Why did larger airliners move away from tail mounted engines?


Well-Known Member
Lufthansa 747-8 is the way to go to Europe. 5% of the worlds Caviar consumption....
Yeah as my LH A330 was pulling out of the gate to hop from Frankfurt to DC a few weeks ago, I saw us pull out behind an LH 747. Didn't realize they still flew them. Pretty cool.


Uniting the black vote.
Well, ETOPS was supposed to be the rarest of exceptions to fit odd and unusual circumstances, yet, somehow the bean counters got it so muddled that most people now think it's perfectly normal to cross a large body of water with only one spare ... Three engines, as opposed to the "old" norm of four was actually fairly controversial.
I suppose, with the superior reliability of modern engines, I shouldn't feel resentful, the gathered data should be just as correct as the data for the MAX. Nevertheless, we still travel to Europe every couple of years and I always spend the few extra $$ on ID-90 to ride LH or BA 747s... :)
Personally, I only buy tickets on aircraft with flight engineers and navigators.

Crop Duster

E pluribus unum
Guessing the obvious engineering problem. After the 2nd or 3rd fuselage stretch, the CG is so far aft you can't do another one.
Well, yeah. But if you keep moving the engine weight aft, you can just counterpoint it with more revenue-generating fuselage space forward. In a fashion similar to cantilevered bridges, I suppose there is some fuselage length that become physically untenable, but that would seem to be the case regardless of where the engines are placed.