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 13:00 , 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 .

SDI was created to drive the Soviets into bankruptcy. SDI didn't
work. Couldn't be made to work. Wasn't supposed to work. It was a
strategy to end the USSR, which was already on the ropes.

On Sunday, August 25, 2013 3:23:44 AM UTC-4, D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 8/24/13 13:00 , 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 .



SDI was created to drive the Soviets into bankruptcy. SDI didn't

work. Couldn't be made to work. Wasn't supposed to work. It was a

strategy to end the USSR, which was already on the ropes.



If anything actually pushed the evil empire into real bankruptcy- it was prohibition under Gorbachev... The gov't lost huge part of the revenue due to very high alcohol prices .This had created a new industry (underground) and all the money remained in private hands. Eventually the state planned economy started to collapse . All the way...

On 8/25/13 03:23 , wrote:


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



SDI was created to drive the Soviets into bankruptcy. SDI didn't

work. Couldn't be made to work. Wasn't supposed to work. It was a

strategy to end the USSR, which was already on the ropes.



If anything actually pushed the evil empire into real bankruptcy- it
was prohibition under Gorbachev... The gov't lost huge part of the
revenue due to very high alcohol prices .This had created a new
industry (underground) and all the money remained in private hands.
Eventually the state planned economy started to collapse . All the
way...


No doubt. But it doesn't change the fact that SDI was a red herring.
It couldn't work, and wasn't supposed to. But it's creation and public
presentation was a strategy to undo the Soviet Union. Whether it was
successful in that may be an issue of some debate, but that was its
purpose.

On Sunday, August 25, 2013 4:22:31 AM UTC-5, D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 8/25/13 03:23 , wrote:





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







SDI was created to drive the Soviets into bankruptcy. SDI didn't



work. Couldn't be made to work. Wasn't supposed to work. It was a



strategy to end the USSR, which was already on the ropes.







If anything actually pushed the evil empire into real bankruptcy- it

was prohibition under Gorbachev... The gov't lost huge part of the

revenue due to very high alcohol prices .This had created a new

industry (underground) and all the money remained in private hands.

Eventually the state planned economy started to collapse . All the

way...





No doubt. But it doesn't change the fact that SDI was a red herring.

It couldn't work, and wasn't supposed to. But it's creation and public

presentation was a strategy to undo the Soviet Union. Whether it was

successful in that may be an issue of some debate, but that was its

purpose.

But, what is that 60 years old car you drive? Is it a Saab car?