The Aviation Thread [Contains Lots of Awesome Pictures]

Blind_Io said:
Speaking of AirBus, what do you guys think of the recent report regarding the Quantas A380 that had the engine failure?

There's been a bit of coverage in the media about it, but it is clearly geared to the layman.
Click to expand...

I think the airlines, ATSB and CASA are more pissed off at the lack of information from Rolls-Royce than anything. Its possible they were aware of the problem a while ago since they did issue service bulletins regarding oil leaks and telling mechanics to inspect that area of the engine.
 
So RR is the Toyota of the airline industry?
 
h-p said:
British engines. Of course they leak oil.
Click to expand...

Rolls and GE engines typically don't leak that much oil (except for the Rolls RB211 - that's another story though). Pratt & Whitneys, on the other hand, leak oil like it's going out of style. From the lowliest PT6 to the monstrous PW4098, the joke is you check the fuel and fill the oil after every flight, or that you know the engine is out of oil when it isn't covered with it - just like their old radials.

As for the Trent 900, I think Rolls honestly didn't anticipate this problem - the reason why they issued ADs and SBs was because they weren't sure what was causing the problem, and there wanted operators to be vigilant for anything unusual. The Trent 900 is still a very new engine with comparatively little time in-service; no matter how good your test program is, something unexpected will almost always crop up afterwards.

To me, the most alarming thing about this incident was how the crew was unable to shut down engine #1 for almost two hours after landing. This might seem trivial, but there could be a scenario where a similar failure results in an uncontrollable fire. If you can't shut the fuel off to that engine because the spar valve isn't responding, the situation just went from potentially recoverable to imminent catastrophe...it doesn't take long for a fire to burn through or weaken a wing spar, after all.
 
Last edited:
0502802.jpg


0709037_7.jpg


I like the idea of matching cars and aeroplanes.
 
Last edited:
Matching cars and aeroplanes you say? :hmm:

http://img59.imageshack.**/img59/5554/fordmustangp51roush09.jpg

http://img801.imageshack.**/img801/1066/stokestbirds.jpg
 
Its like matching wine and cheese.

url
 
Last edited:
MrChips said:
Rolls and GE engines typically don't leak that much oil (except for the Rolls RB211 - that's another story though). Pratt & Whitneys, on the other hand, leak oil like it's going out of style. From the lowliest PT6 to the monstrous PW4098, the joke is you check the fuel and fill the oil after every flight, or that you know the engine is out of oil when it isn't covered with it - just like their old radials.
Click to expand...

Maybe I should have added a few smileys after that post: :p:D:lol::rofl::lmao:

:)
 
Challenge: find a picture of a Mitsubishi Evo in front of a Mitsubishi Zero. Unlike a Saab Viggen in front of a Saab Viggen, this is bound to be much harder.
 
IIRC there's like 4 flying zeroes, and one is officially called original because they used the original landing gear even though every single body panel and most of the interals are reproduced. Non flying or mock zero would be more likely.

I love shots like this.

http://img200.imageshack.**/img200/5530/70939933.jpg
 
Ramseus said:
IIRC there's like 4 flying zeroes, and one is officially called original because they used the original landing gear even though every single body panel and most of the interals are reproduced. Non flying or mock zero would be more likely.

I love shots like this.

http://img200.imageshack.**/img200/5530/70939933.jpg
Click to expand...

And I love B-24s like that. I had heard of a single still flying B-24 of the CAF, but I thought it was the only one left. Good to see another one flying. :)

A bit of history:
Joe Baugher?s Site said:
44-44052 to RAF as Liberator GR.VI KH191.
To Indian AF as T-18. In Indian AF Technical College, Jalahali by 1972.
Acquired by Warbirds of GB Ltd and delivered to UK by Heavylift May 6, 1982. Stored dismantled at Blackbushe AP, England.
Purchased by Collings Foundation and shipped to USA in 1986 and restored to flying condition, flying for the first time after restoration Aug 1989. Now with Collings Foundation. Last flyable "real" B-24. Registered as N224J and named "All American" In 2009 was named "Witchcraft" and bore the number 252534 on the tail.
Click to expand...

And a further bit of digging shows why the current owners painted it with the ?wrong? tail number. The original ?Witchcraft? was a truly awesome aircraft and deserves to be commemorated, I approve. :thumbup:

Joe Baugher?s Site said:
42-52534 (467th BG, 790th BS, "Witchcraft") completed 130 combat missions between Apr 10, 1944 and Apr 21, 1945, the most missions flown by a B-24 in the ETO. The 130 sorties were flown without a single abort due to mechanical problems and without injury to any crew member.
'Witchcraft' was returned to the USA Jun 12, 1945 and was sold for scrap Oct 3, 1945
Click to expand...

Here in the UK, I have seen a B-24 at the IWM American Air Museum at Duxford, Cambridgeshire, but it only a static display.
 
I like The B-24 Flying Coffin, but I prefer the B-17, the Beauty Queen of Bombers, in my opinion. Also, as I recall it had the highest survival rate of US bombers. Even when it was shot down the crew could almost always get out before it crashed due to all the holes in the fuselage and the abundance of hatches.

https://pic.armedcats.net/b/bl/blind_io/2010/12/05/b17-625x450.jpg
 
Blind_Io said:
I like The B-24 Flying Coffin, but I prefer the B-17, the Beauty Queen of Bombers, in my opinion. Also, as I recall it had the highest survival rate of US bombers. Even when it was shot down the crew could almost always get out before it crashed due to all the holes in the fuselage and the abundance of hatches.

https://pic.armedcats.net/b/bl/blind_io/2010/12/05/b17-625x450.jpg
Click to expand...

Unless you were the ball turret gunner. If the turret or hatch was jammed and you had to belly in, he was toast.
 
Yeah, I saw The Memphis Belle too.

Still, as a whole the B-17 was the most survivable bomber.
 
Blind_Io said:
Yeah, I saw The Memphis Belle too.

Still, as a whole the B-17 was the most survivable bomber.
Click to expand...

Very true. My dad flew them over Germany in WWII. If he hadn't survived, I wouldn't be here. Quick aside story from my Dad: Many airmen had these small New Testament bibles with a metal front cover. The original idea was that you would put them in your left front breast pocket to protect your heart from flying shrapnel, but in fact most fliers put them in their back seat pocket to protect their ass and other organs. :)
 
:lol:

As would any soldier!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top