Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Probably because none of the flying survivors were Boeing built....all came out of Douglas or Vega. Although Boeing owns what's left of DouglasOdd that Boeing would take that attitude after they were so deeply involved with the restoration of that Stratoliner awhile back.
What did they mean by 90 hours? Is that 90 hours of operating at low takeoff weights and lower altitudes? Or 90 hours of operating with a 65,000 lb gross take-off weight and flying for hours at 25,000 feet? And being shot at by flak and/or enemy fighters?
It mainly had to do with the utter and complete incompetence of the people running the airshow, including especially the "airboss" who was neither qualified for the job nor ever truly executed it.If you're talking about the in air collision between a P-63 and B-17, that had nothing to do with the B-17s airworthiness.
It mainly had to do with the utter and complete incompetence of the people running the airshow, including especially the "airboss" who was neither qualified for the job nor ever truly executed it.
In that, it was quite similar to the loss of the TBM off of Cocoa Beach.
I was discussing this possible drone factor with a local P-51 owner who attends the National Warbird Conference every year. Not many people apparently knew about it, but it also wasn't the place speculate at. We will find out soon enough I suppose.Maybe be careful about saying things like that until the NTSB draws a conclusion ...
I heard there is some new evidence that the P-63 may have turned left to avoid a drone and, in doing so, put the B-17 in his blind spot.
Don't yet know if there is any truth to it or not, but I did see a clip where the P-63 just missed what is purported to be a drone ... could be a thing and could also be a fake video. I would NOT want to be the drone pilot about now, if it is true.
The AD only calls for inspecting the bolt holes using either mag particle (wings off) or eddy current testing, which can be done without removal of the wings.Looks like the AD on the wing structure has been released. It's going to be a fairly extensive effort to comply with, requiring removal of the inner wing sections to preform the inspections. What AO found and reported is a bit different than reality. I believe we aren't going to see any of the flying B-17's in the air for at least a year or more. I'll bet the B-17 consortium is already working on a solution to the total problem, in anticipation of having to rebuild all the inner wing sections at some point in time.
First sentence of the inspection requirement states that the wings have to be removed to accomplish the AD.
First sentence is to complete either (g)(1) or (g)(2).(g) Inspection
Before further flight: Perform inspections to detect cracking and corrosion by doing the actions specified in either paragraph (g)(1) or (2) of this AD. No action is required by this AD if all wing terminal fittings have been inspected in accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of AD 2001–22–06, Amendment 39–12485 (66 FR 54111, October 26, 2001), and, as of the effective date of this AD, no more than 10 years or 2,500 flight hours have accumulated since that inspection.
(1) Separate all 8 wing terminal-to-spar chord joints (wings off) and perform a magnetic particle inspection of the steel terminal fittings and an eddy current inspection of the 8 inboard holes in the end of the spar chord, in accordance with procedures approved by the Manager, West Certification Branch, FAA.
(2) On the left and right lower forward terminal fitting-to-spar chord joint assemblies, remove the most inboard fastener common to the spar cord and the terminal fitting, and do an eddy current bolt hole inspection on the steel terminal fittings and on the aluminum spar chord in accordance with procedures approved by the Manager, West Certification Branch, FAA.
Probably have a different legal team since then.Odd that Boeing would take that attitude after they were so deeply involved with the restoration of that Stratoliner awhile back.
I have rebuilt HUNDREDS of carburetors over the last 45+ years. Have never even seen an aircraft carburetor.I rebuilt hundreds of large radial carburetors in the 70s that were updated to post war parts lists. They were carbs for 1820, 1830, 2600, 2800, 3350 and a few 4360s all for fire bombers
and racers. One guy had a dozen P-47 carbs that he wanted converted to DC6B CB16 engines. The man was nuts, to say the least.
The war production builds had brass wear parts as they were not expected to survive long enough to wear out. The mixture plates, which are stainless steel post war, were brass as was the economizer or power boost valve seat. My guess is that lasting for 25 missions would be a miracle for a bomber.
They looked similar to Automobile carbs, being 1bbl or 2bbl and the pressure carbs were a bit bulkier.I have rebuilt HUNDREDS of carburetors over the last 45+ years. Have never even seen an aircraft carburetor.
Aircraft carbs also have a lot less movement in service. Engine power is largely 'set and forget' in each phase of flight, unlike a car where you are on and off the throttle every time you go around a corner.They looked similar to Automobile carbs, being 1bbl or 2bbl and the pressure carbs were a bit bulkier.
As far as the earlier comment goes about brass carb components.
I have yet to see any brass parts fail on a vintage carburetor and I have dealt with all types and from all years: Ball & Ball, Stromberg, Zenith, Rochester, Carter, Motorcraft, Holley and so on.
The only "brass" part that is prone to fail, is the rubber cone on the needle seat, otherwise, the brass float hinge, which is usually pinned with a stainless rod holds up well and the float itself *may* fail if it's out of adjustment and rubs against the bowl over time.
Military aircraft engines were expected to be overhauled after a service marked in hours, some of the auto carbs I have worked on were well over fifty years old and still very serviceable.
Yep. Most of the wear in a vehicular carburetor is in the throttle shafts and shaft bores and accelerator pump cams and cups. Years ago, I devised a way to use Briggs and Stratton valve guides and tooling to bush Quadrajet (and other 5/16") throttle shaft bores.Aircraft carbs also have a lot less movement in service. Engine power is largely 'set and forget' in each phase of flight, unlike a car where you are on and off the throttle every time you go around a corner.