.

[@VlOREL]

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@lanceroark6386]

Weight distribution. Easy video.

[@TheFunkadelicFan]

Improve my English? That's unpossible!

[@MentourPilot]

😊😂

[@PaulCareyDigitalWiz]

Hello Funk! Nice to see you enjoy Mentour as well :)

[@TheFunkadelicFan]

Hi Paul. I've been flying for years, you know. Models, that is :)

[@EveryTipeOfVideo]

TheFunkadelicFan 🤯😂

[@tonymcloughlin7007]

At last after a day on utube a poster finally gave me a real belly laugh . Thank you TheFunkadelicfan.

[@boataxe4605]

Because putting them on the nose would make the cockpit too hot?

[@wizbangIWD]

Very educational video and your English is excellent by the way !

[@MentourPilot]

Thank you! I do my best!

[@nathanblades3395]

Yes it really is

[@filiphusek]

May learn to use word FUSELAGE one day too.

[@philinator71]

I thought he was a native English speaker. 😲

[@F-Man]

Yes, your English is basically perfect. You’re Swedish, no? I don’t think you’ve ever actually told us where you’re from - or perhaps I just haven’t seen that.

[@miscellaneous.7127]

Is ground clearance a factor? For a small aeroplane low to the ground you might not have room for engines under the wing?

[@MentourPilot]

Absolutely correct.

[@SubsonicQuill77]

I was thinking about it too, it would be impractical for jets with low ground clearance to have wing mounted engines,

[@bhami]

Why not have wing-top engines? Back in the 1950's the DeHavilland Comet actually had its engines inside the wing.

[@miscellaneous.7127]

Yeah, all of the RAF's V bombers also had the engines in the wing root. Wing root engines only work with turbo jets, not turbo fans though.

[@tjarsun]

I guess harder access to maintenance and also they didn't used turbofans for the Comet, they require a much larger mouth to fit the fan, so you would also lose usable wing area if you replace the sleek intakes with a big fan.

[@cowebb2327]

Just discovered your channel and am really enjoying. I suspect a tail mounted engine configuration would greatly reduce the yaw effects with an engine out?

[@WilliamJones-Halibut-vq1fs]

The Russian IL-62 T-Tail aircraft had saw tooth leading edges to stop wing tip stall and therefore super stall. The wing tip functioned as a sort flying wing due to the sweep. The VC10 and iL62 were the only aircraft that did not enter into a super stall. This was primary due to adequate sweep providing a downward pitch, saw tooth leading edges and fences and a little from the stub wing effect of the rear engines. Rear engine aircraft also were prone to engine stall and often had 'autolight' for the engines.

[@neilharper6317]

Great podcast, Mentour Pilot! Very concise, comprehensive and engaging. I could not have explained this better myself. See you in the next one!

[@true_baddie5257]

"We don't have stick pushers in the 737" MCAS: 'Am I a joke to you?'

[@paulmurray3837]

I am not a pilot, but I used to fly quite a lot as a passenger. I always felt that the DC9 and 727 had cleaner wings and handled low-level / low-speed turbulence and cross winds better than planes with wing mounted engines. I do miss the 727, I loved seeing the stacks of analog guages as I passed through to my seat.

[@fredhurst2528]

I was told that the 727 engine configuration is very inefficient, I doubt we will ever see anything like that again.

[@alvexok5523]

@@fredhurst2528 That may be why the 727s discontinued. They did have quieter cabins than wing engine aircrafts, since the majority of the noise from engines are behind them when a plane is acceleratingforward. You probably may've noticed when lined up for take-off back in the 1980s that the 727 in front of you moving away from you during its runway acceleration, it always sounded louder than the 727 you were in sounded while you accelerated down the runway for take-off, the reason was that the majority of the noise was behind the engines. For the same reason, I'm sure you've noticed that the back section of wing engine planes are always louder than the front half. Anyway, the quiet cabins all the way through wss something good about the 727s, the jist of the noise staying behind the planes

[@alvexok5523]

Some planes had the rear engines like the DC9s and 727s, some had just wing engines like the 747s, 767s, and present day 777s A330s, and A350s. And some had both such as the DC10s and L1011s (no side rear-engines though, just center tail-engines). There were good things about the DC9s and 727s, and the quieter cabins due to all the engines being in back was a reason I liked them, see my above reply. I have wondered why no wide-bodied long distance aircrafts had the side rear-engines and no wing engines like the 727s

[@dosmastrify]

1:55 boeing has left the chat

[@worldwidewonders681]

dosmastrify 😂😂😂🤣

[@FixerRC]

X Plane mobile Channel umm your channel is infinite flight not x plane mobile ( •_•)

[@davidgriffiths7696]

Video v text. Cons, stall recovery more difficult due to nose up attitude, no gravity fuel feed if pump fails, more risk of damage to body of aircraft if engine explodes, lower fuel efficiency/more structural weight, higher maintenance cost,more frictional drag/weight on nose wheel at take off. Pros, engines higher less chance of sucking in debris, less lateral torque if an engine fails, less to go wrong in the wings They work ok, but are less efficient. 5 mins

[@raptorv77]

Excellent video!! I want to add that an advantage of rear mounted engines is a more clean wing, which is more efficient in terms of aerodynamics, resulting in a lower fuel consumption for the same engine placed in the wing.

[@dimsumdki526]

are you have to research about this before ? cause in this video doesnt discuss about the advantages from fuel consumption.

[@dimsumdki526]

even, the rear engine must has piping line fuel for get it. and it should be make the consumtion of engine higher than wing engine. cause need help a pumping system for distribute the fuel from wings to engine.

[@thegreenbastard5171]

The wing without engines mounted on them are more aerodynamically efficient BUT the MD80 to MD88 series of jets are serious gas guzzlers!

[@rpvermeulen]

@The Green Bastard That could very well be because they have much smaller fans than today’s high bypass engines that would not fit on the fuselage - as explained in the video. Inefficiency somehow seems to be a conserved quantity.

[@Cingearth]

Airbus and boeing should have two main wings ? For ultra long flights ! So the plane can carry more fuel !

[@Losingsince]

3:58 that’s the old Tacoma Narrows Bridge that fell in the 1940s. I frequently drive on the new one

[@Venator77]

A disadvantage of rear mounted engines is that in cold weather, an improperly deiced wing could cause ice to get ingested in the engines and damage them, like what happened to one SAS flight that crashed on takeoff a while back.

[@freddan6fly]

The Gottröra disaster on flight 751, 1991.

[@trostals]

Ah yes, the Tacoma Narrows bridge, aka "Galloping Gerty"

[@petec6690]

I've always enjoyed the ride of a T-Tail over the traditional config. However, I never knew, or realized, that a stall can affect the T-Tail and lose control. Thank you.

[@hifinsword]

The Delta wing can also blank out the air over a more traditional tail, not only a T-tail. The A-4 Skyhawk was such a jet. Get the AOA too high and you get into a Super Stall. Without enough altitude, it's impossible to recover from it.

[@lollipopjuggs]

Cant this also stall the turbines?

[@theguy9208]

Easy solution. Dont stall

[@grr9790]

8:47 "they're getting clearance from the ground" *van drives past * me: shocked pikachu face

[@radaniel8923]

i just seen WTF lol WoW!

[@BudFunOne]

Spooky! I was thinking about producing a video about this today as I was driving towards O’Hare with the variety of aircraft flying over me, and how I would explain this to someone who would ask why wings are placed in different locations on the fuselage.

[@abebuenodemesquita8111]

4:19 "thats not good" is it just me or is that a bit of an understatement

[@timmiser]

He kinda left off the part that the fire was engulfing the fuel tank!

[@vmiller475]

Thank you! Was thinking why isn't anybody commenting on that?!

[@janedoe9940]

Thanks so much for this video! It should be part of the Kerbal Space Program tutorials, as I finally understood why my little plane with back-mounted rocket engines tends to nose-dive :) Now it's all so much clearer! You are a great instructure !

[@fridjonvilhjalmsson2883]

Since you put so much energy and preparation into all the stuff you include in those fantastic videos, I would personally like to put in a request. We have an enormous amount of information and tutorial based instructions regarding landing approaches with ILS. However, there is not the same amount available when it comes to GPS based landing systems which, apparently, are going to become very popular in the future. Reason being, there is no expensive ground based system required like it is with the ILS. In order to understand how this works, we need some pretty good tutorials on the subject and who would be the chosen one to deliver that other than Petter.. I know this video is an old one and the risk is that you won't see this comment but, what a heck, got to try.

[@danieldehay5270]

‘Shit from the ground’ 😂😂😂 funny af!

[@MentourPilot]

True though

[@TheRealBlackYoda]

The joys of unedited content lol 😂

[@dithperlay3292]

Why is it funny? That’s just reality

[@slam2610]

I was looking for this comment, that moment got me laughing - gotta love Mentour!

[@gtee96]

Truth can be funny. Absolutely!

[@RahmanSajid]

Awesome video Petter, hope your week in Stansted has been going *fantastic*

[@antonomaseapophasis5142]

In English, the word “shit” is beneath the quality of the language you normally use here. “Stuff” works.

[@CustardInc]

Christ a week at Stansted, can't think of a worse form of torture. I guess Luton

[@TitaniusAnglesmith]

Using occasional profanity makes a person more likable and makes a message more personal. It's good to say shit like that sometimes.

[@grumpy989]

I can beat that. How about a week in Glasgow, not only the same depressing Travelodge, but a depressing city overall

[@jecammer]

Antonomase Apophasis one slip of the tung earns a lecture from you? Even the penguins at my Catholic school would only give you a stern look, the first time.

[@senseisecurityschool9337]

Another advantage of wing-mounted / disadvantage of rear mount: Tail size and drag. Rear-mounting makes the tail stabilizers much closer to the CG, so they have to be larger to compensate for the loss of leverage. That means lower speed and fuel efficiency. Additionally, the longer fuselage ahead of the CG works as an anti-tail, making the plane want to weathervane and swap ends, going backwards. That means the tail has to be even BIGGER, meaning even more drag slowing the plane and burning even more fuel.

[@scrufflepeck]

Is it easier to ditch a plane on water if the engines are mounted on the fuselage at the back, rather than under the wings? It seems logical that big, flat faced, wing-mounted engines are going to be a major disadvantage when attempting to land on water?

[@joshtheking1772]

Yeah, but how often does a water ditching happen? Not very many. 179 have been able to be investigated and of those 22% have numerous fatalities. Of all the averages and computer simulations, 80% of those were complete destruction events and less than 1, if its possible, actually survive a water landing on any engine design. Very easy to see why. On a super stall event, usually when landing, its would pitch to a nose down situation and the weight of the aircraft would smash itself longitudinally, usually leading to no survivors. On an underwing design, a water landing would cause the wings to fold under the fuselage leading to a failure point at the midpoint of the aircraft making escape almost impossible. A real high approach angle is needed to impact the tail first before the wings touch the water. In either scenario a land crash would be more survivable than any water landing. No there are exceptions and luck involved. The A320 that landed on the Hudson River is a noted success of a water landing.

[@juanchoja]

In light of the recent grounding of the Boeing 737 MAX, pilots are saying that the airplane tends ti pitch down because of the center of gravity being unusual for a lower mounted engine, since the landing gear is short, they had to put the engines up and forward a little bit. Based on what you have explained, it seems like it could be behaving like a tail mounted engine. In your opinion, is the design of the 737 MAX flawed, or can it be solved with improved software without having to re-design the airplane?

[@StuFF-vc3ex]

bro had boing 747 with 2 engines. at 1:06-1:09

[@Stings2pee]

I saw an episode of Mayday where a plane with rear-mounted engines crashed after the pilot forgot to turn on the de-icing system, allowing ice to form on the wings. When the pilot realized his mistake and turned on de-icing, ice chunks broke off the wings and got ingested by the rear engines, causing them to fail.

[@MentourPilot]

Yes, this is another downside of rear-mounted engines.

[@IroAppe]

Engines can fail because of ice? Really? They are so hot and they shoot them with chickens to test them, but they are not able to ingest ice without failing? That’s really a let-down. I hope modern engines have fixed that problem.

[@beardyface8492]

@@IroAppe They're not so hot at the front, & the fan doesn't like being hit by solid objects, blades tend to break, get ingested, & break others deeper inside. There's a limit to the size of ice chunks you can make them strong enough to survive, even with the best modern engines.

[@SynchronizorVideos]

@@IroAppe Snow or small hailstones are one thing; a big chunk of ice coming off the wing of a plane moving at hundreds of miles per hour is a whole other animal.

[@steveredenbaugh9058]

Stick Pusher... A Skinny Drug Dealer?

[@SpoiledBadgerMilk]

its also what they called me in prison

[@steveredenbaugh9058]

Because you always pushed back onto the stick?

[@briankennedy5578]

When I was doing tree work, I shoved a lot of branches into the chipper. So I was a "stick pusher "

[@briankennedy5578]

Had some tie stick....good shit

[@marcusrat4466]

@@steveredenbaugh9058 whoa, easy there gramps

[@beboboymann3823]

Fantastic! There is a reason why you consistently have huge numbers of viewers and thumbs up. You teach us about interesting things in a relaxed manner. Love your vids.

[@savoirfaire5460]

I work at DIA or DEN it seems to me the larger the engine the quieter they are

[@eemelilaakkonen5246]

Turboprop vs jet engine video?

[@MentourPilot]

Good idea.

[@EveryTipeOfVideo]

Eemeli Laakkonen This is so easy (Jet engine)

[@WeslarWaven]

EveryTypeOfVideo planes are made for different reasons not not as simple as what is better. If a jet is better at everything why don't all cessna's have them. 😁😁😁

[@adamw.8579]

Jet engines are relatively weak at low speed, adding fan to engine improve efficiency in low and medium speeds. Because airliner flights speeds are placed at medium range (in jet specification) so turbofan model has better efficiency at all. Less fuel burnt = better economy. Money drive this world.

[@souocara38able]

Mentour Pilot Please throw in turbofan as well. In my other comment I asked about the fan in a turbo fan being somewhat comparable to a propeller

[@cristianodybala9225]

Mentor I watch every video u upload and I'm 14 years old and I want to become a pilot too can u give tips to young people like me

[@jonasmller6962]

Cristiano Dybala Me too but I am 13

[@Ep339]

Same, 14

[@cristianodybala9225]

Nice!🔥🔥

[@kirti7659]

Yup, would be very appreciated as I am sure many others are in the same position

[@eugenio6304]

me too, but im 16

[@WrenchNotFound]

1:07 why does that boeing have 2 engines lol

[@daveb495]

I thought he said "gravel and CHIPS..." Perhaps my expectations are too high : )

[@Matticitt]

I think airplanes with rear-mounted engines look better. They sit lower on the ground and the T-style stabilizer looks so cool. The 727 and the Tu-154 are beautiful airplanes.

[@lembasmitspinat-kuerbiscre1270]

If at all possible I will never set a foot inside a plane with rear mounted engines ever again :/

[@frankbuck99]

Lembas mit Spinat-Kuerbis Creme yeah, when that engine explodes and takes out the hydraulic lines to the tail, your gonna have a bad day.

[@venomq2409]

I just got here, CofG or not? Dang, I thought it was.

[@davealford6108]

So, is the "stick pusher" essentially the first iteration of of MCAS?

[@vascoribeiro69]

The MCAS emulates previous iterations of the B737 so training and rating could be done fast and cheap.

[@rocyoung2143]

The stick-pusher works really similarly to the MCAS on the Boeing 737 max, doesn’t it

[@jaysmith1408]

Roc Young ehh, sorta. The pusher uses the elevators themselves, MCAS used the entire stabilizer. You can override the former, since it’s using the same control to which your column is connected physically by cables. It can be overridden. The stabilizer is more difficult to override.

[@yams900]

Kämpe gott !

[@c21001175]

*Aaaaaabsoluuutely Fantaaastic*

[@EveryTipeOfVideo]

Never seen a 4 engined aircraft on the back. Can someone please give me a name of that aircraft so I can google it 😀. *_Interesting Video Petter_*

[@bkearns34]

EveryTypeOfVideo England built one in the 60's. Name escapes me. Russia too

[@brucefelger4015]

Lockheed jetstar

[@TheFulcrum2000]

Vickers VC-10 Il-62

[@EveryTipeOfVideo]

Thanks guys!! First time of me hearing about 2 engined planes mounted on the back

[@KUNALBISWAS-NEWS-TECH-SHORT]

Ilyushin IL-62

[@gelatinous6915]

I think 9:29 is the first time I've heard Petter swear

[@wabznasm9660]

It’s such a crisp rendition of the word and so matter of fact, what a treat.

[@gelatinous6915]

@@wabznasm9660 It is indeed

[@neighbourhoodkid27]

Commentary: the reverses will throw up loads of gravel and sh*t Closed captions: the reverses will throw up loads of gravel and stuff ROBLOX CHAT FILTER CONFIRMED

[@toasterhavingabath6980]

You mean ####

[@merc340sr]

Interesting! T-Tail aircraft look great, but wing mounted engines appear to produce a safer, more stable, more predictable aircraft. ( I am not a pilot.)

[@bjshetzer2994]

You need to take a whole bunch of English courses from your sponsor to show us how much you can learn in plinguistics I mean

[@manosxa]

btw boeing 747 had that flattering problem in its original design. That happens when the natural frequency of the structure is equal with the flow induced vibrations on that structure.

[@robertlee9395]

manos, I think you've been drinking too much. Big aircraft have a computer to control flutter problems.

[@patrick_test123]

Robert Lee in the 1970s ?

[@CaptainDangeax]

747 dates before the invention of the microprocessor.

[@oneofmanyparadoxfans5447]

If I remember correctly, didn't the Me 262 (first jet fighter) have a similar problem?

[@NomadUniverse]

As much as I love DC-10s and MD-11s and the like, I've always wondered what the hell they were thinking. "...but we don't quite need an extra 2 engines." "Just one then, 3?" "3". "Okay, done. We just have to figure out where to put this high-powered volatile device with a massive fan blade that could blow up at any time..." "Okay, how about we stick it right in the middle of one of the most vulnerable sections of the plane. Yeah, that sticky-up bit at the back that the plane absolutely cant fly without should it be torn off." "Genius. Do it."

[@coreylawson1103]

as if turbine disc failures for under-wing engines have not resulted in disasters...

[@NomadUniverse]

You missed the point, and at no time did I say they hadn't. But thank you Mr. Asif.

[@97I30T]

MPAH1981 3 engined widebody jets like the DC-10/MD-11 and L-1011 were really kind of a stopgap before ETOPs was a thing. 4 engines were too many for a smaller wide body but 2 engines weren’t enough without ETOPs. So they used 3 engines to save on fuel and still be able to fly over oceans unimpeded. It wasn’t an ideal configuration but at the time the DC-10 and L-1011 came out it was the only way to have a widebody that didn’t need 4 engines fly over oceans without limitations. In all honesty though, where else could they have put the 3rd engine that would have been better?

[@mrvwbug4423]

There is at least one MD-11 aircrew that can vouch for tails being overrated. During the Iraq war a MD-11 freighter was hit in the center engine by a surface to air missile over Baghdad, despite losing elevator, rudder, most of the hydraulics and the center engine they were able to successfully turn around and land the plane with no loss of life.

[@SgtMclupus]

KentB27 Under the body, F-16 style? 😜👍

[@basilschwegmann7395]

Straight forward, plain language explanations. Thanks

[@HalNordmann]

I kind of miss the airliners with engines on the tail. They were unique and different, like trijets or superjumbos. Nowadays, every airliner looks the same, with a wide-body and twin engines mounted under a slightly swept wing. It may be efficient, but I miss the old and quirky designs.

[@lollipopjuggs]

Were you a fan of the trislander?

[@PrateekRSrivastava]

1. With time, aircraft needed bigger fans to higher propulsion. But engines on the wings have limited space because of ground clearance. Hence, they either fitted more engines on the wings or fit a bigger engine at the back. 2. Engines on the wings help counter wings flutter/vibration. See 3:30 3. In case of a fire in the engines, an engine on mounted on the wings help since it is separated from the main body of the aircraft. 4. The most noise comes from the exhaust of the engine. Separating it from the main body helps you sleep well when you're in the main cabin. 5. In case one of the under-mounted engines failed, it will add a non-zero torque and try to spin the aircraft about its center of mass. Hence, a larger Rudder is required compared to a back-mounted engine plane. 6. See 6:20 for Thrust-Pitch correct to keep the altitude stable/constant. 7. Engines at the back also help in the noise correction for a quieter cabin. 8. Charter planes have back-mounted engines because their smaller size may cause the engine to suck foreign objects like little grain or stone or grass in the surroundings. 9. See 8:40, the aircraft can use back-mounted engines to pull itself back without needing a tractor. Boeing 717 is a classic example. It's risky since you don't have a rearview mirror. And it can also suck foreign objects from the surrounding. 10. For back-mounted engines, a stronger structure is required at the back because it is further away from the center of mass. And yes, more piping to pump the fuel to hit. 11. See 11:30, back-mounted engines require T-tail to avoid "super stall". Like Boeing 717. Thank you!

[@jennyjohn704]

Your first point is wrong. You can't fit bigger engines onto the rear of the plane, because they would be too heavy and take the centre of gravity too far back. Also, the structure of the plane couldn't take the weight.

[@maggie7843]

Hm. Now I’m curious if there’s any aerodynamic advantages of triple engine jets like the DC-10 and L-1011.

[@MrOsasco]

Tail mounting requires heavier structure in the tail. Wing mounting takes advantage of the existing wing structure.

[@lennoxmundle9783]

Well explained 👍🏾

[@stepbackandthink]

1:47 as opposed to changing the spark plugs at 30,000 feet.

[@ahmetturk1903]

I learn valuable info from this video. thank you soooooooo much for sharing your knowledge.

[@gaHuJIa_Macmep]

You didn't mention the most important reason to mount engines under the wings, and this is longitudinal balancing in flight. Pitching-up torque from the thrust decreases the negative lift requirements from stabilizer in order to balance the aircraft in flight. Less negative lift - less balancing loss, higher aerodynamic quality, hence higher fuel efficiency.

[@williamthethespian]

Excellent. Thank you. (subscribed)

[@osemekeugbo999]

Welcome to one of the best channels on youtube. I promise you won't be disappointed!

[@petesheppard1709]

Back in the '60s, at least one airline (Delta or Eastern) called their DC-9s and 727s 'WhisperJets', making the cabin quietness of the rear-mounted engines a feature. Rear-mounted engines also allowed for simpler, less expensive wing structure.

[@steve8551]

That was the name Eastern Airlines used for their 727s

[@B4LN]

Меги обсди ми се наблюдава

[@ashishanand9518]

That was eastern airlines but it called it for Lockheed tristar L1011 not for 727 or DC9

[@ronsrox]

Ashish Anand L1011 was a sweet flier.

[@scottbilger9294]

I was remembering that too.

[@blueticecho5690]

Yes sir I use to see planes with power under each wing and then a single engine on top in the back..

[@wendellbrown8030]

Thank you for making these videos ! They are always informative and entertaining. Also, very educational ! 👍

[@marty639]

Its not an Like an aticathera mechanism they use topel the aircraft. Come on!

[@dipstiksubaru3246]

thow up loads of gravel and SHIT from the ground. instantly liked the video when I heard that line!!! I rewound it 3 times cause I was laughing so hard after I heard it 🤣. love it, shows humanity.