PDA

View Full Version : When you look at the Service life of our aircraft, the Navy


NutLoose
5th Sep 2012, 21:15
Has us beaten hands down with the active service life of some of their ships..

HMS Caroline built in 1914 and fought at the battle of Jutland, only retired in march 2011... Next to Victory that surely has to be a record, I can't imagine any of our aircraft ever reaching 97 years in Service.


BBC News - Talks to keep HMS Caroline in Belfast (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-19077647)

.

Stuff
5th Sep 2012, 22:02
When we start to build aircraft of 3-inch armour and accept a top speed of 28 knots then we'll have a fair comparison. There's also a bit of "Trigger's Broom" from Only Fools and Horses going on. How many times can you completely refit a ship and still claim it's the same one from 1914?

The Shuttleworth collection have a 1909 Blerios XI (G-AANG) that's still airworthy Shuttleworth Old Warden Park - The Shuttleworth Aircraft Collection (http://www.shuttleworth.org/shuttleworth-collection/aircraft-details.asp?ID=1)

bvcu
5th Sep 2012, 22:18
Been parked/berthed since 1923 so isnt that similar to a building ........ in which case lets revisit the question......? still have working a/c airworthy with military serials since 1943 , Harvard at boscombe. Not a display machine , and two meteors with MB .......

Melchett01
5th Sep 2012, 23:10
Not sure if it's one of those urban myths, but isn't the BBMF's Lancaster declared under the CFE treaty as a strategic bomber or something along those lines? Apparently something to do with those frequent non-stop round trips from Lincs - Berlin and back in one go a while back making it fall foul of some treaty wording or other.

If so, and given that it is still flying, then that would surely beat a ship that has been berthed since the 1920s?

Waddo Plumber
5th Sep 2012, 23:11
If I remember correctly, most ships last about 20 or 30 years. Many airframes last longer in active service. Several UK types spring to mind, but the projected life of many B52s will be much longer.

500N
6th Sep 2012, 00:32
Waddo

How much of the original B52 as it left the factory
is left after a few overhauls ?

.

GreenKnight121
6th Sep 2012, 03:05
Over 95% of the airframe, and far more than 50% of the skin. Since all the B-52s we have operating are -H models, then they are all still operating with the original model of engine (TF33/JT3D) which has been out of production since 1985.

Kitbag
6th Sep 2012, 03:56
Despite the many suffixes (A-H) the B-52 was in production for only 10 years; 1952-62. The B52H was funded in 3 fisccal years and the last one left the line 26 Oct 1962.

See the video here: AF News (http://www.zggtr.org/index.php?topic=7906.0)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=e6xHXrl14o8

Tourist
6th Sep 2012, 07:12
msbbarratt

Are you suggesting that comercial build standards, ie HMS Ocean etc are preferable to military build standards, ie HMS Invincible?!?

lasernigel
6th Sep 2012, 12:45
If you go to Wiki for info on HMS Caroline, she has been berthed since 1924. That would make a huge difference in survival terms. Basically then was active for 10yrs, not a long time for a ship.

Pontius Navigator
6th Sep 2012, 13:29
If I remember correctly, most ships last about 20 or 30 years.

Before being flogged off to some former 3rd world power and serving for another 20-30 years.

Bit like Hunters, Canberras, Harrier and the F3 Tornado.

Not_a_boffin
6th Sep 2012, 13:42
As a point of order, while Ocean's hull structure and systems may have been built to "commercial" standards - specifically Lloyds Rules & Regulations for the Classification of Ships - T45 and QEC are not. They are built to Lloyds Rules & Regulations for the Classification of Naval Ships, which were developed by incorporating much of the military load and military structural design practices previously contained in Naval Engineering standards etc.

Because these rules use broader brush loads (ie you tend to derive a worst-case load and apply it more extensively) than the multiple iterations and piece-part load modelling previously used in NES practice, this tends to lead to simpler "heavier" structures and thicker plating, which is no bad thing. At a rough estimate using Lloyds Rules as opposed to the old NES/SSCP23 design practices puts about 5-10% on the structural weight of a ship.

That said, much of the cracking issues evident in older ships (eg T42) was directly attributable to to p1ss-poor detail design. Bulkheads not landing on bulkheads is just asking for fatigue cracking. T23's are having issues because in some cases the MoD bulk-bought steel plate without the correct rolling margin, leading to in effect thinner than designed plating, not helped by the ships being significantly heavier than they were designed to be. However, replating is always do-able, just pricy.

MSB - you ought to be careful with the Great White Turbine (WR21) aboard the T45. It has a recuperator and an intercooler and is very complex. Trouble is there are only 12 of them (unlikely to be more) and I'm led to believe that elements of their "complex bits" are supplied by Messrs Bubba and Cletus of Bumf8ck Ak, who may not be in business throughout the life of the ships.......

Those nice people at GE who offered the successful and very popular LM2500 instead were of course turned away by BuffHoon (remember him??!)

teeteringhead
6th Sep 2012, 13:51
One was once told - at a Cockers P on HMS Caroline - that she would have enormous scrap value as she was/is one of the largest potential sources of "pre nuclear" steel.

Apparently all steel manufactured since 1945 has accrued some elements of radioctivity :eek::eek: - "pre-nuclear" does not so it is an essential and rare (read expensive) part of some nuclear-type measuring instruments.

Sounds plausible to me, but may just be the nuclear age version of the "golden rivet", foisted upon a gullible crab at a Cockers P........:O

OvertHawk
6th Sep 2012, 14:59
Teeter

Not heard that story in specific reference to this vessel, but have heard tell of that phenomena regarding scrap metal in general.

Seems plausible...

OH

Biggus
6th Sep 2012, 17:05
teeter,

If you're right then the eiffel tower, forth rail bridge, etc must be worth a fortune!

500N
6th Sep 2012, 17:15
And the Sydney Harbour Bridge

I know pre 1945 is useful for dating things (fake art for one)
but didn't know pre 1945 steel was worth more.

.

Pontius Navigator
6th Sep 2012, 17:33
The German Grand Fleet at Scapa Flow is the usual source quoted for uncontaminated steel.

From Wiki:

This low-background steel is used in the manufacture of radiation-sensitive devices, such as Geiger counters, as it is not contaminated with radioisotopes, having been produced prior to any chance of nuclear contamination

This suggests that there is no large market for such uncontaminated steel.

Milo Minderbinder
6th Sep 2012, 17:51
very large market for uncontaminated steel
very important for lots of kinds of instruments, sensors, medical gear

big demand in the far east - thats why none of the old sunken warships are safe. There are big issues with the far east scrappers plundering war graves

alwayslookingup
6th Sep 2012, 22:05
Correct PN (Post 18), world's largest source of non irradiated steel is indeed the scuttled German Fleet at Scapa Flow.

Tankertrashnav
8th Sep 2012, 14:37
I did read not that long ago that it is quite possible that the mother of the last B52 pilot (or whatever) hasn't been born yet.

Easy Street
8th Sep 2012, 15:14
If the last B52 pilot will grow up in a trailer park in Tennessee, I shouldn't think his grandmother has been born yet :ok: