yeah, the outboard engines are so close to the grass they had to do that to avoid them sucking anything in.

Quote:


You mean blowing anything out - the airflow out of the outboard engines thrust "reversers" would probably take half a second to dig a small hole in any unreiforced non metalled/solid surface if they overhang the runway/taxiway...

Quote:


It's a sensible aeroplane, and with Boeing not wanting to directly build a successor as large as the 747, Airbus saw a potential opportunity...

Would have been a darn sight easier if they'd stayed with the priciples establised on the Comet, and tucked them up in the wing roots...

Poor old Craig. It seems you've been misunderstood again. Not sure what that was all about but never mind.

The Comet idea might look better but it has problems of its own. The engines are closer to the fuselage for a start which is both noisier & could affect the fuselage structure. I've seen photos of cabin windows shot-blasted by the reverse thrust before now. I think having the engines on pylons below the wings is easier to manufacture & also for engine maintenance/replacement. This is obviously the most economical way of doing it.

PS. It also leaves more room for fuel.

Not sure about that Woody. Having the engines mounted in the wings weakens the wing structure just where you don't need it so the centre section has to be stronger. This also makes it heavier & the engines take up space that can be used for fuel.

That's cause the Nimrod was not so loosely based on the Comet.

Quote:
LOL. It happens, alot
I dont hate the A380, but we all know my feelings on Airbus

Quote:
nooooooo waaaayy, 

Quote:


I think that the comets actually disintigrated because of the structure of fusulage, not the engine placement. The windows on the first comets were square and they were bolted into place (d'oh) like the DC-3 and the older prop planes. This would cause warping and this gave it it's habit of disintigrating. As we all know, a rectangular structure is one of the weakest, the strongest being a circle and then a triangle.
To prove my point - look at the Tupolev 104, 124. They had engines in the wing but had circular windows, and they never disintigrated. (The 104 was the second commercial jet after the comet).
The engines placed in the wings have a different problem - in the case of an engine fire, the wing has a habit of melting and the fire does a good job of spreading to the rest of the aircraft. I am not even going to start about what happens in the case of an engine explosion  Fortunately, the latter never happened on a 104.

A380 Reversers:
Everyone here is correct in a way. As mentioned, engines 1 and 4 hang over the edge of the runway. The danger isn't with anything being SUCKED into the engine (if you think about, it has nothing to do with reversers, since ALL of the engines are at TO/GA thrust anyways) besides, engines can withstand grass and dirt being sucked into the engines. As someone already mentioned - The problem is when reverse thrust is activated, the the airflow from the engines goes downwards and it is pretty strong. This airflow can rip out clotches of dirt with grass, which are then THROWN at a very high velocity (by the airflow) toward the fusulage. They aren't really afraid of FOD to the engines, but damage to the body.
The only effect this will have on its landing performance is that it may not be able to use some of the earlier taxiway exits. To be certified, it has to stop on a dry runway WITHOUT the use of reversers. Besides, spoilers do a better job of stopping than you think.
Vic

Sorry for the misunderstanding.
It really is a pity also, I heard that DH used the square windows in part because it would give the passengers a better view!
Vic

Quote:

True, although it would be entartaining to see a 777 with internals 

Quote:

It's true. Unbelievable, but true.

Quote:


I expect they used square windows as they were the norm. Incidentally I think that at the Comet crashes were caused by fatigue in the windows in the top of the cabin...