What is the reason for mentioning it’s Iranian assembleb inj the context of engine failure and possible maintenance issue?
All crashes could be intialy described as possible maintence issues.
Unless there is an issue with the assembly and that is a proven fact, this sort of thing should not be said.
Basically it’s being suggested that the country of assembly may mave been a cause of any, as yet, unknown problems
Best stick to know facts and not put down countries just because they are not “one of ours”.
I know what you mean..they’ve moved there since the airport and in noisier times. INn this case, I would have thought most of the One-Elevens and 727’s etc. were gone by 2004?
Bristol Superfreighter..no attempt to save one of the last two rotting away in the early 1970’s even after preservation was in vogue for rare types. There was a half-heated mention about the need to save one but the type was just left to become extict.
A lot of the earlier types became extinct becuase they just didn’t think that way then
The last Hermes for example, quietly did it’s last service then promply flew away to be broken up.
Nowadays it would have been enthusiasts flights brfore going off to be preserved.
You realise that in a few years you’ll be posing the same question about the necessity of two engines when one is perfectly reliable…;o)
I doubt they will ever allow that.
All systems have to have some sort of back up or duplication so one engine will never be an option.
Twins are fine for the job. I can’t think of a single incident where one has crashed because it was a twin for reasons raised in this thread.
Things like fuel starvation or mass damage from an external source which has happened, can turn an aeroplane into a glider no matter how many engines it has.
As modern airframes continue to improve for fuel economy by better aerodynamics with less drag, aeroplane are getting more capable of gliding for longer.
Bear in mind, 100 per cent safety will never be achievable, there will always be risk, no matter how small.
That’s just the reality of life
Just up the road is Manston and a couple more small museums.
Thanks for those
Air France Viscount and British Eagle Britannia must be 1968 or before.
The Canadair Four was a BOAC Apprentice triner replaced by a Comet 4 in about 1970. The Canadair was then transferred to the fire dump
The Cl-44 was quite unreliable mostly due to the TYnes. Lack of spares and high cost because there was never a long run made things expensive
Frankenstein term was in no way saying it was bad..just that it was made up of re emgineer bits..I never said it was bad.
The CL-44 is one of my favourite props and I have enjoyed making models for Flight Simulation.
The C-4/North Star, CL-44 and Argus were all mde up from re engineered existing parts.
They continued with the C-44. Tyne engnes added to an Argus wing and using the Argus tail and tailplane mated to a re engineered fuse based on the unbuilt Britannia 400 with help from Bristol
The Argus had used a re engineered, Britannia wing, tail and tailplane with a Britannia type re fuse and a new short nose section with a Convairliner cockpit canopy. All pulled along with piston engines.
They made Frankenstein aeroplanes.
Emergency landing says it all..they landed safelt at the first availiable airport which is what they are supposed to do. If anything, the safely continuing on one engine supports the notion of twin ETOPS…it works and works well.
OK so the other could fail, but sometime all four engines have failed like the BA 747..OK he got them going again, but there are time when no matter how many you have all could fail…rare and that is all you can play, the rarity of any percieved event.
G-AWOG was a PA-30 and was sold
He was killed in PA-28R G-AYPW which was yellow and white.
No music at all and better still, stop the commentries and lets just hear the aeroplanes. All the music you could want
Nothing spoils an airshow more than commentary…who needs an echoing voice stating the obvious.
Barenes also said will built aeroplanes the wrong way round..the wing should be at the back and the ‘tail’ at the front. The few aircraft that have been built like this supports that theory.
To fly nearer the barrier does need a completely different type of aeroplane and that’s not going to happen any time soon as the Sonic cruiser concept showed.
Yes… seeing that large face building above the frontage going across at right angles shouts Gatwick to me.
I’d put money on Gatwick
Get closer to the sound barrier efficiency falls off.
I think they are flying pretty well at the most effficient speeds now which is why jets that could fly a lot faster don’t. Efficiency is important so as not to burn and therefor waste precious fuel, it’s a limited commodity. A bit like a car, no matter how fast it can go it is most effient at about 56mph.
If they want to speed up air travel, do something about the time it takes to go through the airports at each end.
Captains buying food for stranded passenger has often happened over the years…nothing new.