New Bruin tactic-Cut and shut

#2
Cannibalisation of parts isn't new, it's been going on for as long as i can remember, hence why there's sometimes a small percentage of airworthy aircraft, as long as it's been tested and signed off it should be fine.

The papers seem to be jumping on everything now, the 8 chinooks and other aircraft like the merlins are currently grounded because they've not been signed off or overhauled, yet an aircraft that is signed off is deemed dodgy, they really need to make their minds up, or find an actual story.

There have been similar work carried out on other aircraft, they're stripped right down to piece part spares, tested, built back up and put into service, it's not a quick job, and can take several years to finish, so i wouldn't use the words 'cut and shut' to describe the process.
 
#3
Yawn. Old News. The airframe was signed off on by Boeing so whats the problem ??, its been operating for over five years with no dramas. In fact its probably the newest Mk 2 Chinook airframe in the inventory.

Happens all the time, the US Navy has an EA-6B Prowler made from two seperate jets instantly recognisable by the Frankenstein nose art and the "Frankenprowler" name .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nose_of_FrankenProwler.jpg
 

the_boy_syrup

LE
Book Reviewer
#7
Old story been happening for years
During the war it wasn't unusual for Spitfires to have a different set of wings from two other aircraft
The Chinook bolocks has been going on for years
They were scavanging for parts before Kosavo to get frames flying
 

Fugly

ADC
DirtyBAT
#8
What a cack story. How the hell are the two issues even related? Does he think that if we had 2 unserviceable aircraft, instead of 1 serviceable (and a load of other parts back in the spares system), then his son wouldn't have been killed? Or is this just the BBC writing any old bollocks with a tenuous link?

:roll:

I saw a fair few pictures of the airframe in question as well, an exceptional set of engineers put that back together.
 
#9
Nonsense news. If we'd scrapped the frame it wuld have been a considerable waste of money - we would have been unlikely to get another one to replace it. This airframe has been around for years and has been subject to the same airworthiness procedures as any other aircraft on our inventory. It does the job, what is the problem?
 
#10
IIRC all the UK variant of the Chinook are "stretched" (a section added into the middle to lengthen the aircraft) which duly prevented a problem with its original US variant of the rotors getting out of synchronisation and colliding with catastrophic consequences. It also increased its troop carrying capability considerably.

Can anyone in the know confirm this?
 
#12
bobthedog said:
IIRC all the UK variant of the Chinook are "stretched" (a section added into the middle to lengthen the aircraft) which duly prevented a problem with its original US variant of the rotors getting out of synchronisation and colliding with catastrophic consequences. It also increased its troop carrying capability considerably.

Can anyone in the know confirm this?
What a load of twoddle. Yes, it has an increased payload but just think about what you've written regarding the mod to lengthen the fuselage to prevent blade synch problems. :roll:

As for the article? If we binned all our aircraft that were 'cut and shuts', we'd have fucking none whatsoever! Who writes these stupid articles? Are they just comparing aircraft to a D reg Sierra?? *********.
 
#13
lol its in another thread about using captured equipment against their former owners

suppose we had better not mention sabre = scorp hull, fox turret
 
#14
Well I fail to see the relevance of how this helicopter would have affected the death of his son, that doesnt mean to say I dont see where the poor chap is comming from, I mean you lose a child in what is deemed as cack equipment not fit for purpose, being a civvie ive heard the landrovers described as such, and then you hear instead of the government buying us new helicopters they are sticking two that are written off together... sure it may have been signed off but it would be like buying a new car and finding out its been welded together from two seperate motors, it might work but you will feel duped when you find out!

I for one feel you guys who have served or are serving deserve nothing but the very best in both equipment and support!!!
 
#16
To add to Hakagu's post, it's a long-standing thing. Hunter T7 trainers built in the 1960s were often a mixture of new forward fuselage sections mated to the rear fuselages of retired Hunter F4s. The USAF rebuilt an FB-111 (the SAC version of the F-111 for non-spotters) after its rear fuselage was damaged beyond repair in a fire by the simple expedient of removing the rear fuselage from another FB-111 which was to be scrapped for some reason (damaged forward fuselage? I forget) and fixing it onto the fire-damaged aircraft, creating the 'Frankenvark'.

And the US Navy is in the midst of a programme which sees the nose sections of two-seat F-5F trainers being mated to the rear fuselages of former Swiss AF F-5E fighters.

This seems to me, with the greatest respect to the father, of someone being given information and because he's unfamiliar with aeronautical engineering associating it with automotive engineering...
 
#17
Flasheart, my source was a RAF Chinook pilot, in the late '80s he told the RAF had ordered them stretched, and one benefit being that the rotors no longer intermesh as some of the original versions did. He could of course have been pulling my leg on that. Thats why I asked for clarification.

Apparently one of the problems with earlier versions of the CH47 was the rotors could lose synchronisation if a shaft snapped or a gearbox problem hit resulting in a catastrophic blade failure.
 
#18
bobthedog said:
Flasheart, my source was a RAF Chinook pilot, in the late '80s he told the RAF had ordered them stretched, and one benefit being that the rotors no longer intermesh as some of the original versions did. He could of course have been pulling my leg on that. Thats why I asked for clarification.

Apparently one of the problems with earlier versions of the CH47 was the rotors could lose synchronisation if a shaft snapped or a gearbox problem hit resulting in a catastrophic blade failure.
The blades on all Chinooks intermesh. Its a factor of the gearbox assembly regardless of the length of the fuselage. Its no accident that they dont hit each other, its how its designed. True, very early CH47s had a few issues with gearbox failures which of course would cause it to be a victim of its own mid-air collision but just simply lengthening the fuselage would not make any difference. If the gear box did fail, it would still be a very bad thing regardless.

I'm glad the article didnt mention the 'new' Bell 212 we took delivery of recently. Over 35000 airframe hours, crashed twice, rebuild twice from scrath and doing sterling work in the Jungles of Belize. ;)
 
#19
Yeah, the intermeshing blades is down to the gear boxes, aft shafts, infact the whole drivetrain working, don't think of it as two rotorheads, think of it as one blade to blade system.
 
#20
There was no secrecy about this particular airframe, I have seen numerous mentions of its existance on the interweb in the last few years, indeed the RAF was being patted on the back for using their initiative iirc
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top