- #1
yrjosmiel73
Hello.
Do you think the idea of placing the jet engine at the front is plausible?
Why? Why not?
Thanks
Yrjosmiel
Do you think the idea of placing the jet engine at the front is plausible?
Why? Why not?
Thanks
Yrjosmiel
yrjosmiel73 said:Hello.
Do you think the idea of placing the jet engine at the front is plausible?
Why? Why not?
Thanks
Yrjosmiel
Yeah, no. Aircraft aren't constructed with counterweights sticking out behind the fuselage. Besides engine placement, there are several other factors which govern aircraft design. One of the most important is keeping airframe weight to a minimum so that a realistic payload capability can be obtained. (payload =weight of pilot, passengers, fuel, cargo, etc.)yrjosmiel73 said:Assume that there is a counterweight behind the aerocraft. How about that?
russ_watters said:Another problem with having the engine all the way in the front is that you then need to channel hot exhaust gases to the back of the plane.
Not for a powered aircraft, but for a glider, a heavier glider (within reason) will have the same glide slope but at a higher speed. Both the forward speed and sink rate will be greater, but if the updraft is enough to keep the glider going, then then heavier weight will result in faster forward speed. Full scale gliders use water for "ballast", which is dumped at some point before landing to reduce landing speed. Model contest gliders use metal ballast to increase weight on windy days in order to return back upwind (faster speed needed here) after following a thermal downwind. Model dynamic soaring gliders are more than double the weight of a similar sized thermal type glider, since the shear boundary between two streams of air moving at different speeds provides a large energy source for dynamic soaring. The last dynamic soaring speed record that I've read about is 498 mph. There's a youtube video of a 468 mph run (hard to see, but the 405 mph run in the second half of the video tracks the glider better).yrjosmiel73 said:Will there ever be an instance when heavier aerocraft is better?
yrjosmiel73 said:It's going to be harder to control, right?
A front positioned jet engine is located at the front of the aircraft, near the nose, while a back positioned jet engine is located at the rear of the aircraft, near the tail. This placement affects the aerodynamics and balance of the aircraft.
Both front and back positions have their own advantages and disadvantages. A front positioned jet engine provides better balance and maneuverability, while a back positioned jet engine allows for a larger cargo space and lower fuel consumption. Ultimately, the best position depends on the specific needs and design of the aircraft.
The decision to place a jet engine in the front or back is influenced by various factors such as aircraft design, weight distribution, center of gravity, aerodynamics, performance requirements, and safety considerations. These factors must be carefully evaluated to determine the optimal position for the jet engine.
Both front and back positioned jet engines have their own safety concerns. A front positioned jet engine may increase the risk of foreign object damage during takeoff and landing, while a back positioned jet engine may pose a fire risk to the aircraft's tail. However, these risks can be mitigated through proper design and maintenance protocols.
The position of a jet engine can significantly affect its performance. A front positioned jet engine may provide better stability and handling, while a back positioned jet engine may offer better fuel efficiency and range. Additionally, the position can also impact the aircraft's speed, acceleration, and overall flight characteristics.