Boeing again

[Litespeed]

This idea of been stuck til next year seems plausible but extreme.

 

It was even on the BBC World service with interviews from expert insiders. The capsule is a nightmare design and full of questionable design and quality. More a upgraded 60s design with high tech.

 

In typical Boeing style the fails are much more than stated. As per the 737 max, safety was a cost option, esp given it was a fixed price contract. The tests done in the capsule naturally included the ability to launch, dock , undock and safely land via parachute. All automatically via programs.  As you would expect.

 

Alas, the mods done for the crewed flight somehow involved those auto systems programs ability had been partially removed for expense/ stupidity, it may have been just a new version of programming for the crewed flights but it somehow is not able to fully Auto return.  They are now rushing to try and reprogram for the capsule to be able to undock and fly home without crew for safety. So it's considered unsafe for uncrewed return, at this stage.

 

Apparently they either

 

-fix it for safe crewed flight return, which is seemingly a tough task in space with no spare parts and still programming problems are a thing.

 

- get a lift in the next Dragon,  which will need to leave two seats spare for the crew return. That means the Boeing capsule must Auto return or at least undock for the gate to be available for the next Dragon flight.

Apparently they will even need new suits for the Boeing crew as they are not compatible with Dragon.

 

It seems like the typical litany of fuckups Boeing style. At least NASA are on the job or Boeing would just hit the launch button and safety be damned.

 

I do take many reports with a big dose of scepticism but it seems to have some legs given Boeing's track record on this program. 

 

Meanwhile NASA are very pissed and have to find a use for two unexpected long term guests which use valuable on board resources and a media disaster.

 

From here on terra firma is seems a good laugh, but I am sure those Astronauts are not happy about getting in the capsule again.

[Red]

A  Russian mission could likely get them down a lot quicker, but well.....

[jackc]

I have lost a lot of faith in things that fly, in these modern times. Airlines can t even fly to their scheduled time table.

Back in the late 70’s I used to fly 5 days a week, the boss used to buy 50 tickets at a time for me for my daily trips to Brisbane in seat 19a.

Of the DC-9  A few times checkin staff used to ask me WHY, and I used to say first up, have you ever seen a plane back into a hill?  Next was, I get the longest ride and last I can hear if at least one engine is still running. 🤩

Those  machines were the  most reliable old planes in the sky.👍

[saccani]

On 09/03/2024 at 6:55 AM, onetrack said:

This reminds me of November 1942, when 17 new Kittyhawks arrived at Brisbane, and were then assembled and flown to Darwin with apparently inadequate checks for assembly faults. 

 

Upon arrival at Cloncurry for refuelling, one pilot was quizzed by the refuelling corporal, as to his destination. "Darwin" was the pilots reply.

 

"You won't have any trouble finding your way to Darwin. Just follow the trail of crashed Kittyhawks, you can't go wrong", was the famous answer from the corporal.

 

Nowadays, all we have to do, is follow the trail of crashed Boeings .....

I hate to be a wet blanket, but no Kittyhawks were assembled in Australian between September 1942 and January 1943.  There were two Kittyhawks damaged on ferry flights in November 1942, but they had both been assembled and issued in March 1942 to 76 Sdn.  The Kittyhawk crashes on ferry flights in November 1942 were A29-33, flown by Sdn Ldr Truscott, which developed engine troubles (a major service having been carried out by 12RSU 5 weeks earlier) and had a landing accident on return to Struass Strip [Humptey Doo], when the port brake seized, the other aircraft to crash was A29-35, in company with A29-33, which also had a brake seize on landing at Strauss Strip, having had a major service with 43 Material Sqd USAAF ten days prior.  They had both deperated Strauss Strip on an intended Ferry to Daly Waters.  Both aircraft had been assembled and issued to 76 Sdn in March 1942.  All of this servicing and the flights in question were in the NT. A29-156, assembled in Sep 1942 crashed during a night formation flight over Cairns on 26th Nov 1942, having been repaired after a night hard landing at Cairns on 21 Nov 1942 - I think this is an ever poorer fit than -33 and -34. I had a look at those erected in October and November 1943 in case the year was wrong, but the E/E88 cards for those Kittyhawks don't show even a single incident that could be a crash matching those circumstances. 

I also looked for Warhawk incidents in Australia from October to December 1942 that could match the described circumstances, but without success.

I'm inclining towards thinking the incident did not happen.

[onetrack]

Saccani, perhaps I should have been more explicit. The Kittyhawks mentioned above were all USAAF Kittyhawks, that were crated by the Americans in early 1942, and they arrived under U.S. command in Brisbane, to be re-assembled by the Americans and sent on to Darwin. I refer you to Peter Dunns comprehensive website "Oz at War", whereby his research efforts are very good, and pretty accurate, IMO.

 

I have to concede that not all the USAAF Kittyhawk crashes were the result of poor re-assembly, many of the crashes were simply pilot error, getting lost, heavy landings, showing off, etc.

 

Brereton Route through Australia during WW2

WWW.OZATWAR.COM

 

 

Edited August 10 by onetrack

[Hwansey]

It seems we have here, once again, people up there wishing they were down here, having started down here wishing they were up there. 
Placing yourself in the hands of Boeing seems more akin to self nomination for a Darwinian award. 

[jackc]

1 minute ago, Hwansey said:

It seems we have here, once again, people up there wishing they were down here, having started down here wishing they were up there. 
Placing yourself in the hands of Boeing seems more akin to self nomination for a Darwinian award. 

Look, if a 747 could get to the Moon, I would be on it 🤩 I flew all over the world, starting in 1981 on those old crates 🤩. Now a days I don’t have fly in modern airliners. My overseas travel days are over 👍 

[facthunter]

It used to be the Opposite. Before that Douglass aircraft had the best reputation. I recon the DC3 is the best plane EVER considering the Period it was built and what else was around at the time.  Nev

[jackc]

9 minutes ago, facthunter said:

It used to be the Opposite. Before that Douglass aircraft had the best reputation. I recon the DC3 is the best plane EVER considering the Period it was built and what else was around at the time.  Nev

A personal friend, who ironically phoned me today, operated  Golden West Airways in the early ‘80 s out of Chinchilla Qld  Flying this C47B. 

[facthunter]

That's the military version of the DC3. Over 10,000 built, The equivalent of the DC4 is a C54. Nev

[onetrack]

I can recall my first flight in a Qantas Boeing 707 in 1969, it was like something out of the future. And you could walk up front and talk to the crew, and study the flight engineers engine instruments. What a difference to today.

[facthunter]

The plane where you encountered "Dutch Roll" for real. That fuselage section was used on many later models. . The Early motors trailed smoke and had low thrust.   The wing tips could rise and fall a total of 27 feet without damage.   Nev

[onetrack]

Nev - Why did the B707 have such a tendency for Dutch Roll? Did they have inadequate longitudinal stability?

 

Edited August 12 by onetrack

[facthunter]

Wing sweepback mostly and the wings are longer with 4 engines. They all have Yaw dampers to "live" with it. Nev

[red750]

If you missed tonight's investigation of the Boeing 737 Max fiasco on Channel 7's Spotight program, here is a link to 7plus streaming.

 

 

https://7plus.com.au/7news-spotlight

 

It is the first link showing Michael Usher, although the investigation was conducted by Liam Bartlett.

[red750]

Two NASA astronauts will endure months of intense radiation exposure after Boeing's Starliner spacecraft stranded them on the International Space Station.

 

Astronauts Sunita Williams and Barry Wilmore have been stuck on the ISS for three months. This has already put them at risk of receiving about 40 mSv to 80 mSv of radiation, which is roughly equivalent to 120 to 240 chest x-rays. 

 

They won't return to Earth until February 2025 at the earliest, and will have spent at least eight months in space and risked radiation exposure roughly equivalent to 310 to 630 chest x-rays.

 

Studies have shown that doses of radiation at that level increase long-term risk of cancer, cardiovascular disease and central nervous system damage, according to NASA.

[Red]

Damn thats not good at all, add to that  the muscle loss and cardio vascular problems from lack of activity and low  gravity which I'm sure they will be substantial due to lessening motivation for exercise and morale  as time goes by and it will be quite a trial for them.

 

Only upside is It will give the scientists a good bit of data for planning a mars mission

I bet they hate each other by the time they get back down to earth and will be very reluctant to repeat the experience, poor sods

[octave]

7 hours ago, red750 said:

Two NASA astronauts will endure months of intense radiation exposure after Boeing's Starliner spacecraft stranded them on the International Space Station.

The extra time they will spend on ISS is not longer than others have spent so I think the effects are well understood.

 

Station Record Holders

[spacesailor]

Exercise in space .

MMmm. Let me see , ' cardiovascular & lungs ' .

Seems like " sex ersize" is needed .

Gets that heart pumping and heavy ' breathing ' .

spacesailor

[octave]

24 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

Gets that heart pumping and heavy ' breathing ' .

Spacey, you old stud!