5
$\begingroup$

What is this big rectangular tab (?) thingy extending backwards just above the DC-10's #2 engine? What does it do?

photo
(wikimedia.org, picture modified to point out the tab thingy)

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
0

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
5
$\begingroup$

enter image description here
(airliners.net via szextant.blogspot.com)

It mostly houses the same stuff that's on an underwing engine pylon: bleed air ducts, wiring, fuel and hydraulic hoses and tubes that connect to the engine core and accessories. The aft part of the structure where it tapers is just there out of aerodynamic necessity.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Also the stuff at the end of the fuselage below the engine is just a fairing. It will fold away and the engine is removed by installing a bracket on the pylon and using cables to lower the engine straight down. If it was deeper in the fin as Sean mentioned, it would need to be drawn backwards and then down, making it more complex to do an engine swap.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

DC10 rear engine pylon, same as underwing, for supporting the engine. The tube that looks like it could provide support is just a very long intake duct. enter image description here

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ So why not put the engine further forward in that tube, which would allow the engine to be supported by the horizontal stabilizer directly and allow its ancillaries to be placed within the stabilizer itself rather than needing an external pylon? $\endgroup$
    – Vikki
    May 24, 2018 at 22:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Sean - The long inlet is to straighten out the air after the fuselage disturbance, especially at high angles of attack. $\endgroup$
    – user14897
    May 24, 2018 at 23:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @sean You don't want an engine explosion to blow all the control surfaces off the aircraft. UA232's #2 engine failure took out all three hydraulic systems and control of the tail, but were able to land. If the engine had been mounted farther forward they might have lost the control surfaces altogether and consequently the plane. $\endgroup$
    – Pilothead
    May 25, 2018 at 0:12
  • $\begingroup$ @Pilothead: Good point, although it wouldn't matter nowadays (since all jet engines are now required to contain any and all debris within the engine under any and all possible failure scenarios). $\endgroup$
    – Vikki
    May 25, 2018 at 0:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @sean As they always have, and as well demonstrated by SWA1380, SWA3272 in 2016, QF032 in 2010, AF066 in 2017... $\endgroup$
    – Pilothead
    May 25, 2018 at 0:22

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .