Aircraft General Discussion

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

That looks lovely, Ian

Thanks for sharing.

MichaelG.

[Flying FiferParticipant @flyingfifer]

Very strange Brian but at the time I was told it was the other way round. The original aircraft were handbuilt but the new wings were as you say built to drawing (which were probably "metric" whilst the originals were imperial !! ).

Still have fond memories of my day away in a Nimrod especially the looks on the faces ot the 2 guys in the conning tower of that Russkie sub which we dropped in on. Absolute magic !

Alan

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Posted by Ian S C on 19/10/2016 13:26:01:

Here's the next Mossie into the hanger for fitting out over the next few months.

With thanks to Slackie/RNZAF Pro Boards

Ian S C

Edited By Ian S C on 19/10/2016 14:04:17

Amazing what you can do with MDF!

[Martin KyteParticipant @martinkyte99762]

BAe built us a cradle to lift the radar mod tank through the door of the AEW verson of Nimrod. It had to be modified as I would not fit through the doors of all the aircraft even though it was to the aircraft drawings and within the tolerances. It was always said that Britain built aircraft and America manufactured them. It never really mattered if you left the airframe crew to just get on with it. The made bits to fit what was in front of them not to fit a set of drawings.

regards Martin

[JAParticipant @ja]

Posted by Flying Fifer on 19/10/2016 15:18:08:

Very strange Brian but at the time I was told it was the other way round. The original aircraft were handbuilt but the new wings were as you say built to drawing (which were probably "metric" whilst the originals were imperial !! ).

I guess the question is "who knows more about the aeroplane?", the design and development engineers (in other words the manufacturer) or the air crew?

A basic philosophical engineering question – do you build the prototype using designers' sketches and produce the manufacturing drawings afterwards or do all the drawings first and then make the prototype?

JA

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by JA on 19/10/2016 17:43:54:

Posted by Flying Fifer on 19/10/2016 15:18:08:

…

I guess the question is "who knows more about the aeroplane?", the design and development engineers (in other words the manufacturer) or the air crew?

…

JA

The people who pay the bills will also know a lot about the aeroplane. And having three different viewpoints on the same object leads to truly spectacular disagreements!

[martin perman 1Participant @martinperman1]

Did that not happen in the space race not that long ago, the uk built something in metric to fit a rocket built in inches.

Martin P

[JAParticipant @ja]

Posted by martin perman on 19/10/2016 18:10:19:
Did that not happen in the space race not that long ago, the uk built something in metric to fit a rocket built in inches.

Martin P

Many jokes have been told and cartoons drawn about the mix-up between SI and Imperial units. Occasionally there are serious incidents – The Boeing 777 had its fuel capacity measured and displayed in kg (we should ignore that kg is a unit of mass) while their earlier airliners displayed lbs. The inevitable happened soon after its introduction when a crew got muddled up and under fuelled their aircraft. The result was that the engines stopped somewhere over the Canadian prairies and the 777 dead sticked onto a disused airfield. Fortunately no one was hurt particularly as the airfield was being used for a motor race meeting.

JA

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by JA on 19/10/2016 19:23:20:

Posted by martin perman on 19/10/2016 18:10:19:
Did that not happen in the space race not that long ago, the uk built something in metric to fit a rocket built in inches.

Martin P

…

Occasionally there are serious incidents – The Boeing 777 had its fuel capacity measured and displayed in kg (we should ignore that kg is a unit of mass) while their earlier airliners displayed lbs.

…

JA

I think this example is famous for the pilot being both seriously disciplined for not confirming before take-off that he had sufficient fuel AND then getting an award for his extraordinary performance landing the aircraft after running out of fuel!

[Brian HParticipant @brianh50089]

Just goes to show that we should stick with Imperial to avoid this sort of thing!

[Carl Wilson 4Participant @carlwilson4]

The situation Re the Nimrod fuselage and the MRA4 wing was down to the new wing being built to the letter of the original drawings, whereas the aircraft were built to the spirit of the drawings.

When I worked at Nmsu (aka “Findhorn Strip Club”) in the early to mid 90s, the first thing I learned was not to manufacture anything slavishly to the drawings. We had all the drawings on a big fiche reader that could be printed out. All the drill sizes were either fractional inches or number/ letter sizes. Having metric drills the trusty Zeus book was well thumbed. The aircraft technicians friend.

I soon learned to make the part then take the dimensions and fits off the aircraft itself.

I was also at Abingdon in the early 90s and I stripped out the Aews and then cut them up. A soul destroying job.

Carl.

[John OlsenParticipant @johnolsen79199]

That 777 in Canada is generally referred to as the Gimli glider, Gimli being the disused airforce base it landed at. There were two runways, one of which was open for general aviation traffic, and the other was in use as a race track. The pilot chose the wrong one, fortunately without any dire consequences. The aircraft was actually over Lake Winnipeg when everything stopped happening. Apparently the pilot had experience with gliders, so was well aware of how to find the optimum glide speed from the performance information available to him. If he had not chosen the right speed they would most likely have ditched in the lake. As the Hudson incident showed, this is certainly possible, put would have lead to a loss of hull and quite a lot of risk to the passengers.

There is quite a full article on wikipedia: **LINK**

John

[Bill PudneyParticipant @billpudney37759]

When I was a ships drafty, one of the major parts of the job was to do an "As Built" set of drawings. This involved going over the whole ship/submarine and checking, things like bulkhead penetrations and pipe/a/c system runs to see how much they deviated from the drawings. It was a right royal p.i.t.a.

cheers

Bill

[Gordon WParticipant @gordonw]

I was a draffy at De Haviland back in the early 60s. I remember doing drawings to convert the Comet galley into a fuel tank space. Might not have been done of course. All drawings were in inches, no feet . smaller divisions in decimals of an inch. So metric inch if you like.

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Shiaparelli…

…oops.

[JAParticipant @ja]

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 20/10/2016 10:52:12:

Shiaparelli…

…oops.

Dead stick landing. Did it bounce?

JA

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by JA on 20/10/2016 11:33:39:

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 20/10/2016 10:52:12:

Shiaparelli…

…oops.

Dead stick landing. Did it bounce?

JA

Not a problem apparently. "This is typical for a test," said Prof Jan Woerner, Esa's director general.

[JAParticipant @ja]

Posted by John Olsen on 20/10/2016 01:25:31:

………. If he had not chosen the right speed they would most likely have ditched in the lake. As the Hudson incident showed, this is certainly possible, put would have lead to a loss of hull and quite a lot of risk to the passengers.

John

If one has to make a forced landing, land on land. It is hard, the aircraft bounces, perhaps, and then runs along the ground gradually loosing speed even without the undercarriage. You just have to pray that the aircraft does not hit anything and there is no fire. If you ditch in water usually the nose digs into the water, the wings are ripped off and the body goes tail over head. Very, very few ditchings are successful. A study on the subject published around 2000 suggested that less than ten ditchings of large aircraft since 1945 had been at all successful. This is the main reason why the Hudson River ditching is so remarkable. I believe there were two successful ditchings of Nimrods in the early 2000s, one was at an air show (Edinburgh?).

JA

[Martin ConnellyParticipant @martinconnelly55370]

And yet the instructions to the Red Arrows when flying over London is that if there is a problem ditch in the Thames.

Martin

[Martin KyteParticipant @martinkyte99762]

"And yet the instructions to the Red Arrows when flying over London is that if there is a problem ditch in the Thames.

Martin"

Sort of depends if you are attempting to save the pilots or the civilian population doesn't it?

regards Martin

[Brian HParticipant @brianh50089]

A firm I worked for had the job of repairing the avionics on one of the ditched Nimrods. Needless to say most of the items and wiring were scrapped because of the effects of being in salt water.

Presumably the airframe was refurbished.

[Cornish JackParticipant @cornishjack]

While the Hudson river ditching rightly reflected great credit on Sully, little is said about the invaluable help given by the Airbus f.b.w. system, which ensured that the wings remained level at the stall. Dropping one wingtip in first will really spoil your day in that scenario!!

rgds

Bill

[Carl Wilson 4Participant @carlwilson4]

Posted by Brian Hutchings on 20/10/2016 15:31:35:

A firm I worked for had the job of repairing the avionics on one of the ditched Nimrods. Needless to say most of the items and wiring were scrapped because of the effects of being in salt water.

Presumably the airframe was refurbished.

It wasn't.

Carl.

[Carl Wilson 4Participant @carlwilson4]

Posted by Martin Kyte on 20/10/2016 15:30:36:

"And yet the instructions to the Red Arrows when flying over London is that if there is a problem ditch in the Thames.

Martin"

Sort of depends if you are attempting to save the pilots or the civilian population doesn't it?

regards Martin

They have a zero – zero seat so once they know it's going in the water they can eject.

[Martin ConnellyParticipant @martinconnelly55370]

The thing about a Hawk aircraft hitting the Thames is that it is likely to catch the water and cartwheel into what may be a crowded tourist area. Aiming for the river may not be the best way to minimise casualties.

Martin

[Author]

Posts