>>1171540http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=738573>Overheating of adjacent airframe structure is not the main consideration in the placement of any engine, both tail mounted and wing mounted. In fact, with turbofan engines, the hottest portions of the engine are encased inside of the bypass ducts and these airframes are subjected to considerably less heat that the turbojet powered airplanes. The possibility of airframe damage and fuel tank entry of engine parts in case of an uncontained failure is the reason for the placement of the engines.
>To be sure, uncontained engine failures had cause serious incidents and accidents; but these were mostly due to damage caused to the aircraft systems and not the structure. The Sioux City DC-10-10 accident is an example of an accident being caused by an uncontained engine failure that affected all of the hydraulic systems. There have been several L-1011 incidents due to uncontained engine failures that I am aware of, that were not publicized, that came awfully close to the loss of an airplane. >The only uncontained engine failure that I can think up, that did affect a fuel tank, is the British Airtours 737-200. There, the engine ejected a burner can, which rebounded off the ground into an underwing fuel tank access plate. The plate failed and the resulting fuel spill ignited. >Wing mounted engines are positioned to avoid severe structural damage or fuel tank entry. On many airplanes, there are areas in the wing adjacent to the engine where no fuel is stored. These are sometimes called dry bays. >All the tail mounted engines that I am familiar with have the engine located well aft of all primary structure and not near any fuel tanks, even in the MD-11 which has fuel stored in the horizontal stabilizer.**There have been several L-1011 incidents due to uncontained engine failures that I am aware of, that were not publicized, that came awfully close to the loss of an airplane. **
