I'll upload a new plane which looks just about the description I gave @CALVIN232

I know the Lancer of course. But it's a bomber, not a jetliner @helilover03

@CALVIN232 Ass plane? Gotcha covered.

Ok,I understand. I guess the design will work on bizjets, as the smaller engines will make use of the thick wing chord (talk about a STOL jet)

This is true but at the moment in time it's cheaper to use the current design as perfecting the hidden engine design would cost them more than they would make from the fuel efficiency which thay would have to pay more for maintenance ass planes would have to be grounded longer to repair to get to the engine but the current design allows for them to switch the engine out quickly @Alienbeef0421

@CALVIN232 @ChiChiWerx
With better engines and added fireproofing, this design can be feasible... Up to some extent. As I said before, we can use high strength composite materials that can contain the debris (and also fireproof, if installed with retardants) and can double as the plane's wing spar.

Well there was many reasons why one engines was the primary attachment for the wings which meant when a serious failure occurred the wing could rip right of with the engine or worse leave the engine on the main fuselage which would then set the main fuselage to a blaze 2 the design had flaws in the airflow whilst the engines was aerodynamic they didn't get enough air so regularly over heated 3 this meant the engines was likely to break down and in some cases they would stall or melt inside eventually the design was scrapped due to the cost in damages and trying to make it safer

Many reasons, one of the chief reasons is that a catastrophic engine fire or failure can cause the wing to separate from the fuselage. This in fact (though findings attribute cause to a fire in the wing area) happened in 2006 to an RAF Nimrod over Afghanistan. Have to remember, jet engines in the 1960s were less reliable and prone to failure, more so than today.

@Tully2001 Read BogdanX's comment. It's problem was the weight and complexity.

Personally, I think it's a great idea to employ this, I too don't know why it never catched on, maybe it was too, different or new?

If you look at concepts for future airliners, you will see that some of them have the engines in the back.

@BogdanX I think it's wake turbulence from larger planes, it's when the air come out from under the wing at the wing tips and come up and over to the top section making these vortexs, and the bigger the plane, the bigger the wake turbulence here is a picture of what I'm talking about
(That's what I read in my flight training book)

Oh, and Kevlar can handle the stress, so not just being containment cells, it can also be the wing spar. @BogdanX

But with the modern technology we have now, is it possible that we could recreate the Comet's very advantageous design, like a 3 inch thick Kevlar tube surrounding the engines that acts as a shield should any failure occur. Also, it can probably fit a slightly larger turbofan, and the fuel consumption would lessen more. @BogdanX

@Alienbeef0421 ooh. Did not get that.

That's an Airforceproud95 reference @FlyingThings

And to the other question : i think the F18 engine would kill the 747 engine with that.

The engines under the wings are simply easier to maintain.