Rob wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>> Greg wrote:
>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 19:37:37 +1000, "RT"
nowhere.com.au>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>> Doesn't bother me whether they do or don't. I'll not be flying in one
>>>>>> unless my life depends on it.
>>>>> I used to fly a Nomad for a skydiving company every now and again, and
>>>>> it's funny how many people said that they wouldn't be comfortable
>>>>> if it
>>>>> were not for the fact they were wearing parachutes. The irony, of
>>>>> course,
>>>>> is that they were engaging in an activity that has killed far more
>>>>> people
>>>>> than the Nomad ever could.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sylvia, I would suggest that you're more likely to die from a nudist
>>>>> indiced melanoma than you are from flying in a Nomad :)
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Read the latest aviation news
atwww.newsaviation.com>>>> GDay Marty a much maligned aircraft (IMO) and a wonderful local
>>>> design (except again IMO they put the wrong engines on
>>>> the design The baby Allisons may have had much commonality with the
>>>> C20 we had on roararty wing and reduced inventory etc
>>>>
>>>> One thing I truly hated about the design however was the thrust
>>>> line .Other than that wish the knockers would examine the many more
>>>> decent aspects
>>>> of the aircraft . One chap I know owes his life to the ruggedness
>>>> of the 'beast"
>>>>
>>>> Nomad & MU-2
>>>>
>>>> Great a/c
>>>>
>>>> Pity about the no. of fatals......
>>>
>>> Tragically most the structural failures occurred after the cause had
>>> been established and the subsequent reluctance to implement a
>>> redesign.
>>>
>>> The Nomad is not alone in suffering a saga of stupidity. Doors blowing
>>> off heavy aircraft by major manufacturers, taking large lumps of
>>> fuselage with them.
>>>
>>> Manufacturers blaming staff not closing doors completely or locking
>>> doors with undue force, rather than acknowledge earlier that the
>>> latches were of poor design. After the cause of the problem was
>>> rectified these a/c types have since flown thousands of hours with no
>>> related problems. Who knows Sylvia you may have flown in one at some
>>> time.
>>
>> I've flown in 747s it's true. I made sure I never flew in a DC-10.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> Nice A/C to fly. Freddy Laker had the twin to that which caused all the
> panic. The rear cargo door opened out and in turn ripped out the floor
> where the controls ran. Whereas the 747 the controls run through the roof.
I can't find references, but if my memory serves me, the DC-10 has only
triplicated hydraulics, whereas the 747 and Lockheed Tristar had
quadruple hydraulics. Qaudruple hydraulics might have saved lives at
Sioux City. I seem to remember there was an uncontained rear engine
failure on a Tristar that breached three out of the four hydraulic systems.
I think the absence of locks for the leading edge slats was also
specific to the DC-10.
After the cargo door problem and the Chicago accident, it just seemed to
me that the DC-10 had been designed with a "she'll-be-right" mind set,
and I wasn't about to trust my life to that philosophy. Hindsight seems
to suggest that the problems were fixed, but hindsight always was perfect.
Sylvia.
