Classic British Flight Sim

:o Wasn't expecting that. Was thinking along the lines of something that had gone out to the US. I've been doing a bit of digging on a.net. Seems the two 44's replaced two Brits. From what I can gather EI-BAA was withdrawn in '79 and used as a parts ship for EI-BBH. Nots sure when the CL44 where introduced, but I suspect the one in the photo is EI-BGO, seen here in July '86 http://www.airliners.net/photo/Aer-Tura ... 0930143/L/ which would put my pics at June '86 if I'm right. She was parted out to keep EI-BRP going.

It was in late 88 so your correct

BTW had a problem with your mail addie mate

drop me a PM

Leif

Good to see you around again, Toby.

TobyV wrote:I'm not sure i'd want anything going "bang" anywhere near wings full of fuel, or worse still, fuel vapour. [...] Can anyone on here (thinking mainly RAF tecchy guys) describe the mechanism that jettisons drop tanks? I would imagine its purely mechanical and relies on gravity or a small amount of postive G applied to the aircraft at the moment of release?

Neither would I, Toby but, it seems, not everyone agrees with us. :-(

These photos show the warning sign carried by Hunter 5, WP190 at Tangmere just above its drop-tank attachment points. Apologies for the poor quality of the first photo but I'm not at the museum again until Monday so I had to make do with what I had available at home. The second photo shows the warning triangle in detail.





Pete

Interesting. I think the difference with droptanks over engines is that they are not 'hardwired' into the aircraft, and have been seen getting used. I must admit, I think a lot of the speculation on dropping 'engines' comes from seeing droptanks, the Apollo missions (pyro bolts on each section housing), and ignorance.

There's been incidents of A/C losing engines in flight (or the horrific one on takeoff a few years back) - but this is all due to some error or omission somewhere down the line. The mounting bolts (from my limted understanding) are immensely strong used 'correctly' but will give or get weakened quite easily if the 'wrong' forces are applied. Given the fact they are designed to 'go forward' it follows this is where the strength is. If the Airbus hit the water with a slight angle (even inches) on one wing down, even fractionally, that would put more stress on the lower engine (even if not submerged or scooping) - which could be just enough to make the difference in one shearing and one remaining attached to the wing.

Just my ignorant ramblings!!!!

Incidentally, I was reading a ludocrous post elsewhere last night where a Geezer theorises that the ditching was a fake. he reckons that the US Airways logo was shopped, and the wings would snap if people stood on them, so it was a massive 'con'.... :roll: