Mid Mount Aerials

[JBE 328]

I was wondering what you folks think of this type of apparatus. I see a mid mount, such as Greenwichs' aerial, Carmels' old 12-5-1, Somers' former Ladder 18. I think two things, either, it's mounted in the wrong spot,(I prefer rear mounts) or, they didn't finish the rig(tiller). Does anyone else share this sentiment?? Before I get flamed, I do understand the constraints of budget and fit in the firehouse. For the sake of agument, let's throw budget and fit out the window and look at aesthetics and maneuverablity. Discuss.

[27east 19]

either, it's mounted in the wrong spot,(I prefer rear mounts) or, they didn't finish the rig(tiller). Does anyone else share this sentiment??

have to agree with you there JBE. always though they were kind of ugly.

[RES20CUE 40]

The mid-mount aerial was around for a long time. Long before the rear-mount was ever even developed.

Just like any other piece of equipment in the Fire Service, it has it's advantages and disadvantages.

What's the difference between a mid-mount Tower and a mid-mount Aerial? Not much other than the bucket, the same as if both were rear-mounts.

One huge advantage to the mid-mount is no front overhang- to hit those trees and such that pop out when your making a tight turn.

[chris498 31]

Who cares about the looks? Mid mounts have their purpose; height issues being one of them..... and it isn't always a firehouse issue either...... bridges have been known to create height problems for apparatus too. I.e. they are too low. There have to be some benefits to mid mount aerials.... why else would most companies that build rigs be re-entering that market????? Forget looks, functionality is what matters. Nuff said .

[afd65 4]

for looks i like the rear mount trucks better. but if u are going on function i would go with a mid mount. they are a less hieght issue they look like they are easier to set up at fires as well.