Aircraft type longest service career?

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote in message ...
Ken Duffey wrote in
:

I think we agreed last time that the longest OPERATIONAL jet was
the Lockheed T-33 - which just beat the Canberra by a couple of
years.

Sure looks like the CAF had them going until last year
or so:

http://www.airforce.forces.ca/equip/equip1g_e.htm


You have to be very precise with your definition - by 'service
career' do you mean with a military arm ?? or in service with an
airline or serving with some organisation.

For example the T-6 is still 'serving' with the CAF - and I
think one is still used (in service) by the RAE at Boscombe Down
as a chase plane.

But would they count as still having a 'service career' ??

Both yes and no I guess, though my thought was "operational"
in that it has some sort of tactical role in an airforce.


Regards...

Hi

I am a pilot based at 4 Wing Cold Lake in Alberta. This wing still
flies the T-33, which should clear up some of your differences of
opinion.

"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

Absolutely amazing!...how did you manage that dud?...they weren't
equipped with the Tutor until 1978.


-Gord.

"You are completely focused on RPM as the
single factor producing rotational velocity"
-Guess who?


Sorry Gordo, you're mistaken. I flew #10 Tutor on June 10th 1975 at the
Reading Air Show while a guest of the team for the weekend. Better check
your dates again. I'm not sure when they got the Tutors, but I can tell
you
for certain that they had them when I made my flight with the team. They
also were using a T33 for support that weekend if this helps you date the
Tutor a bit closer.
Dudley Henriques

Well, it's certainly possible that my source is
incorrect...here's the URL:
http://www.snowbirds.forces.gc.ca/history_e.asp

And here's an excerpt from that URL:
"431 Fighter Squadron formed at RCAF Station Bagotville on 18
January 1954 in order to display the Sabre to the public at
airshows. They were disbanded on 1 October 1954. They were
re-activated on 1 April 1978 as 431 Air Demonstration Squadron,
more commonly known as the Snowbirds, flying the CT-114 Tutor".

So I don't know more than this...it's odd that their official web
site would have an error, unless the Tutor was flown as part of
the Snowbirds while attached to some other unit back then. I
believe that the T-33 (painted solid red) was part of the Golden
Hawks Team (F-86 Sabres - and possibly the Snowbirds Team as
well) and was known as "the Red Knight"

Do you suppose Henriques is a "kook troll"?

monkey wrote:

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote in message ...
Ken Duffey wrote in
:

I think we agreed last time that the longest OPERATIONAL jet was
the Lockheed T-33 - which just beat the Canberra by a couple of
years.

Sure looks like the CAF had them going until last year
or so:

http://www.airforce.forces.ca/equip/equip1g_e.htm


You have to be very precise with your definition - by 'service
career' do you mean with a military arm ?? or in service with an
airline or serving with some organisation.

For example the T-6 is still 'serving' with the CAF - and I
think one is still used (in service) by the RAE at Boscombe Down
as a chase plane.

But would they count as still having a 'service career' ??

Both yes and no I guess, though my thought was "operational"
in that it has some sort of tactical role in an airforce.


Regards...

Hi

I am a pilot based at 4 Wing Cold Lake in Alberta. This wing still
flies the T-33, which should clear up some of your differences of
opinion.

OK - The Lockheed T-33 takes the prize as the JET aircraft type with the longest service career.

First flight of the T-33 was March 1948 - and it is still IN SERVICE.
First flight of the Canberra was 13 May 1949 - and it is still in front line service (as the PR-9).

But the original poster did not specify jet types - just 'aircraft type' - so that still leaves the title
open for the DC-3/C-47 and/or the T-6 Harvard/Texan.

Anyone have a first flight date for these two types - and can prove that they are still in 'service' ??

Although we still haven't defined 'service' - are we talking still serving with a military force - and, if
so, does the Commemorative Air Force count ??

Does the SAAF (South African AF) still operate C-47's ??

Does the UK Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE - which still operates a Harvard AFAIK) count as a military
force ?

Discuss......

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++
Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast
Flankers Website - http://www.flankers.co.uk/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++

"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

The team was officially "reformed" on April 1st, 78 as the 431st ADS, but
this had absolutely nothing whatever to do with the Tutor. In fact, it was
the existence of the toot that prompted Col Phillip to form the team several
years earlier . I don't believe the team would ever have been formed had the
toot not been available, as budget restraints have always been a problem.
Dudley Henriques

Yes, it does seem that I was in error having misinterpreted the
information on the Snowbirds' website (which was misleading imo)
I'll need to be more careful.

So that makes the score 'one for you' & 'what' for
me?...considerable in any case...


-Gord
"Are you trying to tell me that the
rotational (energy) of a propeller is
the same at 15 inches as it is at 61?"
-Guess who

"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

The team was officially "reformed" on April 1st, 78 as the 431st ADS, but
this had absolutely nothing whatever to do with the Tutor. In fact, it
was
the existence of the toot that prompted Col Phillip to form the team
several
years earlier . I don't believe the team would ever have been formed had
the
toot not been available, as budget restraints have always been a problem.
Dudley Henriques

Yes, it does seem that I was in error having misinterpreted the
information on the Snowbirds' website (which was misleading imo)
I'll need to be more careful.

So that makes the score 'one for you' & 'what' for
me?...considerable in any case...


-Gord
"Are you trying to tell me that the
rotational (energy) of a propeller is
the same at 15 inches as it is at 61?"
-Guess who

Why yes, that's EXACTLY what I was trying to tell you, and I was as correct
then as I am now.
Any high school student knows that the rotational energy of a propeller is
directly tied to it's rpm and not it's manifold pressure. That wasn't the
context of what I saying at all, unless you have an agenda that requires you
to believe that....like you do apparently.
I'll go over it one more time so that you and anyone else who cares to
comment can do so.
The discussion where this came up was directly concerned with a bail out by
two people from a P51D where a snap roll caused by an engine seizure could
have been a factor in throwing the occupants from the cockpit.
Knowing the 51 as I do, I suggested if you remember, that the snap might not
have been caused by the seizure. I had a reason for suggesting this. The
24D50 Ham Standard on this airplane has a constant speed pitch range of 42
degrees. In a bail out preparation under stress assuming the prop set at
some degree of cruise and under normal aerodynamic load for that
configuration, the reduction of manifold pressure without changing the prop
setting would cause the prop to begin a pitch change to maintain RPM toward
full increase. You were absolutely correct when you said that manifold
pressure didn't control rotational velocity, but you failed to consider as I
had considered, the governor high RPM pitch limit for this propeller. It's
absolutely true that the rotational velocity of the prop will remain the
same at any RPM within it's constant speed range, but with the power brought
back to idle, it's entirely possible that the prop would exceed it's high
RPM pitch limiter on the governor and at that point the RPM would DECREASE.
It would be this decrease in RPM and NOT the decrease in manifold pressure
that would cause lesser forces in an engine seizure.
The post where you inserted yourself into the discussion about RPM and
manifold pressure wasn't a friendly insertion. In fact, it was a lot like
your insertion here about my flying with the Snowbirds. It was an obvious
implication that I am nothing less than a liar of the first order in the
Snowbird case, and that I needed a lecture from you on rotational velocity.
I believe your opening statement about the prop was "You do.......well I
don't!!!
If you remember, I did everything I could to avoid lecturing you back, since
I know your background is sound on these matters and you don't need a
lecture from me any more than I need one from you.
I tried subtlety to suggest we were dealing with a constant speed prop,
hoping you would finally get the hint about the governor, but you took this
to mean that since a fixed pitch propeller is the only prop that is DIRECTLY
linked to manifold pressure, and as such exhibits an increase and decrease
in rpm as the result of power change as opposed to the constant speed which
of course doesn't.......unless the governor limits are exceeded :-)
I had made your point for you. Sorry, that wasn't the case at all.
My point was valid then and it's valid now. FWIW, you also were correct as
far as you went with your explanation on momentum and constant speed props;
but I say again, in discussing RPM and a constant speed prop like the 24D50
on the Mustang, you must include the governor high RPM limit or the momentum
will INDEED change as power is reduced below this limit......just like a
fixed pitch propeller; and THIS was the scenario that was being discussed in
the P51 bailout situation, NOT that power controls momentum per se'. I would
close my remarks to you on this by telling you that there is always an area
on Usenet for misunderstanding to occur, and you very well might have
misunderstood what I was saying because I was not clear enough. If that was
the case, I apologize for creating that misunderstanding, and I sincerely
hope that this post clears the air on the matter.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

"Are you trying to tell me that the
rotational (energy) of a propeller is
the same at 15 inches as it is at 61?"
-Guess who

Why yes, that's EXACTLY what I was trying to tell you, and I was as correct
then as I am now.

Jesus Christ...those ARE YOUR WORDS!!...not mine, you ASKED ME
that question!...

Christ man, there's no dishonour in making a mistake. There
certainly is dishonour in denying your words then ascribing them
to someone else!!..(which is exactly what you just did).


Any high school student knows that the rotational energy of a propeller is
directly tied to it's rpm and not it's manifold pressure.

Of course...so why did you ask that stupid question above then?

I swear that If you try to DISOWN your words again that I'll
repost the whole sorry mess.

I'll leave it to you now to see whose arse is hanging out in the
sunlight here...

--Gord.

"Bull ****! This is a constant speed prop. RPM is a
set value. The RPM can be set at 3000 and the
manifold pressure can be anywhere between 15 inches
and 61 inches, and it's the manifold pressure
combined with the set RPM that will determine the
power.....NOT the RPM!!! Are you trying to tell
me that the rotational (energy) of a propeller is
the same at 15 inches as it is at 61?".
-D Henriques

"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
"Dudley Henriques" wrote:


"Are you trying to tell me that the
rotational (energy) of a propeller is
the same at 15 inches as it is at 61?"



If he was he was right, the rotational energy
is simply a product of angular velocity and mass
and is the same in coarse pitch, fine pitch or a vacuum.

The power being delivered is a different matter of course
and depends on factors such as propellor pitch, air
density and of course angular velocity.

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
"Dudley Henriques" wrote:


"Are you trying to tell me that the
rotational (energy) of a propeller is
the same at 15 inches as it is at 61?"



If he was he was right, the rotational energy
is simply a product of angular velocity and mass
and is the same in coarse pitch, fine pitch or a vacuum.

The power being delivered is a different matter of course
and depends on factors such as propellor pitch, air
density and of course angular velocity.

Keith

The above is absolutely correct......... BUT.........Please do a google
search for (p51 engine seizure "dudley henriques") and read the thread
carefully, especially from the point where Gordo enters it under me. I
believe it will be instantly apparent that the reason for this
misunderstanding is obvious, and it's probably my fault. I was reacting to
someone I don't particularly like and I was mincing words. If you read the
thread carefully, you will see that what I was discussing with him about
power and rpm was missing a main ingredient; that being what I was assuming
he knew, when in actuality, I had completely omitted it from anything I was
saying to him. That ingredient is the high rpm prop limiter on the governor
of the 24D50 Ham Standard used on the Mustang. If you read what I was
writing carefully, I believe you will realize that I was assuming both of
were aware of the limiter function in relation to what we were discussing. I
was wrong in assuming this.
The facts are quite simple. Both Gordo and I know it. The only problem seems
to be that he thinks it was he who "taught" me this, and that's pure fiction
I can assure you. But the fault remains with me I think. I should have made
it perfectly clear to him from the beginning about the prop governor, as I
was considering it's function in every post I made to him, but I never
actually mentioned it.
In summation, it's 101 that rpm and not power is directly related to
rotational mass/velocity/inertia with a constant speed prop....UNLESS as I
was trying to say, the power is back past the high rpm limit stop as it very
well is at idle power on the Mustang. This assumes normal aerodynamic loads
on the prop as well.
With this in play, it becomes totally correct to say that the rotational
forces in play at 15 inches on this airplane are less then they would be at
61 inches, or anywhere else for that matter within the 42 degree pitch
limits where a power change or a change in aerodynamic load would cause a
pitch change to maintain a constant set RPM on this specific prop. I'm very
sorry if what I said was misleading to Gordo. I should have discussed the
prop governor with him from the onset. The plain truth is that I was just
too ****ed off at him and just plain missed it.
Such is Usenet!! :-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

"Are you trying to tell me that the
rotational (energy) of a propeller is
the same at 15 inches as it is at 61?"
-Guess who

Why yes, that's EXACTLY what I was trying to tell you, and I was as
correct
then as I am now.

Jesus Christ...those ARE YOUR WORDS!!...not mine, you ASKED ME
that question!...

Christ man, there's no dishonour in making a mistake. There
certainly is dishonour in denying your words then ascribing them
to someone else!!..(which is exactly what you just did).


Any high school student knows that the rotational energy of a propeller
is
directly tied to it's rpm and not it's manifold pressure.

Of course...so why did you ask that stupid question above then?

I swear that If you try to DISOWN your words again that I'll
repost the whole sorry mess.

I'll leave it to you now to see whose arse is hanging out in the
sunlight here...

--Gord.

I believe if you post the entire thread and allow everyone to view it in
it's complete context and entirety , (although in my opinion it would bore
the hell out of everybody, including you and me :-); it will become apparent
how this happened, and that BOTH of us were at fault in creating this
unfortunate episode. If you think it would be of interest to the group, or
that I would fear seeing it posted for all to see, by all means post the
thread.
If not, perhaps we can end this useless and non productive banter; realize
that we had a total misunderstanding and lack of communication and try
normal communication again for a change.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

"Keith Willshaw" wrote:


"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
.. .
"Dudley Henriques" wrote:


"Are you trying to tell me that the
rotational (energy) of a propeller is
the same at 15 inches as it is at 61?"



If he was he was right, the rotational energy
is simply a product of angular velocity and mass
and is the same in coarse pitch, fine pitch or a vacuum.

--cut--

Keith

Well of course It is and I was...Dudley got all bent out of shape
and sort of lost it when I told him that and he sent the above
question...

Christ, he now intimates that **I** authored this question.

Miserable SOB..

He had some harebrained idea that a whole bunch of engine power
would add to the prop rotational energy, even though the RPM
didn't change. (constant speed prop)

The engine seized on this P-51 and we were discussing whether the
resultant energy release would possibly toss the pilot out...

It would seem that Henriques just cannot admit his error, poor
schmuck...I'd certainly hate to be that insecure, must feel
terrible.

--Gord.

"Bull ****! This is a constant speed prop. RPM is a
set value. The RPM can be set at 3000 and the
manifold pressure can be anywhere between 15 inches
and 61 inches, and it's the manifold pressure
combined with the set RPM that will determine the
power.....NOT the RPM!!! Are you trying to tell
me that the rotational (energy) of a propeller is
the same at 15 inches as it is at 61?".
-D Henriques