Mid-mount Towers

[spike24]

is there any advange to having a mid-mount tower over a rear-mount?

personally i like the rear-mount and think the mid-mounts are ugly, but i am a person that perers function and practicality over looks. so i am just curious.

[1075]

Like most everything else there are tradeoffs. To me, the biggest single advantage to mid-mounts is obvious, it's quicker and easier to position the rig so that the turntable is in an ideal location. You pull in, or back in and the platform is right there. With a rear mount, you risk loosing valuable ladder positioning if you can't get the turntable close to the target because of natural or man made obstacles.

You usually loose some compartment space on the rig and angle of departure may be an issue if you have to deal with hilly terrain. I personally prefer mid-mounts.

[firemanjoe]

I think mid-mounts are cool. Manly there os more room in the cab no ladder over your head and the driver does not have to look at the bucket hanging out in front.

[CT606LT]

If over the road height of the rig is an issue, then a midmount allows the turntable to be mounted below the level of the cab, thus reducing the ladder height when bedded. Rear mounts have to have the turntable high enough to clear the cab with the ladder bedded.

[paddiegrunt]

Yes, but that makes them so much longer, the problem is getting around on tight city streets

[eastside misfit]

wouldnt you lose alot of compartment space if you have a midmount rather then rearmount?

[Maxim-Ize]

With the midmounts you generally get a greater "scrub area" for getting down to street level to get under the overhangs on commercial buildings...

Usually can get the bucket "on the ground" closer to the apparatus as well.

[SM5279]

Go talk to a department that has an Aerialscope (or like design ie: Pierce) and you'll figure it out for yourself...

[allpro]

I have used both. My preference is the mid-mount. It allows more versatility and functionality than the rear-mount.

[RoofTopTrucky]

My dept. is currently replacing a reaer mount 135' Straight stick and we've decided to go with a tower. We are now doing our home work to debate mid mount v rear mount. I am on the comittee to look at Mid Mounts.
**So far I have found that compartment space isn't as big an issue as first thought. You can get anywhere from 160 cu. ft. to 350 cu. ft depending on mfg.
**From what we've looked at it seems for what ever reason you can get more ground ladders on a mid mount too, most I've seen was 279 ft.
**No front over hang of the bucket obstruction drivers view. Even people I've spoken with who have rear mounts find this to be a hasel.
**Surprisingly ther longer rear overhang of a mid mount dose not seem to be a problem. From those I've spoken with, some of who replaced a rear mount with a mid mount, said it wasn't nearly the issue they thought it would be either. Most of the investigating I've done on "hitting the bucket while turning" took place when leaving the bays and turning too soon and hitting the bucket off the building, and in all cases i've looked into it was a traing/inexperince issue not an apparatus issue
**Usualy have a greater tip load with a mid mount along with Lower Center of Gravity and a Lower travel heigth. They have a little greater over all lenght then a rear mount.
Again there are differances depending on what mfg. your looking at. some have a greater rear overhang and Over all length. There is even on mfg that puts a large concrete block on the frame as balist if you don't get a pump and tank. (havent gotten a real reason why yet)
The number One reason I got from people with mid mounts as to why they got them... more manuverable. They all claim that they can get their mid mount into places a rear mount cant get.
Like with any rig your looking into purchasing, (assuming thats why your asking) do your home work. It will pay off.

[Truckinainteasy]

Aside from the genious that first claims to be about functionality and then says they are all ugly... good points.

Midmount has some huge pluses as low levels where most of us do the most work. Having a short boom (5 section) vs 3 section is an amazing advantage. Hitting the ground without extending the ladder is a big advantage when operating low level master streams or bringing a victim down. Many manufacturers use some sort of ballast when there is no pump, everyone likes to pick on Sutphen about that cause they are upfront about it. Sutphen has built more towers than anyone I'd bet. Aside from the bucket, which sucks, I'd seriously consider them. Keep the load sensors and wire sensors off the rig. Pierce will try to sell every gadget under the sun and the truck becomes non functional. There is a big difference between the Ascope of old and the new ones, do your homework and compare. Compartment space is an issue, resist adding a ton of compartments, get your basic equipment on and keep the body low to increase scrub. We found enough of our extras can go on the rescue and the essential stuff is on the truck. Pierce, ALF, KME, E1 and Sutphen are all players if you want a quint or ladder with a pump.

[fdnysmketr]

I agree with the guy above. My only issue with Sutphen is that it takes 65' extension to put the bucket on the ground and when you get there you can't operate their master stream up into the ceiling area. At least on the pre-2000's, the gun only raises to just above 90 degrees. Seagrave/Aerialscopes are bulls, but they rust. Our 2002 has considerable rust already. Pierce is the John Deere of the Fire Service in that they make an exceptional product, but you pay dearly for it. KME and ALF are middle of the road and although I've seen and was impressed with demos, I've not seen any in action at a fire. Yonkers and Jersey City are using ALF TL's. No E1's to speak of in my county to comment enough.

I like Mid-mounts the best.

[SrFireOfficial]

I've worked with both rear-mount and mid-mount tower ladders. Baker-Aerialscope has the market cornered with their A-frame jacks at the turntable which allow the boom to have lower access to the ground and a better low-altitude scrub area. The RM-TL's are a bit more manueverable because of the (almost negligible) shorter wheelbase than a midmount of comparable operating height but the the big trade off is in the scrub area and set up needed to operate at "street level"

Before returning to an engine company, I was assigned to a station w/a 95' Pierce mid-mount. It was beautiful rig except all the safety stops engineered into it to make it "fireman-proof" (i.e. smashing the boom into the cab) severely limit its ability to operate at low angles off the side.

And for crying out loud, if you order twin turrets up there, order twin remotes, not one of each: do you have any idea how bad it looks if one firefighter is standing operating the remote control turret while the other is kneeling to operate the manual gun ............ Geez. Where were the PC police for that one!

[Backstep]

Yes, but that makes them so much longer, the problem is getting around on tight city streets

See Washington DC Tower 3. Seagrave w/95' Aerialscope. They manage downtown very well.

[ctfd55]

We run two Sutphen mid-mounts, one a 65' staight stick and the other a 90' tower. I like them mainly because it is the only thing I've been exposed to, but I also like the relative simplicity of getting the aerial up and functioning quickly, especially the stick. Our deparment used both trucks on a low-angle techcial rescue last year very effectively. As for compartment space, I would have to say that the rear mount, from what I've seen only in pictures, gives up space in the rear compartments because of the turntable, where our trucks have full height compartments down the driver's side. Both have low-sides on the officer's side due to ground ladder storage. In regard to the nozzles not going above parallel on the bucket, I believe that is correct on our truck (a 1991), to be honest I've never paid that close attention nor have I used it that way. Hope this helps.