More Tristar problems?
Victor B1a
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Fremantle, Western Australia
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bassett Prang - Valley
beeayeate,
I am sure it was our C.O. on his way to a Training Command pow wow somewhere. I was on no.75 course flying Gnats at the time. Best fun you could have with your clothes on.
I am sure it was our C.O. on his way to a Training Command pow wow somewhere. I was on no.75 course flying Gnats at the time. Best fun you could have with your clothes on.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Is the RAF the largest single operator of the Tristar these days?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Where the heart belongs
Age: 55
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
The Helpful Stacker,
Sure is.
glhcarl,
Everything is done by Marshalls now, even the AP's. Don't mension the glass flt deck upgrade though, cos they done one of their usual jobs on that!!
Why didn't we learn when we let them fit secure comms, the test switch for the comms now lights up the flying control warning panel!!
Sure is.
glhcarl,
Everything is done by Marshalls now, even the AP's. Don't mension the glass flt deck upgrade though, cos they done one of their usual jobs on that!!
Why didn't we learn when we let them fit secure comms, the test switch for the comms now lights up the flying control warning panel!!
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is the RAF the largest single operator of the Tristar these days?
Lockheed L-1011 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Next largest is Air Rum with 5, registered in Sierra Leone, band in the EU.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is the RAF the largest single operator of the Tristar these days?
Next largest is Air Rum with 5, registered in Sierra Leone, band in the EU.
As of the end of June 2008 there were twenty (20) L-1011's still in operational service. Of these the RAF flys nine (9), no other operator has more than two (2).
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the RAF (or the classic jet air transport memorial flight as it is rapidly becoming) is also the largest operator of the VC10
That is unless you count all those cheap Russian pirate knock-off copies called the IL-62!
That is unless you count all those cheap Russian pirate knock-off copies called the IL-62!
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cambridgeshire
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tristar takes root at Marshalls
The RAF would have more Tristars if Marshall were more efficient and used their resources wisely. The glass cockpit upgrade is being supplied by a Philadelphia based avionics company - they are way behind schedule with their deliveries. Secondly, Marshall have taken it on themselves to make the electronic control module for the Fuel tank inerting (think: Marshalls designing avionics? - what do metal bashers Marshall know about building avionics?). This module will also be late and will cost the ARC IPT a fortune. Marshall could have use their engineers to work on avionc installation aspects (which they do know something about) but no, Marshall decided to do this work themselves (at enormous expense and long delays)with the result that a valuable RAF Tristar has now taken root in Hangar 17 in Cambridge.
Would love to know how Marshall plans to Certify (DO178) the Tristar module -they are so naive whem it comes to the complexities of certifying avionics/software!
RAF - demand that your Tristar gets the priority!
Would love to know how Marshall plans to Certify (DO178) the Tristar module -they are so naive whem it comes to the complexities of certifying avionics/software!
RAF - demand that your Tristar gets the priority!
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely it depends on how far the bag has travelled across the cabin. The G-force would start to decrease after the initial movement of the bag so it would in fact weigh less than 75lbs as it came into contact with your head. Also, shouldn't the passenger be in the brace position during a crash landing?
If the lid of the locker was rated to secure 50lbs then the 25lb mass under 3 G would burst from the locker.
Once free the 25lb mass would accelerate because of the force of the crash at 3 G. If it came into contact with your head, as it left the locker, it would again have a weight of 75lb. This is the value of its momentum.
It would maintain this momentum over whatever distance (in the aircraft) until the energy was absorbed by something else, your head in this instance. Given an unobstructed path is could maintain almost all this momentum down the length of the aircraft.
A passenger in the brace position might be safe in the even of the crash but, paradoxically a braced passenger would absorb more of the bag momentum as he was braced.
A forward facing passenger would probably suffer less from being hit from behind as the bag might tumble on whereas a rearward facing passenger might cop the lot.
Well, that's my take on it.
Wader, not entiiirely correct....
So we have a crash, and the tristar decelerates at 3g consistently over the space of a second or 2 (for our hypothetical scenario!) , in a direction that causes the luggage to want to leave said overhead locker through it's weakest point (the door latch one might reasonably assume).
So our 25lb luggage hits the locker door at a velocity based on it's acceleration (3g - ie 3x9.81ms-2, so about 29.5 meters per second per second) and the distance between it and the locker door. This is the "initial impact" may or may not break the door, depending on it's designed strength. Then, if we assume the luggage is now sitting on the door, it will exert a force of 3x its weight at 1g, so your "75lb" example.
Which is the bigger of the two forces will depend on how tightly your overhead bin is packed (i.e. how much distance the luggage has to accelerate over at 3g) and how "squidgy" your luggage is (i.e. it's compressibility. This relates to the distance over which it will decelerate, thus affecting the force needed to slow it down to rest relative to the bin door using F=ma)
Two examples of the above:
A 25lb small hard briefcase resting at the back of the overhead bin by itself at the moment of crash: Leaps forwards through the locker at impacts with a forward corner of the door. Say the distance of travel is 1m. Using Vsqd = Usqd + 2aS (i.e (End Velocity) squared is equal to the (initial velocity) squared + twice the acceleration times the distance traveled)
So, Vsqd = 0 + 2x29.5x1
Vsqd = 59
V=7.7 meters per second(1dp)
So the briefcase hits the door at 7.7ms-1. It then decelerates to "rest" (relative to the door, which is itself slowing down at the same time, but essentially starts leaning on the door and being decelerated by it). If we say the briefcase is metal, and the corner dents inwards by approximately 1cm we can use vsqd = usqd + 2as again to calculate the deceleration.
End velocity, V = 0 (relative to the door, our frame of reference for this entire calculation)
Initial velocity U = 7.7ms-1 (see above)
Distance travelled, S = 1cm, or 0.01m (dent in corner of case)
Deceleration, our unknown = a
So
0 = 59 + 0.02a
-59 = 0.02a
a= -2950ms-2
or 300g!
So this would put 100 times the force on your luggage bin door than just a simple bag already resting on it weighing the same. The morale is: Dont allow your "load" to shift in flight, as all good loadies will know!
(I suspect there's bound to be an error in there somewhere, maths was never my strong point! So flame away... But it shows a point)
So we have a crash, and the tristar decelerates at 3g consistently over the space of a second or 2 (for our hypothetical scenario!) , in a direction that causes the luggage to want to leave said overhead locker through it's weakest point (the door latch one might reasonably assume).
So our 25lb luggage hits the locker door at a velocity based on it's acceleration (3g - ie 3x9.81ms-2, so about 29.5 meters per second per second) and the distance between it and the locker door. This is the "initial impact" may or may not break the door, depending on it's designed strength. Then, if we assume the luggage is now sitting on the door, it will exert a force of 3x its weight at 1g, so your "75lb" example.
Which is the bigger of the two forces will depend on how tightly your overhead bin is packed (i.e. how much distance the luggage has to accelerate over at 3g) and how "squidgy" your luggage is (i.e. it's compressibility. This relates to the distance over which it will decelerate, thus affecting the force needed to slow it down to rest relative to the bin door using F=ma)
Two examples of the above:
A 25lb small hard briefcase resting at the back of the overhead bin by itself at the moment of crash: Leaps forwards through the locker at impacts with a forward corner of the door. Say the distance of travel is 1m. Using Vsqd = Usqd + 2aS (i.e (End Velocity) squared is equal to the (initial velocity) squared + twice the acceleration times the distance traveled)
So, Vsqd = 0 + 2x29.5x1
Vsqd = 59
V=7.7 meters per second(1dp)
So the briefcase hits the door at 7.7ms-1. It then decelerates to "rest" (relative to the door, which is itself slowing down at the same time, but essentially starts leaning on the door and being decelerated by it). If we say the briefcase is metal, and the corner dents inwards by approximately 1cm we can use vsqd = usqd + 2as again to calculate the deceleration.
End velocity, V = 0 (relative to the door, our frame of reference for this entire calculation)
Initial velocity U = 7.7ms-1 (see above)
Distance travelled, S = 1cm, or 0.01m (dent in corner of case)
Deceleration, our unknown = a
So
0 = 59 + 0.02a
-59 = 0.02a
a= -2950ms-2
or 300g!
So this would put 100 times the force on your luggage bin door than just a simple bag already resting on it weighing the same. The morale is: Dont allow your "load" to shift in flight, as all good loadies will know!
(I suspect there's bound to be an error in there somewhere, maths was never my strong point! So flame away... But it shows a point)
and pause for breath....
as for the impact with the passenger at the other end.....
The damage is done when said luggage sheds its' kinetic energy into your head through deceleration...
as Kin.NRG = 1/2 MVsqd, with the end velocity being dependent on the acceleration and distance travelled (see previous post), the damage depends on essentially how much the object weighs, how far it is allowed to travel and the relative acceleration/deceleration over that distance. (ie does the mighty Tri* continue to decelerate at 3g for the entire time of flight of the bag, and wehere does the bag's "journey" start from, is it slowed by the bin door etc etc etc). One of the things to remember is that it is not the bag that is accelerating, it is the Tri* that is decelerating. If that continues over the time of flight of the bag (quite short) then your assertion is pretty much correct Wader.
(I've bored even myself!)
as for the impact with the passenger at the other end.....
The damage is done when said luggage sheds its' kinetic energy into your head through deceleration...
as Kin.NRG = 1/2 MVsqd, with the end velocity being dependent on the acceleration and distance travelled (see previous post), the damage depends on essentially how much the object weighs, how far it is allowed to travel and the relative acceleration/deceleration over that distance. (ie does the mighty Tri* continue to decelerate at 3g for the entire time of flight of the bag, and wehere does the bag's "journey" start from, is it slowed by the bin door etc etc etc). One of the things to remember is that it is not the bag that is accelerating, it is the Tri* that is decelerating. If that continues over the time of flight of the bag (quite short) then your assertion is pretty much correct Wader.
(I've bored even myself!)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: WILTS
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so all the call for charter aircraft to provide the airlift!!!!!
who would be picking up the pieces if poor XL still had the FI contract
Latest rumour for next contract company to pick up that run is a company that have just been prosecuted by the FAA and CAA for flying outside the MEL with no good reason
Its been proven in the past with the US Miltary go for the cheapest option with yr charter and it will bite you.
Big difference with what we do and what the civvies do, is we are extremely safety minded where civvies are finance driven. Thats why the when we have a snag if there is a doubt we dont fly, where the civvies, may push it, I know I have been in the civvy world and been pushed to carry stuff!
who would be picking up the pieces if poor XL still had the FI contract
Latest rumour for next contract company to pick up that run is a company that have just been prosecuted by the FAA and CAA for flying outside the MEL with no good reason
Its been proven in the past with the US Miltary go for the cheapest option with yr charter and it will bite you.
Big difference with what we do and what the civvies do, is we are extremely safety minded where civvies are finance driven. Thats why the when we have a snag if there is a doubt we dont fly, where the civvies, may push it, I know I have been in the civvy world and been pushed to carry stuff!
Join Date: May 2008
Location: gloucester
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Call for Charter.. errrr.. They already have, operating from Exeter for a couple of weeks I think you'll find. Why have you not heard about it!!!! Because its running on rails.... Does involve a 2 hour stop to crossload to C17's. Standby for Tristar abuse!
.... time to buy some new jets I think 
If I recall correctly, it was because the Basset aircraft had been refuelled with Avtur, not Avgas.
This lead to 'segregated refuelling' at Training Command aerodromes (such as Leeming), which operated both piston and jet aircraft - the fuel bowsers had totally different routes to the flight line and procedures were put in place to ensure that an Avtur bowser couldn't enter the piston flight line and vice versa.
This lead to 'segregated refuelling' at Training Command aerodromes (such as Leeming), which operated both piston and jet aircraft - the fuel bowsers had totally different routes to the flight line and procedures were put in place to ensure that an Avtur bowser couldn't enter the piston flight line and vice versa.
Just another erk
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Germany
Age: 77
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I remember rightly, the wrong fuel caused engine failure, the reason for the Injuries, was because the aircraft hit a dry stone wall, after it came down in a field.