Colomban CriCri Jet

[KamenRiderBlade]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sfZJPEZP4E

For an experimental aircraft, WHY ON EARTH would you mount the engines on the front on it's own pylons?

I can't understand why the designer would do that with mini jet/turbofan engines.

[durahawk]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sfZJPEZP4E

For an experimental aircraft, WHY ON EARTH would you mount the engines on the front on it's own pylons?

I can't understand why the designer would do that with mini jet/turbofan engines.

Ease of maintenance, ease of construction, undisturbed inlet airflow, keeps CG forward...

Neat little airplane actually. I wonder how much worse the fuel flow is compared to the propeller driven version.

[KamenRiderBlade]

If you mounted it on the back on it's own pylons

Cabin noise should be lower

Visibility wouldn't be obstructed by two large protrusions

You could move the cockpit forward more to adjust for CG

[jetnerd]

I wonder if the configuration draws any benefits from the COANDA (blown wing) effect. The propeller-driven version is rated to be able to climb with 1 engine out, so that little engine and little wing combination must be generating some impressive lift. (granted, MTOW for this airframe is stated at 375 lbs... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colomban_Cri-cri)

[linkomart]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sfZJPEZP4E

For an experimental aircraft, WHY ON EARTH would you mount the engines on the front on it's own pylons?

I can't understand why the designer would do that with mini jet/turbofan engines.

Because it's a derivate or the propeller driven version, the two chainsaw motors (or whatever it was) were mounted there to get the proper cg and prop clearance. You can't move the engines without altering the cg, and that would mean a total re design of the aircraft.

Noisy, yes....