Moderators: FrankM, el, Dmmoore
You're exactly correct about my feelings. These things should have been parked in 1950.
(Hopefully, Flyboy is not bothered by my use of "disdain" and feels I was somewhat approximately correct about his feelings.)
5 years?Do you feel that way about all planes that have reached the age of 5 years or only certain ones?
Ah! I see what you mean now. The issue is not even so much the age itself as the fact that these airplanes were never meant to have much of a shelf life. Aviation was developing so rapidly back then that this particular aircraft was pretty obsolescent on the day it was rolled out of the factory what with the much more capable B-29 already being in service. Moreover, these are not airplanes in the traditional sense. These are weapons systems that were meant to operate as a part of a much bigger weapons system. They were designed to fight their war only to be replaced by better weapons systems (which is exactly what happened). They were certainly never meant to be joyridden nearly 80 years later.The plane that crashed was built in 1945, you said it should have been parked in 1950. 1950-1945=5 years.
Another consideration is that shouldn't there be adequate, if-not-robust, procedures, regulations and standards to assure that there are not undue risks with this...that Flyboy's and 3BS's new, slight disdain for these operations are just FEELINGS and not_objective criteria?Quote = Eric
Consideration A, B, C, D
In any event, these are not supposed to be toys for fat-walleted geezers who are trying to relive someone else's glory days. Sounds harsh, but it is what it is.I suppose they really weren't meant to have a "shelf life" at all!
Their primary mission was to fly into enemy territory and drop large things that explode. If the plane could be reused and/or its occupants all survived, that was a plus. Never mind that the aircraft safety standards of the day (in the sense that if you fly in one you have an x% chance of dying) were nowhere near what they are today.
The counterargument might be that the engineering state-of-the-art when those things were built is nothing like what it is today, especially in the areas of metallurgy and failure analysis. So if the people rebuilding an old plane have the right skills and motivation and budget, they might be able to identify and mitigate failure modes that were not anticipated way back when.
And then there's piloting. While the folks behind the control columns are probably qualified (and experienced) enough to fly those planes under normal circumstances, they're flying a plane that's probably 100x as likely to experience a failure as, say, an A320. And they probably have 1/10 the training to deal with those failures.
A little bit narrow.In any event, these are not supposed to be toys for fat-walleted geezers who are trying to relive someone else's glory days. Sounds harsh, but it is what it is.
It's all fun until a boiler explodes and millions did die a fiery death.Yes, we may not think it all the way through, but it's cool to simply watch.
I am pretty certain about this: In the case of a rejected takeoff and application of emergency brake, there is ZERO PSI straight to every last brake controller! (Ok, maybe 15 PSI for the more pedantic ones in this bunch).It's all fun until a boiler explodes and millions did die a fiery death.
Imagine when, 80 years from now, they fix the 737 Max... It's a shame Airbus' crappy composites will be long dissolved by then.So if the people rebuilding an old plane have the right skills and motivation and budget, they might be able to identify and mitigate failure modes that were not anticipated way back when.
If anything, not narrow enough. Pilot was 75, copilot was 71.A little bit narrow.In any event, these are not supposed to be toys for fat-walleted geezers who are trying to relive someone else's glory days. Sounds harsh, but it is what it is.
Noted with sincerity.If anything, not narrow enough. Pilot was 75, copilot was 71.
He's more painful to listen to than Les Stature is to read.
Sure, because there are all manner of solid-state ignition STCs available for these engines...
I have to say if this accident were caused (or mostly caused) by damp magnetos, that is pathetic. I understand the value of keeping things historically correct, but ignition-system design has progressed a lot in the last 80 years. Water is not an issue for modern ignition systems, and maybe some newer technology should be applied in the case of aircraft like these.
flyboy, insightful and ahead of the game, as always.If anything, not narrow enough. Pilot was 75, copilot was 71.
The only thing worse than being wrong is being right about things about which you'd much rather be wrong.flyboy, insightful and ahead of the game, as always.If anything, not narrow enough. Pilot was 75, copilot was 71.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests
