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