Why aren't there more aircraft with engines mounted above?

[KamenRiderBlade]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AnPdgj4iXk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBlQAbm7cPo

[h-bomb]

If you have a chance go read up on the Boeing YC-14. That setup was optimized for STOL capability. However it sacrificed fuel economy due to propulsion efficiency issues.

If you look at the VFW-Fokker 614 and the Honda Jet you will see the layout that is actually much better. NASA has a study I read about in Aviation Week a few months back. They verified that the aft-overwing layout was actually the most efficient. With the overwing setup they chance of FOD damage goes down. The wing reduces the sound footprint under the aircraft, and if NASA is right: better gas milage.

If you go back and read about the L1011/DC-10 the one issue they had was maintance on the elevated engines required special cranes and stands. The 614s engines are heavy enough you actually have to hoist the motors up and away from the pylon. In the more common podded engines you roll up an engine cradle raise it under the engine, unbolt/disconnect, lower it down.

I think this will be less of an issue going forward as newer power plants are so much more reliable.

[KamenRiderBlade]

I know most of us here wouldn't mind a ride in the new Honda Jet =D

[madrat]

Would that aft overwing mount be best as a supercritical or conventional airfoil?

[KamenRiderBlade]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMZCjBA6YG4

[madrat]

Laminar flow fuselage probably has something to do with its efficiency. It's front end reminds me of Cessna's T-37.