Talk:Podded engine

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Examples of Non Podded Engines[edit]

One of the examples given of airplanes not using podded engines was the DC-10, which does use podded engines. I replaced it with the F-16 Fighting Falcon, a fighter jet with an embedded engine.

On a related note, do half of the pictures in these boxes not show up for anyone else?--Raguleader 18:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First successful design[edit]

The page said The first successful design to use podded engines was the Boeing 707. I have added the qualification commercial design as at least one military plane, the B-52, preceded the 707 and has podded engines. It would be nice to track down the first use of podded jet engines on any plane. Polpo 16:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the Me-262 counts as having podded engines? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Me-262 would be an excellent example to use, though I'm not sure if it's the FIRST model to use podded engines (I seem to recall some larger WWI biplanes that had the engines in pods between the wings, but I'm unfamiliar with the aircraft of that era).--Raguleader 21:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there were any WW-I biplanes with jet engines, podded or not :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but by definition, a prop engine in a pod would be a podded engine. We'd have to re-word the article so that it's not specifically about jet engines though.--Raguleader 06:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the Ford Trimotor would count as having podded prop engines (at least the outboard two). -- RoySmith (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is a citation required for the fact that most combat jets carry less people than large civil aircraft? Surely that is just common sense. Also this paragraph

If a podded engine explodes, catches fire, or breaks free from its mounts, it is less likely to critically damage the aircraft than an engine embedded within the airframe. Although such events seldom happen to modern jet engines, this possibility helps explain why podded engines are commonly used on commercial and general aviation aircraft that may carry fare-paying passengers. Military combat jets are often occupied only by crewmembers who can bail out of the craft in an emergency, making this safety factor less crucial.[citation needed]

is badly worded - the author has already explained why commercial airlines generally have podded wings (light wings, low noise, maintenance etc).

Blutack (talk) 13:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced article[edit]

There are NO sources used in the article whatsoever. This is a violation of the Reliable sources policy, thus the entire article is Original research. No further explanation is needed. - BillCJ (talk) 07:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lets not forget about wing efficiency...[edit]

Pretty sure that having the engines in a pod configuration allows you to continue to use an effective wing cross-section instead of having to thicken it up to encase the engine? This doesn't seem to be mentioned? - Xrarey (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the reverse is true - the area around the pylon mounts on the wing are effectively non-lift producing, due to the disturbed airflow caused by the pylon mounting. So the wing needs to be slightly longer in span to offset this.

In addition, the use of wing root mounted engines allows the wing root structure to be made more robustly as the airstream through the wing roots effectively reduces the wing's effective thickness at high Mach numbers - the wing behaves as though it were thinner. This is why the V bombers all had wing root mounted engines, they were designed to fly at high subsonic speeds at altitudes where the wing's Critical Mach number became important. This allows an aircraft with an apparent 'thick' wing root to achieve speeds higher than other types with thick wing roots and pylon mounted engines.

Pylon mounted engines are considerably more aerodynamically inefficient because of the additional wetted area, i.e., more drag, of the pods, pylons, and the disturbed airflow over the wing. On a four-engined aircraft that's 4 x the installation drag compared to a design with the engines buried. The benefits of pylon mounted engines are mainly in maintenance and in the ability to re-engine the aircraft with different engines more easily. Another theoretical benefit is that in case of engine damage or extreme engine vibration, the complete engine/pylon assembly can drop away from the wing leaving the aircraft to land normally. In at least three instances where this has happened however, the results have been unfortunate; BOAC Flight 712, American Airlines Flight 191, El Al Flight 1862

On rear mounted engines the disadvantage is again the additional drag caused by the nacelles, with the added drawback that on T-tailed aircraft the engines become ineffective when entering the stall, often leading to deep stalls.

Pylon and pod mounted jet engines were originally devised by Germany in the late war period because at that stage of the war they did not have the time needed to design proper engine installations, and so by using pod or pylon mounted ones, jet aircraft could be brought into service much more quickly at a time when they were desperately needed. The performance disadvantages of podded engines were not important when facing, for the most part, piston-engined Allied fighters.

With the advent of high-bypass ratio turbofans however, the need for such large diameter engines has made the 'buried' design unachievable, so with these large engines, pylon mounting is effectively unavoidable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fuselage-mounted podded engines[edit]

The page reads "However, it is now rare to see fuselage-mounted engines behind the wings on public airliners." This is actually untrue. Fuselage-mounted engines are quite common on regional jets from Embrarer and Bombardier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.92.174.94 (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It is unsourced, so I have removed it. - Ahunt (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]