Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
If it weren't for the flying community, most of these planes would have rotted away a long time ago.We're running out of a lot of very historical planes and can't afford to lose all of a type.
They're almost all a chain of human errors.The crash in Dallas looks to be human error. Or perhaps a chain of human errors.
I don't think a Lancasters average live depended on fatigue, more like flak, fighters and accidents of all types. With the Lancaster they werent supposed to leave them standing with a Tall Boy of Grand Slam loaded because it stressed the spar. Also the BBMF Lancaster has had a new spar fitted, to prolong its life, this is the only Lancaster known to have been re sparred, in the war it would have been cannibalised.Also interested in fatigue life estimates for any other warbirds. (IIRC the average Lancaster lasted 14-15 sorties.)
Certainly correct regarding causes of Land losses. I mentioned the average combat life to demonstrate that wartime aircraft were not concerned with longevity in mind. Sergei Sikorsky tells the story of the Klimov engineer called to Stalin's office (!) to discuss service life of the Sturmovik. The engineer had sent a memo explaining how to add about 500 hours engine life, and the presumed cost savings. Comrade Stalin, who was more detail oriented than some might expect, ordered the company to get on to other things: few Sturmoviks would survive to exceed the present design specs...I don't think a Lancasters average live depended on fatigue, more like flak, fighters and accidents of all types. With the Lancaster they werent supposed to leave them standing with a Tall Boy of Grand Slam loaded because it stressed the spar. Also the BBMF Lancaster has had a new spar fitted, to prolong its life, this is the only Lancaster known to have been re sparred, in the war it would have been cannibalised.
With front line fighters in WW2, the engine may need an overhaul after 250 hours. The airframe of a Spitfire could show signs of fatigue after 150 hours (rivets in wheel wells had small cracks). If you did a lot of high G turns the skin and structure starts to creep, but in any case types were upgraded like the various marques of Spitfire or replaced by others like Typhoons Tempests Mustangs P-51s etc. Pretty much they were disposable items, very quickly going from brand new to out of date or more trouble to keep going than the effort was worth.Certainly correct regarding causes of Land losses. I mentioned the average combat life to demonstrate that wartime aircraft were not concerned with longevity in mind. Sergei Sikorsky tells the story of the Klimov engineer called to Stalin's office (!) to discuss service life of the Sturmovik. The engineer had sent a memo explaining how to add about 500 hours engine life, and the presumed cost savings. Comrade Stalin, who was more detail oriented than some might expect, ordered the company to get on to other things: few Sturmoviks would survive to exceed the present design specs...
I dont think peacetime warbirds are cleared to carry what they did in combat, bombs guns and ammunition are obvious but I think the maximum tankage on stuff like the P-51 was only allowed for "the duration".Fatigue is only going to be an issue on restored warbirds if they are flown hard and excessive Gs put on the airframe.
There's no difference - what's in the flight manual is what it was when the manual was written (certainly here in New Zealand).I dont think peacetime warbirds are cleared to carry what they did in combat, bombs guns and ammunition are obvious but I think the maximum tankage on stuff like the P-51 was only allowed for "the duration".
I thought that the maximum tanks like 2 x 108 gals on a P-51 were only for combat operations.There's no difference - what's in the flight manual is what it was when the manual was written (certainly here in New Zealand).
But, most of these aircraft don't have armour, guns, etc fitted so are lighter. Often we have to put ballast into them to get C of G into the limits.
Actually they can be and sometimes those items are installed and are non-operating. In other situations you have to place ballast in gun bays so the aircraft meets weight and balance requirements. It isn't a matter of what they are carrying in areas designed to carry a load, but G forces placed on the airframe during maneuvers.I dont think peacetime warbirds are cleared to carry what they did in combat, bombs guns and ammunition are obvious but I think the maximum tankage on stuff like the P-51 was only allowed for "the duration".
Depends on how the manual was written.I thought that the maximum tanks like 2 x 108 gals on a P-51 were only for combat operations.
Just fly them with care and follow SOPs and the historic warbirds can fly on for many decades still. We're only losing aircraft when their operators undertake CFIT, mid-air collisions or exceed the known capabilities, such as the Mosquito in Australia with its engine cutting out during a low altitude negative g - a maneuver every Merlin operator from over eighty years ago to now would know to avoid.We're running out of a lot of very historical planes and can't afford to lose all of a type.
I read an article recently (which I cannot locate) which said that it doesn't fly pressurized. (Could have been Doc - I can't recall.)Question, does anyone know if FiFi, the B-29 flys pressurized?
Only when the AAA is heavy around Dallas.Fifi rarely flies above 10,000 feet, so no need for it.