Word going round our place is that we will be getting the winglets very soon!!! Also as attempts to dispose of our 753’s failed we are getting another one (presumably from Condor). This aircraft will replace A320 G-TCKE. No, I don’t know where that one is going!

I wouldn’t expect much reduction in the wake vortex problem as most of the vortex originates from the flap at the junction with the aileron.

When you took your ‘descending over Heathrow’ photo you got my house in the picture! If you look at the upper left side of the picture you can see the M4/M25 intersetion. Just beyond that to the left is a group of 3 roads in the shape of a triangle with a green cricket field in the middle. My road is the further tight one.

Jeanske, Airbus employ ECAM rather than EICAS.

…but to answer your question properly…I have never flown an aircraft with rear engines (I tell a lie I have flown a few light aircraft with the engine at the wrong end!) however the fact that all the noise is contained in the economy section and as far as possible from my office coupled with the ease of assymetric flight would make me keen to fly one.

On the other hand you could just follow the Airbus principle and have the FBW take away all the hassle of pitch/power couples and assymetries! Incoming…

Originally posted by Arthur
Your wing is aerodynamically and lift-wise cleaner without engines dangling off them too.

While this was definitely the case with older aircraft I remain to be convinced with modern installations. Current pod and pylon design acts as a very effective lower surface wing fence restricting spanwise flow!

Just for starters, advantages of tail mounting:

1) Increased distance from runway so reduced chance of foreign object ingestion.
2) Quiet cabin (except for the area alongside the engines).
3) No risk of a pod scrape during a wing down crosswind landing.
4) The engine thrust line is about as close as you can get to the centerline of the aircraft so there will be minimal nose up/down pitch change with addition/removal of power.
5) Laterally the engines are also immediately proximate to the centerline so an engine out situation causes the minimum possible swing.
6) For non-FBW installations the thrust lever linkages have a much straighter and easier routing.
7) In my view they just look right on regional aircraft!

Disadvantages of tail mounting:

1) possible ingestion of contaminants from the top surface of the wings (eg anti-icing fluids, etc)
2) high g loadings cause greater shear forces on mounting pylons.
3) on large aircraft it can be difficult to inspect the engines during walkround.
4) this also means increased difficulty servicing the engine in situ on larger aircraft.
5) on many installations the fuselage area just inside the cabin from the engines is taken up with mounting and engine services so the fuselage ends up being longer than it would need to otherwise be. The alternative to the longer airframe is reduced cabin volume.
6) Engines are mounted higher than the tanks that feed them so in the event of total fuel pump failure there would only be the natural suction from the engines rather than gravity assisted flow.
7) Tailpanes invariably have to be relocated to the top of the fin requiring a stronger fin structure and therefore increased weight and more complication for de-icing on large aircraft. This also leeds to ‘deep stall’ tendencies.
8) Engine intakes may well suffer from bad airflow due to air passage around the fuselage or wing. They can also suffer from water spray ingestion from deflected nosewheel spray.

Yes, weight is a big factor in more than the obvious ways. Things such as antiskid become an item of weightless software rather than a big heavy mechanical device so it’s not just the weight of the fluid you are saving but also the associated ancillaries. Wiggly amps also never need topping up, bleeding or replacing, etc. Also no fluid to leak, overheat, get contaminated,etc.