Iconic Aircraft Aviation Forum

by **Nickolas** » Fri May 22, 2009 12:33 pm

Dr Bob's latest news letter refers to some engine corrosion that has been discovered. :-o

The matter has been referred to the Engine manufacturer RR.

We must wait with baited breath for the outcome of RR's investigation.

Hopefully the Engineering Team might be able to expand a bit on the good Dr's comment.

by **Saracenman** » Fri May 22, 2009 1:41 pm

very ominous

although Dr. P seems to be playing it down a little - let's just hope that it is repairable/curable!

it does beg the question though, what protective measures are taken against corrosion with the engines in the airframe? the spare Olympus's's's's's are all in bags, but surely if 558 doesn't fly for months, corrosion was always going to be a problem wasn't it?

do anti-det runs help to prevent it?

i wonder if Smiler will give us any more information in his update.

at the very least, isn't it a breath of fresh air, finally receiving regular updates? THAT never happened twelve months ago! :ymapplause:

sm

by **IanM** » Fri May 22, 2009 2:12 pm

Saracenman wrote:do anti-det runs help to prevent it?

sm

I think that's the whole point of them

If you think about it Andy's lightnings are, or were, less protected than 558 and they keep going

by **Mayfly** » Fri May 22, 2009 4:17 pm

Saracenman wrote:very ominous

although Dr. P seems to be playing it down a little - let's just hope that it is repairable/curable!

it does beg the question though, what protective measures are taken against corrosion with the engines in the airframe? the spare Olympus's's's's's are all in bags, but surely if 558 doesn't fly for months, corrosion was always going to be a problem wasn't it?

do anti-det runs help to prevent it?

i wonder if Smiler will give us any more information in his update.

at the very least, isn't it a breath of fresh air, finally receiving regular updates? THAT never happened twelve months ago!

sm

obviously not enough

FLIPFLOPMAN

by **Bovril** » Fri May 22, 2009 4:30 pm

but i think you will find the lightnings an other ground runners will have some corrosion, not much can be done about it, just treat where possible and stop running if it a safety issue. i may be talking out my.. you know where.. but i dare say Andy or 655sooty or Flipflop will shoot me down and put me straight

IanM wrote:
Saracenman wrote:do anti-det runs help to prevent it?

sm

I think that's the whole point of them If you think about it Andy's lightnings are, or were, less protected than 558 and they keep going

by **Crew chief** » Fri May 22, 2009 8:07 pm

IanM wrote:
Saracenman wrote:do anti-det runs help to prevent it?

sm

I think that's the whole point of them If you think about it Andy's lightnings are, or were, less protected than 558 and they keep going

Hi all.
Flying is a different ball game to ground running engines.You will proberly find that every engine in the ground running airframes in the country will have corrosion in them,as long as they are inspected regulary and any corrosion found is within limits and treated you are ok.

by **Dangerousdave** » Sat May 23, 2009 8:25 am

I hope that doesn't mean they want more money cos I think people will lose faith. May I suggest some of Dr Bob's extortionate salary goes towards solving any problems, cos that's what me and millions of others gave our hard earned cash for!
Why does the corrosion happen exactly, surely if they happen to 558, they happen to every aircraft that isn't run constantly? What about the Sea Vixen or private Hunter's etc that only seem to be around during the airshow season? Do they suffer from it cos they are still permitted to fly.

by **Dee** » Sat May 23, 2009 9:26 am

Its certainly a worry

by **Wedgy** » Sat May 23, 2009 9:29 am

I don't think it will be too much of an issue ... I have a feeling in my waters

by **Stevieboy** » Sat May 23, 2009 9:39 am

Wedgy wrote:I don't think it will be too much of an issue ... I have a feeling in my waters

So it's you who's been weeing in the wrong places then Wedgy. [-x

by **Gully** » Sat May 23, 2009 10:24 am

Dangerousdave wrote:I hope that doesn't mean they want more money...

Can't see this being a money issue: if RR has any concerns that the integrity of the engines has been affected, I would expect them to either effectively bin the 2 affected Olympuses (for flight use), or recommend they are removed for further investigation / consideration in the same way as the No. 2 was last year.

On the plus side, at least we know about it now! A year ago we would have been left in the dark... Although now we demand more details...!!

Gully

by **Smiler** » Sat May 23, 2009 10:54 am

Gawd what are you like, you complain and whinge when we don't tell you things and PANIC when we do!!

We are operating these engines in a completely different way and modern technology lets us do things that have never been done before, therefore if feels if we are now operating under a microscope.

I will cover it a bit more in the engineering update when I get chance (might even try a get a day off)

by **Wedgy** » Sat May 23, 2009 1:06 pm

Begone with the microscopes! My waters will tell you all you need to know! :))

by **Saracenman** » Sat May 23, 2009 1:37 pm

Smiler wrote:Gawd what are you like, you complain and whinge when we don't tell you things and PANIC when we do!!

We are operating these engines in a completely different way and modern technology lets us do things that have never been done before, therefore if feels if we are now operating under a microscope.

I will cover it a bit more in the engineering update when I get chance (might even try a get a day off)

thanks Smiler

agreed re whinging about lack of info - twelve months ago, other than what YOU regularly told us Smiler, we heard very little. very much different now, but many never appear to be satisfied - that's why i don't frequent 'the other side' as much as i used to

no doubt you and your team will have this issue sorted :ymapplause:

sm