>>1552430Correct, because aft-engine jets have the following inherent disadvantages:
>naturally less efficient than underwing engine-designs>naturally have faster takeoff and landing runs even with flaps>increasing thrust does not naturally produce a pitch-up moment that can be exploited in emergencies>cabin noise is generally quieter... except at the far back where passengers are forced to sit dangerously close to the intakes (see >>1554697) and also make them easy prey for metal shrapnel should there ever be an uncontained failure (see >>1554728)>no wing-mounted engines to provide bending relief so wing structure must be stiffer and heavier>in aft trijet and aft quadjet configurations any engine's uncontained failure can easily compromise the adjacent engine>probably the biggest downside being virtually all aft-engine designs are vulnerably to deadly "deep-stall" conditions where the horizontal stabilizers become "stuck" in the aerodynamic shadow of the wings leaving the plane locked in a very high angle of attack that is nearly impossible to recover from. This is probably why more small regional designs are switching to underwing rather than aft mount. 