Photo Question

CaptainSkidmark

Any Particular reason for this strange set up?

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Buffman

Looks like the rear end of a KC-10 Extender? Maybe they're making some 'secret' modifications and don't want it visible. Or maybe it's just cold outside.
Either way, looks like a case of 'need a bigger door'.:D

wonski

Not sure if it is the same case, but at polish airport they are to upgrade, or build new hangar as the old one was to small, so they had to cut through the door.

Tenger

wonski wrote: »

.......Not sure if it is the same case, but at polish airport they are to upgrade, or build new hangar as the old one was to small, so they had to cut through the door.

OK I misunderstood what you were saying, I can see how an ex-military hanger would not have the height to fit an A320/B737 tail fin inside.

However I heard this claim years ago about Hanger 6 in Dublin, that the eejits built it before they realised it was too small.

In many cases the tail of the aircraft is not needed inside the hanger so no need to accommodate it inside (higher clearance for tail fin and extra floor area to fit the last 20 ft of fuselage inside.)

Look at the OP's photo of the KC-10 Extender, the engine is inside the hanger with covers on the exhausts. So all three engines and most of the fuselage can be worked on.

wonski

Sorry, i linked to the picture of the new, upgraded hangar. The old one was just left overs from military base hangar. They worked on MIGs only, so did not need larger capacity. And they did cut the whole in the doors to accomodate larger, passenger aircrafts. But you are right, that even if it looks funny, it serves the purpose. I just read about Pyrzowice recently, as it is my home town, and thought i might be right about this one. You learn new things all the time.

CaptainSkidmark

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

oh ya lol woops

EchoIndia

Tenger wrote: »

However I heard this claim years ago about Hanger 6 in Dublin, that the eejits built it before they realised it was too small.

Too small for what?

(Hanger: for your clothes; hangar:for housing aircraft )

Tenger

EchoIndia wrote: »

Too small for what?

I had heard that Hanger 6 was built before 'they' discovered that it was too small to fit the whole aircraft in. (Not sure was the tale relating to an A330 or B747)

I didn't believe as how bad could the planning be in that case. In the example above of a previously existing structure being used for unplanned aircraft it is perfectly understandable. When was Hanger 6 built?

novarock

Hangar 6 was built around 1990 or so.. Id be very surprised if that was the case. I remember being in 5 with a 747 and the doors closed as a kid. nowhere near the same size..

Im probably wrong, this is all from memory.

lintdrummer

I've never seen a 747 in hangar 6 but I'd be very surprised if it didn't fit. A couple of 330s can fit comfortably with doors closed.
There are a couple of 747 Bays in the hangar so it really would have been a monumental oversight to have built them and left the floor space too small to close the doors.

McWotever

lintdrummer wrote: »

I've never seen a 747 in hangar 6 but I'd be very surprised if it didn't fit. A couple of 330s can fit comfortably with doors closed.
There are a couple of 747 Bays in the hangar so it really would have been a monumental oversight to have built them and left the floor space too small to close the doors.

LOL. Yea that would be like building a port tunnel that can't take super trucks. Oh wait! We built a tunnell that small didn't we?

lintdrummer

LOL. Yea that would be like building a port tunnel that can't take super trucks. Oh wait! We built a tunnell that small didn't we?

Have you heard the expression "Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit"?

Asked around at work and yes, hangar 6 can take two 747s and five 737s simultaneously with doors closed. Would like to see that sight!

rossb2009

Hangar 6 can easily accomadate any current widebody, not sure about the a380 tho the vertical stabiliser may be a bit to tall, hangar 3 and 5 can also accomadate a 747 as thats what they were originally built for. Hangar 3 once had and a340-600 in it but the radome and weather radar had to be removed to squeeze it in!

wonski

novarock wrote: »

Hangar 6 was built around 1990 or so.. Id be very surprised if that was the case. I remember being in 5 with a 747 and the doors closed as a kid. nowhere near the same size..

Im probably wrong, this is all from memory.

It is getting interesting to me then...why polish authorities build one, where a320 (isn't that the one wizzair uses at the moment) can't go fully in? The picture i linked is ne building, so is this kind of design used all over the world, or the polish airport tried to save few euros without thinking?

novarock

That Hangar looks quite old, there could be several reasons that they cant modify it to bring in the planes fully. Anything from planning permission to them not owning the building?

wonski

novarock wrote: »

That Hangar looks quite old, there could be several reasons that they cant modify it to bring in the planes fully. Anything from planning permission to them not owning the building?

It was only opened last year. Another one is due to open in April. Will have a look, if it will use the same solution.

socdub

" However I heard this claim years ago about Hanger 6 in Dublin, that the eejits built it before they realised it was too small."

Just to correct this belief, as mentioned in another post, Hangar 6 was completed in the early 90's to coincide with the formation of TEAM Aer Lingus. The Hangar is a Widebody double bay and quite easily accomodate 2 B747 / A330 / 340 Aircraft and up to the 5 narrow body Aircraft. There was never any question of the Hangar being too small for any of the these types of the Commercial Aircraft that were in operation in the early 90's. Also as mentioned HGR 5 is the original widebody hangar for the Aer Lingus B747 fleet. Hangar 3 was originally the wash bay for Team Aer Lingus and was modified into a Hangar in the mid 90's.