If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
Is the 787 a failure ?
|
#132
|
|||
|
|||
Is the 787 a failure ?
On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 22:05:48 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
wrote: On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:48:44 -0800, the renowned Gunner wrote: Im trying to remember which prop job in the 1950s kept going down...British aircraft IRRC....which had the tails snapping off...some sort of metal fatigue/harmonics issue which took them awhile to find and correct. They did a movie about it in the 1960s IRRC Turbojet, but maybe this one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet They didn't understand metal fatigue very well in those days- nice big square windows in the early models. Best regards, Spehro Pefhany Ayup..I think that was it. The methodology of the left has always been: 1. Lie 2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible 3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible 4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie 5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw 6. Then everyone must conform to the lie |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
Is the 787 a failure ?
george152 wrote in
: On 03/02/13 16:05, Spehro Pefhany wrote: On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:48:44 -0800, the renowned Gunner wrote: Im trying to remember which prop job in the 1950s kept going down...British aircraft IRRC....which had the tails snapping off...some sort of metal fatigue/harmonics issue which took them awhile to find and correct. They did a movie about it in the 1960s IRRC Turbojet, but maybe this one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet They didn't understand metal fatigue very well in those days- nice big square windows in the early models. The same aircraft type flew for many years after that in a marine defence anti submarine role With differently shaped windows, IIRC. -- Andrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
Is the 787 a failure ?
On 04/02/13 11:13, Andrew Chaplin wrote:
george152 wrote in : On 03/02/13 16:05, Spehro Pefhany wrote: On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:48:44 -0800, the renowned Gunner wrote: Im trying to remember which prop job in the 1950s kept going down...British aircraft IRRC....which had the tails snapping off...some sort of metal fatigue/harmonics issue which took them awhile to find and correct. They did a movie about it in the 1960s IRRC Turbojet, but maybe this one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet They didn't understand metal fatigue very well in those days- nice big square windows in the early models. The same aircraft type flew for many years after that in a marine defence anti submarine role With differently shaped windows, IIRC. You only need the cockpit windows the flight crew use |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
Is the 787 a failure ?
Gunner wrote:
Im trying to remember which prop job in the 1950s kept going down...British aircraft IRRC....which had the tails snapping off...some sort of metal fatigue/harmonics issue which took them awhile to find and correct. They did a movie about it in the 1960s IRRC The movie was filmed in 1951. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_highway_in_the_sky |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
Is the 787 a failure ?
"george152" wrote in message ... On 03/02/13 16:05, Spehro Pefhany wrote: On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:48:44 -0800, the renowned Gunner wrote: Im trying to remember which prop job in the 1950s kept going down...British aircraft IRRC....which had the tails snapping off...some sort of metal fatigue/harmonics issue which took them awhile to find and correct. They did a movie about it in the 1960s IRRC Turbojet, but maybe this one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet They didn't understand metal fatigue very well in those days- nice big square windows in the early models. The same aircraft type flew for many years after that in a marine defence anti submarine role It doesn't need to be pressurized at 200'. |
#137
|
|||
|
|||
Is the 787 a failure ?
On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 08:34:53 +1300, george152 wrote:
On 03/02/13 16:05, Spehro Pefhany wrote: On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:48:44 -0800, the renowned Gunner wrote: Im trying to remember which prop job in the 1950s kept going down...British aircraft IRRC....which had the tails snapping off...some sort of metal fatigue/harmonics issue which took them awhile to find and correct. They did a movie about it in the 1960s IRRC Turbojet, but maybe this one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet They didn't understand metal fatigue very well in those days- nice big square windows in the early models. The same aircraft type flew for many years after that in a marine defence anti submarine role After they fixed the problems of course. Gunner The methodology of the left has always been: 1. Lie 2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible 3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible 4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie 5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw 6. Then everyone must conform to the lie |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
Is the 787 a failure ?
Spehro Pefhany on Sat, 02 Feb 2013
22:05:48 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following: On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:48:44 -0800, the renowned Gunner wrote: Im trying to remember which prop job in the 1950s kept going down...British aircraft IRRC....which had the tails snapping off...some sort of metal fatigue/harmonics issue which took them awhile to find and correct. They did a movie about it in the 1960s IRRC Turbojet, but maybe this one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet They didn't understand metal fatigue very well in those days- nice big square windows in the early models. Yet at the same time, Boeing had a lot of experience with square windows and pressurized cabins. Started with the B-29, and the Battle of Kansas. -- pyotr filipivich "With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone." |
#139
|
|||
|
|||
Is the 787 a failure ?
|
| Did FAA let Boeing 'self-certify' safety of 787? | | The battery woes that have grounded the global fleet of | Boeing 787s have raised a persistent question about how the | Federal Aviation Administration certified the Dreamliner's | cutting-edge design. The answer: Boeing, not the FAA, | largely vouched for the airplane's safety. | ... http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020288737_787faaxml.html --bks |
#140
|
|||
|
|||
Is the 787 a failure ?
On 2/5/2013 10:01 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
Boeing, not the FAA, | largely vouched for the airplane's safety. Actually, Boeing likely hired engineers that had been pre-designated/approved by the FAA to do the job. They did this at great expense! Otherwise, they could have waited for the proper FAA official to show up, subject to the FAA whims and budget. I once worked for a company that decided to take that second route. After all, we all pay taxes right? Compared to a job like certifying a brand new airliner, what that company wanted to do was simple; They had purchased the type certificate for an established, certified, glider which they wished to produce. They built the factory, they installed all the tooling. From there, things dragged on for years. Each step of the torturous bureaucratic process to obtain a production certificate took months. The FAA kept demanding new paperwork, because that was easier and cheaper than sending the proper official to inspect the facility. Small businesses don't have the resources to wait out months and years of bureaucratic inaction. In the end, the business closed down before the first airframe was even started. So that's why the FAA itself did only a minority part of the 787's certification work. If Boeing waited for them, airlines would still be flying DC-3's and there would be no Boeing. In fact, an amazing amount of FAA business is done through privately hired FAA designees. All four of my check flights have been with FAA designees rather than FAA inspectors, which means that I had to $$$ pay them myself. Even though my taxes are supposed to be supporting the FAA. Just today, I sent off $50.00 to a person who has some sort of magic authorization to hand my CFI revalidation paperwork to the FAA. I can do it myself, but only if I make an appointment with an FAA inspector and travel to the FAA FSDO office to do it in person. (No explanation why I can't just mail it to them.) When the FAA moves to the new picture pilot certificates, there will be a whole new class of FAA designees for us to pay. They will be authorized to verify our ID, take our pictures, and certify the whole process. It will be done at the pilot's expense, and it won't be cheap! Vaughn (Trollish non-related crossposts removed) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ATC failure in Memphis | Mxsmanic | Piloting | 77 | October 11th 07 03:50 PM |
The Failure of FAA Diversity | FAA Civil Rights | Piloting | 35 | October 9th 07 06:32 PM |
The FAA Failure | FAA Civil Rights | Instrument Flight Rules | 0 | October 8th 07 05:57 PM |
Failure #10 | Capt.Doug | Piloting | 7 | April 13th 05 02:49 AM |
Another Bush Failure | WalterM140 | Military Aviation | 8 | July 3rd 04 02:23 AM |