Where can a plane have a middle engine?
A plenty of aircraft have a S-duct from inlet down into the rear fuselage where the engine is. So on Trident the original trijet, Boeing 727, Yak-40, Tristar, Tu-154, Yak-42, Dassault Falcon 50, 900 and 7X.
Only DC-10 and MD-11 have the engine higher in tail, aligned with inlet.
Is there any technical reason why such tail engine placement has not been populat with small trijets?
It is because the weight is placed on the tail is a lot larger.
In the case of the DC10/MD11 the full weight of the engine lies on a structure of perhaps 4 by 0,5 metres. Thats a lot of weight for a small surface. In the case of the other planes the weight is supported by the entire rear fuselage.
Advantage of the DC10/MD11 layout is that it is easier to get to the engine for maintenance. You won’t have the strip half the rear fuselage, you can just open the panel at the tail same as you would for a wing mounted engine.
Why not place a centre at the park on Myrtle avenue. The spotters go there anyway, but at least then the spotters would have some shelter for the rain. Won’t have to cost a lot, just a prefab shed or something. As long as it has a loo and a drinks and snacks machine I am happy with it!
Not sure of the technical name, but they are stress points.
As a plane lands, the fuselage bends down a bit. Hardly noticable, but it bends the skin. The skin can not bend outwards because it is curved inwards. So it has to bend inwards. Also, the fuselage bends downwards, so the skin bends upwards: action-reaction etc.
These dents are formed in the holes of the frame that holds the airplane skin. You can find this on almost all planes.
This can be found mostly on narrowbodies, and then in particular long ones. Simple reason is that there is more to strech. Try bending a pencil of 3 cm and a pencil of 30 cm. The 30 cm pencil will bend more. A narrowbody has less strength then a widebody, thus making it more prone to the dents. Compare it to bending a 30 cm twig with a diameter of 3 cm, or a 30 cm twig with a diameter of 10 cm.
This will put BAe’s focus even more on military projects. A direction that was choosen quite a while back. Until now the most obvious sign of that was killing the RJX during flight testing. Now selling the chicken with golden eggs is another quite obvious indication that BAe is going military.
The wings that are currently made in the UK will continue to be made there. After all, the entire infrastructure has been set up. On top of that, BAe still owns a few patents required for the wings. It would be interesting to find out if the sale includes those patents. It is this technology that made the bus as efficient as it is. If the patent is included in the sale, well, then the long term UK civil aviation industry will get a big hit.
Something as interesting as the future wing production is what will happen with BAe. Will they remain independant? It is no secret that in the past a merger was considered between Boeing and BAe. Even a complete take-over of BAe by Boeing has been considered. Until now this was not possible. Due to anti-trust legislation there is no way Boeing could own Airbus’s wing builder.
Now this hurdle is gone, and both Boeing and BAe seem to want to merge. Boeing wants it to get a larger share in the European military market (Typhoon, Storm Shadow, Meteor, Hawk). Not to mention a piggy bank with 3 billion pounds from the Airbus UK sale! BAe wants it badly because they got a lot of projects running with the US military. However, many of these projects are limited because the US does not trust foreign companies. If BAe where to be taken over/merged with Boeing this problem would cease to exist.
That Anset RJ, which operator is it? Cant read if from the fuselage.
Nice shots! What’s with the nude 763 engine?
Thats a 742 engine. They are all “nude”.
I’m thinking of a visit during the summer
good idea
what is their viewing deck like
Massive, but facing the light for the most part of day
Can you only see certain movements from there,will i miss anything?
You will be able to log everything except for some cargo and short haul movements. BRING BINOCULARS For photography though you are limited to about half the operations taxiing by in the distance with a good chunk nearby.
Does anyone have examples of photos from there.All help would be great 🙂
Not a lot from the observation platform. I do not really like it as it has the light facing the wrong way. Around the airport exceptional spots can be found that offer unobstructed views of the runways. Please visit my website for details about spotting at AMS.
So she either left AMS recently or it was another aircraft that was damaged?
No G registered plane in maintenance at AMS that I know of.
A few months ago an easyJet skid of the taxiway severely damaging one wing. But it was repaired some time ago.
I’d use Jetphotos but the million adverts that take over my screen everytime I click onto a page puts me right off.
Stop using Internet Exploder and start using Firefox or Avant Browser.
This year did see some very good pranks online…
A.net was not one of them though! That not a good joke, that is just bad taste! 😀
My dad had a nice one. He runs a police forum, and he said that the forum had been taken over for big money by the police. Maybe a good idea for next year? Jetphotos taking over Airliners? Aint gonna happen of course since Johan carries a bit of a grudge but still. Could be really something.
It did fly on the ETA AMS 1930 flight that day. Been looking around a bit, but can not find any reference that any JET2 plane is stranded here.
Regards,
Peter
A bigger version is now online:
http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairlinerphotos/search/photo_search.php?id=00006961
Is there not a law that says that after 36 series and 8 spin-offs a series may not be renewed?
If there is not, I am gonna talk to my congressman! Whoever that may be.
You git, :p 😀 .but they did say this last year
Malev (MA/Budapest) has announced plans to add Fokker 100s to its fleet replacing its CRJ-200s.
So it might happen one day.
James
Dont believe that for a minute. The CRJ-200 are smaller then the F70s. One of Malevs F70s was sold to KLM Cityhopper over a year ago (HA-LMD). Why would they have done that if they intend to get rid of the CRJ-200?
Also, why get a F100 when it carries double the amount of pax and a lot more freight then thr CRJ? It just does not make sense. In particular since Malev has a load of B737-600s in its fleet and seems to be happy with them. The ‘600 is a direct competitor to the F100 in size.
Hope it will happen some day, but am not holding my breath.
With 5 minutes to go before the day is over (in NL anyway) I suppose this is a good time to come clean. This was an april fools prank. The photo was carefully edited using HA-LMA as a basis with bits and pieces of an Transavia 737.
I still do not know the fate of PH-LMV. All I do know is that is has been moved from WOE to Schiphol Oost, the maintenance and storage area.
See you next year for another photo edit. Its becoming a tradition!