Omega Owners Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Welcome to OOF

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - LC0112G

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 174
1
General Discussion Area / Re: BBC bias
« on: 13 November 2025, 09:47:39 »
Yep, you win the cigar.  :y  :D
Just started claiming state pension. Wife isnt employed so I make use of 10% of her allowance.
Theres also a reduction for employer provided private health insurance.

Just checking - the tax man can cock-up tax codes, and that one would/will result in you paying about £1750 extra in tax next year if you were not recieving your SP. I'm sure you would have been happy to loan Rachel from accounts the money :-)

2
General Discussion Area / Re: BBC bias
« on: 13 November 2025, 00:28:09 »
Could do with one of those myself. Just got my 25/26 tax code.
Its changed from 1219M to 38M.  :o ;D

Have you started claiming your state pension?

And nice of your missus to give you 10% of her personal allowance. ::)

3
General Discussion Area / Re: Kentucky plane crash
« on: 12 November 2025, 12:02:50 »
As a cargo plane, my thoughts were how likely would it be for engine debris, admittedly at high speed with a lot of spin, to penetrate the fuselage (easy, thin aluminium) and the cargo (less likely?)
There is no real difference between a cargo and a passenger planes construction.
Yes, the bit I was wondering is if debris would penetrate the cargo easier than it would penetrate the organic matter in a passenger jet....

Pax planes are usually full of seats, which are partly made of metal. I've got a memory of one incident where engine bits were discovered embedded in the seats, but can't remember which accident that was. It's simply pot luck if an engine fragment hits something soft and squishy or hard and resilient. Heavy/dense cargo is likely to be placed close to the centre of lift/gravity, so over the wings and behind the line of the engines. However, no way of knowing if this plane was carrying a load of light teddybears or the lead lining for a nuclear reactor.

4
General Discussion Area / Re: Kentucky plane crash
« on: 12 November 2025, 10:03:37 »
As a cargo plane, my thoughts were how likely would it be for engine debris, admittedly at high speed with a lot of spin, to penetrate the fuselage (easy, thin aluminium) and the cargo (less likely?)

There is no real difference between a cargo and a passenger planes construction. Some cargo planes do have a strengthened floor to take the weight of pallets and extra loading doors, but the wings, skins and bulkheads are the same. I don't think the cargo has any bearing on this, because for parts of an engine to hit the cargo they have to travel up, so they will miss the other engine if they emerge out the other side of the fuselage.

AIUI there are contained and uncontained engine failures. Smaller things like individual engine blades are supposed to be contained within the engine cowling if they break off. The engine will be destroyed, but things shouldn't fly out of the sides. This is tested during engine certification, and is often implemented by having kevlar bands around the engine. Larger parts - like rotor disks (either whole or segments) are considered to have infinite energy and cannot be contained. If they do break off, they will go through virtually anything. The safety mitigation for these is simply to route critical wiring and hydraulics out of being in direct line with the high energy rotating parts. Engines are also mounted forwards of the front wing spar, so if anything does fly off it doesn't puncture fuel tanks.

If some high energy part of #1 did escape and somehow hit #3 it will be the first known incident of this happening. It will have very serious consequences for air travel. Aircraft are certified to be able to takeoff, fly and land on n-1 engines on the basis that it's highly unlikely that two engines can be damaged by the same event. If that assumption proves to be false then it opens a huge can of worms. n-2 isn't possible on any aircraft, and since almost all are now twins (B-737,767,777,787,A-319,320,330,350) n-1 means zero.


5
General Discussion Area / Re: Kentucky plane crash
« on: 11 November 2025, 20:41:30 »
Sorry - that first sentence should have been....

"#3 is the tail engine? Anything departing #1 with enough energy to penetrate the fuselage is going to miss the tail engine."

Point is, I can't find any instances of an engine on one wing causing damage to an engine on t'other wing. Yes there have been instances (on both B-707's and B-747's) where one engine has failed and knocked the other one on the same wing off, but never on the opposite wing.

6
General Discussion Area / Re: Kentucky plane crash
« on: 11 November 2025, 19:07:05 »
There seems to be talk that Engine 3 filmed out just after nose came up.  Could debris from Number 1 have penetrated the fuselage, and cargo in that area, and out again to damage No 3?

#3 is the tail engine. Anything departing #1 with enough energy to penetrate the fuselage is going to miss the tail engine.

However, if the whole #1 detaches from the wing then it doesn't just fall to the ground like a dumb bomb. At the moment of departure it's sucking in huge mounts of air, and thrusting out tens of thousands of pounds of thrust. On detaching it actually accelerates forwards of the plane for while before drag slows it down, and then the plane catches it up and 'crashes' into it. Also, any sections of the wing that are damaged during the detachment, (or by things like fan blades puncturing the wing), can/do get sucked upwards and over the wing. The fan blades themselves will probably miss the tail engine, but secondary damage canget sucked into the tail engine.

I don't think there has ever been an incident of an engine failure on one wing causing damage to an engine on the other wing. If that could happen, then the safety case for virtually all twin engined aircraft goes to pot. 

7
General Car Chat / Re: EV Drivers
« on: 07 November 2025, 11:12:26 »
I applaud this policy, and I know how to disconnect the odometer on all my cars :-)

The Govt currently raises £25bn per year from petrol and diesel taxes. If (say) 50% of cars are electric or plug in hybrid by 2030 then that's a loss of £12Bn to the treasury. By 2040 it'll be closer to the full £25Bn since the only ones still using dinosaur juice will be those of us still driving classic cars. Something has to be done to plug that gap in funding. We may or may not like whatever they propose, but at least they have realised there is a looming issue, and are thinking about how to deal with it.

An interesting point has been raised on the skiing forums. Dover to the Alps and back is (roughly) 1200 miles, depending on destination. At 3p/mile thats £36. All those miles will show on your odometer, none of them are in the UK, but are you still going to get charged by HMRC?     

8
General Discussion Area / Re: Kentucky plane crash
« on: 06 November 2025, 18:53:14 »
It is not true that "wings will always provide lift as long as there is air flowing over it". Once a wing stalls, all it provides is drag.

AA191 crashed in the way it did because the crew reduced speed to V2 when they realised something was wrong. That's what the checklist says to do on a DC10 in the event of engine failure during take-off/climb out. However, the crew did not realise they had also lost hydraulic pressure in the left wing, and that loss caused the leading edge slats to retract. With no leading edge slats, V2 is not fast enough for a wing to produce lift and the left wing stalled. The right wing did still have flaps an slats, so was still producing lift. The result of lift on the right wing and a stall on the left wing are what caused AA191 to roll left and crash in the way it did. If the crew had maintained their original speed, the left wing would not have stalled, it would not have rolled left, and simulator test showed the plane could have remained airborne - although given it was on fire and had compromised hydraulics no way of knowing how long it could have remained airborne.

In this case, the plane appears to have been level until it hit the ground. Dashcams show no evidence of roll.

9
General Discussion Area / Re: Kentucky plane crash
« on: 06 November 2025, 13:50:44 »
Only way a birdstrike makes sense is if the engine swallowed a big bird (or birds) and suffered enough damage for the resulting vibrations to shake the engine off the wing. Not impossible, but not very likely either.

The engine pylon fixings are frangible - they are supposed to break if there is enough engine vibration to endanger the structural integtiry of the wing/airframe. AIUI the MD-11 has two main engine fixings on each pylon under the wing. There was a previous crash where the rear fixing broke, but that caused the engine to pivot forwards and upwards, and it departed over the top of the wing. That doesn't appear to have happened here. My money is on the front fixing breaking, which I think would result in a forwards and downwards departure if it happened at or after rotate when the wing is pulling upwards.

If that's correct, then we're looking at either poor maintainace, or counterfeit parts. It's also possible there was a fire in the wing first, which then damaged the fixings. Either way, nothing the crew could do, and once the second tail engine starts to lose thrust the outcome is sealed. No way a heavy MD-11 is going anywhere but down on one engine.

RIP the crew, and those caught on the ground.

10
General Discussion Area / Re: Kentucky plane crash
« on: 05 November 2025, 09:56:01 »
Interesting one this and some good images and coverage if you are into that sort of thing.

When I visited the US earlier in the year I was surprised then to see MD11s still in use for cargo, and sadly one has gone down.

Some interesting shots of the wing on fire and an engine sat at the side of the runway!

Lots of old jets get used for cargo. There are hardly any Boeing 747's left in passenger service, but lots have been converted to cargo and still trog around the skies. MD-11's are quite popluar because they have very long range and lots of cargo space. Not into civvy, but there were still DC-8's and Electras being used not that long ago.

Cargo jets tend to operate into different airports than passeneger ones, so the public don't tend to notice these older jets. East Midlands Airport is one such cargo hub in the UK.

11
General Discussion Area / Re: What has P*ssed you off today?
« on: 05 November 2025, 09:46:17 »
My conclusion is that airports are actually run for the convenience of the airport and not for customers.

The running joke is that Airports are actually shopping centres with runways.

They've completely ruined Bristol too. Used to allow 30 minuites to check in and could get from first impact with the runway to home in 1h15. Then they moved the long stay from right infront of the terminal to 'round the back', built a multistory where the long stay was, and try to charge close to £200 for a weeks stay. As a result my 10 flights a year from there has decreased to zero. Now try to use Bournemouth or Exeter, but they have very few flights so often stuck with LHR or LGW.

12
General Discussion Area / Re: BritCard
« on: 12 October 2025, 19:55:34 »
Different states have different rules. South Carolina - no ID needed. Wyoming - need ID to buy wine gums.

It's daft. On a ski trip to Jackson Hole, went up to the bar at lunchtime for a Jug (4 pints I think). Your ID sir? You what? says I. I need to see your ID sir. I was about 50 at the time. So back to the table (passport was in my ski jacket) to get passport, then queue up again. Here's my ID says I. We can't sell jugs to just you - there need to be at least 2 people. So back to the table to get a friend. Queue up again - 2 ID's and two of us. Yes you can have a Jug. And whilst we're here, can my mate also have a jug says I. Of course Sir!

We didn't do much skiing that afternoon.

13
General Discussion Area / Re: BritCard
« on: 29 September 2025, 19:41:20 »
I don't find the card per-se to be the issue - as others have said we have driving licenses, passports, NI numbers etc. For me the issues are...

1) Are we required to carry it at all times? Or is it like a driving license - you've got 3 days to get down the cop-shop with it?
2) Who can 'demand' to see it?
3) If I get attacked by a great white lesser spotted Somerset squirrel and am bleeding to death, are they going to demand to see the card before treating me?

Anyone who thinks this is going to stop illegal immigrants getting jobs or claiming benefits is an idiot, who will probably be voting Reform at the next election anyway so there is zero political capital for Labour in introducing it. Barking, the lot of them.

14
General Discussion Area / Re: I need to get out more....
« on: 23 September 2025, 18:34:54 »
We've recently bought a laser cutter/engraver at work - 2KW CO2 I think. Can't cut metal any thicker than baco-foil, but is great with Perspex/acrylic. Who knew you could cut and engrave plastic infills for your toolboxes so all your box spanners - standard hex and torx - have their own marked homes to live in ;D
Mine is obviously only a toy one, so pretty limited I think.  It was given to me by a mate who had upgraded to one that would cut wood.

Disappointing to hear that your 1KW one can't really cut metal though :o

We had a 'toy' one for a few years - Atomstack. Think we started off with atomstack A50 and a 10W laser head, and over time upgraded to 80W. That was about enough to cut 3mm black perspex in a single pass, but needed multiple passes for 8mm and 10mm. The stepper motors weren't great so registration of multiple pass cuts was a problem

Then we got a 50% grant from some obscure govt funding scheme to buy a more powerful Co2 commercial jobbie. Think they're about £5K list price, but with the govt funding and an Oxford uni 'educational' price it was well less than half that. Can cut 20mm black perspex in a single pass.

The problem with metal is that the cutting relies on basically melting or vapourising the material. With most metals, they become very reflective when they melt, so the laser beam just 'bounces' off the initial layer of melt and therefore you can engrave, but not really cut metals. The frequency of the light matters too - Co2 laser light is infra red, whereas the Atomstack (and similar) have a blue LED diode. Different materials absorb different 'colours' of laser light differently, so some materials are easier to cut than others.

The blue LED lasers are good for wood - but be careful things don't catch fire - been there done that :-) Also the fumes from some types of plastic are quite smelly - and some are even poisonous (arsnic amongst other nasties) so if you haven't got a good extraction system best to do it in a well ventillated room. They're great fun and you soon think of lots of things you can build.

15
General Discussion Area / Re: I need to get out more....
« on: 22 September 2025, 18:14:04 »
We've recently bought a laser cutter/engraver at work - 2KW CO2 I think. Can't cut metal any thicker than baco-foil, but is great with Perspex/acrylic. Who knew you could cut and engrave plastic infills for your toolboxes so all your box spanners - standard hex and torx - have their own marked homes to live in ;D

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 174

Page created in 0.011 seconds with 13 queries.