The auto censor of ****** and ******** precedes my appointment to the Grand Order of Woomeri. However if is understandable due to the "Aussie Tall Poppy Syndrome" that often pervades these forums.
There is a penchants in some quarters for anonymous “operator and airline bashing” on PPRuNe. Some operators/airlines get tired of the continual often unjustified bashing on PPRuNe and express their displeasure to Danny. They occasionally get their lawyers to write Danny terse letters about damages ... and money …..
Which he doesn't like. At all!
If you doubt my word, go count the number of threads that thank operators and airlines for employing us all and the service they provide, versus the “knocking” threads……..
So, to avoid those terse letters I mentioned, a number of names and words are auto censored to protect Danny’s good disposition.
As mentioned above, is there something unusual about an airline cancelling a service due to an aircraft being unserviceable?
Woomera
That
Woomera got it right in one.
is there something unusual about an airline cancelling a service due to an aircraft being unserviceable?
Metro has Garretts.
Garretts are great engines.
Garretts beat the living daylights out of the equally great but simpler PT6s for sfc, profile drag/cross section, blah blah.
But
Garretts are fixed shaft engines.
Garretts have fairly sophisticated FCUs
both ncessary to produce the abovementioned efficiencies.
50Kg or so of rotating ironmongery plus the prop and gear box to turn over sometimes finds out starter gennies on the way out, they don't last forever, or if it was a battery start, the same.
Maybe the turn around time was tight and they hadn't had a chance to motor em.
Who knows, they are very reliable engines, but it's called aviation and;
Like Queensland
Beautiful one day, your worst nightmare the next
This
Woomera
Oh and BTW a useless bit of information I picked up somewhere is that in the case of the Garrett a pretty efficient engine, it is necessary to for the engine (turbines) to absorb something like 2000 gross HP to get a nett 700HP or so out of the prop.
The other 1300 HP goes to turn it over (just shy of 40,000 rpm) and is largely absorbed by the compressor at 100% RPM zero thrust.
It's one of the reasons you dont want to hang around on the ground or at low alititude.
That
Woomera
I object to your totally untrue statement
"Garretts beat the living daylights out of the equally great but simpler PT6s......."
One is
"50Kg or so of rotating ironmongery...", the other is a flying Swiss watch!
"Garretts have fairly sophisticated FCUs.." - some FCU's are even an electrical nightmare looking for a place to fail, eh Woomera! You'd know!
And incidentally to clarify your last statement, a Pratt's Field Engineer told me many years ago that around four fifths (80%) of the energy into a turbine engine is used to turn the compressor and converted to noise and heat. In effect, a PT6A-42 at 850 HP at the prop effectively generates around 4,000 HP at the gas generator.
Or something like that!
How many of us Woomeri? Dunno - about five or six at last count. Every time we run short of Woomeri, Danny visits the Retired Aviator's Home, grabs a few drunkards in their wheel chairs, does a quick endorsement and lets us loose in this forum!
We need a Woomera relay team to keep on top of the Dunnunda Forums!
Except That Woomeri above. Think Danny found him in the gutter outside!!!
This
Woomera