EASYTIGER
Posts: 7676
Score: 100
Joined: 12/7/2001
Last Login: 12/19/2006
From: nyc,
NY, USA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Gazzer
ET,
You make some candidly good points and your use of vocabulary continues to show quality wordsmithing.
Most average models are well over engineered simply by the relative strengths of materials to stresses undertaken in the flight. Helicopters are a brilliant example, would we expect the full size to work as they do, well I doubt it!!! If they did the pilot would die through excessive G anyway!! 
But, if I wanted to build a monster model and joined the LMA etc, and took part in their inspection program etc..... would the onus on engineering be down to them, not to design, but to approve the quality and suitability of the design and build?
On full size, the various powers insist on certain capabilites, which in turn are usually exceeded by the manufacturers, the most spectacular I have seen is the wing test on a Boeing or Airbus, which failed at about 170% of the target with about an 8 metre bend!
So the arbitary nature should be reduced by adopting scaled down full size practices with the LMA and the CAA agreeing on how to monitor and examine such things. That does not abbregate the designer and the builder of responsibility but might restrict things to practical levels where the element of engineering is an exact science. Scaling it down may be hard work, but should be a mathmatical process, perhaps the engineers amongst us could comment, bring Joe Cox back from retirement!
I don't know what the LMA inspection procedures involve and how rigorous they are, but no doubt some info will be forthcoming.
Milliways, you have stated what you don't like unequivocally, so what do you like, where do you draw the line, that would perhaps help in understanding your view, which at the moment I can't?
ET you missed out Asterix, Obelix and Tin Tin....... 
Dan, know where you spend your spare sheckles and it aint the same as a digestive...... 
Gazzer
This big BUFF, in a sense, you can't blame the pilot, he had the LMA behind him, they inspected it, etc, etc, he was following all the "rules", but LMA has no experience with 300 pound jets, either, so mistakes will be made.
I still think it was doomed, either way, and a third one would just have found a third, new way to crash. It's just too much to be attacking a project like that without having some solid engineering behind you. I'm sticking to that.
I feel terrible for the guy, it WAS a neat plane, but I think it just pointed out the limits. THAT is the limit.
By the way, the first one had some 50 flights on it, as I heard, not ten, before it went in.
Hide Signatures
|
Search This Thread
Printable Version
All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> RC Jets >> RE: B52 crash? again??? 
RE: B52 crash? again??? - 
