"Christians for Cheeseburgers." wrote in
. net:

"hlg" wrote in message
s.com...

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Christians for Cheeseburgers." wrote in

In the US we ground test engines after they are replaced. We find
it's much easier to shut down than from 30,000 feet.

A remarkably tasteless comment.

And that assumes the crash was even related to the engine change.
No guarantee that it was. And even if it was, there's no reason to
believe that they didn't ground test it first. Even in the US,
we'd do a maintenance check flight after major maintenance. Ground
test first,
but
flying the plane will find things that no ground test ever will.


Indeed. The RAF lost a Nimrod MR, in what sounds like a very similar
situation some six or seven years ago (engine fire on a test flight).
Thankfully on this occasion there were no lives lost or serious
injury.



It's amazing how Russian aircraft always end up looking like
previously designed US aircraft. The 160 bears a striking resemblance
to the US B-1 bomber. Like the space shuttle and Buran, there is a
long list of Russian aircraft that look amazingly similar to US
aircraft. I guess the Russians just never come up with any original
ideas.

Anyway, the Russians are well known for sloppy engine testing. On the
N-1 rocket, they only tested every fourth engine. Incidentally and
perhaps coincidentally, there were never any successful N-1 flights.
They did make outstanding fireworks displays though.



Hey, what's your nickname slick? 'Marblehead?'
Care to tell me who had the most spectacular fireworks display during
the infancy of the space program? Care to tell me who carried the
'heavy' launch burden of the U.S. after the loss of the Challenger?
Pull your head out of your ass. On second thought, leave it in.