I was listening to the Airplane Geeks podcast and there was a veteran 727 pilot who said that the number 2 engine was prone to compressor stall on takeoff and landing during a crosswind, and that a faulty lavatory seal that on more than one occasion leaked potty fluid at altitude, that would freeze and be ingested into engine #3 and on one specific occasion caused the engine to leave the airframe.
I love that sort of information. All grognards know lots of detailed information about our favorite subjects. I knew statistical info about the 727. Range, PAX load, development, etc. But anecdotal info like what I mentioned above is part of the soul of realism. It can only come from first hand experience with the subject matter.
I'm in IT and I can tell you the Dell Vostro 220s has a faulty motherboard, after 5 years the onboard video will be blurry and the storage controller dies. I have about a dozen of them in the shop, same symptoms. You can't google that, you have to have specifically dealt with that issue.
Games representing this 'quirk modeling' are hit and miss. I remember as far back as Aces of the Pacific the Zero was modeled with frozen controls during a heavy dive, mimicking the quirk of the airframe. The DCS sims, while clinically realistic, don't seem to model those sorts of quirks. Of course those quirks can only be found by talking to the pilots and maintenance crew.
World of Tanks models the tendency of certain tanks to catch on fire, but beyond that I can't recall many instances where specific quirks are modeled.
Maybe the the Panzer IV Ausf. F2 had a sticky clutch or the F-35's computer overheats when tracking more than 5 targets. If you model those quirks, I think you can get away with a graphic model that doesn't have every rivet in the right spot, or use keyboard shortcuts rather than having accurate click able buttons to perform a full start.
Eh, these are just my meandering thoughts that were running through my head while I was mowing this afternoon. :)
By any chance, is "leaving the airframe" clinicalspeak for "falling off the airplane?"
Quote from: skeptical.platypus on June 11, 2014, 08:02:37 PM
By any chance, is "leaving the airframe" clinicalspeak for "falling off the airplane?"
lol yes! The story was pretty tense. Apparently the poo fluid forms a ball outside the fuselage and and some point gets so big it gets into the airstream and flies off right into the engine. I'm sure it was corrected eventually.
Those anecdotes may be just a limited view of the whole population. Therefore we cannot conclude that the experience is common unless there is evidence.
Dropping lavs from airplanes was easily the nastiest job whilst working the ramp.
In other words, navigating the poo truck to the plane (737s or 727s), then hooking the hose up, praying you get a good seal, and then...open sesame!
Quote from: republic on June 11, 2014, 08:05:44 PM
Quote from: skeptical.platypus on June 11, 2014, 08:02:37 PM
By any chance, is "leaving the airframe" clinicalspeak for "falling off the airplane?"
lol yes! The story was pretty tense. Apparently the poo fluid forms a ball outside the fuselage and and some point gets so big it gets into the airstream and flies off right into the engine. I'm sure it was corrected eventually.
Lol, I am going to enjoy abusing "leaving the airframe" in my personal correspondence
so much!
Quote from: Banzai_Cat on June 11, 2014, 08:15:43 PM
Dropping lavs from airplanes was easily the nastiest job whilst working the ramp.
In other words, navigating the poo truck to the plane (737s or 727s), then hooking the hose up, praying you get a good seal, and then...open sesame!
On a wargame forum. . . I honestly guessed LAV (light armored vehicle) out the back of a Globemaster, before lav (lavatory). Lol. The latter job sounds like shite.
It wasn't the most popular job, no, but working the ramp meant wearing many hats. Hopefully not one made of shite. I never had a problem but there were stories from the old guys whom had been working for 25+ years, from the days of Eastern and other ancient airlines.
I wish I had more technical knowledge to offer. I had a near intimate knowledge of 727s, 737s, and 777s - at least, their pits, cargo areas, the nose wheel assembly, the poo holes, stuff like that. I could work a 777 loader in my sleep.
On a more game-related note, that kind of quirky detail is something that would appeal to the grogs in all of us, but there's a line that I think even devs won't dare cross if they want to get their games out on time and under budget. Still, an interesting thought.
quirk modeling would be a bitch in a wargame.
lets take any of the WW2 German heavy tanks ability to throw a track with all that interwoven wheel setup.
people would think its cool for a very short time and then they would start complaining about how its to severe or not modeled right.
Nice topic!
I recently ended up having the whole sliding (side) window of a 737 in my hands after trying to open it! That was a definite "WTF!" moment! :D
Aparently when the window slides with an angle due to pressure on the handle, the thing has a tendency to run off the rail easily and fall out.
Pretty common and easy for the maintenance guys,but nobody ever told me!
The toilet waste hatch is a bitch on the 737. It often gets stuck preventing proper sucking pressure from the truck.
It is known to get stuck due to icing at high altitude. Probably a design error.
Heh. I'll have to ask my dad if he remembers any of the quirks from the DC-8 and DC-10. IIRC, he also briefly flew 747s before he retired.
IIRC...The Smithsonian Air & Space or perhaps Flight magazine once featured an article called "Blowing the Nose Off a Panther" in which the author describes a unique quirk with the F9F Panther. Seems that on rare occasion, if a pilot didn't follow the exact sequence for firing / test firing the guns, the entire nose cap of the airplane could be blown off. That would be a helluva thing to experience, even in a sim...
Thats awesome to know!
I'm currently reading an excellent book Voodoo Warriors by Nigel Walpole about the F-101 Voodoo. It had MANY quirks. I had known about the "Pitch Up" problem, but only about 1/3 of the way through the book...I don't think I'd want to ever fly in that plane!
And parts of the tail would slowly rot out of the earlier models of F-4s in Vietnam, until the engineers figured out the problem.
which was......
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on June 19, 2014, 08:33:42 PM
which was......
Some of the alloys used on the bottom of the tail and tail-plane (near the engine exhaust I think) would quickly rust/rot out in the hot & humid tropical weather.
I read a Navy pilot's account of that in a book awhile back. I don't recall when they fixed it... may have been done by '66 but could've been a bit later. He said they had to regularly switch them out with non-combat squadrons in Japan(?) so they could be repaired and the pilots of those squadrons were always pissed when they saw the condition they were in.