Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

General aviation/airplane news and chat

4 engine failure and a landing described as "negotiating your way up a badgers arse"


Although the airspace around Mount Galunggung was closed temporarily after the accident, it was reopened days later. It was only after a Singapore Airlines 747 was forced to shut down three of its engines while flying through the same area nineteen days later (13 July) that Indonesian authorities closed the airspace permanently and rerouted airways to avoid the area; a watch was set up to monitor clouds of ash.[3] Flight 9 was not the first encounter with this eruption – a Garuda DC-9 had encountered ash on 5 April 1982.

:facepalm:
 
I have an appalling morbid fascination with aircraft crashes.

But it's led me to this pdf detailing 94 crash sites in south west Wales where I live.


Many are from the war, but many are also from after the war into the 1950s. I'm just amazed at how the skies were seemingly full of aircraft falling out of them just 70 years ago. I know of a lot of these places and drive past them daily. Many of those I know are associated with Pembrey airfield, which is not far from where I work.

Anyway, it's an interesting historical document with detail I thought some might be interested in.
 
I have an appalling morbid fascination with aircraft crashes.

But it's led me to this pdf detailing 94 crash sites in south west Wales where I live.


Many are from the war, but many are also from after the war into the 1950s. I'm just amazed at how the skies were seemingly full of aircraft falling out of them just 70 years ago. I know of a lot of these places and drive past them daily. Many of those I know are associated with Pembrey airfield, which is not far from where I work.

Anyway, it's an interesting historical document with detail I thought some might be interested in.

If you remember back to the 60’s and 70’s a remarkable number of planes did crash, we’ve come such a long way that a crash of a western made and maintained aircraft is an exceedingly rare event. Which is why all those at the FAA and Boeing who colluded to certify the 737 Max should be taken out and shot.
 
I have an appalling morbid fascination with aircraft crashes.

But it's led me to this pdf detailing 94 crash sites in south west Wales where I live.


Many are from the war, but many are also from after the war into the 1950s. I'm just amazed at how the skies were seemingly full of aircraft falling out of them just 70 years ago. I know of a lot of these places and drive past them daily. Many of those I know are associated with Pembrey airfield, which is not far from where I work.

Anyway, it's an interesting historical document with detail I thought some might be interested in.
Aircraft crashes are rather like car crashes. Decades ago the crash stats and general safety standards were orders of magnitude worse but nobody gave a fuck. Nowadays modern Western aircraft and the airlines who operate them have reliability figures and safety & redundancy features unparalleled on any other industry, and accident rates are ludicrously low, yet every incident is treated like a generational catastrophe.
 
I have an appalling morbid fascination with aircraft crashes.

But it's led me to this pdf detailing 94 crash sites in south west Wales where I live.


Many are from the war, but many are also from after the war into the 1950s. I'm just amazed at how the skies were seemingly full of aircraft falling out of them just 70 years ago. I know of a lot of these places and drive past them daily. Many of those I know are associated with Pembrey airfield, which is not far from where I work.

Anyway, it's an interesting historical document with detail I thought some might be interested in.

Fascinating.

And I'd never heard of these:


"The Queen Bee was devised as a low-cost radio-controlled target aircraft, for realistic anti-aircraft (AA) gunnery training. If it survived the shooting (as intended, by offset aiming), its controller would attempt to recover it for re-use. "

I'll send that PDF to my mate in Swansea he's up in the mountains a bit and will find that very interesting. :thumbs:
 
Bring it.

I love the design of the blended wing body too. CNN had a piece about it earlier in the year. Certainly could add more glamour to flying again (sans carbon footprint guilt too).

800x-1.jpg
 
The French state is backing research into low-carbon flight and sees Airbus’ development of a hydrogen powered plane as the best answer to “aviation bashing,” French Transport Minister Jean-Baptiste Djebbari said on LCI Television Monday.

Proves the great value of the work of people like me, or the Gatwick drone guys.
 
Falklands is the only place on the planet where people phone up and complain if they haven't heard a jet in awhile!

Bristows were still a better service than the RAF although certain if their pilots were certifiable one Aussie claimed to be a Vietnam vet.
Did a short tactical lift as part of an exercise huge red and right helicopter lands smoke bombs and blanks going section jump in off we go terrified Norwegian wildlife film crew in the back think they thought the war he as started🤣.
Did get into trouble for the S61 aerial gunnery practice though.
 
15 years.
Aircraft R&R usually takes a long time, and even standard, proven technology airplanes take more than a decade from conception to entry into service, so that is pretty impressive actually.

Chances are there'll be hydrogen planes in service before HS2 is completed, which is a shame as it might render the project obsolete even before it opens.
 
Its potentially good news but we've been here before with the aviation sector. They're great at concept but less good on actual change unless it is financially benficial in the very short term.

I would like to be proven wrong but I think there is more chance of me flying by flapping my arms in 15 years then these planes flying commercially. As I said, happy to be proven wrong, delighted even.
 
Its potentially good news but we've been here before with the aviation sector. They're great at concept but less good on actual change unless it is financially benficial in the very short term.

I would like to be proven wrong but I think there is more chance of me flying by flapping my arms in 15 years then these planes flying commercially. As I said, happy to be proven wrong, delighted even.

Not sure we'll see the flying wing, but hydrogen powered engines shouldn't be too hard, that is where Airbus will focus at the start...

AAA.JPG


Bin off HS2 and build more airports, hundreds of them!
 
Probably best just to start with the eye watering investments existing airports will need to fuel these things. That'll be a major problem. If you want to fly from Heathrow to Frankfurt then it'll be no problem. Want to fly from / to regional airports? Big difference.

I'll be surprised if this happens in my lifetime and I'm only 43.
 
Aircraft R&R usually takes a long time, and even standard, proven technology airplanes take more than a decade from conception to entry into service, so that is pretty impressive actually.

Chances are there'll be hydrogen planes in service before HS2 is completed, which is a shame as it might render the project obsolete even before it opens.
I look forward to quoting this post 15 years from now.
 
I know regular planes can be quite flammable in an accident but will hydrogen planes be magnitudes more bangy in the event of a crash?
 
I know regular planes can be quite flammable in an accident but will hydrogen planes be magnitudes more bangy in the event of a crash?

I cannot find the article at the moment, but it suggested if you have a metal fuselage, a hydrogen fire outside the aircraft would be survivable because hydrogen burns at a lower temperatue and so hydrogen might be safer than jet fuel.

I know that most modern aircraft have swapped metal fuselage for carbon fibre. But the flamability of hydrogen is not necessarily a barrier.

Quick internet search I found this nasa study from 1982, conclusion page 4

 
I cannot find the article at the moment, but it suggested if you have a metal fuselage, a hydrogen fire outside the aircraft would be survivable because hydrogen burns at a lower temperatue and so hydrogen might be safer than jet fuel.

I know that most modern aircraft have swapped metal fuselage for carbon fibre. But the flamability of hydrogen is not necessarily a barrier.

Quick internet search I found this nasa study from 1982, conclusion page 4


Thanks for digging that out, I got as far as the fractions and ran out of brain. Interesting stuff though!
 
Probably best just to start with the eye watering investments existing airports will need to fuel these things. That'll be a major problem. If you want to fly from Heathrow to Frankfurt then it'll be no problem. Want to fly from / to regional airports? Big difference.

I'll be surprised if this happens in my lifetime and I'm only 43.

I thought the whole idea of hydrogen fuel was that it's generated via electrolysis from water? All the need to get is a couple of hosepipes no?
 


The world's first hydrogen-powered commercial aircraft has taken to the skies above Bedfordshire.

The only thing that the six-seater Piper M-class plane emits is water vapour - and ZeroAvia, the company behind the technology, says its aim is to make hydrogen planes available commercially in three years.

"What we're doing is replacing fossil fuel engines with what's called hydrogen electric engines," ZeroAvia founder and chief executive Val Miftakhov told Sky News.

"We also have a fuelling infrastructure set up that ensures zero emission production of hydrogen itself."

A prototype plane with this type of engine has flown before, but the company says this is the first time that a commercially available aircraft has taken to the skies using hydrogen power.


ZeroAvia says the science is already there for a long, zero-emissions flight by the end of this decade.



And...

After Thursday's 20-minute flight, ZeroAvia is working towards a 250-mile flight.

Once they can do 250 mile flights we can get rid of those noisy, polluting trains, use the £1/4tn HS2 will cost to re-equip airfields to deal with hydrogen :thumbs:
 
That's one method. Most common right now is steam reformation of methane.

Ahh, ok. Well they could get a few cows to roam around the airport and harness from there. Added bonus they'll keep the grass cut by eating it so they'll save on lawnmowers. Sorted.
 
Once they can do 250 mile flights we can get rid of those noisy, polluting trains, use the £1/4tn HS2 will cost to re-equip airfields to deal with hydrogen :thumbs:

Don't you lot normally pretend everything aviation will be entirely privately funded? I know it can be difficult to keep up with all the lies.

As I say. I hope I'm wrong but we've all been here before. Airlines ain't going to buy planes that don't give an immediate return and punters ain't going to buy tickets that cost more than £150 to fly to Prague.
 
Don't you lot normally pretend everything aviation will be entirely privately funded?

Not at all.

Just look at the bailouts Lufthansa & Air France have had this year, and the many airlines that are still state owned. Flying is a vital public service, really don't know where you get the idea that it should be privately funded from.

As I say. I hope I'm wrong but we've all been here before. Airlines ain't going to buy planes that don't give an immediate return and punters ain't going to buy tickets that cost more than £150 to fly to Prague.

Again this is very wrong, airlines have to plan many years ahead and the certainly don't get an immediate return on a >£150m aircraft, the return on that takes a long time.
 
Back
Top Bottom