ArabJazzie wrote:So you are telling me that if this is down to a worn lobe on a camshaft or its follower, that every unaffected Merlin will need to be stripped and repaired before they get in the air again? That will be a nice bill when it comes in!
Sorry for quoting this again. Just thought of this too.
If you were in charge of maintenance of a 4 engined Merlin aircraft, say a Lancaster, and found a problem with the number 3 engine, would you have just fixed that and assumed the other 3 were OK ?
If you would check the other 3 then being responsible for a dozen or so Merlin engines is exactly the same. You've got to check them all.
Otherwise be prepared to state "I was aware of a problem on the number 3 engine, I just assumed the others were OK, because they didn't show similar signs, no I didn't check them" at the subsequent BOI if something goes badly wrong.
No problem with you quoting me as you appear to be contributing to an adult conversation!
I obviously cant speak for what the BBMF do, but having worked on light aircraft, i took my findings to a licenced engineer and they would ask me to look for what i thought it was. 9/10 it was the example i used above. If the aircraft was a twin, it would have went through the same oil checks and if nothing was found at stage 1, we would not investigate any further. It was a case of where do you stop for us as it was a fleet of 20 plus engines. To back that up, we had quite a detailed history of all we did and could easily build up a picture of any engines life in service. Arabest, Geoff.
If (God forbid) we were at war big time now and a fault was found with a Typhoon engine, I wonder what would happen?
But we're on operations now and have been for decades. Do you think the RAF are bodging Tornados and Typhoons to get them in the air? We're in a state where commanders on the ground have to assess and minimise the risk of any operation, and may be held accountable if something goes wrong.
If you were in charge of maintenance of a 4 engined Merlin aircraft, say a Lancaster, and found a problem with the number 3 engine, would you have just fixed that and assumed the other 3 were OK
I can't speak for Merlin-engine aircraft, but a Tornado or Typhoon? Absolutely.
Just to mention that the event i'm involved with had a phone call today from the BBMF confirming a flypast by both the Spitfire and Hurricane on 3rd September. Can't comment on the Lancaster as we were not allocated that but looking hopeful that they will resume shortly.
ArabJazzie wrote:I obviously cant speak for what the BBMF do, but having worked on light aircraft.
Did you work on those light aircraft within the regulatory construct of the MAA? If not, then as an example (in this case), it is sadly irrelevant.
I think you already know the answer to that seen as most light aircraft are to found outside the constraints of the MAA! However, the CAA have been overseeing things for a wee while now! The inspectors i had dealings with were very good at finding needles in the haystacks of paperwork so in the case of an engine, we had to know where it came from, what it had done and what we had done to it. So are you 100% sure what i write is irrelevant?
As an aside, knowing what someone who is contributing to this thread does for a living, i at least am paying attention to his postings.
Arabjazzie - thanks for confirming that although you might not go to the extreme of preventative maintenance that we discussed, you would at least check as many engines as you could for the same symptoms. I'm also guessing you wouldn't go to the extreme of grounding your fleet until you had checked each and every one. Then again MAA or CAA withstanding, a private venture has an imperative to keep making money ( similar to the "acceptable risks" in wartime for a non-profit war fighting company ! ).
Noting that a hurricane is quoted as flying ( the spitfire could have been a Griffon powered one ) this weekend, but the Lancaster appears to still be grounded, this is a theoretical question, unless someone from the BBMF can say "don't be stupid we treat all our aircraft the same",. Would the fact that the Lancaster is "one of a type" ( within the BMF - before anyone mentions the Canadian one ) as the only flying Lancaster ( in the BBMF - geez it's hard to try to avoid smart Alec replies ) be treated differently and with more "kid gloves" and more stringent tests ?
Disclaimer-I have spell/grammar checked this post, it may still contain mistakes that might cause offence.
I'd have thought pilot safety would be first on the list so I guess another question might be in the event of engine failure, are you more likely to be able to safely crash land a single seat fighter than a 4 engined bomber?
I think we all know the answer to that.
All their aircraft are unique in their own way anyway, their Mk.II Spitfire in particular, so I would think (hope) there's no difference in how they're treated and that the continuing grounding of the Lancaster is for some other reason.
Buy the sky and sell the sky and lift your arms up to the sky and ask the sky"
ericbee123 wrote:Arabjazzie - thanks for confirming that although you might not go to the extreme of preventative maintenance that we discussed, you would at least check as many engines as you could for the same symptoms. I'm also guessing you wouldn't go to the extreme of grounding your fleet until you had checked each and every one. Then again MAA or CAA withstanding, a private venture has an imperative to keep making money ( similar to the "acceptable risks" in wartime for a non-profit war fighting company ! ).
The thing is, we would not pull the filters on the rest of the fleet just because of one engine. The preventative maintenance in our case would be checking oil filters during an oil change every 25-50 hours as per the maintenance schedule. For the BBMF, i believe they are a step above checking filters with oil analysis. And as for the money side, they also have to prove they are providing value for money! Arabest, Geoff.
ericbee123 wrote:Noting that a hurricane is quoted as flying ( the spitfire could have been a Griffon powered one ) this weekend, but the Lancaster appears to still be grounded
Afaik all of their Merlin engined aircraft are still grounded unless there is some new information that the Hurricane has flown. If you are referring to the post by Chris above, his post mentioned confirmation of a flypast by a Hurricane and Spitfire next week on the 3rd September so I am guessing they are hopeful of rectifying the problem by then.
ericbee123 wrote:Noting that a hurricane is quoted as flying ( the spitfire could have been a Griffon powered one ) this weekend, but the Lancaster appears to still be grounded
Afaik all of their Merlin engined aircraft are still grounded unless there is some new information that the Hurricane has flown. If you are referring to the post by Chris above, his post mentioned confirmation of a flypast by a Hurricane and Spitfire next week on the 3rd September so I am guessing they are hopeful of rectifying the problem by then.
I don't have any further information, but if the issue requires engine inspections of some description to be completed before return to flight, surely we might expect them to be released one at a time, anyway? They can't inspect them all simultaneously!
And as the smart ship grew, In stature, grace and hue, In shadowy silent distance grew the iceberg too....
Visit Sidmouth shared their event. Yesterday at 10:16 ·
UPDATE 23/08: Sidmouth Regatta Air Display – Red Arrows and Battle of Britain Memorial Flight on Friday 25 August at 5.50pm
The RAF Battle of Britain Memorial Flight (BBMF) have today confirmed that despite engineers efforts over the past two weeks, they will not be able to perform at Sidmouth this year due to continuing investigations into Merlin engine problems.
The BBMF need to update the display list page on their website, then, because it's still unchanged since the groundings ( but then, it's been pretty much a fantasy list all year )
Tôi chỉ đặt cái này ở đây để giữ cho người điều hành bận rộn 아직도 숨어있다
Seahornet wrote:They can't inspect them all simultaneously!
But can they release them individually ? I don't know how it works. When all non-essential flights of Hawks, Tornado and Tucano aircraft were suspended because of the checking of MB ejection seats, were they released one at time or a type at a time or all released when all checked. Does releasing one spitfire lead to the possibility that an unchecked one is taken up ? So they are all grounded until they are all deemed safe ?
I don't know. Just asking.
Disclaimer-I have spell/grammar checked this post, it may still contain mistakes that might cause offence.
Seahornet wrote:They can't inspect them all simultaneously!
But can they release them individually ? I don't know how it works. When all non-essential flights of Hawks, Tornado and Tucano aircraft were suspended because of the checking of MB ejection seats, were they released one at time or a type at a time or all released when all checked. Does releasing one spitfire lead to the possibility that an unchecked one is taken up ? So they are all grounded until they are all deemed safe ?
I don't know. Just asking.
I understand the versions of Merlin used by the BBMF are limited to just a few. In order to get type release they'll need to inspect all examples of that version in use/stock. That will take time.
Of course if they want to be completely safe they'll wait until every single Merlin they have is checked and cleared. Considering the value of the fleet to the nation, who can blame them really.
The cause of the issue on the one Merlin has now been identified and every Merlin must now have the same part checked and cleared.
Following the recent pause in flying our Merlin-powered aircraft for safety reasons, OC BBMF said: “Please see below the MOD’s latest release on the subject of BBMF Merlin engines. As I hope you all know, my aim is to keep these vital and unique artefacts of Britain’s proud history in the sky forever. To do that we sometimes have to take extra precautions, with our eye sharply on continuing safety, to ensure that we can keep them flying for future generations. I thank each and every one of you who has voiced their support and shown their understanding. We will get them back into the blue as soon we can.
Lest We Forget."
The update from the MOD:
"Our investigation has confirmed an issue with a pinion gear in a Merlin engine. With the precise cause of the problem known, each pinion gear is now being inspected to confirm it meets our exacting standards, with the BBMF and industry putting all of our efforts into getting these beautiful aircraft safely back in the air as soon as possible."
As the issue is a pinion gear there's a good chance that's buried deep within the engine meaning a full strip
Wrexham Mackem wrote:As an aside, I'm not understanding why the Dakota has been affected. Or does it have an unrelated issue?
It is an unrelated issue. It is sat with an engine missing I understand, I am not clear if this is the same engine that grounded it last year or not? I have read unconfirmed, but in all honesty likely accurate reports that it will not fly again this season. It did a handful of flights over a couple of days earlier in the year, what the outcome was, I am not sure, but it hasn't flown in some time.
I thought the primary role of the Dakota and Chipmunk was to provide pilot training/concurrency on tail draggers without having to put unnecessary hours on the Lancaster or a Spitfire/Hurricane.
The Dakota has also been used in a secondary role of appearing in place of the Lancaster when the Lancaster is unavailable.
I could see how, with the Lancaster returning to flight that the Dakota was having some R+R and maybe an engine service or two, the grounding of the Lancaster again, could have messed up this planned maintenance of the Dakota -- as the primary effort now, I guess would be to get the Merlins sorted.
I am guessing again, but my other guesses look like being good guesses !
Disclaimer-I have spell/grammar checked this post, it may still contain mistakes that might cause offence.
ericbee123 wrote:I thought the primary role of the Dakota and Chipmunk was to provide pilot training/concurrency on tail draggers without having to put unnecessary hours on the Lancaster or a Spitfire/Hurricane.
The Dakota has also been used in a secondary role of appearing in place of the Lancaster when the Lancaster is unavailable.
I could see how, with the Lancaster returning to flight that the Dakota was having some R+R and maybe an engine service or two, the grounding of the Lancaster again, could have messed up this planned maintenance of the Dakota -- as the primary effort now, I guess would be to get the Merlins sorted.
I am guessing again, but my other guesses look like being good guesses !
The Dakota normally has comprehensive display calendar in its own right.
ericbee123 wrote:I thought the primary role of the Dakota and Chipmunk was to provide pilot training/concurrency on tail draggers without having to put unnecessary hours on the Lancaster or a Spitfire/Hurricane.
The Dakota has also been used in a secondary role of appearing in place of the Lancaster when the Lancaster is unavailable.
I could see how, with the Lancaster returning to flight that the Dakota was having some R+R and maybe an engine service or two, the grounding of the Lancaster again, could have messed up this planned maintenance of the Dakota -- as the primary effort now, I guess would be to get the Merlins sorted.
I am guessing again, but my other guesses look like being good guesses !
The issue with the Dakota has nothing to do with planned downtime; as has already been pointed out it is regarded as a display asset in its own right with a busy calendar of planned appearances. I believe it had an engine failure earlier in the season which used up the spare engine, they have now suffered another failure which means they have to wait for an overhauled unit. As you have correctly pointed out, I'm sure that their current engineering effort is concentrated on the Merlin reduction gear inspections.
ericbee123 wrote:I thought the primary role of the Dakota and Chipmunk was to provide pilot training/concurrency on tail draggers without having to put unnecessary hours on the Lancaster or a Spitfire/Hurricane.
The Dakota has also been used in a secondary role of appearing in place of the Lancaster when the Lancaster is unavailable.
I could see how, with the Lancaster returning to flight that the Dakota was having some R+R and maybe an engine service or two, the grounding of the Lancaster again, could have messed up this planned maintenance of the Dakota -- as the primary effort now, I guess would be to get the Merlins sorted.
I am guessing again, but my other guesses look like being good guesses !
The issue with the Dakota has nothing to do with planned downtime; as has already been pointed out it is regarded as a display asset in its own right with a busy calendar of planned appearances. I believe it had an engine failure earlier in the season which used up the spare engine, they have now suffered another failure which means they have to wait for an overhauled unit. As you have correctly pointed out, I'm sure that their current engineering effort is concentrated on the Merlin reduction gear inspections.
I have visited the flight today, the dakota is sat with the starboard engine missing.
Hurricanes, merlin spitfires and the lanc are all minus props and hubs, with presumably some of the transfer gear missing. I can't say what exactly as the area was covered over and even if it hadn't been I have insufficient knowledge to recognise what is missing. The guides were not to be drawn on any details.
