| zipper |
01-21-2013 11:45 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treetop64
(Post 495020)
That would be agreeable if the machine was attended to properly and thoroughly, with sufficient resources. Problem is, it wasn't. As skilled as they were, these guys simply did not have the resources required to do a proper job in such a difficult environment, and they knew it from the start, but despite compounding risks they tried forcing it anyway. This may be acceptable if you're trying to get an old PT boat to run, but not for a large, complex aircraft that has been sitting idle for a half-century in a hostile environment. As tragic as it turned out, they were very fortunate things ended up the way they did, with the aircraft still on the ground.
You don't have to be a certified aircraft mechanic to see that the likelihood of an unhappy ending was high. Common sense had to prevail at some point...
|
My point, specifically, is the problem was not with the plane, it was the operation of it over rough ice. IF the plane had left the ground it almost certainly would have flown the trip to Thule without incident. You imply that simply because the plane had been derelict for decades meant it was doomed. No less than the engines, props, fuel pumps, batteries, control surfaces and some instruments had been changed, so what was to fly could hardly be described as entirely derelict.
On a side note, I witnessed a C185 fly from central Alaska to SE Washington with the aft fuselage held on solely by five pieces of 1/8in thick one inch angle iron of random lengths between 2 1/2 and 4 1/5 feet (on the outside of the fuselage) and rudder and elevator cables. The bolts had gotten so wobbly the tail moved around several inches and the pilot had run rudder trim full nose down and still had to prop his knee behind the yoke, adjusting trim with the seat adjuster for the last 1000 miles. When the plane landed the last time the spine sagged eight inches. :grin: I've got more... |
