Wikiposts
Search
Aviation History and Nostalgia Whether working in aviation, retired, wannabee or just plain fascinated this forum welcomes all with a love of flight.

Rear engined airliners

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 30th Jul 2014, 18:54
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,810
Received 199 Likes on 92 Posts
Still, nobody has answered the important question. How fast would it have gone?
Cruise would have been around 430kts, pretty much the same as the 146 and a bit slower than the F-28.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 30th Jul 2014, 20:36
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Timbukthree
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Here is a link regarding the Fokker F.26 Phantom: Fokker F26 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Last edited by evansb; 1st Aug 2014 at 20:46. Reason: puncuation
evansb is offline  
Old 30th Jul 2014, 22:56
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: australia
Age: 48
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The F.26 Phantom. Even the name exudes sleekness, comfort and superiority over everything else. Amazing.

Even more amazing is Fokkers futuristic plan at that stage to put a desktop computer behind the pilot so passengers could check their emails in flight. Very impressive.
ruddman is offline  
Old 31st Jul 2014, 01:24
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Munich MUC/EDDM
Posts: 6,641
Received 74 Likes on 46 Posts
ruddman,


I thought the same thing, but I don't see any satcom antennae, so maybe it's just a local network?


Dutch designers obviously don't travel with much luggage and looking at the layout, I don't think I would want to be in rows 1 or 2 if a turbine disk lets go!
India Four Two is offline  
Old 31st Jul 2014, 06:58
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,810
Received 199 Likes on 92 Posts
Here is a link regarding the Fokker. F.26 Phantom: Fokker F26 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good old Wikipedia:

"Powerplant: 2 × Rolls-Royce RB.41 Nene centrifugal compressor turbojet, 46 kN (10,000 lbf) thrust each"
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 31st Jul 2014, 07:32
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I had not heard of the F26, fascinating looking machine, at first I assumed it was a Boeing. Presumably it was conceived as a tail dragger.
The front view does look a little, er, like it has breasts!
joy ride is offline  
Old 31st Jul 2014, 16:25
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: eastcoastoz
Age: 76
Posts: 1,699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Fokker F26

evansb,


Thanks for the extra illustration and link. I hadn't heard of it before.


Now, if that engine configuration resembles breasts, then rear-engine craft must be sporting gonads!
Stanwell is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2014, 04:44
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Good old Wikipedia:

"Powerplant: 2 × Rolls-Royce RB.41 Nene centrifugal compressor turbojet, 46 kN (10,000 lbf) thrust each"
And also, in the Design section, it quoted the thrust as 2.3 kN. The problem with the Powerplant section is that there is a terse data entry format, and someone misunderstood and put total thrust, instead of thrust per engine (total power is, I believe, the nautical convention). So, I corrected it. Yes, good old Wikipedia, but one can do something about its errors.
FlightlessParrot is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2014, 20:17
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Timbukthree
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yes indeed! Correcting errors is honorable. A moral imperative.

Confucius say, "To make a mistake is an error. Failure to correct a mistake is another error".
evansb is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2014, 20:42
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Timbukthree
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Canada's mid-century airliner swan song: http://www.argc-art.com/shop/image/d...20Jetliner.jpg
evansb is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2014, 20:54
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: eastcoastoz
Age: 76
Posts: 1,699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ah yes, the Avro Canada C102 Jetliner of '48/'49.
I believe it exceeded 500mph and had a good deal more potential than the DH Comet.


Another sacrifice on the altar of political expediency?




p.s. What a beautiful painting!

Last edited by Stanwell; 1st Aug 2014 at 21:01. Reason: add ps
Stanwell is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2014, 21:18
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Timbukthree
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No buyers. Regardless of several speed/category records, even Howard Hughes, (who actually flew the AVRO Jetliner), didn't buy it.

The design was too Canadian, meaning "Not American".

As evidenced on the photo link, AVRO Canada considered wing mounted turbojets: (Note the Viscount-sized port holes)

http://vipmedia.globalnews.ca/2013/0...4258365758.jpg

Last edited by evansb; 1st Aug 2014 at 21:40.
evansb is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.