Sylvia Else wrote:
> 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.
This is why all large aircraft were modified (and Boeing retrofitted
747's) so the floor would not be sucked out in the event of a
decompression, but the controls still ran through the floor in the DC10
even if it only has 3 systems, with a 4th they still would have problems.
