![]() |
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message nk.net... "Ron Natalie" wrote in message . .. For the big boys, the DC-10/MD-11 Engine #2 really looked like a wart compared to the L-1011 configuration. The rear engine on the DC-10 looked like an afterthought. Of course, if they had made it look "right", like Lockheed did, it couldn't have become the KC-10. I'm not sure that would have been the case. The 727 similar S-ducted center engine and still has room for rear airstairs. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ron Natalie" wrote in message . .. I'm not sure that would have been the case. The 727 similar S-ducted center engine and still has room for rear airstairs. It wasn't a matter of not having room for the boom operator, it was the effect on the receiving aircraft. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steven P. McNicoll writes: [ L-1011 vs. DC-10 #2 engine placement ] It wasn't a matter of not having room for the boom operator, it was the effect on the receiving aircraft. The RAF has used Tristar tankers for years. They use the U.S. Navy-style probe and drogue refueling system, which, if I remember correctly, appears to place receiving aircraft at least as close to the #2 engine exhaust stream as the boom system would've. Geoff -- "While everyone was delighted that P.J. had finally spoken his first words, 'Give me back my zweiback, cock-gobbler' was eventually deemed unfit for the baby book." -- lizmo the Wonder Horse |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Geoff Miller" wrote in message ... Steven P. McNicoll writes: [ L-1011 vs. DC-10 #2 engine placement ] It wasn't a matter of not having room for the boom operator, it was the effect on the receiving aircraft. The RAF has used Tristar tankers for years. They use the U.S. Navy-style probe and drogue refueling system, which, if I remember correctly, appears to place receiving aircraft at least as close to the #2 engine exhaust stream as the boom system would've. B777 - bland boring unimaginative and just dull. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dave" wrote in
: B777 - bland boring unimaginative and just dull. Still better looking than the A320 series though... they look like a flying math equation. I remember a time when the pointy end of a jetliner used to be put on the front. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dave writes: B777 - bland boring unimaginative and just dull. That's true of most airliners nowadays. Everything looks generic, with two engines either under the wings or stuck onto the aft fuselage. I never thought I'd consider the once-ubiquitous 727 to be exotic. but as far as design and appearance are concerned, it certainly is by today's standards. Geoff -- "When a woman behaves like a man, why doesn't she behave like a _nice_ man?" -- Edith Evans |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| What causes the BANG when an airliner lifts off? | G Farris | Instrument Flight Rules | 6 | January 5th 05 04:42 PM |
| WTB: first-class seats and interior panels from airliner | dt | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | August 23rd 04 11:01 PM |
| Maximum Speed of Airliner At Low Altitude | Roger Helbig | Military Aviation | 26 | June 22nd 04 05:57 PM |
| Airliner manuals and brochures for sale | Martin Bayer | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | April 24th 04 10:33 PM |
| World's worst airplane disaster | Mike | Military Aviation | 5 | December 10th 03 12:08 PM |