Talk:Aluminum Overcast

message: I am a WI page assessor -- I know nothing about Aluminum Overcast so I am deferring to the aviation professionals for the appropriate rating. Dolotta (talk) 22:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Wisconsin Wiki

message: Is that right, one million hours (1,000,000)? I know it's old but....! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: By the time it was retired from its "civie" jobs in 1978, it had already accumulated tens of thousands of hours and now it is listed on the EAA website as having exceeded one million flight hours. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I make that 114 years of continuous flying! Tens of thousands sounds more reasonable, guess the EAA know best. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: From the EAA history page it mentions 1 million miles and '10 years and thousands of hours to restore', might be some confusion here? Still a million miles is a long way! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops right you are, revision to be made. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If we take the B-17's cruise and max speeds as 182 and 287 mph, one million miles aquates to somewhere between 3,500 and 5,500 flying hours. I doubt the old gal would be pushed to the limit very often so I reckon the truth lies somewhere towards the higher figure. These numbers seem more sensible to me; however, I'm no expert on this sort of thing but I know there are critical elements of an airframe that have a safe working life. Would 5,500 hours be unreasonable for such an old design? --Red Sunset 18:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all, entirely reasonable, it probably has more hours than that. If it has good, accurate logbooks then someone will know. Some aircraft have lifed parts, or the entire airframe is lifed (rare) and others have no limits at all. I used to repair DHC Chipmunk wing spars that had reached their life of 9,000 hours, and that is a 50s 'puddle jumper'! I seem to remember that the VC10 fleet had an average of 30,000 hours on them when I left them back in '85 (introduced in '62). Shame we don't have an article on Fatigue Index yet as that would explain it all. It takes 'g' counts, number of landings, flying hours etc into account and produces an increasing number, known as the 'FI'. A bomber flying straight and level for many hours would use much less 'FI' than a fighter pulling 7 g for half an hour, that's the basic principle anyway! Even if things do start to crack you can often carry on flying with periodic inspections or a repair (or both!). Would be nice to know exactly how many hours 'Aluminum Overcast' has. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers Gary; comprehensive answer, and no problems for Aluminum Overcast for a good while yet then! Yes, I was trying to get an idea of the actual flying hours since I haven't come accross them anywhere in the ref sources (yet). BTW, I reckon a Fatigue Index article is a good suggestion – any volunteers? ;-) --Red Sunset 19:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would but I don't have any references for it to hand, red link noted! On a four engined bomber fatigue topic I also remember being asked if I would like to help re-spar the BBMF Lancaster at St Athan in the mid-80s, the job entailed undoing 'millions' of 2 BA bolts and then doing up 'millions' of 2 BA bolts, somebody obviously did it but not me! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice changes Bill, but I can't find any reference mentioning over tens of thousands of flight hours. A quick calculation as above gives a more modest figure – it can be reverted with a cited ref of course. --Red Sunset 20:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just noticed that they spelt aluminium wrong again ;-), the 'right side of the pond' has replied with Avro Lancaster PA474, just hope that this doesn't open the floodgates. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Without referring to the logbook of the "Overcast", O'Leary states that in 1969, as N5017N, it had 6,000 hours. A bit of extrapolation gave me a total of 30 years more flying time, less the 10-year restoration period. A guesstimate is another 3,000 hours accumulated for approximately 100 hours flight time annually. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Which sounds exactly right to me. I checked the FAA database with the N number but unlike the UK CAA database no flying hours are recorded. PA 474 is (or was anyway) limited to 120 hours per year to conserve airframe life so your guess of 100 hours a year is pretty good. Who is going to crack and 'undent' first! All good stuff. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite out of colons yet Gary! ;-) So we're probably in the region of a total of 10,000 hours, but that's not really important now as Bill has come up with the goods in the latest batch of improvements. IMHO this is looking like a decent little article now, and the with the majority of interested editors wanting to keep it, it should be a survivor!!! :-)) --Red Sunset 20:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Flying hours?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Aluminum Overcast. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120906162111/http://www.newburyportnews.com/pulife/local_story_228094019 to http://www.newburyportnews.com/pulife/local_story_228094019
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707101909/http://www.airportjournals.com/display.cfm/Centennial/0607025 to http://www.airportjournals.com/display.cfm/Centennial/0607025
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: I've uploaded an old photo I took, :File:Aluminum Overcast nose-topaz-denoise-enhance-faceai-sharpen.jpg - is that a Norden bomb sight in the nose?  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norden bombsight?