| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Air Force begins massive B 52 overhaul.
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 |
Air Force begins massive B 52 overhaul.
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? |
Air Force begins massive B 52 overhaul.
|
Air Force begins massive B 52 overhaul.
On Sunday, August 18, 2013 12:40:56 PM UTC-5, dxAce wrote:
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? Probably pretty darn safe since like some helicopters we had only the air frame itself is really that old (and even some of that may have been replaced) the rest having been replaced piece by piece over the decades. dxAce Michigan USA The old Bell Huey Helicopters had a lot of vibration in them. That is what caused a lot of them to crash in Vietnam. My brother was a Helicopter Mechanic at Vung Tau, Vietnam. I would feel much safer in a B 52, or an old Gooneybird. |
Air Force begins massive B 52 overhaul.
On Sunday, August 18, 2013 2:00:15 PM UTC-4, DhiaDuit wrote:
On Sunday, August 18, 2013 12:40:56 PM UTC-5, dxAce wrote: 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? Probably pretty darn safe since like some helicopters we had only the air frame itself is really that old (and even some of that may have been replaced) the rest having been replaced piece by piece over the decades. dxAce Michigan USA The old Bell Huey Helicopters had a lot of vibration in them. That is what caused a lot of them to crash in Vietnam. My brother was a Helicopter Mechanic at Vung Tau, Vietnam. I would feel much safer in a B 52, or an old Gooneybird. C-47(actually a DC-3) must be the most reliable plane in existence. They are still being used today in several countries . It is an amazing piece of machinery. |
Air Force begins massive B 52 overhaul.
jhhaynes wrote: "Yes, but the ones currently still flying are the B-52H models that went into service 50 years ago." Know that, the original pukehead poster forgot to note the variant. Conversion to an all drone usage now, should see its service life to 2111AD. |
Air Force begins massive B 52 overhaul.
|
Air Force begins massive B 52 overhaul.
"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message ... My experience with that aircraft came in the late 60's when Northwest was flying DC-3's and I was a passenger from Minneapolis to Huron South Dakota. Those twin 9 cylinder Wright Cyclones were astonishingly loud in the cabin, and the aircraft was very rough flying. I didn't stop hurling until two hours after we landed. Like early V-tail Bonanza's, the DC-3 would fishtail in straight and level flight. It was like riding in the back of a 63 Galaxy on the interstate. Finger lickin' unpleasant. But still, one of the most historically significant aircraft ever built. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ah, yes... the unparalleled joy and comfort of a DC-3.. United was still using those things for regional service during my last trip to the states back in 2001. I had to fly on one from Dulles to Charlottesville, VA. I was already in bad shape from bad food on the flight from Seoul to Dulles, then I had to wait for nearly 6 hours since my flight out of Dulles never showed up, and it took them that long to get another plane there. Finally got out on the tarmac and there was a DC-3, in all it's glory... it looked from the outside like it should have been mothballed after WWII, but, alas, it wasn't and I had to fly on her. I spent most of the flight in the lav, the rest with a huge headache and my stomach doing flip flops, all accompanied by that deafening roar. Never again. I'll take a taxi. |
Air Force begins massive B 52 overhaul.
On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 3:06:49 AM UTC-4, Brenda Dyer wrote:
"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message ... My experience with that aircraft came in the late 60's when Northwest was flying DC-3's and I was a passenger from Minneapolis to Huron South Dakota. Those twin 9 cylinder Wright Cyclones were astonishingly loud in the cabin, and the aircraft was very rough flying. I didn't stop hurling until two hours after we landed. Like early V-tail Bonanza's, the DC-3 would fishtail in straight and level flight. It was like riding in the back of a 63 Galaxy on the interstate. Finger lickin' unpleasant. But still, one of the most historically significant aircraft ever built. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ah, yes... the unparalleled joy and comfort of a DC-3.. United was still using those things for regional service during my last trip to the states back in 2001. I had to fly on one from Dulles to Charlottesville, VA. I was already in bad shape from bad food on the flight from Seoul to Dulles, then I had to wait for nearly 6 hours since my flight out of Dulles never showed up, and it took them that long to get another plane there. Finally got out on the tarmac and there was a DC-3, in all it's glory... it looked from the outside like it should have been mothballed after WWII, but, alas, it wasn't and I had to fly on her. I spent most of the flight in the lav, the rest with a huge headache and my stomach doing flip flops, all accompanied by that deafening roar. Never again. I'll take a taxi. From Dulles to Charlottesville is only 100 miles or so... |
Air Force begins massive B 52 overhaul.
|
Air Force begins massive B 52 overhaul.
On 8/20/13 02:47 , wrote: From Dulles to Charlottesville is only 100 miles or so... On 8/20/2013 8:24 AM, D. Peter Maus wrote: The longest hundred miles you'll ever see, is flying it in a DC-3. I dunno about that. Flying in the Ford Tri-Motor is unbelievably noisy. |
Air Force begins massive B 52 overhaul.
On 8/20/13 10:54 , Joe from Kokomo wrote:
On 8/20/13 02:47 , wrote: From Dulles to Charlottesville is only 100 miles or so... On 8/20/2013 8:24 AM, D. Peter Maus wrote: The longest hundred miles you'll ever see, is flying it in a DC-3. I dunno about that. Flying in the Ford Tri-Motor is unbelievably noisy. But nowhere near as unpleasant. |
Air Force begins massive B 52 overhaul.
On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 12:05:58 PM UTC-5, D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 8/20/13 10:54 , Joe from Kokomo wrote: On 8/20/13 02:47 , wrote: From Dulles to Charlottesville is only 100 miles or so... On 8/20/2013 8:24 AM, D. Peter Maus wrote: The longest hundred miles you'll ever see, is flying it in a DC-3. I dunno about that. Flying in the Ford Tri-Motor is unbelievably noisy. But nowhere near as unpleasant. Hennnnn ry! ///Coming, mother/// (Henry Tremblechin. Y'all cats probally never heard of him before, on radio comedy) What's that you say, Henry? ///Google,,, Henry Ford put the World on Wings/// Do tell. ///Yep, it's the Truth. He put the World on Wheels too/// |
Air Force begins massive B 52 overhaul.
On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 12:43:57 PM UTC-5, DhiaDuit wrote:
On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 12:05:58 PM UTC-5, D. Peter Maus wrote: On 8/20/13 10:54 , Joe from Kokomo wrote: On 8/20/13 02:47 , wrote: From Dulles to Charlottesville is only 100 miles or so... On 8/20/2013 8:24 AM, D. Peter Maus wrote: The longest hundred miles you'll ever see, is flying it in a DC-3.. I dunno about that. Flying in the Ford Tri-Motor is unbelievably noisy. But nowhere near as unpleasant. Hennnnn ry! ///Coming, mother/// (Henry Tremblechin. Y'all cats probally never heard of him before, on radio comedy) What's that you say, Henry? ///Google,,, Henry Ford put the World on Wings/// Do tell. ///Yep, it's the Truth. He put the World on Wheels too/// Google,,, cartoonician.com Jimmy Hatlo Man of many hats Uh Huh, I remember Little Iodine and They''ll Do It Every Time and Henry Tremblechin and many other real Good old newspaper comic strips. That other Henry cartoon strip wasen't Henry Tremblechin though.He was a different Henry. |
Air Force begins massive B 52 overhaul.
On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 4:29:12 PM UTC-5, matt weber wrote:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 00:33:57 -0500, "D. Peter Maus" wrote: On 8/18/13 14:10 , wrote: C-47(actually a DC-3) must be the most reliable plane in existence. They are still being used today in several countries . It is an amazing piece of machinery. Many of the radial engines used for C-47's are no longer serviceable for civilian use, and are limited to public use, which does not require the stringent standards of civilian service maintenance schedules. A good number of the C-47's still flying have been converted to turbo prop engines. They are eerily quiet when flying overhead. My experience with that aircraft came in the late 60's when Northwest was flying DC-3's and I was a passenger from Minneapolis to Huron South Dakota. Those twin 9 cylinder Wright Cyclones were astonishingly loud in the cabin, and the aircraft was very rough flying. I didn't stop hurling until two hours after we landed. Like early V-tail Bonanza's, the DC-3 would fishtail in straight and level flight. It was like riding in the back of a 63 Galaxy on the interstate. Finger lickin' unpleasant. But still, one of the most historically significant aircraft ever built. |
Air Force begins massive B 52 overhaul.
On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 4:37:20 PM UTC-5, DhiaDuit wrote:
On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 4:29:12 PM UTC-5, matt weber wrote: On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 00:33:57 -0500, "D. Peter Maus" wrote: On 8/18/13 14:10 , wrote: C-47(actually a DC-3) must be the most reliable plane in existence. They are still being used today in several countries . It is an amazing piece of machinery. Many of the radial engines used for C-47's are no longer serviceable for civilian use, and are limited to public use, which does not require the stringent standards of civilian service maintenance schedules. A good number of the C-47's still flying have been converted to turbo prop engines. They are eerily quiet when flying overhead. My experience with that aircraft came in the late 60's when Northwest was flying DC-3's and I was a passenger from Minneapolis to Huron South Dakota. Those twin 9 cylinder Wright Cyclones were astonishingly loud in the cabin, and the aircraft was very rough flying. I didn't stop hurling until two hours after we landed. Like early V-tail Bonanza's, the DC-3 would fishtail in straight and level flight. It was like riding in the back of a 63 Galaxy on the interstate. Finger lickin' unpleasant. But still, one of the most historically significant aircraft ever built. My recollection is NW retired their DC-3 well before the late 1960's (I was living in Madison at the time).By the late 1960's they were operating L-188's and 707's and 727's. I suspect the aircraft you were on was actually North Central Airlines, who did operate DC3 into the late 1960's in may of the same places NW flew. In fact if you went to Huron, I'd bet it was North Central rather than NW. Google,,, Nazi Concentration Camp Footage Warning Graphic Images Youtube Google,,, Dwight David Eisenhower on the Jeep, Dakota, and Landing Craft (Dakota... Douglas DC 3, Bulldozers too) Google,,, Restored WWII Dakota |
Air Force begins massive B 52 overhaul.
On Sunday, August 18, 2013 2:00:15 PM UTC-4, DhiaDuit wrote:
On Sunday, August 18, 2013 12:40:56 PM UTC-5, dxAce wrote: 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? Probably pretty darn safe since like some helicopters we had only the air frame itself is really that old (and even some of that may have been replaced) the rest having been replaced piece by piece over the decades. dxAce Michigan USA The old Bell Huey Helicopters had a lot of vibration in them. That is what caused a lot of them to crash in Vietnam. My brother was a Helicopter Mechanic at Vung Tau, Vietnam. I would feel much safer in a B 52, or an old Gooneybird. A B-1B just crashed someplace out West . Cost nearly 300M back when they where making them in the 80's. |
Air Force begins massive B 52 overhaul.
On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 10:08:20 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sunday, August 18, 2013 2:00:15 PM UTC-4, DhiaDuit wrote: On Sunday, August 18, 2013 12:40:56 PM UTC-5, dxAce wrote: 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? Probably pretty darn safe since like some helicopters we had only the air frame itself is really that old (and even some of that may have been replaced) the rest having been replaced piece by piece over the decades. dxAce Michigan USA The old Bell Huey Helicopters had a lot of vibration in them. That is what caused a lot of them to crash in Vietnam. My brother was a Helicopter Mechanic at Vung Tau, Vietnam. I would feel much safer in a B 52, or an old Gooneybird. A B-1B just crashed someplace out West . Cost nearly 300M back when they where making them in the 80's. Google,,, B 1B crash In Montana. |
Air Force begins massive B 52 overhaul.
|
Air Force begins massive B 52 overhaul.
|
Air Force begins massive B 52 overhaul.
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? |
Air Force begins massive B 52 overhaul.
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 |
Air Force begins massive B 52 overhaul.
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. |
Air Force begins massive B 52 overhaul.
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!!! |
Air Force begins massive B 52 overhaul.
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. |
Air Force begins massive B 52 overhaul.
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 . |
Air Force begins massive B 52 overhaul.
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 |
Air Force begins massive B 52 overhaul.
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/// |
Air Force begins massive B 52 overhaul.
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. |
Air Force begins massive B 52 overhaul.
|
Air Force begins massive B 52 overhaul.
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... |
Air Force begins massive B 52 overhaul.
|
Air Force begins massive B 52 overhaul.
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? |
Air Force begins massive B 52 overhaul.
On Monday, August 26, 2013 12:05:11 PM UTC-4, DhiaDuit wrote:
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? Cannot be SAAB. More like a Volvo or a M-B. |
Air Force begins massive B 52 overhaul.
On Monday, August 26, 2013 12:42:43 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Monday, August 26, 2013 12:05:11 PM UTC-4, DhiaDuit wrote: 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? Cannot be SAAB. More like a Volvo or a M-B. Back in the 1960s or 1970s there was a used cars dealership just across Highway 80 from me. One time I stopped there and I looked at a real nice looking three cylinders Saab car they had for sale. I think they were asking $700.00 for that little red Saab car. About a week ago at Youtube I watched a Youtube video of an old Saab car being removed from a barn in Norway. I wants me an old, old Citroen Deau Cheveaux car, just something to play with. I saw a lot of them when I was in Vietnam. I wants,,,, I wants,,, I wants,,, |
Air Force begins massive B 52 overhaul.
On 8/26/13 12:42 , wrote:
On Monday, August 26, 2013 12:05:11 PM UTC-4, DhiaDuit wrote: 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? Cannot be SAAB. More like a Volvo or a M-B. Close. It's a Studebaker. |
Air Force begins massive B 52 overhaul.
"DhiaDuit" wrote in message ... Back in the 1960s or 1970s there was a used cars dealership just across Highway 80 from me. One time I stopped there and I looked at a real nice looking three cylinders Saab car they had for sale. I think they were asking $700.00 for that little red Saab car. About a week ago at Youtube I watched a Youtube video of an old Saab car being removed from a barn in Norway. I wants me an old, old Citroen Deau Cheveaux car, just something to play with. I saw a lot of them when I was in Vietnam. I wants,,,, I wants,,, I wants,,, -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have a friend who at one point had 7 or 8 of those Lemons (yes, citroen means lemon) lined up along the street in front of his house. Interesting cars, with their vacuum suspension. One of those guest starred on an episode of CHiPs, driving down the freeway on three wheels (the fourth was completely missing). Then there is the airplane style steering wheel. |
Air Force begins massive B 52 overhaul.
On Monday, August 26, 2013 3:01:16 PM UTC-5, Brenda Dyer wrote:
"DhiaDuit" wrote in message ... Back in the 1960s or 1970s there was a used cars dealership just across Highway 80 from me. One time I stopped there and I looked at a real nice looking three cylinders Saab car they had for sale. I think they were asking $700.00 for that little red Saab car. About a week ago at Youtube I watched a Youtube video of an old Saab car being removed from a barn in Norway. I wants me an old, old Citroen Deau Cheveaux car, just something to play with. I saw a lot of them when I was in Vietnam. I wants,,,, I wants,,, I wants,,, -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have a friend who at one point had 7 or 8 of those Lemons (yes, citroen means lemon) lined up along the street in front of his house. Interesting cars, with their vacuum suspension. One of those guest starred on an episode of CHiPs, driving down the freeway on three wheels (the fourth was completely missing). Then there is the airplane style steering wheel. When I was a kid, (I am a big kid now) when we saw a Studebaker car or truck, we would sing out, Studebaker Studebaker ten feet tall, Studebaker Studebaker spit on the wall! But, the kind of Citroen car I wouldn't mind owning has a two cylinder air cooled engine with front wheel drive and a corrugated sheet metal body. Google,,, Citroen Deau Chevaux cars Youtube |
Air Force begins massive B 52 overhaul.
But, what is that 60 years old car you drive? On 8/26/2013 2:26 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote: Close. It's a Studebaker. Silver Hawk, Golden Hawk, Avanti or "other"? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:02 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com