Titan A321 loses windows
Interestingly the aircraft involved G-OATW was previously registered as G-GBNI, painted in full UK government colours, as was G-XATW when it operated a similar role. To anyone in the know, why were these aircraft procured for that role and then immediately removed from it? I know G-GBNI was used on quite a few state visits. Sorry to sidetrack from the original post but this incident seemingly could quite easily have occurred with the UK prime minister on this exact air frame, which would have made a few headlines i’m sure.
Has nobody read the story? The plane was being used for a movie, commercial ad… they had massive lighting rigs set up next to the fuselage to simulate sunrise while filming. The lights were placed to close and melted sole components. Reports also that during filming the lighting rigs, weighing I presume a lot struck the aircraft several times.
Has nobody (Flyhighfirst) followed the timeline and noticed that AeroAmigo wrote their thoughts 3 weeks before the AAIB report was published?
Is there an obscure connection between AeroAmigo's observations on the history of the aircraft and what subsequently happened?
AeroAmigo's hypothetical point was that:
this incident seemingly could quite easily have occurred with the UK prime minister on this exact air frame
Unless of course your point is that the PM is really feeling the heat, he's very much in the spotlight, and will he hold it together under pressure? Maybe that's the obscure connection you allude to, and I claim my prize!
Is it warm in here?
Has nobody read the story? The plane was being used for a movie, commercial ad… they had massive lighting rigs set up next to the fuselage to simulate sunrise while filming. The lights were placed to close and melted sole components. Reports also that during filming the lighting rigs, weighing I presume a lot struck the aircraft several times.
I don't know, David, is there? You're the one who appears to know everything. I think we should be told!
AeroAmigo's hypothetical point was that:
However that was before we / they learned the facts, and the cause (overheating by radiation from lighting rigs) which happened after the prime minister used the aircraft.
Unless of course your point is that the PM is really feeling the heat, he's very much in the spotlight, and will he hold it together under pressure? Maybe that's the obscure connection you allude to, and I claim my prize!
AeroAmigo's hypothetical point was that:
However that was before we / they learned the facts, and the cause (overheating by radiation from lighting rigs) which happened after the prime minister used the aircraft.
Unless of course your point is that the PM is really feeling the heat, he's very much in the spotlight, and will he hold it together under pressure? Maybe that's the obscure connection you allude to, and I claim my prize!
Anyway, The report is very interesting, quite a unique incident to say the least!
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: South West
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TUI had a similar occurrence in the hangar at LTN on a 787 - aircraft being used to make an ad, high power light outside the aircraft to simulate bright sunlight in the cabin, cabin window panes softened and the material slumped - luckily noticed by the engineers before the aircraft left the hangar.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TUI had a similar occurrence in the hangar at LTN on a 787 - aircraft being used to make an ad, high power light outside the aircraft to simulate bright sunlight in the cabin, cabin window panes softened and the material slumped - luckily noticed by the engineers before the aircraft left the hangar.
200 degrees Celsius for hours.
In my Post #17, my remark about it being a lot of InfraRed was a bit speculatve, just based on a basic knowledge of physics. No conventional lamp can output 1KW of pure visible light.
But I have subsequently checked on Wikipedia about Tungsten Lamps, and found:
"Incandescent bulbs are much less efficient than other types of electric lighting. Less than 5% of the energy they consume is converted into visible light; the rest is lost as heat."
So I think I was basically correct.
But running that spread of "Maxibrute 12" lights at full power would require a 72KW power supply. That is an Industrial installation. And did they really run it for 5 hours on one side, and 4.5 hours on the other as the report states? That is about £180 of electricity.
IB
But I have subsequently checked on Wikipedia about Tungsten Lamps, and found:
"Incandescent bulbs are much less efficient than other types of electric lighting. Less than 5% of the energy they consume is converted into visible light; the rest is lost as heat."
So I think I was basically correct.
But running that spread of "Maxibrute 12" lights at full power would require a 72KW power supply. That is an Industrial installation. And did they really run it for 5 hours on one side, and 4.5 hours on the other as the report states? That is about £180 of electricity.
IB
A possible aggravation is if the window tends to absorb IR and start to soften before reaching a temperature high enough to re-radiate what was coming in. The surrounding material can at least conduct the heat to unlit areas, but the seals would form an insulating break in that path. Also the window material itself will not conduct heat nearly as well as aluminum or carbon fiber can.
Per this polycarbonate (LEXAN (R)) absorbs nearly all long wave IR: https://www.gsoptics.com/images/diag...F1130-112L.jpg
Thermal is typically 10,000nm and this looks to be entirely opaque above 3,000 nm
Per this polycarbonate (LEXAN (R)) absorbs nearly all long wave IR: https://www.gsoptics.com/images/diag...F1130-112L.jpg
Thermal is typically 10,000nm and this looks to be entirely opaque above 3,000 nm
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TUI had a similar occurrence in the hangar at LTN on a 787 - aircraft being used to make an ad, high power light outside the aircraft to simulate bright sunlight in the cabin, cabin window panes softened and the material slumped - luckily noticed by the engineers before the aircraft left the hangar.
That would save everyone from having to make the same mistake to learn the same lesson. Who knows - it could even save money, even save lives!
OK, dreaming over - back to reality.
But running that spread of "Maxibrute 12" lights at full power would require a 72KW power supply. That is an Industrial installation. And did they really run it for 5 hours on one side, and 4.5 hours on the other as the report states? That is about £180 of electricity.
IB
IB
Join Date: Jan 2024
Location: UK
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AAIB report on this incident is released today:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/a...4-october-2023
A couple of snapshots from the report (from other filming events):
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/a...4-october-2023
A couple of snapshots from the report (from other filming events):
Last edited by DTA; 18th Apr 2024 at 20:17.
Cripes! If it did that to clear windows then what has it done to the plastic fuselage? How do you detect heat damage through Carbon fuselage sections? I assume crack detection isn't the solution.