Rear Engined Jets out of McCarran
Discussion
I was in Las Vegas last week and whilst lying by the pool I was very aware of some loud jets flying out of McCarran. They looked like VC10s as they had engines at the rear rather than on the wings but I didn't think they were flying commercially any more.
Can anyone suggest what the may have been please?
They sounded absolutely awesome.
Can anyone suggest what the may have been please?
They sounded absolutely awesome.
Possibly McDonnel Douglas or Bombardier products.
McDonnell Douglas DC-9
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=McDonnell+Douglas...
McDonnell Douglas MD-80
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=McDonnell+Douglas...
Bombardier CRJ700 series
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Bombardier+CRJ700...
Embraer have also produced rear engine designs:
Embraer ERJ 145 family
http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=10&hl=en&am...
And Boeing tried rear mounted engines:
Boeing 727
http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=10&hl=en&am...
Somewhat less likely, in the states, but about 2 dozen are still in service:
Ilyushin Il-62
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ilyushin+il-62&am...
Rear engine designs were popular during the 1960s when slimmer low-bypass jet engines were the norm. Obviously with the size/weight of something like a Rolls Royce Trent http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=rolls+royce+trent... high-bypass turbofan , mounting it at the rear of an aircraft would be a non-starter.
Many smaller commuter and business jets continue to use rear fuselage mounted engines in order to keep the landing gear short. This in turn means that they don't require servicing with steps etc, to allow passengers to disembark, a positive advantage on smaller fields. It's horses for courses really, as demonstrated by the Antonov An-72 http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=An-72&hl=en&a... which was designed originally for the Soviet military, NATO codename 'Coaler', to be used on unpaved runways. Mounting the engines on the top of the wing created a cleaner under-wing surface for better lift, and kept debris/FOD out of the engines on take-off.
McDonnell Douglas DC-9
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=McDonnell+Douglas...
McDonnell Douglas MD-80
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=McDonnell+Douglas...
Bombardier CRJ700 series
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Bombardier+CRJ700...
Embraer have also produced rear engine designs:
Embraer ERJ 145 family
http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=10&hl=en&am...
And Boeing tried rear mounted engines:
Boeing 727
http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=10&hl=en&am...
Somewhat less likely, in the states, but about 2 dozen are still in service:
Ilyushin Il-62
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ilyushin+il-62&am...
Rear engine designs were popular during the 1960s when slimmer low-bypass jet engines were the norm. Obviously with the size/weight of something like a Rolls Royce Trent http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=rolls+royce+trent... high-bypass turbofan , mounting it at the rear of an aircraft would be a non-starter.
Many smaller commuter and business jets continue to use rear fuselage mounted engines in order to keep the landing gear short. This in turn means that they don't require servicing with steps etc, to allow passengers to disembark, a positive advantage on smaller fields. It's horses for courses really, as demonstrated by the Antonov An-72 http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=An-72&hl=en&a... which was designed originally for the Soviet military, NATO codename 'Coaler', to be used on unpaved runways. Mounting the engines on the top of the wing created a cleaner under-wing surface for better lift, and kept debris/FOD out of the engines on take-off.
mrloudly said:
Janet airways is kinda creepy in Vegas. Plain 737's flying to somewhere that's not supposed to exist... Even have their own terminal! Wouldn't you just love a poke round area 51...
Friend of mine is in the UK Forces & spent 3 months in the USA late last year. Said it was very odd when he was told that he was not going to the USA even though all the travel documents pointed to the USA - even down to the guys being told to take US dollars...Anyway after 10 days or so he had to make a trip to ge some training on a update version of the helicopter that he scanners every day.
So he arrived at LAX, in civvies, along with some other spannermen & was directed to a terminal a little out of the way at LAX.
His mode of transport for the flight? A plain white unregistered Boeing 737.....
His destination? Somewhere that doesn't exist even though everyone, including his 6 year old son!!, knows that it is there.
No idea what he saw there however the other scary thing was that on the plane all mobiles, camera's & electrical equipment was taken off them for the duration of their stay.
He also said that the whole thing was a very weird experience.
fatboy69 said:
mrloudly said:
Janet airways is kinda creepy in Vegas. Plain 737's flying to somewhere that's not supposed to exist... Even have their own terminal! Wouldn't you just love a poke round area 51...
Friend of mine is in the UK Forces & spent 3 months in the USA late last year. Said it was very odd when he was told that he was not going to the USA even though all the travel documents pointed to the USA - even down to the guys being told to take US dollars...Anyway after 10 days or so he had to make a trip to ge some training on a update version of the helicopter that he scanners every day.
So he arrived at LAX, in civvies, along with some other spannermen & was directed to a terminal a little out of the way at LAX.
His mode of transport for the flight? A plain white unregistered Boeing 737.....
His destination? Somewhere that doesn't exist even though everyone, including his 6 year old son!!, knows that it is there.
No idea what he saw there however the other scary thing was that on the plane all mobiles, camera's & electrical equipment was taken off them for the duration of their stay.
He also said that the whole thing was a very weird experience.
David A said:
Coincidentally so was I and thought I heard the odd couple of things that sounded different. Was stuck in a conference for most of the week though.
Thanks for the replies, I'll have a look at the links above when I get I'm front of something better than my phone.I think it was only on the Monday or Tuesday and only a few of them maybe 2 or 3. They really sounded great. Enough to make me sit up and look.
Eric Mc said:
The overwing position of the engines on the An-72/74 family is primarilly to provide accelerated blown air over the top surface of the wing. It was also used on the Boeing YC-14 - but that aircraft never went into production.
Wow! The Coandă effect? I bow to your superior knowledge. Every day is a school day.In my defence, the explanation I provided was the one I was taught during Aircraft Recognition training in the Army. It seemed to make sense at the time, so I never really questioned it.
One thing I did question was the value of teaching us, as front line Combat Engineers, about Soviet jet transport aircraft. I understood the value of being able to tell a Frogfoot from a Harrier, and a Hind from a Puma, but if we were to see Curls, Condors, or Cocks flying overhead, the game was probably up for us. And don't get me started on fast jets. They spent more time showing us 'cool' images of Foxbats, Flankers, Flagons and Fishbeds than they spent concentrating on the assault helicopters and ground attack aircraft we were actually likely to come up against.
The whole recognition training thing went into a flat spin after the wall came down anyway, as a lot of the Soviet-built East German kit became 'Allied Forces', despite looking exactly like the enemy. Same thing in the '91 Gulf war, where most of the Arab Nations in the coalition were at least partly equipped with aircraft and vehicles of Warsaw Pact origin. Properly confusing, a bit like the 'Air Sentry' with a 7.62mm LMG we had posted in our harbour area, much to the amusement of the guys of the Javelin battery who were located about 300 yards away. Still, better to be safe than sorry
More information that you could ever need on the JANET flights (and '51' on the brilliant Dreamland Resort website:
http://www.dreamlandresort.com/info/janet.html
http://www.dreamlandresort.com/info/janet.html
Still amazes me that people get so worked up and instilled with wonder about Area 51, probably due to it designation name '51' and Roswell. No one ever shows much interest in the just as secret TTR or China Lake, Point Magu etc.
We had all our 'recordable' media devices taken away from us too, annoying since we as a society are so used to having them but quite understandable. You have to occupy yourself during the week by dare I say it, talking to colleagues and socialising. Lol.
We had all our 'recordable' media devices taken away from us too, annoying since we as a society are so used to having them but quite understandable. You have to occupy yourself during the week by dare I say it, talking to colleagues and socialising. Lol.
yellowjack said:
Possibly McDonnel Douglas or Bombardier products.
McDonnell Douglas DC-9
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=McDonnell+Douglas...
McDonnell Douglas MD-80
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=McDonnell+Douglas...
Bombardier CRJ700 series
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Bombardier+CRJ700...
Embraer have also produced rear engine designs:
Embraer ERJ 145 family
http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=10&hl=en&am...
And Boeing tried rear mounted engines:
Boeing 727
http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=10&hl=en&am...
Somewhat less likely, in the states, but about 2 dozen are still in service:
Ilyushin Il-62
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ilyushin+il-62&am...
Rear engine designs were popular during the 1960s when slimmer low-bypass jet engines were the norm. Obviously with the size/weight of something like a Rolls Royce Trent http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=rolls+royce+trent... high-bypass turbofan , mounting it at the rear of an aircraft would be a non-starter.
Many smaller commuter and business jets continue to use rear fuselage mounted engines in order to keep the landing gear short. This in turn means that they don't require servicing with steps etc, to allow passengers to disembark, a positive advantage on smaller fields. It's horses for courses really, as demonstrated by the Antonov An-72 http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=An-72&hl=en&a... which was designed originally for the Soviet military, NATO codename 'Coaler', to be used on unpaved runways. Mounting the engines on the top of the wing created a cleaner under-wing surface for better lift, and kept debris/FOD out of the engines on take-off.
It could well have been any of the larger planes TBH. I didn't realise there were quite so many with that engine arrangement McDonnell Douglas DC-9
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=McDonnell+Douglas...
McDonnell Douglas MD-80
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=McDonnell+Douglas...
Bombardier CRJ700 series
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Bombardier+CRJ700...
Embraer have also produced rear engine designs:
Embraer ERJ 145 family
http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=10&hl=en&am...
And Boeing tried rear mounted engines:
Boeing 727
http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=10&hl=en&am...
Somewhat less likely, in the states, but about 2 dozen are still in service:
Ilyushin Il-62
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ilyushin+il-62&am...
Rear engine designs were popular during the 1960s when slimmer low-bypass jet engines were the norm. Obviously with the size/weight of something like a Rolls Royce Trent http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=rolls+royce+trent... high-bypass turbofan , mounting it at the rear of an aircraft would be a non-starter.
Many smaller commuter and business jets continue to use rear fuselage mounted engines in order to keep the landing gear short. This in turn means that they don't require servicing with steps etc, to allow passengers to disembark, a positive advantage on smaller fields. It's horses for courses really, as demonstrated by the Antonov An-72 http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=An-72&hl=en&a... which was designed originally for the Soviet military, NATO codename 'Coaler', to be used on unpaved runways. Mounting the engines on the top of the wing created a cleaner under-wing surface for better lift, and kept debris/FOD out of the engines on take-off.
yellowjack said:
Possibly McDonnel Douglas or Bombardier products.
McDonnell Douglas DC-9
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=McDonnell+Douglas...
McDonnell Douglas MD-80
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=McDonnell+Douglas...
Bombardier CRJ700 series
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Bombardier+CRJ700...
Embraer have also produced rear engine designs:
Embraer ERJ 145 family
http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=10&hl=en&am...
And Boeing tried rear mounted engines:
Boeing 727
http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=10&hl=en&am...
Somewhat less likely, in the states, but about 2 dozen are still in service:
Ilyushin Il-62
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ilyushin+il-62&am...
Rear engine designs were popular during the 1960s when slimmer low-bypass jet engines were the norm. Obviously with the size/weight of something like a Rolls Royce Trent http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=rolls+royce+trent... high-bypass turbofan , mounting it at the rear of an aircraft would be a non-starter.
Many smaller commuter and business jets continue to use rear fuselage mounted engines in order to keep the landing gear short. This in turn means that they don't require servicing with steps etc, to allow passengers to disembark, a positive advantage on smaller fields. It's horses for courses really, as demonstrated by the Antonov An-72 http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=An-72&hl=en&a... which was designed originally for the Soviet military, NATO codename 'Coaler', to be used on unpaved runways. Mounting the engines on the top of the wing created a cleaner under-wing surface for better lift, and kept debris/FOD out of the engines on take-off.
Mounting something like a Trent on the back is not quite the non starter stated:McDonnell Douglas DC-9
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=McDonnell+Douglas...
McDonnell Douglas MD-80
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=McDonnell+Douglas...
Bombardier CRJ700 series
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Bombardier+CRJ700...
Embraer have also produced rear engine designs:
Embraer ERJ 145 family
http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=10&hl=en&am...
And Boeing tried rear mounted engines:
Boeing 727
http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=10&hl=en&am...
Somewhat less likely, in the states, but about 2 dozen are still in service:
Ilyushin Il-62
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ilyushin+il-62&am...
Rear engine designs were popular during the 1960s when slimmer low-bypass jet engines were the norm. Obviously with the size/weight of something like a Rolls Royce Trent http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=rolls+royce+trent... high-bypass turbofan , mounting it at the rear of an aircraft would be a non-starter.
Many smaller commuter and business jets continue to use rear fuselage mounted engines in order to keep the landing gear short. This in turn means that they don't require servicing with steps etc, to allow passengers to disembark, a positive advantage on smaller fields. It's horses for courses really, as demonstrated by the Antonov An-72 http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=An-72&hl=en&a... which was designed originally for the Soviet military, NATO codename 'Coaler', to be used on unpaved runways. Mounting the engines on the top of the wing created a cleaner under-wing surface for better lift, and kept debris/FOD out of the engines on take-off.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff