On Friday, August 23, 2013 11:48:19 AM UTC-5, D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 8/18/13 12:34 , wrote:

On Sunday, August 18, 2013 10:42:04 AM UTC-4, Jim Haynes wrote:

On 2013-08-17, extra class wrote:



try 60+







The B-52 took its maiden flight in April 1952.







Yes, but the ones currently still flying are the B-52H models that



went into service 50 years ago.







jhhaynes at earthlink dot net



Just how safe is a 50 year old flying machine?







You'd be surprised.



Unlike automobiles, often underbuilt and subjected to a variety of

environmental and chemical abuses, and human inflicted abuses, including

ignored maintenance, harsh treatment by operators, poorly maintained

roads, and spotty repairs, aircraft are operated in a much less harsh

and/or hostile environment.



While mechanical stresses in aircraft are significantly more intense

than in automotive applications, aircraft systems are more robustly

built at points of stress, regularly more aggressively maintained, and

are not subjected to the horrors of salt, and environmental abuse.



Cars are usually run hard and put up wet. Aircraft are operated in

more circumspect manners. All major subsystems, and points of stress are

inspected prior to every flight. Shock cooling doesn't happen with

aircraft operated by competent pilots. Engines are cool-down run to

prevent cracking. Maintenance is much more aggressive. Inspections are

frequent and regular. Repairs are more carefully monitored, recorded and

logged.



In the event of spar rust, as on civilan Beechcraft Bonanzas,

recently revealed, military aircraft are either grounded, or the parts

replaced. And for the record the rust on the wing spars of Bonanzas,

many of which date to the 40's, was revealed by annual and 100 hour

inspections.



So, a 50 year old military aircraft, while not maintained to the

obscene and often punitive levels of civilian aircraft, are better

maintained better than any civilian automobile, inspected at regular

intervals for mechanical and structural insufficiencies, and are

accompanied by records that go back to the first stringers being laid in

the airframe.



Myself, I drive a 60 year old car.



I've gone up in much older aircraft many times with complete confidence.

Some Countries have what they call MOT, or versions of MOT thereof. If that MOT was around here, Buku, Buku cars would be grounded.

On Friday, August 23, 2013 2:06:54 PM UTC-5, DhiaDuit wrote:
On Friday, August 23, 2013 11:48:19 AM UTC-5, D. Peter Maus wrote:

On 8/18/13 12:34 , wrote:



On Sunday, August 18, 2013 10:42:04 AM UTC-4, Jim Haynes wrote:



On 2013-08-17, extra class wrote:







try 60+















The B-52 took its maiden flight in April 1952.















Yes, but the ones currently still flying are the B-52H models that







went into service 50 years ago.















jhhaynes at earthlink dot net







Just how safe is a 50 year old flying machine?















You'd be surprised.







Unlike automobiles, often underbuilt and subjected to a variety of



environmental and chemical abuses, and human inflicted abuses, including



ignored maintenance, harsh treatment by operators, poorly maintained



roads, and spotty repairs, aircraft are operated in a much less harsh



and/or hostile environment.







While mechanical stresses in aircraft are significantly more intense



than in automotive applications, aircraft systems are more robustly



built at points of stress, regularly more aggressively maintained, and



are not subjected to the horrors of salt, and environmental abuse.







Cars are usually run hard and put up wet. Aircraft are operated in



more circumspect manners. All major subsystems, and points of stress are



inspected prior to every flight. Shock cooling doesn't happen with



aircraft operated by competent pilots. Engines are cool-down run to



prevent cracking. Maintenance is much more aggressive. Inspections are



frequent and regular. Repairs are more carefully monitored, recorded and



logged.







In the event of spar rust, as on civilan Beechcraft Bonanzas,



recently revealed, military aircraft are either grounded, or the parts



replaced. And for the record the rust on the wing spars of Bonanzas,



many of which date to the 40's, was revealed by annual and 100 hour



inspections.







So, a 50 year old military aircraft, while not maintained to the



obscene and often punitive levels of civilian aircraft, are better



maintained better than any civilian automobile, inspected at regular



intervals for mechanical and structural insufficiencies, and are



accompanied by records that go back to the first stringers being laid in



the airframe.







Myself, I drive a 60 year old car.







I've gone up in much older aircraft many times with complete confidence.



Some Countries have what they call MOT, or versions of MOT thereof. If that MOT was around here, Buku, Buku cars would be grounded.

I am an old car nut. What kind of a 60 years old car do you drive?

Just how safe is a 50 year old flying machine?

On 8/23/2013 12:48 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote:

You'd be surprised.

Unlike automobiles, often underbuilt and subjected to a variety of
environmental and chemical abuses, and human inflicted abuses, including
ignored maintenance, harsh treatment by operators, poorly maintained
roads, and spotty repairs, aircraft are operated in a much less harsh
and/or hostile environment.

While mechanical stresses in aircraft are significantly more intense
than in automotive applications, aircraft systems are more robustly
built at points of stress, regularly more aggressively maintained, and
are not subjected to the horrors of salt, and environmental abuse.

Stresses?

I would respectfully point out the commercial airliner that had a
portion of the roof peeled off near Hawaii, ostensibly due to the
repeated pressurization of the hull. Also recall the Alaskan Airlines(?)
plane where the empennage failed due to stress.

I've gone up in much older aircraft many times with complete confidence.

Ditto. Been up numerous times in a Ford Tri-Motor (produced 1925-1933)
with nary a concern (other than going deaf). Also flew a C-54 Skymaster
to Texas and lived to tell the tale. :-D

On 08/24/2013 07:07 AM, Joe from Kokomo wrote:


Just how safe is a 50 year old flying machine?

On 8/23/2013 12:48 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote:

You'd be surprised.

Unlike automobiles, often underbuilt and subjected to a variety of
environmental and chemical abuses, and human inflicted abuses, including
ignored maintenance, harsh treatment by operators, poorly maintained
roads, and spotty repairs, aircraft are operated in a much less harsh
and/or hostile environment.

While mechanical stresses in aircraft are significantly more intense
than in automotive applications, aircraft systems are more robustly
built at points of stress, regularly more aggressively maintained, and
are not subjected to the horrors of salt, and environmental abuse.

Stresses?

I would respectfully point out the commercial airliner that had a
portion of the roof peeled off near Hawaii, ostensibly due to the
repeated pressurization of the hull. Also recall the Alaskan Airlines(?)
plane where the empennage failed due to stress.

I've gone up in much older aircraft many times with complete confidence.

Ditto. Been up numerous times in a Ford Tri-Motor (produced 1925-1933)
with nary a concern (other than going deaf). Also flew a C-54 Skymaster
to Texas and lived to tell the tale. :-D


This is silly. It reminds me of Reagan's use of battleships. The things
have 8 engines (not counting APUs) for crude missiles to lock on. They
are sitting ducks in the sky.

On Saturday, August 24, 2013 10:09:26 AM UTC-5, dave wrote:
On 08/24/2013 07:07 AM, Joe from Kokomo wrote:





Just how safe is a 50 year old flying machine?



On 8/23/2013 12:48 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote:



You'd be surprised.



Unlike automobiles, often underbuilt and subjected to a variety of

environmental and chemical abuses, and human inflicted abuses, including

ignored maintenance, harsh treatment by operators, poorly maintained

roads, and spotty repairs, aircraft are operated in a much less harsh

and/or hostile environment.



While mechanical stresses in aircraft are significantly more intense

than in automotive applications, aircraft systems are more robustly

built at points of stress, regularly more aggressively maintained, and

are not subjected to the horrors of salt, and environmental abuse.



Stresses?



I would respectfully point out the commercial airliner that had a

portion of the roof peeled off near Hawaii, ostensibly due to the

repeated pressurization of the hull. Also recall the Alaskan Airlines(?)

plane where the empennage failed due to stress.



I've gone up in much older aircraft many times with complete confidence.



Ditto. Been up numerous times in a Ford Tri-Motor (produced 1925-1933)

with nary a concern (other than going deaf). Also flew a C-54 Skymaster

to Texas and lived to tell the tale. :-D





This is silly. It reminds me of Reagan's use of battleships. The things

have 8 engines (not counting APUs) for crude missiles to lock on. They

are sitting ducks in the sky.

Square corner windows in Aircraft. That is a No No. Like Shelby Stanga the Swamp man says, Just Don't Do It!!!

On 08/24/2013 08:52 AM, DhiaDuit wrote:


Square corner windows in Aircraft. That is a No No. Like Shelby Stanga the Swamp man says, Just Don't Do It!!!


Any metal subject to vibrating will want to fracture where two
perpendicular edges meet and there is no diagonal bracing.

On Saturday, August 24, 2013 11:09:26 AM UTC-4, dave wrote:
On 08/24/2013 07:07 AM, Joe from Kokomo wrote:





Just how safe is a 50 year old flying machine?



On 8/23/2013 12:48 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote:



You'd be surprised.



Unlike automobiles, often underbuilt and subjected to a variety of

environmental and chemical abuses, and human inflicted abuses, including

ignored maintenance, harsh treatment by operators, poorly maintained

roads, and spotty repairs, aircraft are operated in a much less harsh

and/or hostile environment.



While mechanical stresses in aircraft are significantly more intense

than in automotive applications, aircraft systems are more robustly

built at points of stress, regularly more aggressively maintained, and

are not subjected to the horrors of salt, and environmental abuse.



Stresses?



I would respectfully point out the commercial airliner that had a

portion of the roof peeled off near Hawaii, ostensibly due to the

repeated pressurization of the hull. Also recall the Alaskan Airlines(?)

plane where the empennage failed due to stress.



I've gone up in much older aircraft many times with complete confidence.



Ditto. Been up numerous times in a Ford Tri-Motor (produced 1925-1933)

with nary a concern (other than going deaf). Also flew a C-54 Skymaster

to Texas and lived to tell the tale. :-D





This is silly. It reminds me of Reagan's use of battleships. The things

have 8 engines (not counting APUs) for crude missiles to lock on. They

are sitting ducks in the sky.

This is why SDI was created. To fight missiles with missiles .

On Saturday, August 24, 2013 1:00:01 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Saturday, August 24, 2013 11:09:26 AM UTC-4, dave wrote:

On 08/24/2013 07:07 AM, Joe from Kokomo wrote:











Just how safe is a 50 year old flying machine?







On 8/23/2013 12:48 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote:







You'd be surprised.







Unlike automobiles, often underbuilt and subjected to a variety of



environmental and chemical abuses, and human inflicted abuses, including



ignored maintenance, harsh treatment by operators, poorly maintained



roads, and spotty repairs, aircraft are operated in a much less harsh



and/or hostile environment.







While mechanical stresses in aircraft are significantly more intense



than in automotive applications, aircraft systems are more robustly



built at points of stress, regularly more aggressively maintained, and



are not subjected to the horrors of salt, and environmental abuse.







Stresses?







I would respectfully point out the commercial airliner that had a



portion of the roof peeled off near Hawaii, ostensibly due to the



repeated pressurization of the hull. Also recall the Alaskan Airlines(?)



plane where the empennage failed due to stress.







I've gone up in much older aircraft many times with complete confidence.







Ditto. Been up numerous times in a Ford Tri-Motor (produced 1925-1933)



with nary a concern (other than going deaf). Also flew a C-54 Skymaster



to Texas and lived to tell the tale. :-D











This is silly. It reminds me of Reagan's use of battleships. The things



have 8 engines (not counting APUs) for crude missiles to lock on. They



are sitting ducks in the sky.



This is why SDI was created. To fight missiles with missiles .

I have been inside a Ford Trimotor before. I would like to take a ride in one. Google,,, Ford Trimotor Google,,, Ford Trimotor Youtube

On Saturday, August 24, 2013 1:00:01 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Saturday, August 24, 2013 11:09:26 AM UTC-4, dave wrote:

On 08/24/2013 07:07 AM, Joe from Kokomo wrote:











Just how safe is a 50 year old flying machine?







On 8/23/2013 12:48 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote:







You'd be surprised.







Unlike automobiles, often underbuilt and subjected to a variety of



environmental and chemical abuses, and human inflicted abuses, including



ignored maintenance, harsh treatment by operators, poorly maintained



roads, and spotty repairs, aircraft are operated in a much less harsh



and/or hostile environment.







While mechanical stresses in aircraft are significantly more intense



than in automotive applications, aircraft systems are more robustly



built at points of stress, regularly more aggressively maintained, and



are not subjected to the horrors of salt, and environmental abuse.







Stresses?







I would respectfully point out the commercial airliner that had a



portion of the roof peeled off near Hawaii, ostensibly due to the



repeated pressurization of the hull. Also recall the Alaskan Airlines(?)



plane where the empennage failed due to stress.







I've gone up in much older aircraft many times with complete confidence.







Ditto. Been up numerous times in a Ford Tri-Motor (produced 1925-1933)



with nary a concern (other than going deaf). Also flew a C-54 Skymaster



to Texas and lived to tell the tale. :-D











This is silly. It reminds me of Reagan's use of battleships. The things



have 8 engines (not counting APUs) for crude missiles to lock on. They



are sitting ducks in the sky.



This is why SDI was created. To fight missiles with missiles .

I meant to say I have never been inside a Ford Trimotor before. Doggy said, ///Don't worry about it///

On 8/24/13 09:07 , Joe from Kokomo wrote:

While mechanical stresses in aircraft are significantly more intense
than in automotive applications, aircraft systems are more robustly
built at points of stress, regularly more aggressively maintained, and
are not subjected to the horrors of salt, and environmental abuse.

Stresses?

I would respectfully point out the commercial airliner that had a
portion of the roof peeled off near Hawaii, ostensibly due to the
repeated pressurization of the hull. Also recall the Alaskan Airlines(?)
plane where the empennage failed due to stress.


And your point? Or are you arguing just to be arguing.