P 51 wing going on to the aircraft 13min
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 апр 2014
- Short Part of a 2hr video on re-building a P-51 The 2 Hr version will be on youtube in the late fall.
Yes, I know, I miss spelled a few words in the open......but this video is up for just a month.
I don't want to fix it now and re-load it, as the YT address will change. So, deal with it. (smile)
I will finish the120 min version, in the Aug.
Why would ANYONE in their right mind dislike a video about one of the best airplanes from the greatest generation? Still my favorite plane to this day.
Because people are ignorant worms and they give a shit about aviation history and aircraft.
Reminds me of a ME 262 I helped on back in the day. Slow and double check every clearance. Lots of teamwork and trust. I made the trip to Dayton Ohio to see the 262 and it felt great to know I had a part in putting it back together. Great video. Thank you.
Very nice. Great job
Fascinating!
I always wondered how this sort of thing is done. After having watched this, I still wonder. The factory would have had a 'real’ setup for doing this job. Still very interesting though. Beautiful plane. Beautiful work.
+ClayZ They are using the same lifting points that were used by overhead hoists in the factory.
Very good.
Undoubtedly the most beautiful plane ever built!
And thanks to the British and their contribution of the Merlin engine we had at the time the perfect combination.
The sound of this bird is awesome and unmistakable!
It is such a treat to hear one fly anywhere close to you!
And I love the fact that you are building it as original.
Too many get hacked up for racing!
I hope they progress to making newbuild stangs...
+Hanz Cedric Many flying examples are pretty much new-build from an original serial number. No new engines, but an owner can build of a lot of new metal.
Where is Jane the Riveter?
thank you! we had the best prop fighter! could of rinsed off the fork lift first
Certainly not Vultures Row.
I'm sure North American had better and faster ways to do this job in 1944.
Nylon straps "slung" underneath the "airframe" and engine, lifting the entire airframe with the engine installed at "both ends" and leaving the entire center section unsupported, forklifts with no "brakes" like a "hoist", walking right under the "hoist" and load" when walking the "support" out from underneath the airframe, shutting off the "hoists" with the load supported, the "kickstand" on the back of the wing, hands and tools between the airframe and wing, zero personal safety equipment - safety glasses, work boots, gloves, hearing protection etc - probably a few wedding rings on too just waiting to peel somebody's finger off when something slips or falls, bystanders everywhere, "too many chiefs and not enough Indians" with nobody in "charge" of the "lift", verbal "commands" and people "adjusting" homemade "tooling" out of the sight of the "hoist operators", working under the wing with the airframe still hanging in empty space unsupported by anything but the "hoists", a clevis hanging on a clevis with the "lifting bracket" a cut=off piece of nylon strap (probably "homemade" on grandma's sewing machine) too long and "looped over itself" and run through the bottom clevis so if the "loop over" slips the bracket and load are going to drop at least the length of the "looped over" strap, climbing up too-short ladders using the "don't climb on" rungs to get up on the wing to get into the unattached airframe and who knows how many other (I got tired of looking and listing) just STUPID "procedures" and "tools" but BY GOD THEY WERE CAREFUL ABOUT NOT SCRATCHING THE PAINT OR DINGING THE ALUMINUM.
The forklift "hoists" would be a kind of "chilling" sight for anybody who knows a lot of aviation history or a little bit if he or she knows that the DC-10 crash that "killed" that aircraft and a lot of people where the "engine fell off in flight" wasn't caused by a design flaw or material problems or engineering failures or anything at all to do with the design and manufacture of that airplane "compromising safety". Especially "chilling" is what I noticed right away when the brake lights were on with one of the "hoists" sitting there stationary and happened to wonder if it was STILL IN GEAR. It wasn't. It wasn't even running. How is that related to the DC-10 crash?
The crash was actually caused by "mechanics" using FORKLIFTS and "unapproved methods" and "homemade tooling" to remove an engine from the airframe. Douglas's instructions were to remove the ENGINE (not part of the airframe and not Douglas's or any other manufacturer's "part" at all despite "conventional wisdom" that because airplanes leave the factory with engines the "whole airplane" is built by and "owned by" the AIRFRAME manufacturer") from the pylon (part of the airframe and "unique" to each engine type on one "side" and "standard" on the other for attachment to the airframe) said to remove the ENGINE FROM THE PYLON and if necessary remove the PYLON FROM THE AIRFRAME and to "reverse procedure" for engine installation. But that required "resources" the "mechanics" did not have. They may not even have had the manual (and my "source" for this "history" didn't mention WHERE the aircraft was being "serviced" but I suspect "overseas" since presumably Douglas and all other parties involved would have had to have the correct "resources" and would have them in the U.S. where the airframe was built and the engines initially "hung") but regardless their "revised" procedure involved using FORKIFTS and "improvised lifting equipment" to "lift" the engine, removing the pylon-to-airframe hardware and then removing the engine/pylon as an "assembly".
Installation was in reverse order at some point and my "source" didn't say how that all went down. And I can't remember if it was during removal or installation of the engine/pylon that things went "wrong. But what happened was that since they were using FORKLIFTS and not the proper lifting equipment i.e. a HOIST of some kind with a "brake" system, at some point it got to be "break time" and the "mechanics" decided to take a break but in the interest of "safety" and presumably because their "hoist" had a HYDRAULIC LEAK of some kind, they left the engine(s) running. Unfortunately, sometime during "break" the "hoist" ran out of fuel and the engine died. The "hoist" settled and dropped the load slightly and the partially installed engine/pylon assembly's weight was supported in part by an incompletely assembled "joint" that like most joints designed to be rigidly assembled had a little less "strength" as multiple parts "loosely" held together.
When the "mechanics" went back to work the damage to the airframe and/or pylon fasteners and attachment points was "unseen", the "hoist" was refueled, the work completed and the aircraft "returned to service". Airframes are structures and all structures are "flexible" and when a joint is damaged it doesn't stay the same or heal itself. it becomes more and more damaged. Sometime between then and the "last takeoff" of the DC-10 that crashed things got worse and during that takeoff and climbout the damaged joint failed, the engine "departed" the airframe and because that engine happened to powering the "backup" systems for the flight controls on an aircraft that was built with levels of "redundancy" never seen before and primary, secondary (1st backup) and tertiary (3rd backup) systems that because its a tri-jet they brilliantly divided the systems among the three engines in such a way that losing one engine just meant losing one third of each of three systems so unless all three engines failed it was impossible to lose all three systems. Safest aircraft EVER designed from that aspect.
So what "went wrong" with the airplane? Bad luck. When the engine fell off because the redundancies led to no loss of flight control capability and the airplane still did what it was supposed to do in response to control inputs it was completely "flyable" and still "safe". But "fly by wire" was also involved as well as "flowcharts" and "decision trees" for what to do when X happens or Y happens, etc. Since losing one engine ENTIRELY also removed that engine's DRAG on the airframe as well as a bunch of WEIGHT and the plane is a tri-jet with all the thrust very close to the "centerline" at all times, the "effects" of the "engine failure" on drag and yaw and thrust weren't what the "computers" predicted and no pilot ever would guess that when he "lost an engine" he REALLY LOST AN ENGINE.
And when all that drag and weight was lost the nose of the aircraft actually DROPPED somewhat and the aircraft wasn't losing airspeed and was probably accelerating and the various alarms and warnings they were getting would have suggested "engine failure" and for that aircraft because of the tri-jet construction an "engine failure" and potential for it to be "progressive" and one catastrophic failure to affect another (I think regulations about "contained engine failures" go back to BEFORE then and are the result of fears and "engine explosion on a tri-jet could "destroy the airplane" even though "fragments" have no "straight path" to one engine from another on a tri-jet without passing throught the airframe TWICE and its likely those "fears" were from manufacturers with no tri-jet aircraft in their "product line" at the time the 737 came out panicking about having enough time to "catch up") and because U.S. airline safety regulations, airport rules and BASIC COMMON SENSE have always "suggested" that if you LOSE AN ENGINE ON TAKEOFF you IMMEDIATELY LAND THE AIRPLANE, when they saw the engine failure warnings and were still climbing and had control they "forgot" about the engine "failure", reduced power and began to "bank" the aircraft to go around for an emergency landing.
With the power reduction, fairly aggressive bank to make a tight turn to "enter the pattern" ahead of inbound aircraft, loss of lift as the aircraft banked and the wing became more "vertical" and the associated loss of ACCURATE airspeed info whenever a pitot tube-equipped airplane's airframe and pitot tubes aren't "aligned" with the direction of travel and each other and maybe a little "overconfidence" from being in the "world's safest airplane" as well as the LIMITED FLIGHT TIME AND EXPERIENCE every pilot has when new to an aircraft and probably a "sigh of relief" when after the whole world lit up with warnings and alarms the "bird" seemed to be "okay" and the "crisis" averted, when the aircraft began to stall and "buffet" if they realized the problem and grabbed power and tried to recover it was too late. She "augered in" and Douglas never sold another DC-10 and what was and still is literally the "safest" commercial transport ever built has been a "deathtrap" ever since.
At least in the eyes of some and it sure was handy for competitors and especially FOREIGN ones with "issues" with their own "world-class" aircraft happening at the same time (the "super safe" Concorde had exploding main gear tire problems from day one and associated airframe damage and fires and 4 incidents leaving U.S. airports alone in the first few months of operation and FAA airworthiness directives and that situation never "resolved itself" so the 4590 crash wasn't "surprising" to anybody "in the know") AND with their own tri-jets to sell and "consortiums" of government-subsidized and nationalized airlines and manufacturers needing only to "kill" a few American aircraft manufacturers to achieve "world domination" of "air travel" to give Europeans and incentive to do so, they "played up" the "deathtrap" b.s. and it filled the headlines and articles of newspapers around the world so DC-10s were "banned" from international flights and destinations almost before the bodies were counted.
Gotta think this "built-from-scratch" airplane cost more to build than "restoring" a "scrapped" Mustang so I certainly hope the "wealthy individual" who bought this toy has better luck.
Deermayer1....... WTF are you on about mate? You went from OSHA to ENGINEER to a RANT about some plane crash that killed fewer people over 4 decades than Budweiser did last week. Then ya finished up with a jealous tirade... Is your douche bag empty now?
DEEREMEYER1 Shirley, you must be kidding. Did I call you Shirley?
Deereneter1 And a partridge in a pair tree. And yet it was accomplished successfully THE AMERICAN WAY, all hands on board, mate. I wonder what his wife goes through before they have sex.. I know don't tell me, he couldn't have a wife or sex. LOL.
Are you on drugs or just stupid ? Go spread your venom elsewhere. And yes I do rebuild planes for a living
They are using the same designated lift points on the fuselage that were used on original North American assembly line in WW2. www.swissmustangs.ch/var/m_7/71/71f/28906/1725602-P-51D.Assembly_01_STP459.xl.jpg