I note that Air Services Australia have revealed documentation of a vintage heavy freight aircraft that has recently been upgraded with various up-to-date avionics.
My concern is that this aircraft is still using the rather ancient Comet engine (and in what may be the dreaded #2 position!)
The freight route involves many takeoffs and landings at close to MTOW on what one can only describe as makeshift runways and does so with almost no emergency equipment in the vicinity.
Clearly, engine failure at an inopportune moment could be devastating. This aircraft has a fairly unique placement of the engines close to the centreline, which would probably mitigate the effects of asymmetric thrust.
The tandem(?) engine positioning must require some form of vectored exhaust system, and without it there would be issues with the ingestion of exhaust from the forward engines into the rear engines. I imagine that the thrust vectoring is also what allows the aircraft to get away with a complete lack of control surfaces.
I have experience with the terrestrial version of a craft powered by a pair of very similar engines (which seemed to surge frequently -- although without any visible flame), and I can vouch that this exhaust vectoring would be a very desirable addition.
I'm also interested as to whether the Rudolph pod which carries the navigation lights is an APU, or actually produces usable thrust.
If anyone can comment on the COG limits (The normal COG seems to be *way* to far to the rear), or the potential for FOD damage during mid-air refuelling, I would be extremely appreciative. A late question from a colleague -- do the engines have afterburners to assist with the short takeoffs, and if so, how is the additional hay injected into the exhaust stream and ignited?
Given the questions, I was not sure if I should ask here or in Jet Blast. I'm sure I'll be corrected if I was wrong.
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com.au/santa06/