No More Frequent Flyer Miles

Stalker2

Registered User
Jun 7, 2001
25,916
3
468
TRueWDTer
#1
Aircraft Engineer Killed After Being Sucked Into Plane Engine During 'Routine Maintenance'

By Daily Mail Reporter

Last updated at 1:01 PM on 8th August 2011

An aircraft worker in New Zealand has been killed after he was sucked into a plane engine during 'routine maintenance'.
The 51-year-old engineer was working at an aircraft testing centre when the tragedy happened at 8am local time.

Air New Zealand said the man, named as Miles Hunter, was performing routine maintenance on a Lockheed C-130 Hercules engine at the Woodbourne airfield in Blenheim.


Tragedy: An aircraft engineer was killed when he was sucked into the engine of a C-130 Hercules aircraft

Mr Hunter was working for Safe Air, an aviation repair and manufacturing company which is a subsidiary of Air New Zealand.

A spokesman said the engine was sitting on a stand without its propellers and was not fixed to a plane at the time.
That type of engine - a turboprop - is a combination of a jet engine with a propeller at the front.
A former employee told the Marlborough Express that Safe Air tested Hercules engines on a frame in a remote corner of the airport once they had been serviced.
It is believed Mr Hunter walked into the testing area while the engine was running.


Routine maintenance: The tragedy happened at an Air New Zealand testing centre at Woodbourne airfield in Blenheim

Police and the Department of Labour are investigating the death.
A source told the paper the engine had been taken into an Air Force hangar to be dismantled to recover the body.
Air New Zealand's chief executive Rob Fyfe visited Blenheim to express his condolences to Mr Hunter's family.

LINK: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2023631/New-Zealand-man-sucked-plane-engine.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,826
18,547
513
Kingdom of Charis
#2
Approves:

[video=youtube;YJf1okwb-5Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJf1okwb-5Y[/video]
 

lajikal

Registered User
Aug 6, 2009
16,431
3,932
373
#4
It's ok, just pick up your pieces and move on with your life!
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#5
Maybe someone knows more about this than me, but why do we even use turbo-props any more? Wouldn't a full jet engine be more efficient? Do the props add that much torque? Do I have the torque/HP roles backwards? I've always wondered that.
 

THE FEZ MAN

as a matter of fact i dont have 5$
Aug 23, 2002
43,041
9,850
848
#6
slower take off speeds i think. thats why they use them on those big transport planes that land on un improved runways

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turboprop

eh i dont feel like reading all that crap
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#7
The take-off speed should only be dependent on wing geometry and payload, not the propulsion type.

Oh well, I'll read up on it. I was hoping for an easy answer.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,826
18,547
513
Kingdom of Charis
#8
The take-off speed should only be dependent on wing geometry and payload, not the propulsion type.

Oh well, I'll read up on it. I was hoping for an easy answer.
Take off speed is also dependent on temperature and altitude.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,826
18,547
513
Kingdom of Charis
#10
Lol, I'm pretty sure no component of the aircraft can change those variables. ;)
Oh, I misunderstood your post. I guess power to weight ratio would probably have an impact. Maybe a turboprop weighs less than an equivalent jet engine. Also might be cheaper to maintain. This is all just guesswork.
 

gleet

What's black and white and red all over?
Jul 24, 2005
22,541
13,853
608
Idaho
#12
I read somewhere that a mechanic said you can't hardly run one on a test stand without the prop on it. And with even a test prop, you can't get to the intake without hitting prop. And test stands have a cage around the front and the back to prevent dummy from wandering in.

This is how a real C-130 takes off.