Rolls Royce testing

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
The basis of the 'frozen chicken' story might be true, but if it is, it happened a very long time ago, probably during testing of the chicken launcher, and not during it's routine use testing aircraft components.

The 'small hole' story is also as old as the hills. The version I first heard (about 30 years ago) is that the Americans, during WW2, sent across the thinnest piece of wire they could draw. The Brits drilled and tapped it, and sent it back. I didn't believe it then, and don't now. It's just another 'my willy is bigger than yours' tale that the boastful of any nation like to tell to hide their lack of self-confidence.

One aircraft story that IS true is the one about the Mosquito bomb doors.

To save aluminium, the Mosquito was conceived by De Havilland's during the war years (and was later to become a real success story - a formidable fast bomber with remarkable capabilities). The first test aircraft was built at Broughton in North-East Wales, and the production manager of the plant was an ex-patternmaker by the name of Reggie Francis. The booming aircraft industry of the '30s had swallowed up a lot of skilled woodworkers displaced from industry in the depression years. Tests of the new plane went well, until the bomb doors were tested. They opened, but would not shut. Mods on the ground failed several times to solve the problem.
In the end, Reggie decided that the only way to find the fouling points was to look while the plane was airbourne - the stress distribution on the frame was clearly greatly different in the air than on the ground. There were no volunteers for this job, so in the end, Reggie made his own cradle, had it strapped into the bomb bay, and had himself strapped into the cradle. They then took off and flew round Hawarden aerodrome at 100 feet openingand closing the dorrs while Reggie planed and chiselled bits off till they fitted. When they landed again, Reggie just said, "Right, make 'em like that."
Nobody ever subsequently argued with Reggie, even when the use of aluminium somewhat overtook his ability to bring craft knowledge to the production manager's job. He lived well into his late 80's.
I know all this to be true as I know Reggie's son Gordon very well from other fields of endeavor, and I've had the story confirmed by independent sources too.

They don't make 'em like that any more!
 
Cheshirechappie":2y4hkzup said:
The basis of the 'frozen chicken' story might be true, but if it is, it happened a very long time ago, probably during testing of the chicken launcher, and not during it's routine use testing aircraft components.

The 'small hole' story is also as old as the hills. The version I first heard (about 30 years ago) is that the Americans, during WW2, sent across the thinnest piece of wire they could draw. The Brits drilled and tapped it, and sent it back. I didn't believe it then, and don't now. It's just another 'my willy is bigger than yours' tale that the boastful of any nation like to tell to hide their lack of self-confidence.

One aircraft story that IS true is the one about the Mosquito bomb doors.

To save aluminium, the Mosquito was conceived by De Havilland's during the war years (and was later to become a real success story - a formidable fast bomber with remarkable capabilities). The first test aircraft was built at Broughton in North-East Wales, and the production manager of the plant was an ex-patternmaker by the name of Reggie Francis. The booming aircraft industry of the '30s had swallowed up a lot of skilled woodworkers displaced from industry in the depression years. Tests of the new plane went well, until the bomb doors were tested. They opened, but would not shut. Mods on the ground failed several times to solve the problem.
In the end, Reggie decided that the only way to find the fouling points was to look while the plane was airbourne - the stress distribution on the frame was clearly greatly different in the air than on the ground. There were no volunteers for this job, so in the end, Reggie made his own cradle, had it strapped into the bomb bay, and had himself strapped into the cradle. They then took off and flew round Hawarden aerodrome at 100 feet openingand closing the dorrs while Reggie planed and chiselled bits off till they fitted. When they landed again, Reggie just said, "Right, make 'em like that."
Nobody ever subsequently argued with Reggie, even when the use of aluminium somewhat overtook his ability to bring craft knowledge to the production manager's job. He lived well into his late 80's.
I know all this to be true as I know Reggie's son Gordon very well from other fields of endeavor, and I've had the story confirmed by independent sources too.

They don't make 'em like that any more!
That's one I hadn't heard...excellent. During the 70's I worked briefly with a bloke who flew Mosquito's in the war. It's a long time ago now, but I recollect that he took part in the raid on the Gestapo HQ in Copenhagen and remember him saying on another occasion that he got the aircraft to over 400mph (I think) in a shallow dive. He was also of the quite definite opinion that it was the finest aircraft to ever take to the sky - Rob
 
AES":1dz600pe said:
OK then, some explanation as to why the story is not true (sorry):

Depending on several factors, the airliner you fly off to holiday on could be powered by aeroengines designed and built by any one of total six manufacturers in the world. To get their engine approved by the European and US aviation safety authorities, ALL manufacturers have to submit a sample engine/s to a whole series of test, one of which is the "chicken test" (though it is by no means the most spectacular - see below). The above tests are all extremely well documented and thoroughly specified in every detail so there's no question of a manufacturer making the sort of mistake that this story included. But as someone has already said "the chicken gun" does exist (one at every manufacturers plant) and like everything else, the size and weight of the chicken is carefully defined (depends on the power rating and size of the engine).

As a (secondary) point, the aeroengine business is so very fiercely competitive that no manufacturer would start discussing problems with satisfying any one of the tests with a competitor or with an airworthuiness authority.

In short, while it is an amusing story it is just not true. You can trust me on this one as I'm a professional aircraft engineer and knowing stuff like this is my daily bread & butter.

But back to my "see below":

A while back a very interesting programme appeared on German TV discussing several aspects of building the new Airbus A380 (the so-called "Super Jumbo"). The programme included spectacular footage of stuff like engine testing and brakes and landing gear testing. Some of those clips appeared on YouTube (sorry I have no links), the most spectacular of which was the "Blade Off" test. Here the manufacturer fits a small explosive charge to the root of one of the Fan Blades (the big blades at the front of the engine) and then runs the engine at full power on the test bed before firing the charge. To pass that test the engine MUST carry on runnng (albeit at reduced power!) and MUST retain all the debris within the engine. Like I said, applicable to ALL manufacturers.

Krgds
AES

P.S. Exactly the same principles apply to wind screen testing, t's just that engines are a bit more spectacular!

Yes the blade off test is spectacular and very expensive on a Trent. I know it was from a different cause but the Trent failure on the Quantas 380 was a very expensive failure for RR.
 
Back
Top