I've learned how to skim through threads to usefull info :P

 

Any examples? Not saying there aren't any, but I'd like to see these. I'm familiar with how turbojets and turbines function, and it just makes very little sense to me to lay out an aircraft in that matter, unless it's simply not possible to route it in a more effective manner.

Better put, it would seem that this would be done out of necessity, not efficiency in design.

Regardless, I do agree that the argumentative substance does have merit and worth. I harbor no ill will toward Makenzie, no matter how wrong he might be. I can't hate you guys and your little spinny doritos.

 

AV8 series' Harriers and A4 series' Skyhawks, as examples (but not really good ones), both require a little manuevering of the ducting to feed the engine because the cockpit/nose is right infront of the impeller. The Boeing 1011 is a good example of "interesting" duct-work (an obvious afterthought in appearance...concept 1011A didn't have a third engine).

With smaller craft I think it has to do with cramming as powerful an engine as possible into as compact a chassis...or fuselage or whatever...as possible.

 

Didn't think of the Harrier. Everything about the engines on those things is a fornication of design. Works though.

 

Tech Greek, you should drop the topic of jet engines, because you're obviously way outta your depth and/or smoking something dodgy. Plus they're totally irrelevant to car intake systems like I already said.

Mak71, Lockheed made the L-1011, not Boeing.

All the aircraft named still have forward-facing intakes for the engines, even if some have some ducting involved. I challenge anyone to name a jet-powered fixed-wing aircraft that doesn't.

 

****...I didn't think it was Boeing because it didn't have any kind of 7 in it (something found on all Boeings) but "boeing 1011" brought up some pics on google...my bad...