Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Gaffers]

Wocka-wocka bird My favourite 'chopper'.  I was doing some work on a flight sim once and got a chance to fly it, very easy compared to a Gazelle that's for sure.  They are great fun as a passenger too in the right hands.  Aerobatics in them was great fun until someone spued all over everyone strapped down to the floor (about 30 of us with kit)

Having spent nearly 8 months living next to the hospital landing pad in Afghan I still find their distinctive sound soothing, they always bring a smile to my face anyway. 

[omegod]

One of the only decent shows Mike Brewer did was the story of Bravo November, the sole Chinook on the Falklands during the conflict that is still flying now

Can't find a link to it even though i only watched it last week

[tigers_gonads]

A few of us hitched a lift back in one from Gutersloh back to Laarbruch in 89 after fixing one of our kites that eat a bird 
2 of us sat on the floor at the backend (strapped down) with the ramp down for the trip back because we thought it would be a nice trip home 
Well instead of enjoying the German countryside, the pilot decided to fly around every tree, building, over every dip he could, as hard as he could (just for the hell of it like  )
Could have punched the bastid. much to the amusement of the lads who took great pleasure of laughing and ripping the piss out of me screaming like a little bitch   

Weirdly, I really miss those days ..........
 

[LC0112G]

What a great trip!

I would love to fly in one of those, and have done since seeing them on the TV in news reports on the Vietnam War.  The other Nam helicopter that I wanted to fly in was of course the Bell UH-1 Iroquois or Huey.  I once knew a retired USAF pilot that flew them in that war, but regretfully for me he would never want to talk about it as he was disgusted and ashamed by what he saw in the name of his country.

I wonder what the oldest flying Chinook is, and indeed the Huey?

What stories they could tell!

The oldest flyable Wokka is believed to be serial number 91-0061. Details here : http://www.chinook-helicopter.com/history/aircraft/D_Models/91-00261/91-00261.html

As you can see, the Septics are sneaky with Chinooks, and have completely rebuilt and re-serialed many of them. 91-0061 started life as CH-47A serial 61-02409. The first two digits in the USAF/USAr serial system denote the year that the funds were allocated to buy the aircraft, so 61-02409 was 'paid for' in US fiscal year 1961, and will have first flown in either 1961 or 62.  Then it was "Triggers new Broom"-ed into CH-47D serial 91-0061 during 1991, and re-entered service as such in 1992.  The first RAF Chinook ZA670 arrived in 1980 as an HC1, and is still in service AFAIK as an HC4. 

As for Huey's - pass. Spotters refer to them as 'Chocolate Mice", and there are (mainly empty!) pages and pages of them in our serlal logging books. They're still being made for the US Marine corps, and many of the surplus early ones live on with civil organisations - there are a few in the UK.

[Lizzie Zoom]

What a great trip!

I would love to fly in one of those, and have done since seeing them on the TV in news reports on the Vietnam War.  The other Nam helicopter that I wanted to fly in was of course the Bell UH-1 Iroquois or Huey.  I once knew a retired USAF pilot that flew them in that war, but regretfully for me he would never want to talk about it as he was disgusted and ashamed by what he saw in the name of his country.

I wonder what the oldest flying Chinook is, and indeed the Huey?

What stories they could tell!

The oldest flyable Wokka is believed to be serial number 91-0061. Details here : http://www.chinook-helicopter.com/history/aircraft/D_Models/91-00261/91-00261.html

As you can see, the Septics are sneaky with Chinooks, and have completely rebuilt and re-serialed many of them. 91-0061 started life as CH-47A serial 61-02409. The first two digits in the USAF/USAr serial system denote the year that the funds were allocated to buy the aircraft, so 61-02409 was 'paid for' in US fiscal year 1961, and will have first flown in either 1961 or 62.  Then it was "Triggers new Broom"-ed into CH-47D serial 91-0061 during 1991, and re-entered service as such in 1992.  The first RAF Chinook ZA670 arrived in 1980 as an HC1, and is still in service AFAIK as an HC4. 

As for Huey's - pass. Spotters refer to them as 'Chocolate Mice", and there are (mainly empty!) pages and pages of them in our serlal logging books. They're still being made for the US Marine corps, and many of the surplus early ones live on with civil organisations - there are a few in the UK.

Thanks for that LC0112G, I thought you would be the one to know!

56.5 years airframe age is quite something, especially when you think of the loads they would have lifted.

I know there are a number of Spitfires that claim to be "the oldest" and "oldest still flying", but two come to mind: MK1  P7350 is apparently the oldest airworthy Spitfire, and is the only survivor of the Battle of Britain still flying, coming into service in August 1940, the 14th of 11,989 manufactured at te Castle Bromwich 'shadow' factory. So it's airframe is 79 years old in August.  I note though that another Spitfire, MK1 P9374, built in 1938, and downed over France in May 1940, after recovery from the mud of Calais and rebuilt, taking to the sky again 71 years later, is claimed to be the oldest flying example. So an 81 year air frame.

With these claims of "oldest", I reckon flying hours should be taken into account, so P7350 must be a considered the supreme example??

It begs the question, and I know there are First World War examples of aircraft still flying, how long can any airframe still be airworthy for?

[LC0112G]

Thanks for that LC0112G, I thought you would be the one to know!

56.5 years airframe age is quite something, especially when you think of the loads they would have lifted.

I know there are a number of Spitfires that claim to be "the oldest" and "oldest still flying", but two come to mind: MK1  P7350 is apparently the oldest airworthy Spitfire, and is the only survivor of the Battle of Britain still flying, coming into service in August 1940, the 14th of 11,989 manufactured at te Castle Bromwich 'shadow' factory. So it's airframe is 79 years old in August.  I note though that another Spitfire, MK1 P9374, built in 1938, and downed over France in May 1940, after recovery from the mud of Calais and rebuilt, taking to the sky again 71 years later, is claimed to be the oldest flying example. So an 81 year air frame.

With these claims of "oldest", I reckon flying hours should be taken into account, so P7350 must be a considered the supreme example??

It begs the question, and I know there are First World War examples of aircraft still flying, how long can any airframe still be airworthy for?

If you replace parts as/when they reach their manufacturers service lifetime, then you can keep an aircraft flying almost indefinatley. Historic aircraft like Spitfires are contentious. It's a bit like Ford Escorts and Capris - as long as you've got the log book (serial number tag for aircraft) you can basically replace the whole machine with new parts and retain it's identity. I'm willing to bet there ain't much of the original P9374 (as it left Cattle Bromwich) in the current assembly of iron, aluminium and wood bearing that identity.   

Spitfires are so valuable now that many which used to be "Gate Guards" at RAF bases were removed and replaced by plastic replicas. Some were then sold and 'restored' to flying status but again, I doubt there is much of the original airframe or mechanicals left after the restoration. They are effectively new build aircraft.

[Kevin Wood]

It begs the question, and I know there are First World War examples of aircraft still flying, how long can any airframe still be airworthy for?

Depends on the construction method and budget available. Early aircraft that are just riveted metal panels or doped fabric stretched over a metal frame can be repaired and/or rebuilt as many times as you like if financially viable.

More modern aircraft can be much more complex, and for many the fatigue life of the airframe is not negotiable. In any case, these types would require manufacturer type support for any repairs and/or life extensions to be certified, whereas "simple" aircraft just require skilled workshops and money, so we will see spitfires flying long after most more recent warbirds have been grounded.

Wood and fabric aircraft can have pretty good longevity if stored in favourable conditions but a few vintage glider types have been blighted with types of glue that haven't stood the test of time, for example.

Fibreglass aircraft are pretty good with plenty of the late - 60s and early 70's examples of glass gliders still flying. I know some of the older 2 seaters in our club fleet, both wooden and glass, have clocked up 50 years and approaching 20,000 hours flying. 

[Lizzie Zoom]

It begs the question, and I know there are First World War examples of aircraft still flying, how long can any airframe still be airworthy for?

Depends on the construction method and budget available. Early aircraft that are just riveted metal panels or doped fabric stretched over a metal frame can be repaired and/or rebuilt as many times as you like if financially viable.

More modern aircraft can be much more complex, and for many the fatigue life of the airframe is not negotiable. In any case, these types would require manufacturer type support for any repairs and/or life extensions to be certified, whereas "simple" aircraft just require skilled workshops and money, so we will see spitfires flying long after most more recent warbirds have been grounded.

Wood and fabric aircraft can have pretty good longevity if stored in favourable conditions but a few vintage glider types have been blighted with types of glue that haven't stood the test of time, for example.

Fibreglass aircraft are pretty good with plenty of the late - 60s and early 70's examples of glass gliders still flying. I know some of the older 2 seaters in our club fleet, both wooden and glass, have clocked up 50 years and approaching 20,000 hours flying.

Thanks Kevin

And, thinking about it further, engines of modern aircraft come into the equation.  The lovely Vulcan bomber being an example

[Kevin Wood]

Thanks Kevin

And, thinking about it further, engines of modern aircraft come into the equation.  The lovely Vulcan bomber being an example

Yes, very true. A piston engine can be rebuilt, new parts made and so on using standard workshop tools and techniques, no matter how big. Turbine engines are a totally different poposition.

[Lizzie Zoom]

Thanks Kevin

And, thinking about it further, engines of modern aircraft come into the equation.  The lovely Vulcan bomber being an example

Yes, very true. A piston engine can be rebuilt, new parts made and so on using standard workshop tools and techniques, no matter how big. Turbine engines are a totally different poposition.

With the Vulcan and Concorde both now grounded we, nor our grandchildren, will never hear that sound that was so impressive, especially when a flight of the former scrambled!

On the floor they will never be the same, as a Spitfire and a Chinook not flying would be; it is the sound and sight that makes then so special

[Lizzie Zoom]

All my talk of the sounds of aircraft makes me want to hear more:

so Chinook first  -  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1EYPy67qOU

then Vulcan -  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU_X5QYBSto

I just wish I could find film that fully shows a multi-Vulcan scramble back in the late 1950's / 60's, which I know exists and reminds me of the Farnborough Air Show 1958 when I first saw one take off, plus the other V bombers, and then in 1964 when I looked from the RAF control tower with dad and saw one land under emergency conditions with a bomb bay problem that, I was told, had a hydrogen bomb on board!!

Oh, what memories

Just wish I could have taken a ride in one as lucky Kevin did with the Chinook, but when I was a child, they were of course strictly out of bounds even for my senior NCO RN dad!

[Doctor Gollum]

The Americans have form for rebuilding planes in the name of development.

Several variations of the 707/720 have been rebuilt a few times over the years.

[Lizzie Zoom]

The Americans have form for rebuilding planes in the name of development.

Several variations of the 707/720 have been rebuilt a few times over the years.

And Britain made the Nimrod out of the Comet

[Gaffers]

The Americans have form for rebuilding planes in the name of development.

Several variations of the 707/720 have been rebuilt a few times over the years.

And Britain made the Nimrod out of the Comet

Is that proof that you can't polish a turd?

[Doctor Gollum]

The Americans have form for rebuilding planes in the name of development.

Several variations of the 707/720 have been rebuilt a few times over the years.

And Britain made the Nimrod out of the Comet

Is that proof that you can't polish a turd?

Only we could take an obselete-before-its-second-flight design, take three goes at redesigning it before finally scrapping the whole project and buying airliners that were readily available when the initial project started and call it ingenuity