Originally Posted by
lotsofspareparts
I couldn't speak from experience but it is logical to think that the nacelles for the transport pod aren't designed to withstand the thrust from the extra engine and were designed purely for the intent of transportation.
I'm sure 180 will chime in on this eventually.
It kind of makes sense in a way to transport them like that though. It's a revenue generating flight and therefore operating costs would be substantially lower than a typical cargo flight. Kill 2 birds with one stone so to speak.
Jared
..." logical to think that the nacelles for the transport pod aren't designed to withstand the thrust from the extra engine "... Absolutely, in no way would I think they would have included fuel/electrical/sensor capabilities on that engine. The hard mount would have been strong enough (or stronger, given the availability of the mounts already made for a DC-10 if the same basic mount), to carry the load through all flight variables. Did they only configure that system for the left wing? Did they have the capability to mount one inboard on both wings? Just for conjecture, just imagine a rate of climb if there were one additional engine on both wings, that were functional? It would go through a helluva fuel-flow rate BUT climb like the dickens! Now I have no idea what the T/W ratio is for one, or a total weight of one configured with (5, 2 each wing and the tail), but I see DC-10's climb steep enough with only the three. Imagine 2 more fully capable wing mounted engines? Would the T/W ratio be closer to 1-1 or higher? He he he, that's the twisted mind of mine...
OF COURSE, the entire airframe isn't 'designed for this type of load/stress', it's just a thought... Silly as it sounds!
.