Wapsi Square Forum

Sgt. Howard wrote:[
Al, if we stop using materials from ACME and LUCAS, we'd be just fine... but NOOOOO, you gotta have your discount coyote bait and your useless limey 'lectrical crap...
... now, if we could just look at some other sources here...

Sigh...
{deep breath}

Okay. Just because you are addicted to technology on cars that (in some cases literally) came off TRACTORS and is still used on them doesn't mean we all have to be.

Yet more overweight, cast-iron crap made with concepts that were obsolete when steam engines ruled the roadways...I just don't even begin to know where to start. Stovebolt Ford flathead V8s...really....

For your information CAV Lucas is still one of the largest suppliers of Diesel engine injector pumps and such in the world - right up there with Bosch. As a matter of fact a large number of the pumps John Deere uses are Lucas CAV...so there! Not to mention a huge number of marine Diesels.

Even the electrical items - they're still repairable and have parts availalbe - as opposed to box-level swaps for illiterate, innumerate mechanics who need to be led to the problem by the hand by a computer. A bit of contact cleaner, and some buffing rouge on an orangewood stick and things go right back into service to last for years.

And as for ACME...IIRC you're the one who bought that job lot of anvils...only dropped once...

Off to bed now...g'night all. Al

The last I knew, Lucas also made the electronic control systems for Rolls-Royce turbofan ("jet") engines . . . the gearhead aerospace engineers found that rather amusing.

--FreeFlier

FreeFlier wrote:The last I knew, Lucas also made the electronic control systems for Rolls-Royce turbofan ("jet") engines . . . the gearhead aerospace engineers found that rather amusing.

--FreeFlier

That might explain the Concorde's issues...

jwhouk wrote:

FreeFlier wrote:The last I knew, Lucas also made the electronic control systems for Rolls-Royce turbofan ("jet") engines . . . the gearhead aerospace engineers found that rather amusing.

That might explain the Concorde's issues...

Those were afterburning turbojets . . . older technology.

And I never heard that the engines had any particular trouble.

The ones used on modern jetliners don't.

--FreeFlier

FreeFlier wrote:And I never heard that the engines had any particular trouble.

As I recall, they did have a problem with one engine - but the part that caused the problem wasn't a part from that engine... in fact I think it wasn't an engine part at all... and it might have been from a different plane...

Warrl wrote:

FreeFlier wrote:And I never heard that the engines had any particular trouble.

As I recall, they did have a problem with one engine - but the part that caused the problem wasn't a part from that engine... in fact I think it wasn't an engine part at all... and it might have been from a different plane...

As I remember it, the crash was caused by a part that fell off a preceding DC-10 . . . the Concord hit it during takeoff, blew a tire (or tires), the failed tire(s) caused a fuel tank failure, leaking fuel flowed back and was ignited by an engine, setting the wing afire.

In many ways it was a "perfect storm" . . . a lot of disparate elements had to come together just right.

Wikipedia link

--FreeFlier

Yeah, the Concorde was retired mainly because it wasn't cost effective anymore. The July 2000 crash and the 9/11 attacks caused passenger counts to drop, and maintenance costs were rising.

GlytchMeister wrote:Yeah, the Concorde was retired mainly because it wasn't cost effective anymore. The July 2000 crash and the 9/11 attacks caused passenger counts to drop, and maintenance costs were rising.

Yes and no...

The DC-10 was, and is still to this day, a workhorse of an aircraft. They are an engineer's dream, because they just need a little TLC and they're back in the air.

The DC-10 was eventually retired by many mainstream, although FedEx still has quite a few in their fleet still, because Boeing bought out McDonnell-Douglass back in the late 90's (I'm wanting to say '97, but could be wrong), so there was no one left to make the replacement parts.

Even then, you'll see concepts from the old DC's in the Boeings, particularly the 717 which was basically a DC-9 with a new paint job, the 727-stretch (again, a staple workhorse narrow-body aircraft still very regularly used these days), and the old 747 that was eventually phased out in favor of the 767 (although all airports are required to have 747 connections since Air Force 1 uses them).

The 9/11 attacks had nothing to do with it. In fact, it probably kept them in the air longer because airlines didn't have the funds to replace perfectly functional DC's with newer models. DC maintenance costs were significantly less than newer Boeings or Airbuses.

I'm talking about the supersonic jet airliner, the one with the folding nose... What're you talking about?

GlytchMeister wrote:I'm talking about the supersonic jet airliner, the one with the folding nose... What're you talking about?

Sorry, Al mentioned the infamous 2000 crash was caused in part from a part falling off of a previous DC-10 aircraft, and so my brain got stuck on the glorious old DC-10's, possibly one of the best aircraft to have ever flown, which is now almost no longer commercially used.

ShneekeyTheLost wrote:

GlytchMeister wrote:I'm talking about the supersonic jet airliner, the one with the folding nose... What're you talking about?

Sorry, Al mentioned the infamous 2000 crash was caused in part from a part falling off of a previous DC-10 aircraft, and so my brain got stuck on the glorious old DC-10's, possibly one of the best aircraft to have ever flown, which is now almost no longer commercially used.

Nope - weren't me - were FreeFlier.

I will not argue with you on the old DC-10 - lovely airplane. The demise of the Concorde was simply costs, I suspect - cost to retrofit the potentially weak tank bottoms to prevent debris strike fires was more than they were worth. I suspect.

Alan

Just Old Al wrote:The demise of the Concorde was simply costs, I suspect - cost to retrofit the potentially weak tank bottoms to prevent debris strike fires was more than they were worth. I suspect.

Alan

From reading the wikipedia linked page, I see there was also a bit of a catch-22 involved:

Wikipedia wrote:To save on weight, Concorde was designed to take off without the assistance of flaps or slats. That required a significantly higher air and tyre speed during the takeoff roll. That higher speed increased the risk of tyre explosion during takeoff. When the tyres did explode, much greater kinetic energy was carried by the resulting fragments, increasing the risk of serious damage to the aircraft. A thicker skin on the bottom side of the wings could have prevented serious damage from an exploding tyre, but that would have added too much weight, cancelling out most of the advantage of not having flaps or slats.

ShneekeyTheLost wrote: . . . Even then, you'll see concepts from the old DC's in the Boeings, particularly the 717 which was basically a DC-9 with a new paint job, the 727-stretch (again, a staple workhorse narrow-body aircraft still very regularly used these days), and the old 747 that was eventually phased out in favor of the 767 (although all airports are required to have 747 connections since Air Force 1 uses them). . . . .

The 747 is still built, mostly as a freighter, but there are still passenger aircraft rolling out. In fact, Boeing rolled out a new variant a couple of years ago.

--FreeFlier

If I can ask, where did you get that plate?

--FreeFlier

FreeFlier wrote:If I can ask, where did you get that plate?

--FreeFlier

Took MN's personalized "AAAAAAA" sample, restored parts of the lake obscured by their lettering, matched and centered their font in a new layer, erased what was left of their lettering and flettened the image.

Oh.

I was hoping for an application or something . . . I wanted to make a fake plate FREEFLIER for when I show pictures of my cars on the 'net.

--FreeFlier

Me likes.

Damn straight! VERY nice bit of artwork.

Ooh, I just noticed something AmJim... It's missing one very important thing, though I'm not sure it shows up on personalized plates: The state silhouette.