HomePeople & BlogsRelated VideosMore From: Mentour Pilot

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

17082 ratings | 729256 views
http://www.cambly.com/invite/mentour 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: https://appstore.com/mentouraviation 📲Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.teamta.mentouraviation 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 : https://vimeo.com/8511733 Air-clips.com https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeP7ZHcuDFnN5GQCReHDfpA Learn Engineering https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqZQJ4600a9wIfMPbYc60OQ Pilot Report https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpC5RkMvlUgiQtx3Tx9tplw Joe Muschnik https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWqcCcjkpCiWS60L_DjroFw Understanding Airplanes https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCh7C3C5hKAVZR0SCPhECrMQ
Category: People & Blogs
Get embed code!
Text Comments (2028)
Jeffrey Taylor (17 hours ago)
Did you speak to the efficiency of under-wing mounted engines? There's less fowled air flowing into the mouth of a wing mounted motor. Better I should think?
HalospeedGT5 (1 day ago)
good info clear and simple
Jim The EDC Guy (2 days ago)
I love your professionalism, and your casual addition of curse words lol really catches me off guard!
SgtMclupus (2 days ago)
Since others have asked, but I couldn't find any answer, I will "join the club": Are you Swedish? 😜
ONE NATION (2 days ago)
Very decent and gentleman pilot
Sergio Sánchez (2 days ago)
Man, I really like your videos, but you have a tendency to "burn" de audio. You have to make the mic less sensible and then "upscale" it while editing the video. Love from spain
Mentour Pilot (2 days ago)
Thanks! I just ordered a new 🎤
Fabio Connelly (2 days ago)
Great job man! understood all of that. Never knew some of that :)
Gavin TheGamer52 (3 days ago)
Why is there is no back and wing engined planes
Dr. Fantomas (4 days ago)
MS FSX Brought me here :) thanx though interesting !
Engineer Ahmed (4 days ago)
Don't high wing with wing mounted Engines fix it all? For super safety add a wing strut too like Cessna & connect to engine too. That will 3 times stiffen engine too.
Sammy Hamawi (4 days ago)
a relative of mine works for aruba airlines
Sasha waxman (5 days ago)
Can I ask why a T tail instead of canards? It seems to me that canards would lend much better handling characteristics.
Mentour Pilot (5 days ago)
Good question!
Aviswiss Aviswiss (6 days ago)
Do you think aircraft manufacturers will place larger engines over the wings for example like the Honda jet, so they don’t have to enlarge the gears?Because there’s a lot of place there.
Birk Iversen (7 days ago)
sweep other sugar drink sacred chief anniversary enable expression conviction traditional.
tremarctos9 (7 days ago)
I can't understand how the wings are flying with 1000's of gallons of liquid jet fuel and decreasing while flying - the wings with engines are already holding the weight of the engine, plus additional liquid fuel? I looked at some of the wings designs and it seems impossible they could hold any liquid fuel, especially when how thin they look and they are designed for aerodynamics not storing liquid fuel. I know the jet engine compress air to fly and Im starting to think the fuel thing is just bullshit and compressed air is being pumped into the planes for flying. something makes no sense when it comes the text book amount of jet fuel a plane can hold.
Guo Yu (7 days ago)
哈哈哈,没有后视镜,ACI来的能笑一年
Shady (8 days ago)
I work on Fan Blade Platforms, Oil Seals, Spinner Cones and Outlet Guide Vanes on GE90 engines as a Composite Technician. Love my job and it always fasinates me how it all comes together perfectly to make awesome power plants. Great video btw. Nicely done!
Shady (8 days ago)
Mentour Pilot i would rather have your job but hey, ill take anything in the aircraft business lol
Mentour Pilot (8 days ago)
Very cool!
Andrew C (8 days ago)
Also allot of the time rear engine aircraft are small. And the wings are too low to the ground to fit an engine
Mentour Pilot (8 days ago)
Correct.
Andrew C (8 days ago)
It's funny how you talk about the good of having rear engines and mention private jet engines and say they don't have rear view mirrors. But the private jet you showed on the picture is a gulfstream, they have rear view mirrors on the side. Little ones.
Andrew C (8 days ago)
Yea I'm in maintenance and the G4 had tiny mirrors the size of a small mint packet. There on the inside right up against the window and there's a little dial that rotates it upwards and downwards only. They are curved and can only see well enough to see under the wing if there's people there.
Mentour Pilot (8 days ago)
I did not know that!
Alberto Lumbayan Jr. (9 days ago)
Amazing video!
Mentour Pilot (9 days ago)
I’m so happy you liked it!
jeepster1231 (10 days ago)
very interesting info!
soul man (10 days ago)
Jet fuel HOAX. Compressed air energy is what planes use. Wake up people, ya all being scammed.
Jack neff (11 days ago)
do all the elevators use jackscrews?
Digvijay Tanwar (11 days ago)
Very informative video. Is there app or any website where we can practice radio call for different airports
S Droid (11 days ago)
Fascinating, I learned a lot. Thanks. I wish you would have gone into a bit more detail about why the wing mounted engines are slung in front of the wing, rather than behind. If you read this, would you please explain that in a bit more detail?
geinling (11 days ago)
if something is or isnot regular is not a reason why something is beter then the other...
Joe Anzal (12 days ago)
whoever took that shit on the runway needed a super stall. lmao
Francis Zhao (14 days ago)
Reverse thrust always baffled me, it just seems like it works against newton's third law. Like putting an electric fan on a sailboat to power it...
Kohai (14 days ago)
Remeber kids: loads of shit and gravel can come of the engine, stay way! :3
Ravi Basnet (15 days ago)
so now i can fly an aeroplane.
Jr Varela (16 days ago)
All plane Have Rolls Royce Engine?
GeneralMartok00 (17 days ago)
I don't get it... according to this, rear mounted engines are shite... There must be a reason some models still chose this configuration??
Swat Katz (17 days ago)
cool i have always want to know this. I thought he engines are mounted in rear bcz of the size of the airplane
Zayed AL (18 days ago)
great video ,, thanks a lot. I have heard that engines in the tail are 80% quieter which is a new proven study.
Alexandre aparecido munhoz (18 days ago)
Nice explanation. Gained a new subscriber from Brazil!!
El Buitre (18 days ago)
I wanna thank you for all the info you give out, I’m not a pilot but I’m a big fan of airplanes...... Keep up the good work 👍🏾👍🏾
Ming Yao Koh (19 days ago)
iirc I read about having risk of shattering the glass of the terminal if reverse thrust is used
MrAlwaysBlue (19 days ago)
I never thought there were that many considerations
JaArRyi FleshBlood (19 days ago)
About correcting the plane ,at least your moving so you don’t just sit there ,
Bob Oliver (19 days ago)
That was just ridiculous. ..that whole video couldve been incorporated in other, more interesting videos. ..this was retarded
PrestonCurrie (19 days ago)
On the 747 it looks so wired with one engine on that wing.
video99.co.uk (19 days ago)
It sounds like the ideal location from a flying point of view would be in the wings, Comet style, roughly at the centre of gravity. However maintenance would be harder and the wing structural design would probably be almost impossible. But it would allow for a huge engine.
Bart Daanne (20 days ago)
Thought I read on Wikipedia that since 1960, 77 DC9s have been lost. I have to look it up again to make sure, but if 77 is actually correct, that would mean that engines in the back are not quite as safe as under the wings.
Seth B (20 days ago)
I hate automated controls on anything. I worked for Garret AirResearch/Allied Signal, and we had engines mounted off all kinds of silly pylons on the wings, and the fuselage. These were test engines and the planes were odd looking, to say the least. Their main products were APUs. (huffers)
david doggy (20 days ago)
I have always wondered why .
G POWER DRAGON (21 days ago)
the engines in the back is more dangerous for possible ice buildup. ice can be sucks in if the wings are not clean enough
Casey Cactus (21 days ago)
What I want to know is why do some planes have a third engine in the vertical stabilizer such as KLM ones?
Nkeyance Nkeylou (21 days ago)
In case of bad landing or landing in the belly , the engines mounted on the wings will suffer damages and catch fire . Engines mounted on the tail will remain intact in case of hard belly landing
Gino Asci (21 days ago)
Excellent video, i learned a lot. Everything you talked about makes sense, and i will remember all of it. I will make sure not to fly a T-Tail design on a really windy day. Thank you very much for taking the time to make it and uploading it.
Harold Weaver Smith (21 days ago)
The trade-off between wing-mounted and tail-mounted engines is also one of aerodynamic efficiency vs structural efficiency. Wing-mounted engines are more structurally efficient because (as you said) they spread the load along the wing, thus reducing the bending forces at the wing root. On the other hand, the wing-mounted engine pylons interfere with the airflow around the wing, making it less efficient. Tail mounted engines allow the wing to be aerodynamically optimised, but force it to be stronger at the roots. This is why the 707 had wing-mounted engines and the VC-10 had tail-mounted ones: the 707 was designed primarily for 'First World' airports with long runways, whereas the VC-10 was designed for BOAC's 'Empire' routes, which involved a lot of short runways in hot-and-high conditions. Getting as much lift as possible from the wing was therefore more important for the VC-10, which was also a little faster too. I don't understand your comment about being able to put bigger engines under the wing that on the tail. Bigger engines under the wings force the undercarriage to be longer, which in turn makes it wider, which exacerbates the engine-out asymmetry you mentioned, and puts a bigger cut-out in the lower wing skin for bays, which in turn weakens it. Tail-mounted engines are higher up and independent of landing gear considerations so you can put bigger engines there with less penalty. It's worth noting that in the days of propfan development, both of the flying prototypes used rear-engined DC-9s as testbeds, and propfans were exceptionally wide: basically a turbofan with such a large diameter that putting a duct around it wouldn't have been worth the weight.
Stazey Thompson (21 days ago)
Great Video .....I all ways wondered why most of the T-tails had the engines mounted where they are
9X Ninety-X (21 days ago)
Less talking to the camera more illustration
Eric Smith (22 days ago)
One small correction. "FOD" does not stand for "Foreign Object Damage". It stands for "Foreign Object Debris". I know this because I work at a company which builds communications satellites and FOD is a very big risk to space flight hardware. We go thru extensive FOD avoidance/elimination training annually.
Eric Smith (22 days ago)
I would also assume that with the rear mounted engines, a single engine failure would not cause as much yaw since both engines are closer to the centerline of the plane.
Lowell Dever (22 days ago)
I flew from New Orleans to Miami in the very last seat of an MD80. You are right between the engines, which are extremely loud. You can’t look out of the windows, because the engines block the view. And your seat can’t recline, because you are pressed up against the bathroom wall. If you fly on an MD80, do not get stuck in those last seats.
clavin wilton sequeira (22 days ago)
Another benefit of low mounted engines would be that , if engines are placed at back and there is ice on the wings it could potentially damage the turbines or the fan ,which is what happened in Scandinavian airlines ac which led to a compressor stall and it crashed (everyone survived thank god).
geneziz44 (22 days ago)
Thank you
philip dias (22 days ago)
Can engines on the wings and back on the tail be used together?
Mentour Pilot (22 days ago)
Yes, the Lockheed L1011 uses a combination
Erich Jeske (23 days ago)
Bin einige male mit der Boeing 727 geflogen. Sie startet wie ein Formel 1 Rennwagen in hebt wie ein Kampfjet ab. Die stark angewinkelten und weit nach hinten gesetzten Tragflächen mit dem T Leitwerk geben dieser Maschine eine einzigartige schöne Silhouette. Die 727 ist für mich immer noch das schönste Passagierflugzeug der Welt. Auch von der Konstruktion her sollte die Boeing Vorteile gegenüber den klassischen Maschinen mit 2 Triebwerken unter den Flügeln haben. Das Fahrwerk braucht nicht so hochbeinig gebaut werden. Insofern ist es auch konstruktiv einfacher dieses zu fertigen. Außerdem haben die am hinteren Rumpf befestigten Triebwerke viel mehr Befestigungsfläche wie bei einer Anbringung am Flügel. Die Kräfte die ein Tragwerk aushalten muss entfallen bei der 727. Das Höhenleitwerk ist durch seine Bauform nicht den Verwirbelungen der Tragflächen ausgesetzt. Auch das aus Konstruktionsgründen weit nach hinten versetzte Hauptfahrwerk lässt keine Bodenberührung bei dem Abheben der Maschine zu. Extreme Winkel sind deshalb völlig Problemlos. Weiterhin ist der Treibstoff in den Tragflächen und in der Rumpfunterseite von den Triebwerken weiter entfernt. Grundsätzlich sind auch die Turbinen nicht so in Bodennähe angebracht was als Sicherheitsvorteil zu werten ist. Wegen der stark gefeilten Flügelform kann auch der Luftwiderstand nicht so groß sein wie das bei den anderen Maschinen der Fall ist. Das hintere Höhenruder kann insgesamt aus dem Rumpfhinterteil in der Nähe der Motorenaufhängung bewegt werden. Ebenfalls kann das Seitenleitwerk damit Bestandteil der Versteifung des hinteren Rumpfes werden. Bei anderen Konstruktionen wird das Seitenleitwerk immer auf dem Rumpf oben mit Bolzen befestigt was auch als instabil angesehen werden kann. Die Vorflügel sind bei der 727 durchgängig an dem Tragwerk nutzbar. Außerdem wird bei der 727 der Abgasstrahl nicht unter den Tragflächen geführt. Die mit Überschall ausströmende Luft vermindert den Auftrieb weil sich der Überdruck unter den Flügeln zu einem Teil wieder abströmt. Wenn die Boeing 777 einer Konstruktion wie das bei der 727 der Fall ist entfällt natürlich die komplexe Fertigung am Heck weil kein drittes Triebwerk verbaut werden müsste. Die großflächige Anbringung der Motoren kann in Tropfenform erfolgen. Die Strömungseigenschaften solcher Bauweise sind erheblich besser wie das bei den Tragflächengondeln der Fall ist. Auch arbeiten die Rückstosskräfte der Triebwerke nicht an dem Höhenleitwerk wie bei der 777 welches bis zum deutlich sichtbaren flattern führt. Letztendlich wäre sogar der runde Rumpf (oft auch als Röhre bezeichnet) länger. Das Volumen vergrößert sich allein deswegen Weil man nicht bereits kurz hinter dem Tragwerk mit der Abflachung nach oben beginnen Muss um eine Bodenberührung auszuschließen. Der Rumpf könnte viel weiter hinten einfach spitz zulaufen. Die Strömungseigenschaften würden auch sehr viel besser. Hinzu kommt die bessere Gleiteigenschaft bei Notwasserungen. Kommt eines der beiden Triebwerke zuerst mit dem Wasser in Berührung reist es das Flugzeug auseinander. Nur wenn beide Triebwerke zugleich mit identischer Fläche und dann auch noch ohne Wellengang (wie das im Hudson River der Fall war) kann bei Gondeln eine Notlandung auf dem Wasser gelingen Auch auf Wüstensand könnte so ein Flugzeug besser auf dem Rumpf gleiten. Bei einer Anbringung am Rumpf stellt sich dieses Problem erst gar nicht. Wenn beide Triebwerke am hinteren Rumpf so angebracht werden, dass sich die ausströmende Luft nicht parallel zur Flugrichtung beweget sondern versetzt (wie ein V nach hinten) dann würde beim Ausfall eines der beiden Motore das Flugzeug selbst stabilisieren. Zudem würde der Wirkungsgrad besser sein weil jeder Abgasstrom sein eigenes Luftpolster hat. (ähnlich wie bei dem Bodeneffekt nur eben nicht so stark). Es gibt aber noch weitere Vorteile einer Anbringung der Tourbienen am Heck. Der Schub am Heck ist für das Flugverhalten immer von Vorteil. Die Notrutschen sind kürzer und damit leichter. Toiletten und Wickelräume können auf angehobener Ebene den Heckbereich voll nutzen. Würde gerne mal eine 777 in der Bauform der Boeing 727 sehen. Bei unverändertem Tankvolumen müssten die 777 800-1000km mehr Rechweite aufweisen und das bei größerem Innenraum.
Lodia Moore (23 days ago)
I would have though engines mounted under a wing would be more dangerous with regards to passengers because of the fact that fuel is carried in the wings.
D.C. Dave (23 days ago)
Wow!! This is so INTENSE!! I don't wanna fly anymore, lol!
Marcio Albuquerque (23 days ago)
I love on wings
CΛRL ΛTTΞNIΞSΞ (24 days ago)
Awesome. I love the detail. For a few years I have been intermittently searching here and there for information on planes, and now I realize I just need to watch your videos. AND, Aviation English? As an English instructor, you just pointed me in a direction that aid my enjoyment and income and decrease the time it will take for me to be able to afford ground school! Thanks!
ShibeAscend (24 days ago)
A pilot uses a picture of a 747 with 2 engines. Interesting.
ShibeAscend (23 days ago)
erikoarneberg um
erikoarneberg (23 days ago)
Do you mean two DIFFERENT engines? What I saw was GE's test aircraft (a 747) with one of their newer, larger high-bypass ratio turbofan engines mounted in the #2 position (inboard, port wing). After they have done extensive development and ground testing of a new type of engine, they can start flight-testing it using this aircraft- the other three engines have more than enough thrust to handle a lightly loaded 747, and testing on a four engine plane gives a greater safety margin than a twin-engined plane. Its inboard position means you still have good directional control (better thrust symmetry) using the outboard engine if they have to shut down the test engine. Also, mounting a larger, heavier engine inboard, where the wing is thicker and stronger puts less stress on the wing.. I hope I understood your question!
Robert Ostler (24 days ago)
Chem trails! Chem trail! Conspiracy! Moon landing fake! Globe earth is fake. Floride in the water. Conspiracys, Illuminati, Rothschild bushes Clinton's. Where is my tin foil hat?
Jaydeep Singh (25 days ago)
Hi Captain, I must say all of your videos are simply fantastic. I really love watching and learning from such clearly described and detailed explanations you give, amazing work! I am sure you must be an amazing pilot/instructor as well.
KeyLimeLemon4U (25 days ago)
Interesting stuff, thanks.
StellarimFTW (25 days ago)
Yoo I stayed at the same hotel as you, its in Germany but I forgot the name :D
Tony Lester (26 days ago)
You are a great pilot not an engineer. So here it is from an engineers point of view. Planes required that Center of Mass be in front of Center of the Lift. It is easier to do this by placing engines in middle of plane and as low as possible. On a plane with very large engines it is simply impossible to put them in the back, to much weight to balance the plane. The wing would have to be in the back. If you have engines in tail you can make wings thinner and therefore it can be faster. But in tail mounts you usual have to go t-tail because of all the disturb. air from engines. So if you take 737 engines wings, fuel are in middle around center of mass which is right around engine placement slightly below fuselage. If you take a DC9, a wing and engine are in back half of plane and fuel is more in front but you have to be more careful with fuel weight. Also COM is in line with fuselage making less stable than 737. If you take learjet, which is an extreme case, the COM is so far back and so close to center of lift behind wind that it is basically unstable. The perfect plane is probably a VariEze type, everything in the back, canards in the front, which was original Wright Brothers design, but like always center of lift is behind center of mass.
M R A Scott (26 days ago)
The infamous F-104 Starfighter killed several hundred of its own pilots thanks to its T-tail and hence proclivity for unrecoverable 'super-stalls'. That God-awful machine is still "admired" by a lot of people, for reasons that completely escape me. There's the old saying (in engineering/design) "if it looks right, it is right" - I've always thought T-tails don't look right.
M R A Scott (23 days ago)
If by "stellar performance" you mean really, REALLY fast, I agree. But that's all it could do - go really, REALLY fast in a straight line. That's not what aviation is about, to me anyway. AS to pilot deaths, I'm not about to spend time totting up the aggregate deaths, all airforces for you, but its moniker as a "widow maker" was well-earned. The simple fact remains, it amounted to a vanity project for what's-his-face, the psychopath designer who wanted bragging-rights for coming up with the fastest 'airplane' on Earth - which he of course didn't have to risk his own neck flying.
erikoarneberg (23 days ago)
Please provide documentation that "SEVERAL HUNDRED" F-104 pilots were killed. While there WERE accidents throughout its development, deployment, and service life (It was known as a "hot ship", its flight/handling parameters had to be followed carefully; take offs & landing particularly- it wasn't a plane for novices) it had a long, long career with many air forces around the world. It had stellar performance (for its day), and once pilots learned how to master it, most of them loved the Starfighter. If it had killed "hundreds of pilots", it would have been grounded and removed from service..
Michael LeBlanc (26 days ago)
Keep those Jack Screws Greased and Pitot tubes clear fellas and if you don't trust your artificial horizon look at your cup of coffee.
ciphernemo (26 days ago)
Awesome. Even as someone who's not in the aviation industry at all, it was nice to learn the difference. It all makes sense now. :-)
Olivia Moore (26 days ago)
are you a swede or danish or norwegian? =D
BillyNoMates1974 (26 days ago)
Since jet engines are getting more reliable, I was wondering if we will ever end up with single jet engine passenger aircraft. possible engine on the top of the fuselage at the back (like a DC-10)
Shojiro Katsuragi (26 days ago)
There's also the question of stability. Thrust behind the centre of mass makes for far less stable flight than thrust alongside or ahead of the centre of mass. Especially when you're working with thrust vectoring, though I doubt this is a factor in normal aeroplanes.
beau danner (27 days ago)
Loads of gravel and shit from the ground. Hahaha 🤣😂
Ben Whoever (27 days ago)
But you see engines are either mounted on the wings or in the back. how come we never see 4-engines airplanes with 2 engines mounted on the wing and 2 in the back?
Maniac3020 (28 days ago)
I first learned about off-balance thrust with personal experience in Microsoft Flight simulator. I was flying a "test flight" with a 747, Engines 3 & 4 were scripted to fail. When I tried to fly back to the runway, the aircraft seemed to be uncontrollable, it would yaw to the right with full left rudder. I crashed twice, and while trying to figure out what was going wrong, I realized.... Full power on the left wing... no power on the right.... *facepalm* no wonder I'm losing control. I learned about this facet of flying before anyone taught it to me.
Andreas Seemüller (28 days ago)
I would also add that the rear mounted engines allow you to have a shorter landing gear. Therefore your fuselage is lower to the ground, making it easier to load/unload and to leave/enter the plane via a ladder integrated into the door.
Siddhesh Padhye (28 days ago)
How about engines under the wings AND at the back ?
jimmy87251 (28 days ago)
Can you tell us something about the servicing schedule for the engines on a 737 and what a full engine service costs?
Sembat Putnam (28 days ago)
Nice video, great info and very well explained to laymen.
4TheRecord (28 days ago)
Sorry guys, I was really desperate and couldn't hold it and took a shit on your runway. Hope I didn't damage any engines.
Stage B (29 days ago)
LOL the noise is so much louder with a DC-9 with any wing-engine mounted aircraft.
M.R Steengrei (29 days ago)
i should add one important benefit to back mounted engines. . . god forbid, in case of landing on water or on land without landing gear ,those planes with high mounted, out of the way engines in the back, stand a much much better chance of delivering a safe landing.
TAU (29 days ago)
"towardsh"..
ConstantineAtByron (29 days ago)
Probably filming this video in a hotel room with the beds behind you would not have been my first choice. You may as well film in the bathroom. Otherwise, great video.
Sim Lucien (29 days ago)
Even pilots have to deal with turbo lag 😢
CO Jones (29 days ago)
How about this question. Why no jets with engines mounted On Top of the wings? I can think of a couple advantages. No FOD damage. Less risk to the tanks during a fire(heat goes up away from the wing tanks. Engines can be bigger and the landing gear lower. Edit: Hmm, seems there are a couple planes that use over the wing engines Boeing C-17, HondaJet, and some others.
erikoarneberg (23 days ago)
Look up the Antonov 72/74, the Antonov 32, or the Beriev 6, 10, 12 & 14 or R-1or Be-200, or some of the Dornier flying boats, or what I always thought was a phenomenal looking aircraft: the Martin P-6M Seamaster, although to be fair, listing flying boats is a bit of a 'cheat'...
tombmaster972 (29 days ago)
companies which produces aircrafts like md-80 could add controllable canards on the nose to prevent lee-winds in front of the horizontal stabilizer like the cool looking piaggio avanti
Avocado (1 month ago)
I personally dont like high mounted engine with T-wing at the back, as a passenger I feel it is lesss stable at landing and take off.
John J (27 days ago)
I had the worst flight of my life on a BAE 146 whisperjet. They don't have engines at the back but they do have a T-wing. I was sat in the back row as it flew through a thunderstorm over mainland Europe. The rear of the plane was swinging side to side and pitching up and down so much that food, drinks, bags etc were being thrown around the cabin. i remember as it started to get bad I was holding my drink up in the air to try and stop it spilling and my arm was waving all over the place trying to keep it level. Then I gave up and dropped it and just hung on for dear life.
Jeffrey Hildebrand (1 month ago)
So as a native English speaker and a former F.O and CFI how would I sign up working for Cambly? pm me
Jeffrey Hildebrand (1 month ago)
I looked in ABOUT US> JOBS but oddly enough no jobs as an english aviation instructor to teach English (pilot or general) Am I looking in the wrong spot?
Mentour Pilot (1 month ago)
Visit their website and sign up!
Jeffrey Hildebrand (1 month ago)
Great info. But no carrier I know of allors reverse taxi. <- former f.o.
Mentour Pilot (1 month ago)
I have seen it in Asia for example, mostly turbo-props though.
Jeffrey Hildebrand (1 month ago)
I also worked ramp 10 yrs
Baptiste Picard (1 month ago)
Item planet cave brush conviction nine hold naked mortgage.
Joshua Fischbeck (1 month ago)
This is incredible! keep it up!
Don Juan72 (1 month ago)
the advantage of rear mounted engines is asymmetrical thrust in case of an engine failure since the engines are closer to the airplane center line than wing mounted engines but like you said there are pros and cons. thanks,
Eric Eichler (1 month ago)
As a frequent traveler (not a pilot) for business, there are few planes that beat a MD-88/90/717 in first class for regional travel. It is smooth as silk and so, so quite that far from the engines. I appreciate this video from a pilot perspective, but I'll miss those rear engine planes as they get phased out.
negativespace000 (1 month ago)
Why in the hell don't the manufacturers completely cover these passenger jets in cameras for the pilot to use to see behind/around his equipment?
mickey cos (1 month ago)
why don't you speak about Chem trailing ,....NASA is open about it !!! Your a Pilot , not saying you fly one of the chem trail planes ,.. but they are out there ,..address how we are all being poisoned,..
Sagar Kapasi (1 month ago)
Get Educated
2canines (1 month ago)
why don't we have roof mounted wings with the engines in center of mass under the wings?