Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
A very subtle trending towards the dark side of the forum, almost unnoticeable to many.Also can depend on the angle of landing determined mostly bu the centre of gravity and whether the nose is armoured..............?
Yes that was common practice until production was sorted.The OP mentioned Lancasters, I think the engine parts from Lancasters that belly landed were evaluated to be put in Meteor tank engines.
That would be a great alternative - I seen a Cessna 172 have a prop strike which I thought was pretty bad. The owner did a run out inspection on the prop flange and replaced the propeller. He then flew the aircraft another 1000 hours (put 3000 hours total on the engine) before he decided to have it overhauled! This was all before the mandatory inspection from the manufacturer and airworthiness directive came into play.The OP mentioned Lancasters, I think the engine parts from Lancasters that belly landed were evaluated to be put in Meteor tank engines.
The OP mentioned Lancasters, I think the engine parts from Lancasters that belly landed were evaluated to be put in Meteor tank engines.
A Merlin would be very expensive to make today, even an overhaul costs a fortune but they were expensive then, if you can get viable tank engines better than the UK had at the time from what would be scrap, then it is a real winner. I saw a documentary, mainly concerned with UK jet engines but the Meteor was involved in it, they all mentioned crashed planes as Wiki does, but belly landings are just a controlled mild crash.Wow! You are right. From wiki
Development started with the use of recovered Merlin engine parts from crashed aircraft. While unsuitable for re-use in aircraft, the Rolls-Royce chassis division had begun collecting and refurbishing them in the hope of finding a use. Robotham was approached by Henry Spurrier, of Leyland Mechanization and Aero, to ask about help with tank powerplants. Based on Spurrier's requirement, the first prototype Meteor engine (and subsequent production of Mark 1 engines) was assembled on the basis of recovered Merlin parts.
I've seen that happen.That would be a great alternative - I seen a Cessna 172 have a prop strike which I thought was pretty bad. The owner did a run out inspection on the prop flange and replaced the propeller. He then flew the aircraft another 1000 hours (put 3000 hours total on the engine) before he decided to have it overhauled! This was all before the mandatory inspection from the manufacturer and airworthiness directive came into play.
A lot of those higher-powered engines also had a gearbox between the engine and prop that took the main shock load. So, while the engine may have been serviceable, the gearbox may have been wrecked, even with the wooden prop.In the days of wooden props (which instantly shatter) the engines were apparently relatively ok on many occasions. Once metal props came in,
it was not the case anymore, as of course they dont shatter (which also absorbs some energy), being ductile so they damage the engine a lot more.
This Seafire prangs its nose but just got a prop swap.Any prop strike usually results in at least an engine teardown and inspection,
I've seen that before. I guess if you're under attack and the engine starts you have no choice, but that is a huge riskThis Seafire prangs its nose but just got a prop swap.
Plus with reference to other posts especially Calum's, the tip shattered because it wasnt a metal one. In that situation I think any pilot would prefer to take off if the engine runs at all rather than sit in the ship.I've seen that before. I guess if you're under attack and the engine starts you have no choice, but that is a huge risk
Yeah, there's a lot that's usually involved in a prop swap that wouldn't have been done there. Run-ups for leaks, balance checks, etc. Those aren't normal operations.I've seen that before. I guess if you're under attack and the engine starts you have no choice, but that is a huge risk