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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
A340 Incident
You may have seen this already. I have several others if interested.
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
A340 Incident
With some attention, you'll see is a little scratch on the painting.
Peavey_HP_Signature_Guy a écrit : Incident?!?! "K&FKeam" wrote in message ... You may have seen this already. I have several others if interested. -- C'est à l'heure du repas qu'on voit les boules du chat |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
A340 Incident
is there already a report out what really happeend .. ?
servus markus Asp Explorer wrote: With some attention, you'll see is a little scratch on the painting. Peavey_HP_Signature_Guy a écrit : Incident?!?! "K&FKeam" wrote in message ... You may have seen this already. I have several others if interested. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
A340 Incident
Markus Baur wrote:
is there already a report out what really happeend .. ? Can't find the link now. They did a max power test, and apparently mx ran up all four engines simultaneously instead of one by one, overpowering the aircraft's brakes. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
A340 Incident
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:46:08 +0100, Michael Huber
wrote: Markus Baur wrote: is there already a report out what really happeend .. ? Can't find the link now. They did a max power test, and apparently mx ran up all four engines simultaneously instead of one by one, overpowering the aircraft's brakes. I would suggest that one does not do full power runs "one at a time" on a large airplane with wing engines. If you do, the thing is liable to spin like a top. Every airline I've that I've ever worked on their airplanes had a policy of running at least two wing engines at the same time, one on each side, for full power runs. Twin and tri-engined airplanes required that both wing engines be run at the same time for full power runs. In fact, that same policy was used on TWA's Connies (other airlines with prop airplanes I'm not sure about). Generally, not all 4 are run at full power although I've done so on 707's and 747's a few times in the past (we always used chocks on all wheels, too, including the nose). It's somewhat exhilarating, if you like getting your teeth rattled. Even more so if standing outside, next to an engine at full power. It vibrates you to the core. Cheers, jc |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
A340 Incident
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 00:25:20 +0100, Markus Baur
wrote: is there already a report out what really happeend .. ? (snip) Here are some links: http://www.aviation.com/safety/07111...-incident.html http://aviation-safety.net/database/...?id=20071115-0 http://www.aviation-safety-security....airbus-fa.html Ken ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
A340 Incident
If you want teeth rattling and the feeling that your heart is going to
vibrate though your chest, you should try a B-52G with all 8 burning water (water injection for the uninitiated). I never got to work on the SR-71, but their power runs were always awesome. Your teeth rattled from a 1/2 mile away. "jc" wrote in message ... On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:46:08 +0100, Michael Huber wrote: Markus Baur wrote: is there already a report out what really happeend .. ? Can't find the link now. They did a max power test, and apparently mx ran up all four engines simultaneously instead of one by one, overpowering the aircraft's brakes. I would suggest that one does not do full power runs "one at a time" on a large airplane with wing engines. If you do, the thing is liable to spin like a top. Every airline I've that I've ever worked on their airplanes had a policy of running at least two wing engines at the same time, one on each side, for full power runs. Twin and tri-engined airplanes required that both wing engines be run at the same time for full power runs. In fact, that same policy was used on TWA's Connies (other airlines with prop airplanes I'm not sure about). Generally, not all 4 are run at full power although I've done so on 707's and 747's a few times in the past (we always used chocks on all wheels, too, including the nose). It's somewhat exhilarating, if you like getting your teeth rattled. Even more so if standing outside, next to an engine at full power. It vibrates you to the core. Cheers, jc |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
A340 Incident
I was stationed at Beale AFB, CA from 85-87. I lived in base housing three
miles from the flightline and run up area. I still remember the house rattling when they were doing SR run ups. Wasn't the SR-71 cabled during runups? As for the B-52s. I was stationed at Beale AFB,TX from 78-80. My barricks was next to the flight line. I will never forget the run up from the KC-135s and B-52s. The black smoke and the noise was bad. The alert pad run up were no better. J.F. "Eric" wrote in message news If you want teeth rattling and the feeling that your heart is going to vibrate though your chest, you should try a B-52G with all 8 burning water (water injection for the uninitiated). I never got to work on the SR-71, but their power runs were always awesome. Your teeth rattled from a 1/2 mile away. "jc" wrote in message ... On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:46:08 +0100, Michael Huber wrote: Markus Baur wrote: is there already a report out what really happeend .. ? Can't find the link now. They did a max power test, and apparently mx ran up all four engines simultaneously instead of one by one, overpowering the aircraft's brakes. I would suggest that one does not do full power runs "one at a time" on a large airplane with wing engines. If you do, the thing is liable to spin like a top. Every airline I've that I've ever worked on their airplanes had a policy of running at least two wing engines at the same time, one on each side, for full power runs. Twin and tri-engined airplanes required that both wing engines be run at the same time for full power runs. In fact, that same policy was used on TWA's Connies (other airlines with prop airplanes I'm not sure about). Generally, not all 4 are run at full power although I've done so on 707's and 747's a few times in the past (we always used chocks on all wheels, too, including the nose). It's somewhat exhilarating, if you like getting your teeth rattled. Even more so if standing outside, next to an engine at full power. It vibrates you to the core. Cheers, jc |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
A340 Incident
I worked B-52's in Michigan and then 135's at Mildenhall from '77-'84. The
SR-71 routinely came in TDY. I usually worked nights, just getting to bed about the time the SR would take-off. You could hear the engine start cart with the two huge (I believe Buick) V-8's with shorty open headers all the way over to the barracks, so you knew what was coming . The vibration from take-off was so bad that stuff on the shelves would occasionally fall off. I did see chains and/or cables used as tie-downs, attached to what looked like a manhole cover with an eyelet welded to it. Obviously it wasn't a manhole cover as the SR never pulled it out of the concrete on HS-24, not far from Mum's Wood. Mostly off-topic, but, does anybody out there know the stories behind Mum's Wood and HS-28 at RAF Mildenhall? "J.F." wrote in message . net... I was stationed at Beale AFB, CA from 85-87. I lived in base housing three miles from the flightline and run up area. I still remember the house rattling when they were doing SR run ups. Wasn't the SR-71 cabled during runups? As for the B-52s. I was stationed at Beale AFB,TX from 78-80. My barricks was next to the flight line. I will never forget the run up from the KC-135s and B-52s. The black smoke and the noise was bad. The alert pad run up were no better. J.F. "Eric" wrote in message news If you want teeth rattling and the feeling that your heart is going to vibrate though your chest, you should try a B-52G with all 8 burning water (water injection for the uninitiated). I never got to work on the SR-71, but their power runs were always awesome. Your teeth rattled from a 1/2 mile away. "jc" wrote in message ... On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:46:08 +0100, Michael Huber wrote: Markus Baur wrote: is there already a report out what really happeend .. ? Can't find the link now. They did a max power test, and apparently mx ran up all four engines simultaneously instead of one by one, overpowering the aircraft's brakes. I would suggest that one does not do full power runs "one at a time" on a large airplane with wing engines. If you do, the thing is liable to spin like a top. Every airline I've that I've ever worked on their airplanes had a policy of running at least two wing engines at the same time, one on each side, for full power runs. Twin and tri-engined airplanes required that both wing engines be run at the same time for full power runs. In fact, that same policy was used on TWA's Connies (other airlines with prop airplanes I'm not sure about). Generally, not all 4 are run at full power although I've done so on 707's and 747's a few times in the past (we always used chocks on all wheels, too, including the nose). It's somewhat exhilarating, if you like getting your teeth rattled. Even more so if standing outside, next to an engine at full power. It vibrates you to the core. Cheers, jc |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
A340 Incident
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 17:48:24 -0600, "Eric" wrote:
If you want teeth rattling and the feeling that your heart is going to vibrate though your chest, you should try a B-52G with all 8 burning water (water injection for the uninitiated). I never got to work on the SR-71, but their power runs were always awesome. Your teeth rattled from a 1/2 mile away. A quick check says the -52 engines are rated at almost 57k lbs of thrust but you can only get "hands on" with two at a time. Only? Yah, right! The Rolls engines on the 747's and L1011's that I worked on were in the 40,000 lb. area, while the later planes, such as the 767, kicked it up quite a bit. Get into the 777 and you're up there with two of the 52's engines at full power. But any of 'em will vibrate your filllings pretty good. The "old timers" say the piston engines rattled you around more than the jets... personally, I'll admit going back as far as 707's but I've run a couple of fairly large radials. They shook more but to me, they didn't seem to make the air vibrate like the big jets do. For as smooth as they are, that much 'stuff' moving around at those kinds of RPM, well, even trimming a 'little' engine on a DC-9 or MD-80 can rattle you around pretty good. For most guys, the first time they experience it is not something they'll ever forget! Cheers, jc |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A340 Engine Test Gone Wrong | Phil | Piloting | 15 | November 22nd 07 03:16 PM |
China Airlines Airbus A340 | Valentin Golec | Aviation Photos | 0 | February 17th 07 09:29 PM |
airbus A340/330 | Christian HACQUARD | Simulators | 1 | May 2nd 05 02:45 PM |
cokpict Airbus A340-313X | franck jeamourra | Instrument Flight Rules | 0 | June 26th 04 07:31 AM |
PSS A340 with FS2004 | PumpkinPie | Simulators | 1 | October 5th 03 12:19 AM |