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

[@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?

[@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

[@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

[@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.

[@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!

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@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.

[@myautobiography9711]

As an automobile enthusiast all my life and having majored in engineering, it is also very, very interesting to read every comment in the great debate of the location of the engine on an aircraft as well. Especially, I love learning about the pros and cons for each location of the engines, in terms of rigidity and aerodynamic flow. Just to point out where exactly it was fun, a specific attack angle in a rear engine aircraft can leave the horizontal stabilizers with significantly less airflow blocked by the wings, which could end up in a super stall.

[@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

[@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.

[@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.

[@neilharper6317]

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

[@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!!

[@CGVCA]

I'm a private pilot, so I cannot comment professionally on your video, but I will say, if I needed an instructor to explain what I need to know to about flying big planes, learning about their structures and operations, or even small ones for that matter....you, sir, would be the man. Very informative, and well done, even with the slight accent. Some of the people I have heard on the radio, with ATC, those people who have chosen not to, at least try, and learn how to say the words, should have licenses suspended until the choose to. I think you know you're stuff real well sir. Thank you. True professional.

[@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.

[@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

[@g.g.2211]

4 years after publication, it’s absolutely fantastic how much you have improved your presence and storytelling on video. What a pilot! ❤

[@AaronOfMpls]

And yet even then, he still wasn't bad. 😎

[@eekee6034]

@@AaronOfMpls He's not bad in this one, (apart from a little problem with mic levels,) perhaps because he's enthusiastic about it, but he has since learned to be really good. :)

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@OvidiuHretcanu]

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

[@AdrianGalli]

I’ve asked this question before and usually get “all planes handle differently” which is obvious but doesn’t actually answer the questions about engine position. Thanks for some great information.

[@oilczar]

Interesting note about low mounted intakes, the Soviet/Russian MiG-29 was designed with intake doors which block debris by dropping down to allow intake from the louvres above the nacelles, facilitating operation from rudimentary or potentially damaged fields.

[@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 !

[@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

[@nathanmcgowan659]

Just wanted to tell you that I have loved airplanes and flight all my life and greatly appreciate all the information you share in your videos.

[@modspell]

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

[@VlOREL]

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@Azajndo]

after a really bad turbulence I found your channel... excellent content Sir, you got a subscriber.

[@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.

[@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 ( •_•)

[@이주연-x4x]

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

[@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.

[@epicspacetroll1399]

I remember once reading a silly paragraph on Wikipedia about it. It said something like "Being attached to the tail gives fewer points of structural failure that could separate the engine from the aircraft. With wing mounted engines the wing can separate or the engine can separate. With tail mounted engines only the engine can separate." That is what convinced me to get an account to edit the wiki because seriously what pilot is going to be saying "oh no! My engine" when the whole wing fell off?

[@Froot99]

EpicSpaceTroll 139 You’re fucked either way if your wing or tail breaks off 👀

[@harleyme3163]

nope... the hardpoints that fasten the engine are the same on any position, its on a captured rail so it can be easily slide out to perform maintenance... funny they don't take into account the tail is actually less heavily built then the wings.. the wings hold the entire weight of the plane in the air.. tail just acts as a stabalizer, it creates no lift lol .. wikipedia for ya... me, I build aircraft hehe

[@epicspacetroll1399]

Yep. That's part of why I thought the paragraph on Wikipedia was so ridiculous. :P

[@hackish1]

For anyone who has ever seen how much material is in an engine pilon, or the structural members attaching the wing, it would be the least of my worries.

[@bsadewitz]

Oh, thank God. This is one of those things that I have wondered about for years but kept forgetting to look up. Thank you.

[@MotoMarios]

I loved the stick pusher info on T-tailed planes. Made me remember that even the F-104 fighter (a t-tailed plane) also had a stick pusher.

[@joshwithe7468]

Every large aircraft has a stick pusher

[@maximilliancunningham6091]

In the F-104, at some point of High AOA, the stubby wings, would start to shunt the airflow to the T-Tail. a departure becomes imminent, and hence the shaker.

[@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

[@fanelli57]

Another issue with rear mounted engines is weight and balance. I used to prepare load plans and W&B for Air Aruba out of BWI on MD80s and MD90s. They would fly from BWI with a small number of passengers to Philadelphia where the majority of passengers would board for the flight to Aruba. For the trip BWI -PHL we often had to load all the BWI passengers in first class and their bags in the forward compartment to get the aircraft properly balanced. Sometimes there were not enough passengers so we needed to add ballast as well.

[@kellingtonlink956]

Something I’ve thought about (working as a refueler). Quite interesting. I always thought it was style based and never really considered the pros and cons. Thanks.

[@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.

[@muzam99]

I really liked your detailed explanation about the aircraft engine, and your explaination was so simple and clear and it was perfect and you made me understand in a single video. Thank you. Keep going...

[@jelenlesni]

9:30 "the reverses would throw loads of gravel and shit from the ground" 😀 Mentour Pilot, you are the best! I had to play this 5x just to make sure you really said that. LOL But seriously, you rock, man. I love the way you explain stuff.

[@axelode45]

Haha. "Shit" (or the swedish equivalent: "skit") is much less of a taboo word in Sweden. It almost doesn't even count as a bad word so that's why he said it so casually.

[@ahmetturk1903]

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

[@carmcarm8230]

Your videos are so interesting. You made me interested in aviation, before Seeing this channel I didn’t care at all.

[@amalrajthomas4157]

Your videos are very informative and interesting. I love them. Please keep up the amazing work.

[@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!

[@vega1287]

4:43 makes sense the same applies for car engines when they open the exhaust valvue durring the 4th step of the Otto or aspon cycle because the presure in the cylinder is still at 4bar

[@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!

[@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.

[@mfst100]

I need to say that it accidently answered so many of my childhood questions on differences in built and proportions of planes. Wow. Just like that everything became clear now that I'm almost 42.

[@Flies2FLL]

Nice video! You took it in a hotel on a layover? 1. One of the main reasons that engines are mounted to wings is that the weight of the engines tends to stabilize the wing. It doesn't so much stop it from bending as it simply adds mass which makes the effect of turbulence less on the structure, which in turn means it can be built lighter. This is the same reason that fuel is carried in the wings. On most aircraft with a center wing tank, the wings are filled first and then the center tank is filled. The reason is that fuel in the center tank does NOT stabilize the wing and in fact causes greater center section flex, so it is detrimental. 2. Rear mounted engines have their weight attached to the fuselage. Just like center tank fuel, this engine weight contributes to center section spar stress during turbulence or maneuvering. Airplanes with rear mounted engines have to have stronger, heavier wings as a result. 3. Rear mounted engines give the wing a very clean profile, which greatly contributes to performance. The Boeing 727 was known to be the second fastest airliner ever built after Concorde, yet it's landing speeds were no faster than some turboprops. The rear engine design allowed barn-door sized triple slotted flaps yet the 37 degree sweep and clean design allowed cruise at .90 mach for some models. 4. Airplanes with rear mounted engines have shorter landing gear, which makes integral air stairs more practical. This is one reason why most private jets have this design. 5. Airplanes with rear mounted engines look less impressive. Since private jets are typically owned by public corporations, the "cheaper look" is easier to get past shareholders..... 6. Sure you can mount high bypass ratio engines to the rear of an airplane. Dee Howard had a design to re-engine 727's with two CFM-56's and delete the center engine. Problems? Yes: First of all, this would be a seriously expensive modification to airframes already basically worth their scrap value. But second...The heavy weight of the high bypass engines would make it very difficult to keep the center of gravity within the proper range. This is the reason no manufacturer did this; It is difficult to keep the CG correct and this ruins usability. 7. Rear mounted engines have very quiet cabins, in comparison the rear end of a 737, which is screaming loud.... Keep up the good work!

[@williamgrowiii1244]

"Dee Howard", that name brings back some memories. I used to work in those big orange hangars in San Antonio (Of course, by then it was SAA. VT Aerospace now...)

[@Longfordmuse]

Fascinating explanation and so clearly expressed.

[@MentourPilot]

Glad you liked it!

[@ytugtbk]

Excellent explanation. Of all the aircraft I've flown in as a passenger, my fondest memories from a performance standpoint has been the MD-80. Loved the immediate throttle response and the clean swept look of the wing.

[@stepbackandthink]

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

[@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?!

[@mikepowell2776]

Only thing I’ve ever flown is a glider. No engine positioning decisions there. My late father, though, was an instructor with BOAC and East African Airways. Both flew Comets which had turbojet engines mounted inside the wing roots. Made then particularly difficult to access for maintenance and practically guaranteed that any serious malfunction would result in structural damage. The exhausts had to be angled outwards to avoid sonic damage to rear fuselage and tail plane (old fashioned phrase.) Excellent explanations so thanks very much. I fly as a passenger several times a year so you’ve resolved a lot of queries.

[@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?

[@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.

[@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!

[@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.

[@bobanundson9247]

When working for Boeing in 1966 I asked why the engines we moved on the wing 737. The plane could be lighter because it would be a counterbalance since the wing holds the weight of the total airplane.

[@c21001175]

*Aaaaaabsoluuutely Fantaaastic*

[@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? 😜👍

[@MrOsasco]

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

[@mgeiger72]

I learn something in every one of these videos.

[@Mrbfgray]

Maximizing the necessary weight directly to the lifting surfaces HAS to make good structural sense, you don't need as much extra structure to transmit load to lift area.

[@trianj12]

Outstanding presentation. Informative and and interesting. Excellent modulation. Easy for general audience to follow and understand material discussed.

[@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?

[@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.)

[@figarogiulini50]

Flew a few times between London and Johannesburg in the 70's and always preferred the VC10 to the 707 simply because it was soooo much quieter, besides being a bit faster and more comfortable

[@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.

[@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.

[@kwasiboakye9891]

Thanks for the explanation. I actually thought it was just to differentiate between the aircrafts.

[@luiscalderon3939]

Excellent video, good explanation.....you are a great pro.

[@Gohan-chan]

3:28 Well, that's rather terrifying...

[@Dbulkss]

The plane is farting. Relax

[@lennoxmundle9783]

Well explained 👍🏾

[@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!

[@TheRealAndOnlyAndrewRen]

just wondering : in rear mounted engine aircrafts, if the APU would catch on fire, could it spread to the turbines and vice versa? and on wing mounted engine aircrafts, of the engines catch on fire, and the insulation fails, could the fire spread to the wing fuel tanks?

[@smartycat528]

it's possible a wing mounted engine fire could spread to the tanks however aviation kerosene requires oxygen to burn so it would be highly unlikely to cause a runaway fire burning all of the fuel stored in the wings unless the tank had damage where air could enter. The greater risk is the structural damage an engine fire could cause to the wing, but again aircraft engines and wings are engineered to minimise the risk of these events.

[@kathrynhall1136]

Very relaxing and educational all at the same time .

[@JohanMsWorld]

Another downside of the fusulage mounted engines is the risk of getting ice from the wing sucked into the engine thus risking it to be destroyed. Its a very famous Swedish accident whom happen a couple of decades back whom you probebly heard about. A follow on question might be why no one has the pods mounted over the wings rather than under them? There are probebly good reasons for this but it would be interesting to hear about. Johan.

[@MentourPilot]

Yes, great point.

[@schr75]

The German VFW-Fokker 614 had the engines mounted on top of the wings. I think the reason you don´t see this configuration very much is because it caused some airflow issues over the top of the wing, as well as engine maintenance was quite a hassle since you had to climb the wing to get to them.

[@griffn14]

I'm no expert, but to my understanding majority of the pressure change that produces lift happens on the upper surface of the wing, so an object of such size would reduce the overall lift much more than one positioned below it. That's probably the reason the spoilers are located on top of the wing too, because they are much more effective there, instead on the lower part of the wing.

[@djrmonix]

Johan Månsson honda jet

[@jpe1]

HondaJet has jet engines _in pods_ over the wings. Others have had engines mounted _on top_ of the wing, but AFAIK Honda is the only one with jet engine nacelle pods mounted over the wings.

[@herbertajoki]

Pilot you are very brilliant man

[@prajwals.p4244]

I love u r podcasts the way you explain the things is very great I simply make complex topics into very simpler form

[@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

[@michaelr1664]

I have a question, for the purposes of combating stall and to increase maneuverability why don't aircraft have maneuvering thrusters?

[@KaitouKaiju]

99% of the time they don't need them and more weight means more drag, more fuel consumption, less range.

[@xavierlowenski7246]

Hi Captain Mentour, i am a french person but i learn a lot of thing with your explanation althought i have a poor school english level. Great job captain !

[@nellyfarnsworth7381]

6:14 You need to explain this to Boeing (Max 8).

[@hamiriyas1788]

Boeing added the murdering MCAS buck of too much pitch up as the engine were placed too much to the front

[@kamilpawel9606]

I just posted above. ... and some are just in the wrong place. I've heard Boeing will rebrand all series to🛩 666 Max evil 😁😁✈

[@kamilpawel9606]

There were 2 major air disasters in Polish Airlines .. Both from exactly the same reason. Engine exploded due to some circular part failure. Obviously back then we very very happy communist state slave to our mother russia and as a typical happy comunists instead of changing the part they just change the date on the paperwork.. yes we did love russians and their state of mind and lots of vodka😀😀 anyway those engines were at the back. When exploded most other engines were destroyed togheter with vital steering lines which are (no surprise here)also a the back. Obviously you should have emergency steering lines.. however, as mentioned before in comunism plane never failed so it would be pointless to have one. They were basically falling down of the sky. I think its just stupid idea to have them there as engine can explode and you dont want anything exploding next to the most vital piece of steering... eh but lessons were learned and we change those parts 😀 and government system luckily

[@almorkans3171]

What about low versus high-mounted wings? Most commercial aircraft have low, ie bottom of fuselage, wings? What is the reason?

[@Jack_Stafford]

Al Morkans it's because all US/Western EU airports have paved runways that are in good condition. You normally will only see a "high wing" in places where planes may have to land on runways that are in bad shape, sometimes even an air strip of dirt, grass or gravel. So it's to keep the engines up and out of the way of debris and also from Catching the ground if there is a slight tilt in the landing that you don't get with perfectly flat paved runways. It just puts engines high up so you have a larger margin of error on less-than-perfect runways or in third world airports. Propeller planes have high wings like that naturally so propeller has room to spin and clear the runway. ( unless it's on the nose then they can have low wings.) Personally I would not like the high mounted wing with engine right outside the window making noise, my favorite type of plane to fly on is kind with the engines on the tail, like a 717, they're both high enough up not to suck in debris, and all the way in the back so you can hardly hear them, especially sitting in the front of the plane.

[@almorkans3171]

Dale Stafford Sounds plausible. Thanks Dale

[@hereq]

Low mounted wings: simpler, smaller landing gear; "air cushion" effect during landing (possibly lower landing speed); perhaps a simpler design of the wing - imagine wing and belly tanks at the same level.

[@heraldtim]

This is something I've wondered about for decades. Thank you!

[@shehulsuratwala2684]

Yet another informative video. I have a question on this topic. Some UPS cargo planes have two wing mounted engines but they also have one engine mounted on vertical stabilizer as well. Can you please explain why ? Vertical stabilizer is a very odd place to mount the engine. Thank you in advance.

[@KarelKannel]

This is called trijet. Engines are very expensive part of aircraft, but you need more than one for redunancy. So at time when they were not enough reliable, 4 engines were too expensive, only two engines not enough reliable for long, over ocean flights, three seemed to be optimal. But only way to make engine placement not asymmertical you had put third engine in the middle, so into the tail. But that appeared to have downsides, for example even more complex maintenance that under wing engines.

[@LGKvideos]

Those are called ''Trijets'', I suppose they are needed when you want to have three engines. They work with like an S-shaped duct and the thrust comes right out of the rear of the plane, so it is easier to handle if there is an engine failure. Since it is in the middle there isn't that much leverage. Also, the engines are further away from the passengers (less noise), seem to be more efficient and is better at takeoff's. Disadvantages are that they are complex to make and less efficient than twinjets.

[@ShawnD1027]

Tri-jets were configured that way because they are from an era when a particular size/capacity was necessary, but having only two engines were not sufficient for the design (both in power and reliability), but four engines would have been excessive. As engine designs have advanced, two engines are able to suffice when three used to be necessary.

[@makantahi3731]

because dc-10 could not have 2 engines in these days, if put 4 engines below wings it was already seen so they decided for something unusual. these days that engines were the biggest and because of3 , dc 10 is smaller than b747(both have same power engines, 20-25 tons of thrust)

[@geezer652]

After McDonald bought Douglas, the DC-10 was redesigned and renamed the MD-11. Boeing is now the manufacturer/service provider. The MD-11F is the three engine aircraft flown by UPS and Fedex, and other cargo carriers. NOT the Lockheed L-1011 TriSTAR,

[@YourselfAndEye]

The main reason for the tail mounted design is to reduce ground clearance. This makes boarding easier when a jet bridge isn't available.

[@thatguygio]

Thanks! I've watched most of your newer stuff, so this was a great find.

[@williamthethespian]

Excellent. Thank you. (subscribed)

[@osemekeugbo999]

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

[@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

[@lethabrooks9112]

This is the best explanation on Engines I've seen in a long time!

[@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.

[@tw06le1]

This is very informative.... I sleep though all my flights 😂

[@JMWexperience]

Thanks for your explanation of engine mounting positions. I learned some new things today!

[@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