The Melting Deck Plates Muddle - V-22 on LHD deck....

[mike]

StrategyPage.com
December 2, 2009

The Melting Deck Plates Muddle

by James Dunnigan

Earlier this year, the U.S. Navy discovered that the heat from the
MV-22's gas turbine engines, which blow their exhaust right on to the
deck of the LHD while waiting to take off, caused high enough
temperatures to the steel under the deck plates, to possibly warp the
understructure. This was already a known potential problem with the
new F-35B vertical takeoff jet fighter.
So now the Navy has two hot new aircraft that require an innovative
solution to the melting deck problem. The Navy also discovered that
the exhaust heat problem varied in intensity between different classes
of helicopter carriers (each with a different deck design.)

The Navy is looking for a solution that will not require extensive
modification of current carrier decks. This includes a lot of decks,
both the eleven large carriers, and the ten smaller LHAs and LHDs.
This is shaping up as another multi-billion dollar "oops" moment, as
the melting deck problem was never brought up during the long
development of either aircraft.

Previously, the Harrier was the only aircraft to put serious amounts
of heat on the carrier deck, but not enough to do damage. But when you
compare the Harrier engine with those on the V-22 and F-35B, you can
easily see that there is a lot more heat coming out of the two more
recent aircraft. Someone should have done the math before it became a
real problem.

[Malcom \Mal\ Reynolds]

In article
<3f72b032-2be2-4377-a180-01d7a81404fe@d2
1g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Mike > wrote:

> StrategyPage.com
> December 2, 2009
>
> The Melting Deck Plates Muddle
>
> by James Dunnigan
>
> Earlier this year, the U.S. Navy discovered that the heat from the
> MV-22's gas turbine engines, which blow their exhaust right on to the
> deck of the LHD while waiting to take off, caused high enough
> temperatures to the steel under the deck plates, to possibly warp the
> understructure. This was already a known potential problem with the
> new F-35B vertical takeoff jet fighter.
> So now the Navy has two hot new aircraft that require an innovative
> solution to the melting deck problem. The Navy also discovered that
> the exhaust heat problem varied in intensity between different classes
> of helicopter carriers (each with a different deck design.)
>
> The Navy is looking for a solution that will not require extensive
> modification of current carrier decks. This includes a lot of decks,
> both the eleven large carriers, and the ten smaller LHAs and LHDs.
> This is shaping up as another multi-billion dollar "oops" moment, as
> the melting deck problem was never brought up during the long
> development of either aircraft.
>
> Previously, the Harrier was the only aircraft to put serious amounts
> of heat on the carrier deck, but not enough to do damage. But when you
> compare the Harrier engine with those on the V-22 and F-35B, you can
> easily see that there is a lot more heat coming out of the two more
> recent aircraft. Someone should have done the math before it became a
> real problem.

Use what NASA uses for the shuttle?
Wouldn't cost that much at all

[David E. Powell]

On Dec 9, 11:22*pm, Mike > wrote:
> StrategyPage.com
> December 2, 2009
>
> The Melting Deck Plates Muddle
>
> by James Dunnigan
>
> Earlier this year, the U.S. Navy discovered that the heat from the
> MV-22's gas turbine engines, which blow their exhaust right on to the
> deck of the LHD while waiting to take off, caused high enough
> temperatures to the steel under the deck plates, to possibly warp the
> understructure. This was already a known potential problem with the
> new F-35B vertical takeoff jet fighter.
> So now the Navy has two hot new aircraft that require an innovative
> solution to the melting deck problem. The Navy also discovered that
> the exhaust heat problem varied in intensity between different classes
> of helicopter carriers (each with a different deck design.)
>
> The Navy is looking for a solution that will not require extensive
> modification of current carrier decks. This includes a lot of decks,
> both the eleven large carriers, and the ten smaller LHAs and LHDs.
> This is shaping up as another multi-billion dollar "oops" moment, as
> the melting deck problem was never brought up during the long
> development of either aircraft.
>
> Previously, the Harrier was the only aircraft to put serious amounts
> of heat on the carrier deck, but not enough to do damage. But when you
> compare the Harrier engine with those on the V-22 and F-35B, you can
> easily see that there is a lot more heat coming out of the two more
> recent aircraft. Someone should have done the math before it became a
> real problem.

Make a designated VTOL area and add shuttle style tiles there.

[Dan[_12_]]

David E. Powell wrote:
> On Dec 9, 11:22 pm, Mike > wrote:
>> StrategyPage.com
>> December 2, 2009
>>
>> The Melting Deck Plates Muddle
>>
>> by James Dunnigan
>>
>> Earlier this year, the U.S. Navy discovered that the heat from the
>> MV-22's gas turbine engines, which blow their exhaust right on to the
>> deck of the LHD while waiting to take off, caused high enough
>> temperatures to the steel under the deck plates, to possibly warp the
>> understructure. This was already a known potential problem with the
>> new F-35B vertical takeoff jet fighter.
>> So now the Navy has two hot new aircraft that require an innovative
>> solution to the melting deck problem. The Navy also discovered that
>> the exhaust heat problem varied in intensity between different classes
>> of helicopter carriers (each with a different deck design.)
>>
>> The Navy is looking for a solution that will not require extensive
>> modification of current carrier decks. This includes a lot of decks,
>> both the eleven large carriers, and the ten smaller LHAs and LHDs.
>> This is shaping up as another multi-billion dollar "oops" moment, as
>> the melting deck problem was never brought up during the long
>> development of either aircraft.
>>
>> Previously, the Harrier was the only aircraft to put serious amounts
>> of heat on the carrier deck, but not enough to do damage. But when you
>> compare the Harrier engine with those on the V-22 and F-35B, you can
>> easily see that there is a lot more heat coming out of the two more
>> recent aircraft. Someone should have done the math before it became a
>> real problem.
>
> Make a designated VTOL area and add shuttle style tiles there.

It wouldn't stand up to mechanical abuse. While the tiles will
withstand heat they would crumble under the weight of taxiing aircraft
and deck vehicles.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[guy]

On 10 Dec, 04:22, Mike > wrote:
> StrategyPage.com
> December 2, 2009
>
> The Melting Deck Plates Muddle
>
> by James Dunnigan
>
> Earlier this year, the U.S. Navy discovered that the heat from the
> MV-22's gas turbine engines, which blow their exhaust right on to the
> deck of the LHD while waiting to take off, caused high enough
> temperatures to the steel under the deck plates, to possibly warp the
> understructure. This was already a known potential problem with the
> new F-35B vertical takeoff jet fighter.
> So now the Navy has two hot new aircraft that require an innovative
> solution to the melting deck problem. The Navy also discovered that
> the exhaust heat problem varied in intensity between different classes
> of helicopter carriers (each with a different deck design.)
>
> The Navy is looking for a solution that will not require extensive
> modification of current carrier decks. This includes a lot of decks,
> both the eleven large carriers, and the ten smaller LHAs and LHDs.
> This is shaping up as another multi-billion dollar "oops" moment, as
> the melting deck problem was never brought up during the long
> development of either aircraft.
>
> Previously, the Harrier was the only aircraft to put serious amounts
> of heat on the carrier deck, but not enough to do damage. But when you
> compare the Harrier engine with those on the V-22 and F-35B, you can
> easily see that there is a lot more heat coming out of the two more
> recent aircraft. Someone should have done the math before it became a
> real problem.

How did they manage with the AV8/Harrier then?

Guy

[dott.Piergiorgio]

guy ha scritto:

>> Previously, the Harrier was the only aircraft to put serious amounts
>> of heat on the carrier deck, but not enough to do damage. But when you
>> compare the Harrier engine with those on the V-22 and F-35B, you can
>> easily see that there is a lot more heat coming out of the two more
>> recent aircraft. Someone should have done the math before it became a
>> real problem.
>
> How did they manage with the AV8/Harrier then?

I second the question and point that V-22 & F-35B's heat discharge is
from exhaust gas discharge and/or propeller (IF I grokked well, the 35B
has a sort of vertical propeller contraption) when the harrier's heat
discharge are from jet vanes so at least on paper, Harrier's vertical
exhaust is more hot than V-22...

Best regards from Italy.
Dott. Piergiorgio.

[BlackBeard]

On Dec 9, 11:52*pm, "dott.Piergiorgio"
> wrote:
> guy ha scritto:
>
> >> Previously, the Harrier was the only aircraft to put serious amounts
> >> of heat on the carrier deck, but not enough to do damage. But when you
> >> compare the Harrier engine with those on the V-22 and F-35B, you can
> >> easily see that there is a lot more heat coming out of the two more
> >> recent aircraft. Someone should have done the math before it became a
> >> real problem.
>
> > How did *they manage with the AV8/Harrier then?
>
> I second the question and point that V-22 & F-35B's heat discharge is
> from exhaust gas discharge and/or propeller (IF I grokked well, the 35B
> has a sort of vertical propeller contraption) when the harrier's heat
> discharge are *from jet vanes so at least on paper, Harrier's vertical
> exhaust is more hot than V-22...
>
> Best regards from Italy.
> Dott. Piergiorgio.

As for the 35B, yes it uses a central fan device for vertical TO/L,
but it also has an exhaust tail that rotates to 90 degrees down. So
there are two forces working to lift it. I spent a week or so shooting
both. ;)
As for the V-22, the solution, like the Harrier might be to limit TO/
L to rolling approach/landing. With both platforms direct impingement
is enough to cause damage.

BB

[Jack Linthicum]

On Dec 10, 4:50*am, BlackBeard > wrote:
> On Dec 9, 11:52*pm, "dott.Piergiorgio"
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > guy ha scritto:
>
> > >> Previously, the Harrier was the only aircraft to put serious amounts
> > >> of heat on the carrier deck, but not enough to do damage. But when you
> > >> compare the Harrier engine with those on the V-22 and F-35B, you can
> > >> easily see that there is a lot more heat coming out of the two more
> > >> recent aircraft. Someone should have done the math before it became a
> > >> real problem.
>
> > > How did *they manage with the AV8/Harrier then?
>
> > I second the question and point that V-22 & F-35B's heat discharge is
> > from exhaust gas discharge and/or propeller (IF I grokked well, the 35B
> > has a sort of vertical propeller contraption) when the harrier's heat
> > discharge are *from jet vanes so at least on paper, Harrier's vertical
> > exhaust is more hot than V-22...
>
> > Best regards from Italy.
> > Dott. Piergiorgio.
>
> As for the 35B, yes it uses a central fan device for vertical TO/L,
> but it also has an exhaust tail that rotates to 90 degrees down. So
> there are two forces working to lift it. I spent a week or so shooting
> both. ;)
> *As for the V-22, the solution, like the Harrier might be to limit TO/
> L to rolling approach/landing. *With both platforms direct impingement
> is enough to cause damage.
>
> BB

Or use the rocket launch technique and spray water across the take-off
area.

[guy]

On 10 Dec, 10:57, Jack Linthicum > wrote:
> On Dec 10, 4:50*am, BlackBeard > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 9, 11:52*pm, "dott.Piergiorgio"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > guy ha scritto:
>
> > > >> Previously, the Harrier was the only aircraft to put serious amounts
> > > >> of heat on the carrier deck, but not enough to do damage. But when you
> > > >> compare the Harrier engine with those on the V-22 and F-35B, you can
> > > >> easily see that there is a lot more heat coming out of the two more
> > > >> recent aircraft. Someone should have done the math before it became a
> > > >> real problem.
>
> > > > How did *they manage with the AV8/Harrier then?
>
> > > I second the question and point that V-22 & F-35B's heat discharge is
> > > from exhaust gas discharge and/or propeller (IF I grokked well, the 35B
> > > has a sort of vertical propeller contraption) when the harrier's heat
> > > discharge are *from jet vanes so at least on paper, Harrier's vertical
> > > exhaust is more hot than V-22...
>
> > > Best regards from Italy.
> > > Dott. Piergiorgio.
>
> > As for the 35B, yes it uses a central fan device for vertical TO/L,
> > but it also has an exhaust tail that rotates to 90 degrees down. So
> > there are two forces working to lift it. I spent a week or so shooting
> > both. ;)
> > *As for the V-22, the solution, like the Harrier might be to limit TO/
> > L to rolling approach/landing. *With both platforms direct impingement
> > is enough to cause damage.
>
> > BB
>
> Or use the rocket launch technique and spray water across the take-off
> area.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Can the V-22 not do at least a partial rolling(STOL) take off?

Guy

[Roger Conroy[_3_]]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> David E. Powell wrote:
>> On Dec 9, 11:22 pm, Mike > wrote:
>>> StrategyPage.com
>>> December 2, 2009
>>>
>>> The Melting Deck Plates Muddle
>>>
>>> by James Dunnigan
>>>
>>> Earlier this year, the U.S. Navy discovered that the heat from the
>>> MV-22's gas turbine engines, which blow their exhaust right on to the
>>> deck of the LHD while waiting to take off, caused high enough
>>> temperatures to the steel under the deck plates, to possibly warp the
>>> understructure. This was already a known potential problem with the
>>> new F-35B vertical takeoff jet fighter.
>>> So now the Navy has two hot new aircraft that require an innovative
>>> solution to the melting deck problem. The Navy also discovered that
>>> the exhaust heat problem varied in intensity between different classes
>>> of helicopter carriers (each with a different deck design.)
>>>
>>> The Navy is looking for a solution that will not require extensive
>>> modification of current carrier decks. This includes a lot of decks,
>>> both the eleven large carriers, and the ten smaller LHAs and LHDs.
>>> This is shaping up as another multi-billion dollar "oops" moment, as
>>> the melting deck problem was never brought up during the long
>>> development of either aircraft.
>>>
>>> Previously, the Harrier was the only aircraft to put serious amounts
>>> of heat on the carrier deck, but not enough to do damage. But when you
>>> compare the Harrier engine with those on the V-22 and F-35B, you can
>>> easily see that there is a lot more heat coming out of the two more
>>> recent aircraft. Someone should have done the math before it became a
>>> real problem.
>>
>> Make a designated VTOL area and add shuttle style tiles there.
>
> It wouldn't stand up to mechanical abuse. While the tiles will withstand
> heat they would crumble under the weight of taxiing aircraft and deck
> vehicles.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Every LHD comes with an unlimited supply of water that can be used for
cooling.
Pump the water into a double skinned section of the deck (analogous to a
"wet wing" aircraft fuel tank) designated for use by the problematic
aircraft.
Cooling water directly on the deck surface will cause other problems - steam
and hot spray getting blasted in all directions is not a good idea.

[William Black[_1_]]

guy wrote:
> On 10 Dec, 04:22, Mike > wrote:
>> StrategyPage.com
>> December 2, 2009
>>
>> The Melting Deck Plates Muddle
>>
>> by James Dunnigan
>>
>> Earlier this year, the U.S. Navy discovered that the heat from the
>> MV-22's gas turbine engines, which blow their exhaust right on to the
>> deck of the LHD while waiting to take off, caused high enough
>> temperatures to the steel under the deck plates, to possibly warp the
>> understructure. This was already a known potential problem with the
>> new F-35B vertical takeoff jet fighter.
>> So now the Navy has two hot new aircraft that require an innovative
>> solution to the melting deck problem. The Navy also discovered that
>> the exhaust heat problem varied in intensity between different classes
>> of helicopter carriers (each with a different deck design.)
>>
>> The Navy is looking for a solution that will not require extensive
>> modification of current carrier decks. This includes a lot of decks,
>> both the eleven large carriers, and the ten smaller LHAs and LHDs.
>> This is shaping up as another multi-billion dollar "oops" moment, as
>> the melting deck problem was never brought up during the long
>> development of either aircraft.
>>
>> Previously, the Harrier was the only aircraft to put serious amounts
>> of heat on the carrier deck, but not enough to do damage. But when you
>> compare the Harrier engine with those on the V-22 and F-35B, you can
>> easily see that there is a lot more heat coming out of the two more
>> recent aircraft. Someone should have done the math before it became a
>> real problem.
>
> How did they manage with the AV8/Harrier then?

Ski jump off, slow rolling landing on.


--
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.

[Bill Kambic[_2_]]

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 02:57:36 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
> wrote:

<snipped for brevity>

>Or use the rocket launch technique and spray water across the take-off
>area.

Probably less than optimal. Large clouds of hot, salt water steam
would be an annoyance (at a minimum) to the deck crew. It would also
be a highly corrosive material that could serious complicate
maintenance of both ship and aircraft.

Use of fresh water would likely be an excessive demand on the
evaporators.

The piping of cooling water suggested earlier would be a better idea.
It would likely be cheaper that major modifications such as a "ski
jump" and permit the continued use of the vertical capability of the
aircraft.

[Timur]

http://china-arsenal.blogspot.com/

[Jack Linthicum]

On Dec 9, 11:22*pm, Mike > wrote:
> StrategyPage.com
> December 2, 2009
>
> The Melting Deck Plates Muddle
>
> by James Dunnigan
>
> Earlier this year, the U.S. Navy discovered that the heat from the
> MV-22's gas turbine engines, which blow their exhaust right on to the
> deck of the LHD while waiting to take off, caused high enough
> temperatures to the steel under the deck plates, to possibly warp the
> understructure. This was already a known potential problem with the
> new F-35B vertical takeoff jet fighter.
> So now the Navy has two hot new aircraft that require an innovative
> solution to the melting deck problem. The Navy also discovered that
> the exhaust heat problem varied in intensity between different classes
> of helicopter carriers (each with a different deck design.)
>
> The Navy is looking for a solution that will not require extensive
> modification of current carrier decks. This includes a lot of decks,
> both the eleven large carriers, and the ten smaller LHAs and LHDs.
> This is shaping up as another multi-billion dollar "oops" moment, as
> the melting deck problem was never brought up during the long
> development of either aircraft.
>
> Previously, the Harrier was the only aircraft to put serious amounts
> of heat on the carrier deck, but not enough to do damage. But when you
> compare the Harrier engine with those on the V-22 and F-35B, you can
> easily see that there is a lot more heat coming out of the two more
> recent aircraft. Someone should have done the math before it became a
> real problem.

How about false deck mobile deflectors that would be rolled into
place and exchanged between launches? The tractors exist.

[Typhoon502]

On Dec 10, 12:23*am, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-
> wrote:
> In article
> <3f72b032-2be2-4377-a180-01d7a81404fe@d2
> 1g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
> *Mike > wrote:
> > StrategyPage.com

> > The Navy is looking for a solution that will not require extensive
> > modification of current carrier decks. This includes a lot of decks,
> > both the eleven large carriers, and the ten smaller LHAs and LHDs.
> > This is shaping up as another multi-billion dollar "oops" moment, as
> > the melting deck problem was never brought up during the long
> > development of either aircraft.
>
> > Previously, the Harrier was the only aircraft to put serious amounts
> > of heat on the carrier deck, but not enough to do damage. But when you
> > compare the Harrier engine with those on the V-22 and F-35B, you can
> > easily see that there is a lot more heat coming out of the two more
> > recent aircraft. Someone should have done the math before it became a
> > real problem.
>
> Use what NASA uses for the shuttle?
> Wouldn't cost that much at all

It is a BIG f-ing "oops", and I think that the Navy's RFP is a little
silly. They want a product that doesn't require alteration to the
flight deck, is easily applied and repaired, and doesn't cost much.
Presumably it has to be environmentally friendly too. It wouldn't
surprise me if someone asked for it to be organic as well.

I dunno, I'd assume that NASA could provide some expertise there, but
whether or not the Navy actually is willing to ask for it is another
story.

[Jack Linthicum]

On Dec 10, 6:26*am, William Black > wrote:
> guy wrote:
> > On 10 Dec, 04:22, Mike > wrote:
> >> StrategyPage.com
> >> December 2, 2009
>
> >> The Melting Deck Plates Muddle
>
> >> by James Dunnigan
>
> >> Earlier this year, the U.S. Navy discovered that the heat from the
> >> MV-22's gas turbine engines, which blow their exhaust right on to the
> >> deck of the LHD while waiting to take off, caused high enough
> >> temperatures to the steel under the deck plates, to possibly warp the
> >> understructure. This was already a known potential problem with the
> >> new F-35B vertical takeoff jet fighter.
> >> So now the Navy has two hot new aircraft that require an innovative
> >> solution to the melting deck problem. The Navy also discovered that
> >> the exhaust heat problem varied in intensity between different classes
> >> of helicopter carriers (each with a different deck design.)
>
> >> The Navy is looking for a solution that will not require extensive
> >> modification of current carrier decks. This includes a lot of decks,
> >> both the eleven large carriers, and the ten smaller LHAs and LHDs.
> >> This is shaping up as another multi-billion dollar "oops" moment, as
> >> the melting deck problem was never brought up during the long
> >> development of either aircraft.
>
> >> Previously, the Harrier was the only aircraft to put serious amounts
> >> of heat on the carrier deck, but not enough to do damage. But when you
> >> compare the Harrier engine with those on the V-22 and F-35B, you can
> >> easily see that there is a lot more heat coming out of the two more
> >> recent aircraft. Someone should have done the math before it became a
> >> real problem.
>
> > How did *they manage with the AV8/Harrier then?
>
> Ski jump off, *slow rolling landing on.
>
> --
> William Black
>
> "Any number under six"
>
> The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
> Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
> single handed with a quarterstaff.

Here's a V-22 landing and taking off from HMS Illustrious. Any damage
done or a different deck?

http://www.skycontrol.net/helicopters/mv-22-osprey-lands-on-uk-aircraft-carrier-for-first-time/

[Roger Conroy[_3_]]

"Bill Kambic" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 02:57:36 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
> > wrote:
>
> <snipped for brevity>
>
>>Or use the rocket launch technique and spray water across the take-off
>>area.
>
> Probably less than optimal. Large clouds of hot, salt water steam
> would be an annoyance (at a minimum) to the deck crew. It would also
> be a highly corrosive material that could serious complicate
> maintenance of both ship and aircraft.
>
> Use of fresh water would likely be an excessive demand on the
> evaporators.
>
> The piping of cooling water suggested earlier would be a better idea.
> It would likely be cheaper that major modifications such as a "ski
> jump" and permit the continued use of the vertical capability of the
> aircraft.

A water cooled heatsink built into a part of the deck designated for "hot"
aircraft makes a lot of sense.

[vaughn[_2_]]

"David E. Powell" > wrote in message
...

>Make a designated VTOL area and add shuttle style tiles there.

Try simple things first! I really doubt that the problem is severe enough to
require a high-tech approach. First, a simple change in procedures to reduce
time with the engines in the vertical position will greatly reduce the problem.
A designated landing pad made of metal that will stand the heat with an
underlayment to prevent heat transfer to the underlying deck will solve the
problem. Yes, the resulting uneven deck would be a PITA for the deck crew, but
the pad would not need to be more than an inch or two thick with tapering edges
for the transition. After the plane departs, a quick hosedown would likely be a
good idea for crew safety & to prevent melted tires.

This issue could hardly be a "surprise" or even a "muddle". The potential
problem of deck heating from VTOL aircraft has been well known for decades.
When I first reported aboard the Guam (LPH-9) the crew were talking about the
deck tests they had done with the (then new & revolutionary) Harrier just weeks
before.

Vaughn

[Richard[_11_]]

On Dec 9, 11:23*pm, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-
> wrote:
> In article
> <3f72b032-2be2-4377-a180-01d7a81404fe@d2
> 1g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> *Mike > wrote:
> > StrategyPage.com
> > December 2, 2009
>
> > The Melting Deck Plates Muddle
>
> > by James Dunnigan
>
> > Earlier this year, the U.S. Navy discovered that the heat from the
> > MV-22's gas turbine engines, which blow their exhaust right on to the
> > deck of the LHD while waiting to take off, caused high enough
> > temperatures to the steel under the deck plates, to possibly warp the
> > understructure. This was already a known potential problem with the
> > new F-35B vertical takeoff jet fighter.
> > So now the Navy has two hot new aircraft that require an innovative
> > solution to the melting deck problem. The Navy also discovered that
> > the exhaust heat problem varied in intensity between different classes
> > of helicopter carriers (each with a different deck design.)
>
> > The Navy is looking for a solution that will not require extensive
> > modification of current carrier decks. This includes a lot of decks,
> > both the eleven large carriers, and the ten smaller LHAs and LHDs.
> > This is shaping up as another multi-billion dollar "oops" moment, as
> > the melting deck problem was never brought up during the long
> > development of either aircraft.
>
> > Previously, the Harrier was the only aircraft to put serious amounts
> > of heat on the carrier deck, but not enough to do damage. But when you
> > compare the Harrier engine with those on the V-22 and F-35B, you can
> > easily see that there is a lot more heat coming out of the two more
> > recent aircraft. Someone should have done the math before it became a
> > real problem.
>
> Use what NASA uses for the shuttle?
> Wouldn't cost that much at all

Yeah except for not walking, parking, raining, hailing or dropping a
wrench on the coating it would be great.

[Peter Skelton]

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 05:46:12 -0800 (PST), Typhoon502
> wrote:

>On Dec 10, 12:23*am, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-
> wrote:
>> In article
>> <3f72b032-2be2-4377-a180-01d7a81404fe@d2
>> 1g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>>
>> *Mike > wrote:
>> > StrategyPage.com
>
>> > The Navy is looking for a solution that will not require extensive
>> > modification of current carrier decks. This includes a lot of decks,
>> > both the eleven large carriers, and the ten smaller LHAs and LHDs.
>> > This is shaping up as another multi-billion dollar "oops" moment, as
>> > the melting deck problem was never brought up during the long
>> > development of either aircraft.
>>
>> > Previously, the Harrier was the only aircraft to put serious amounts
>> > of heat on the carrier deck, but not enough to do damage. But when you
>> > compare the Harrier engine with those on the V-22 and F-35B, you can
>> > easily see that there is a lot more heat coming out of the two more
>> > recent aircraft. Someone should have done the math before it became a
>> > real problem.
>>
>> Use what NASA uses for the shuttle?
>> Wouldn't cost that much at all
>
>It is a BIG f-ing "oops", and I think that the Navy's RFP is a little
>silly. They want a product that doesn't require alteration to the
>flight deck, is easily applied and repaired, and doesn't cost much.
>Presumably it has to be environmentally friendly too. It wouldn't
>surprise me if someone asked for it to be organic as well.
>
A product that meets your requirement is allum-impregnated teak.
I'd be quite astonished if the navy didn't know it, they read
history too. Of course, splinters from the stuff are painful and
tend to go septic, it costs terribly, . . . .

To me, it looks as if they know that they'll have to cut steel
but need to do some homework first.


>I dunno, I'd assume that NASA could provide some expertise there, but
>whether or not the Navy actually is willing to ask for it is another
>story.

Peter Skelton

[Jack Linthicum]

On Dec 9, 11:22*pm, Mike > wrote:
> StrategyPage.com
> December 2, 2009
>
> The Melting Deck Plates Muddle
>
> by James Dunnigan
>
> Earlier this year, the U.S. Navy discovered that the heat from the
> MV-22's gas turbine engines, which blow their exhaust right on to the
> deck of the LHD while waiting to take off, caused high enough
> temperatures to the steel under the deck plates, to possibly warp the
> understructure. This was already a known potential problem with the
> new F-35B vertical takeoff jet fighter.
> So now the Navy has two hot new aircraft that require an innovative
> solution to the melting deck problem. The Navy also discovered that
> the exhaust heat problem varied in intensity between different classes
> of helicopter carriers (each with a different deck design.)
>
> The Navy is looking for a solution that will not require extensive
> modification of current carrier decks. This includes a lot of decks,
> both the eleven large carriers, and the ten smaller LHAs and LHDs.
> This is shaping up as another multi-billion dollar "oops" moment, as
> the melting deck problem was never brought up during the long
> development of either aircraft.
>
> Previously, the Harrier was the only aircraft to put serious amounts
> of heat on the carrier deck, but not enough to do damage. But when you
> compare the Harrier engine with those on the V-22 and F-35B, you can
> easily see that there is a lot more heat coming out of the two more
> recent aircraft. Someone should have done the math before it became a
> real problem.

Here is the problem laid out in numbers


F-35 and V-22: Keeping it Cool on Deck
Posted by Graham Warwick at 6/24/2009 8:43 AM CDT

We've heard how the stealthy F-22 and F-35 are flying thermos bottles,
struggling under the huge heat loads imposed by their powerful engines
and systems. Well it seems the latest generation of vertical-lift
aircraft is turning the flight decks of US Navy amphibious assault
ships into frying pans.

blog post photo

Photo: US Navy

The initial culprit is the MV-22 tiltrotor, but the big concern is the
STOVL F-35B, which is due on deck after 2012. With nacelles tilted and
rotors turning, hot exhaust from the Osprey's engines is buckling the
decks, and Navy studies warn repeated buckling will cause deck failure
at 40% of planned ship life. F-35B exhaust plumes are expected to have
a "severe thermo-mechanical impact" on the structure and non-skid
surface of the flight deck.

That's according to a new solicitation from the Office of Naval
Research, which is looking for new ideas for flight deck thermal
management. The solicitation is looking for alternatives to a DARPA/
ONR program that is already looking at "cooled heat pipe technologies"
to overcome the thermal issues.

It's not a trivial problem. For the MV-22, where the exhausts are
close to the deck when the nacelles are vertical, buckling has been
observed after just 10min of sitting on the deck, rotors turning. The
F-35B will be in STOVL mode for a fraction of that time, but is
expected to cause even more heating of the deck.

ONR is looking for thermal management technologies that can keep the
deck surface temperature below 300ºF when exposed to MV-22 exhaust
plumes for 90 minutes before takeoff, and F-35B exhaust plumes for 2
minutes when landing. And cooling the deck is not enough - any
solution has to be compatible with the deck's non-skid coating. It
also has to be affordable and capable of being installed below deck or
retrofitted above deck. Tall order.

blog post photo
Photo: Lockheed Martin

Based on measurements taken during recent hover-pit tests, Lockheed
Martin does not believe there will be an issue with deck temperatures.
One acknowledged area of concern is the combined auxiliary/emergency
powerpack, or IPP, which exhausts downwards on the STOVL aircraft. (It
exhausts upwards on the F-35C carrier variant to protect deck crew,
but downwards on the F-35B and CTOL F-35A to save weight and gain fuel
volume.)

The IPP has two modes: bleed and bleed-and-burn. In bleed mode the
exhaust is relatively cool, Lockheed says. In bleed-and-burn, fuel is
burned in the IPP to generate more power, and exhaust temperature
rises. Because of operator concerns about surface heating, Lockheed
says the pilot will have the ability to switch the IPP back to bleed
mode if holding on the runway, or deck.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3Afd6afd6b-9176-4003-8ea6-08049291946b

[Mark Borgerson[_2_]]

In article <a12ee279-bf71-45e8-8d2e-2ee21c1d9159
@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, says...
> On Dec 10, 12:23*am, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-
> > wrote:
> > In article
> > <3f72b032-2be2-4377-a180-01d7a81404fe@d2
> > 1g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> > *Mike > wrote:
> > > StrategyPage.com
>
> > > The Navy is looking for a solution that will not require extensive
> > > modification of current carrier decks. This includes a lot of decks,
> > > both the eleven large carriers, and the ten smaller LHAs and LHDs.
> > > This is shaping up as another multi-billion dollar "oops" moment, as
> > > the melting deck problem was never brought up during the long
> > > development of either aircraft.
> >
> > > Previously, the Harrier was the only aircraft to put serious amounts
> > > of heat on the carrier deck, but not enough to do damage. But when you
> > > compare the Harrier engine with those on the V-22 and F-35B, you can
> > > easily see that there is a lot more heat coming out of the two more
> > > recent aircraft. Someone should have done the math before it became a
> > > real problem.
> >
> > Use what NASA uses for the shuttle?
> > Wouldn't cost that much at all
>
> It is a BIG f-ing "oops", and I think that the Navy's RFP is a little
> silly. They want a product that doesn't require alteration to the
> flight deck, is easily applied and repaired, and doesn't cost much.
> Presumably it has to be environmentally friendly too. It wouldn't
> surprise me if someone asked for it to be organic as well.
>
> I dunno, I'd assume that NASA could provide some expertise there, but
> whether or not the Navy actually is willing to ask for it is another
> story.
>
Maybe they need the mil-spec version of the nanoparticle insulating
paint:

http://www.industrial-nanotech.com/nansulate_home_protect.htm


Mark Borgerson

[vaughn[_2_]]

"Mark Borgerson" > wrote in message
...

>Maybe they need the mil-spec version of the nanoparticle insulating paint:

AFAIK, that stuff is snake oil.

Vaughn

[Bill Kambic[_2_]]

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:53:26 +0200, "Roger Conroy"
> wrote:

>
>"Bill Kambic" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 02:57:36 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
>> > wrote:
>>
>> <snipped for brevity>
>>
>>>Or use the rocket launch technique and spray water across the take-off
>>>area.
>>
>> Probably less than optimal. Large clouds of hot, salt water steam
>> would be an annoyance (at a minimum) to the deck crew. It would also
>> be a highly corrosive material that could serious complicate
>> maintenance of both ship and aircraft.
>>
>> Use of fresh water would likely be an excessive demand on the
>> evaporators.
>>
>> The piping of cooling water suggested earlier would be a better idea.
>> It would likely be cheaper that major modifications such as a "ski
>> jump" and permit the continued use of the vertical capability of the
>> aircraft.
>
>A water cooled heatsink built into a part of the deck designated for "hot"
>aircraft makes a lot of sense.

Indeed. And since naval architects know a LOT about piping cooling
water for lots of stuff the area could be quite large giving use for
most, if not all, of the deck. That's a major boost for opertional
efficiency.

>

[Jack Linthicum]

On Dec 10, 8:53*am, "Roger Conroy" >
wrote:
> "Bill Kambic" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 02:57:36 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
> > > wrote:
>
> > <snipped for brevity>
>
> >>Or use the rocket launch technique and spray water across the take-off
> >>area.
>
> > Probably less than optimal. *Large clouds of hot, salt water steam
> > would be an annoyance (at a minimum) to the deck crew. *It would also
> > be a highly corrosive material that could serious complicate
> > maintenance of both ship and aircraft.
>
> > Use of fresh water would likely be an excessive demand on the
> > evaporators.
>
> > The piping of cooling water suggested earlier would be a better idea.
> > It would likely be cheaper that major modifications such as a "ski
> > jump" and permit the continued use of the vertical capability of the
> > aircraft.
>
> A water cooled heatsink built into a part of the deck designated for "hot"
> aircraft makes a lot of sense.

You could have a place underneath to stash beer, like the old sub-
mariners did.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Dec 10, 7:24 am, Jack Linthicum >
wrote:
> On Dec 10, 8:53 am, "Roger Conroy" >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Bill Kambic" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > > On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 02:57:36 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > <snipped for brevity>
>
> > >>Or use the rocket launch technique and spray water across the take-off
> > >>area.
>
> > > Probably less than optimal. Large clouds of hot, salt water steam
> > > would be an annoyance (at a minimum) to the deck crew. It would also
> > > be a highly corrosive material that could serious complicate
> > > maintenance of both ship and aircraft.
>
> > > Use of fresh water would likely be an excessive demand on the
> > > evaporators.
>
> > > The piping of cooling water suggested earlier would be a better idea.
> > > It would likely be cheaper that major modifications such as a "ski
> > > jump" and permit the continued use of the vertical capability of the
> > > aircraft.
>
> > A water cooled heatsink built into a part of the deck designated for "hot"
> > aircraft makes a lot of sense.
>
> You could have a place underneath to stash beer, like the old sub-
> mariners did.

In electronics, we have similiar problems, we usually solve using Al
heat sinks, fan air cooled, as the cheapest. Screw a few Al heat sinks
to the bottom of the locations of the deck permited to take the heat
and engage any fluid to cool it, even water if space is tight, <yawn>.
Ken

[Jack Linthicum]

On Dec 10, 2:00*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Dec 10, 7:24 am, Jack Linthicum >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 10, 8:53 am, "Roger Conroy" >
> > wrote:
>
> > > "Bill Kambic" > wrote in message
>
> > ...
>
> > > > On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 02:57:36 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > <snipped for brevity>
>
> > > >>Or use the rocket launch technique and spray water across the take-off
> > > >>area.
>
> > > > Probably less than optimal. *Large clouds of hot, salt water steam
> > > > would be an annoyance (at a minimum) to the deck crew. *It would also
> > > > be a highly corrosive material that could serious complicate
> > > > maintenance of both ship and aircraft.
>
> > > > Use of fresh water would likely be an excessive demand on the
> > > > evaporators.
>
> > > > The piping of cooling water suggested earlier would be a better idea.
> > > > It would likely be cheaper that major modifications such as a "ski
> > > > jump" and permit the continued use of the vertical capability of the
> > > > aircraft.
>
> > > A water cooled heatsink built into a part of the deck designated for "hot"
> > > aircraft makes a lot of sense.
>
> > You could have a place underneath to stash beer, like the old sub-
> > mariners did.
>
> In electronics, we have similiar problems, we usually solve using Al
> heat sinks, fan air cooled, as the cheapest. Screw a few Al heat sinks
> to the bottom of the locations of the deck permited to take the heat
> and engage any fluid to cool it, even water if space is tight, <yawn>.
> Ken

Troll them in the water, saves having all those pipes.

[scott s.]

Bill Kambic > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:53:26 +0200, "Roger Conroy"
> > wrote:
>>
>>A water cooled heatsink built into a part of the deck designated for
>>"hot" aircraft makes a lot of sense.
>
> Indeed. And since naval architects know a LOT about piping cooling
> water for lots of stuff the area could be quite large giving use for
> most, if not all, of the deck. That's a major boost for opertional
> efficiency.
>

Just take a Mk7 JBD and mount it appropriately. It probably would not
need the hydraulics to raise/lower as for conventional takeoffs.

scott s.
..

[mkf]

On Dec 10, 2:23*am, Dan > wrote:
> David E. Powell wrote:
> > On Dec 9, 11:22 pm, Mike > wrote:
> >> StrategyPage.com
> >> December 2, 2009
>
> >> The Melting Deck Plates Muddle
>
> >> by James Dunnigan
>
> >> Earlier this year, the U.S. Navy discovered that the heat from the
> >> MV-22's gas turbine engines, which blow their exhaust right on to the
> >> deck of the LHD while waiting to take off, caused high enough
> >> temperatures to the steel under the deck plates, to possibly warp the
> >> understructure. This was already a known potential problem with the
> >> new F-35B vertical takeoff jet fighter.
> >> So now the Navy has two hot new aircraft that require an innovative
> >> solution to the melting deck problem. The Navy also discovered that
> >> the exhaust heat problem varied in intensity between different classes
> >> of helicopter carriers (each with a different deck design.)
>
> >> The Navy is looking for a solution that will not require extensive
> >> modification of current carrier decks. This includes a lot of decks,
> >> both the eleven large carriers, and the ten smaller LHAs and LHDs.
> >> This is shaping up as another multi-billion dollar "oops" moment, as
> >> the melting deck problem was never brought up during the long
> >> development of either aircraft.
>
> >> Previously, the Harrier was the only aircraft to put serious amounts
> >> of heat on the carrier deck, but not enough to do damage. But when you
> >> compare the Harrier engine with those on the V-22 and F-35B, you can
> >> easily see that there is a lot more heat coming out of the two more
> >> recent aircraft. Someone should have done the math before it became a
> >> real problem.
>
> > Make a designated VTOL area and add shuttle style tiles there.
>
> * *It wouldn't stand up to mechanical abuse. While the tiles will
> withstand heat they would crumble under the weight of taxiing aircraft
> and deck vehicles.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Use carbon composite plates. They're the materials on the wingtips
(not the infamous bottom that killed Columbia). Those are more heat
resistant, and less brittle if I'm not mistaken.

[Jim Wilkins]

On Dec 10, 2:00*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> > wrote:
> In electronics, we have similiar problems, we usually solve using Al
> heat sinks, ...
> Ken-

In my country we put the electronics on the other end of the
airplane.

[Dan[_12_]]

Jim Wilkins wrote:
> On Dec 10, 2:00 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>> wrote:
>> In electronics, we have similiar problems, we usually solve using Al
>> heat sinks, ...
>> Ken-
>
> In my country we put the electronics on the other end of the
> airplane.

But tucker "knows everything" as he is wont to tell us.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Alan Dicey]

Dan wrote:
> David E. Powell wrote:
>> On Dec 9, 11:22 pm, Mike > wrote:
>>> StrategyPage.com
>>> December 2, 2009
>>>
>>> The Melting Deck Plates Muddle
>>>
>>> by James Dunnigan
>>>
>>> Earlier this year, the U.S. Navy discovered that the heat from the
>>> MV-22's gas turbine engines, which blow their exhaust right on to the
>>> deck of the LHD while waiting to take off, caused high enough
>>> temperatures to the steel under the deck plates, to possibly warp the
>>> understructure. This was already a known potential problem with the
>>> new F-35B vertical takeoff jet fighter.
>>> So now the Navy has two hot new aircraft that require an innovative
>>> solution to the melting deck problem. The Navy also discovered that
>>> the exhaust heat problem varied in intensity between different classes
>>> of helicopter carriers (each with a different deck design.)
>>>
>>> The Navy is looking for a solution that will not require extensive
>>> modification of current carrier decks. This includes a lot of decks,
>>> both the eleven large carriers, and the ten smaller LHAs and LHDs.
>>> This is shaping up as another multi-billion dollar "oops" moment, as
>>> the melting deck problem was never brought up during the long
>>> development of either aircraft.
>>>
>>> Previously, the Harrier was the only aircraft to put serious amounts
>>> of heat on the carrier deck, but not enough to do damage. But when you
>>> compare the Harrier engine with those on the V-22 and F-35B, you can
>>> easily see that there is a lot more heat coming out of the two more
>>> recent aircraft. Someone should have done the math before it became a
>>> real problem.
>>
>> Make a designated VTOL area and add shuttle style tiles there.
>
> It wouldn't stand up to mechanical abuse. While the tiles will
> withstand heat they would crumble under the weight of taxiing aircraft
> and deck vehicles.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Indeed. The shuttle tiles have astonishing insulation properties, but
are composed of 10% silica fibres, 90% air with a borosilicate glass
coating and have no load-bearing capacity to speak of. They would be
crushed by the first person to walk on them, never mind an aircraft tyre.

Continuous seawater irrigation seems like the best option to me.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Dec 10, 11:04 am, Jack Linthicum >
wrote:
> On Dec 10, 2:00 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 10, 7:24 am, Jack Linthicum >
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 10, 8:53 am, "Roger Conroy" >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > "Bill Kambic" > wrote in message
>
> > > ...
>
> > > > > On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 02:57:36 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > <snipped for brevity>
>
> > > > >>Or use the rocket launch technique and spray water across the take-off
> > > > >>area.
>
> > > > > Probably less than optimal. Large clouds of hot, salt water steam
> > > > > would be an annoyance (at a minimum) to the deck crew. It would also
> > > > > be a highly corrosive material that could serious complicate
> > > > > maintenance of both ship and aircraft.
>
> > > > > Use of fresh water would likely be an excessive demand on the
> > > > > evaporators.
>
> > > > > The piping of cooling water suggested earlier would be a better idea.
> > > > > It would likely be cheaper that major modifications such as a "ski
> > > > > jump" and permit the continued use of the vertical capability of the
> > > > > aircraft.
>
> > > > A water cooled heatsink built into a part of the deck designated for "hot"
> > > > aircraft makes a lot of sense.
>
> > > You could have a place underneath to stash beer, like the old sub-
> > > mariners did.
>
> > In electronics, we have similiar problems, we usually solve using Al
> > heat sinks, fan air cooled, as the cheapest. Screw a few Al heat sinks
> > to the bottom of the locations of the deck permited to take the heat
> > and engage any fluid to cool it, even water if space is tight, <yawn>.
> > Ken
>
> Troll them in the water, saves having all those pipes.

In conventional PC's like you prolly have, is a small fan sitting
on the CPU Al heat sink.
In the high watt stuff, oil circulation is used to cool the active
components I've used.
I'm not keen on oil, a friend of mine had a damn transformer
explode on him and was showered with burning oil, it was not
pretty, and is very painful.
Also in my experience, I had a wood stove that started glowing
low red (over heated, but it was cast iron) so I sprayed it with
water to cool it, and that worked good.
A good cast iron is pretty tough stuff, better than malleable at
high temps I'm told.
Ken

[Mr.Smartypants[_4_]]

On Dec 9, 9:22*pm, Mike > wrote:
> StrategyPage.com
> December 2, 2009
>
> The Melting Deck Plates Muddle
>
> by James Dunnigan
>
> Earlier this year, the U.S. Navy discovered that the heat from the
> MV-22's gas turbine engines, which blow their exhaust right on to the
> deck of the LHD while waiting to take off, caused high enough
> temperatures to the steel under the deck plates, to possibly warp the
> understructure. This was already a known potential problem with the
> new F-35B vertical takeoff jet fighter.
> So now the Navy has two hot new aircraft that require an innovative
> solution to the melting deck problem. The Navy also discovered that
> the exhaust heat problem varied in intensity between different classes
> of helicopter carriers (each with a different deck design.)
>
> The Navy is looking for a solution that will not require extensive
> modification of current carrier decks. This includes a lot of decks,
> both the eleven large carriers, and the ten smaller LHAs and LHDs.
> This is shaping up as another multi-billion dollar "oops" moment, as
> the melting deck problem was never brought up during the long
> development of either aircraft.
>
> Previously, the Harrier was the only aircraft to put serious amounts
> of heat on the carrier deck, but not enough to do damage. But when you
> compare the Harrier engine with those on the V-22 and F-35B, you can
> easily see that there is a lot more heat coming out of the two more
> recent aircraft. Someone should have done the math before it became a
> real problem.



Distortion or warping of steel plating due to expansion from high
temperatures is a far cry from "melting".

[John Clear]

In article >,
Alan Dicey > wrote:
>
>Indeed. The shuttle tiles have astonishing insulation properties, but
>are composed of 10% silica fibres, 90% air with a borosilicate glass
>coating and have no load-bearing capacity to speak of. They would be
>crushed by the first person to walk on them, never mind an aircraft tyre.

Most of the white areas on the top of the shuttle are nomex blanket
type material. Blending something like that in with non-skid coating
shouldn't be too hard to do, and provide enough thermal insulation.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

[Jim Wilkins]

On Dec 10, 3:41*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>...
> A good cast iron is pretty tough stuff, better than malleable at
> high temps I'm told.
> Ken-

Good idea, but it's so heavy we'd have to remove some of the cannons.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Dec 10, 1:02 pm, Jim Wilkins > wrote:
> On Dec 10, 3:41 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> >...
> > A good cast iron is pretty tough stuff, better than malleable at
> > high temps I'm told.
> > Ken-
>
> Good idea, but it's so heavy we'd have to remove some of the cannons.

Well ok, but I'm searching for experience, such as fire bricks.
One can have fire-bricks with anthracite coal, burning air fed
that stand up ok. Firebrick is fairly light and cheap.
I guess they can be cast in bound sections.
Ken

[Jack Linthicum]

On Dec 10, 3:44*pm, "Mr.Smartypants" >
wrote:
> On Dec 9, 9:22*pm, Mike > wrote:
>
>
>
> > StrategyPage.com
> > December 2, 2009
>
> > The Melting Deck Plates Muddle
>
> > by James Dunnigan
>
> > Earlier this year, the U.S. Navy discovered that the heat from the
> > MV-22's gas turbine engines, which blow their exhaust right on to the
> > deck of the LHD while waiting to take off, caused high enough
> > temperatures to the steel under the deck plates, to possibly warp the
> > understructure. This was already a known potential problem with the
> > new F-35B vertical takeoff jet fighter.
> > So now the Navy has two hot new aircraft that require an innovative
> > solution to the melting deck problem. The Navy also discovered that
> > the exhaust heat problem varied in intensity between different classes
> > of helicopter carriers (each with a different deck design.)
>
> > The Navy is looking for a solution that will not require extensive
> > modification of current carrier decks. This includes a lot of decks,
> > both the eleven large carriers, and the ten smaller LHAs and LHDs.
> > This is shaping up as another multi-billion dollar "oops" moment, as
> > the melting deck problem was never brought up during the long
> > development of either aircraft.
>
> > Previously, the Harrier was the only aircraft to put serious amounts
> > of heat on the carrier deck, but not enough to do damage. But when you
> > compare the Harrier engine with those on the V-22 and F-35B, you can
> > easily see that there is a lot more heat coming out of the two more
> > recent aircraft. Someone should have done the math before it became a
> > real problem.
>
> Distortion or warping of steel plating due to expansion from high
> temperatures is a far cry from "melting".

1700 degrees was mentioned in one article.

[Daniel[_3_]]

> > Distortion or warping of steel plating due to expansion from high
> > temperatures is a far cry from "melting".
>
> 1700 degrees was mentioned in one article.

Hopefully, the airflow would be colder than what's required to start a
wildfire. Missing adequate structural expansion joints, the workaround
would be reflective coating and/or increasing thermal inertia with a
few tons of liquids trapped between the deck and a lining. Other
standard solutions include:

1) Jack in the box type helipads with an engine cold start while
ballistic
2) The ****ing match: Squad-Unbuckle-Ready-Aim-Pee!
3) Mk2 tractor towed movable through-deck holes
4) Frogwatch's spit buckets, a couple

[frank]

On Dec 10, 3:18*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Dec 10, 1:02 pm, Jim Wilkins > wrote:
>
> > On Dec 10, 3:41 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > >...
> > > A good cast iron is pretty tough stuff, better than malleable at
> > > high temps I'm told.
> > > Ken-
>
> > Good idea, but it's so heavy we'd have to remove some of the cannons.
>
> Well ok, but I'm searching for experience, such as fire bricks.
> One can have fire-bricks with anthracite coal, burning air fed
> that stand up ok. Firebrick is fairly light and cheap.
> I guess they can be cast in bound sections.
> Ken

Last company that did that was in upstate NY. It closed in the last 4
years or so. It was sold to.....drum roll.....China.

[frank]

On Dec 10, 2:59*pm, (John Clear) wrote:
> In article >,
> Alan Dicey > wrote:
>
>
>
> >Indeed. *The shuttle tiles have astonishing insulation properties, but
> >are composed of 10% silica fibres, 90% air with a borosilicate glass
> >coating and have no load-bearing capacity to speak of. *They would be
> >crushed by the first person to walk on them, never mind an aircraft tyre..
>
> Most of the white areas on the top of the shuttle are nomex blanket
> type material. *Blending something like that in with non-skid coating
> shouldn't be too hard to do, and provide enough thermal insulation.
>
> John
> --
> John Clear - * * * * * * * * * * * *http://www.clear-prop.org/

Still not really durable enough to handle aircraft weight. Was less
heat resistant than bottom portion. Think of it this way, bottom part
gets really hot on reentry, shields top part. You could see some
scorch marks on most of the post landing photos. Looks like little
black scuff marks on foreward part near wing.

Probably looks like a back to the drawing board moment. Oh, hey,
anybody figure out we're landing on a carrier and we have some really
high exhaust temps....

Remember the old drawing that went around what aerodynamicist built,
weapons guys, all that, and what the customer wanted. Nothing changes.

[frank]

On Dec 10, 2:41*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Dec 10, 11:04 am, Jack Linthicum >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 10, 2:00 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 10, 7:24 am, Jack Linthicum >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 10, 8:53 am, "Roger Conroy" >
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > "Bill Kambic" > wrote in message
>
> > > > ...
>
> > > > > > On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 02:57:36 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
> > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > <snipped for brevity>
>
> > > > > >>Or use the rocket launch technique and spray water across the take-off
> > > > > >>area.
>
> > > > > > Probably less than optimal. *Large clouds of hot, salt water steam
> > > > > > would be an annoyance (at a minimum) to the deck crew. *It would also
> > > > > > be a highly corrosive material that could serious complicate
> > > > > > maintenance of both ship and aircraft.
>
> > > > > > Use of fresh water would likely be an excessive demand on the
> > > > > > evaporators.
>
> > > > > > The piping of cooling water suggested earlier would be a better idea.
> > > > > > It would likely be cheaper that major modifications such as a "ski
> > > > > > jump" and permit the continued use of the vertical capability of the
> > > > > > aircraft.
>
> > > > > A water cooled heatsink built into a part of the deck designated for "hot"
> > > > > aircraft makes a lot of sense.
>
> > > > You could have a place underneath to stash beer, like the old sub-
> > > > mariners did.
>
> > > In electronics, we have similiar problems, we usually solve using Al
> > > heat sinks, fan air cooled, as the cheapest. Screw a few Al heat sinks
> > > to the bottom of the locations of the deck permited to take the heat
> > > and engage any fluid to cool it, even water if space is tight, <yawn>..
> > > Ken
>
> > Troll them in the water, saves having all those pipes.
>
> In conventional PC's like you prolly have, is a small fan sitting
> on the CPU Al heat sink.
> In the high watt stuff, oil circulation is used to cool the active
> components I've used.
> I'm not keen on oil, a friend of mine had a damn transformer
> explode on him and was showered with burning oil, it was not
> pretty, and is very painful.
> Also in my experience, I had a wood stove that started glowing
> low red (over heated, but it was cast iron) so I sprayed it with
> water to cool it, and that worked good.
> A good cast iron is pretty tough stuff, better than malleable at
> high temps I'm told.
> Ken

Learn that steam burns, did you? Let me guess, you're an engineer.

[frank]

On Dec 10, 1:43*pm, Jim Wilkins > wrote:
> On Dec 10, 2:00*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > wrote:
> > In electronics, we have similiar problems, we usually solve using Al
> > heat sinks, ...
> > Ken-
>
> In my country we put the electronics on the other end of the
> airplane.

we don't care. we just go to Congress and say 'you need to support the
troops'. billion here, billion there. what, the electronics goes on
the other end of the airplane???

ka-ching........

[frank]

On Dec 10, 1:00*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Dec 10, 7:24 am, Jack Linthicum >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 10, 8:53 am, "Roger Conroy" >
> > wrote:
>
> > > "Bill Kambic" > wrote in message
>
> > ...
>
> > > > On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 02:57:36 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > <snipped for brevity>
>
> > > >>Or use the rocket launch technique and spray water across the take-off
> > > >>area.
>
> > > > Probably less than optimal. *Large clouds of hot, salt water steam
> > > > would be an annoyance (at a minimum) to the deck crew. *It would also
> > > > be a highly corrosive material that could serious complicate
> > > > maintenance of both ship and aircraft.
>
> > > > Use of fresh water would likely be an excessive demand on the
> > > > evaporators.
>
> > > > The piping of cooling water suggested earlier would be a better idea.
> > > > It would likely be cheaper that major modifications such as a "ski
> > > > jump" and permit the continued use of the vertical capability of the
> > > > aircraft.
>
> > > A water cooled heatsink built into a part of the deck designated for "hot"
> > > aircraft makes a lot of sense.
>
> > You could have a place underneath to stash beer, like the old sub-
> > mariners did.
>
> In electronics, we have similiar problems, we usually solve using Al
> heat sinks, fan air cooled, as the cheapest. Screw a few Al heat sinks
> to the bottom of the locations of the deck permited to take the heat
> and engage any fluid to cool it, even water if space is tight, <yawn>.
> Ken

Pray tell, young Skywalker, what type of electronics have you designed
that has a few thousands pounds of metal land on it, controlled by a
navel aviatrix, blasting used JP4 and other noxious and profane gasses
as high speeds and easily a thousand degrees of the Farenheits? I'm
getting a case of beer and a lot of popcorn, this is going to be a
good one.

Note to Wiki: another cite for the 'Why do EE degrees have a BS in
front of them....'

[John Clear]

In article >,
frank > wrote:
>
>Still not really durable enough to handle aircraft weight. Was less
>heat resistant than bottom portion. Think of it this way, bottom part
>gets really hot on reentry, shields top part. You could see some
>scorch marks on most of the post landing photos. Looks like little
>black scuff marks on foreward part near wing.

Yeah, the blankets on the top top arent't as heat resistant as the
tiles, but I don't think MV-22 or F-35B exhaust is quite as hot as
hitting the atmosphere at 17,000mph.

Wiki says one type of blanket (FRSI) is good to 700F and another (FIB)
is good to 1200F.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_thermal_protection_system

>Probably looks like a back to the drawing board moment. Oh, hey,
>anybody figure out we're landing on a carrier and we have some really
>high exhaust temps....

The thermal protection is available, they just need to figure out
the durablity issue. I'm sure for a few billion, someone will be able
to mix some nomex into the non-skit coating.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

[Malcom \Mal\ Reynolds]

In article
<93ee764a-0400-499b-b519-37e47ef04416@v2
5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Richard > wrote:

> On Dec 9, 11:23*pm, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-
> > wrote:
> > In article
> > <3f72b032-2be2-4377-a180-01d7a81404fe@d2
> > 1g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> > *Mike > wrote:
> > > StrategyPage.com
> > > December 2, 2009
> >
> > > The Melting Deck Plates Muddle
> >
> > > by James Dunnigan
> >
> > > Earlier this year, the U.S. Navy discovered that the heat from the
> > > MV-22's gas turbine engines, which blow their exhaust right on to the
> > > deck of the LHD while waiting to take off, caused high enough
> > > temperatures to the steel under the deck plates, to possibly warp the
> > > understructure. This was already a known potential problem with the
> > > new F-35B vertical takeoff jet fighter.
> > > So now the Navy has two hot new aircraft that require an innovative
> > > solution to the melting deck problem. The Navy also discovered that
> > > the exhaust heat problem varied in intensity between different classes
> > > of helicopter carriers (each with a different deck design.)
> >
> > > The Navy is looking for a solution that will not require extensive
> > > modification of current carrier decks. This includes a lot of decks,
> > > both the eleven large carriers, and the ten smaller LHAs and LHDs.
> > > This is shaping up as another multi-billion dollar "oops" moment, as
> > > the melting deck problem was never brought up during the long
> > > development of either aircraft.
> >
> > > Previously, the Harrier was the only aircraft to put serious amounts
> > > of heat on the carrier deck, but not enough to do damage. But when you
> > > compare the Harrier engine with those on the V-22 and F-35B, you can
> > > easily see that there is a lot more heat coming out of the two more
> > > recent aircraft. Someone should have done the math before it became a
> > > real problem.
> >
> > Use what NASA uses for the shuttle?
> > Wouldn't cost that much at all
>
> Yeah except for not walking, parking, raining, hailing or dropping a
> wrench on the coating it would be great.

Actually I was thinking of what they do
at the launch pad during launch, not the
tiles on the shuttle

[frank]

On Dec 10, 11:58*pm, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-
> wrote:
> In article
> <93ee764a-0400-499b-b519-37e47ef04416@v2
> 5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> *Richard > wrote:
> > On Dec 9, 11:23*pm, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-
> > > wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <3f72b032-2be2-4377-a180-01d7a81404fe@d2
> > > 1g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > *Mike > wrote:
> > > > StrategyPage.com
> > > > December 2, 2009
>
> > > > The Melting Deck Plates Muddle
>
> > > > by James Dunnigan
>
> > > > Earlier this year, the U.S. Navy discovered that the heat from the
> > > > MV-22's gas turbine engines, which blow their exhaust right on to the
> > > > deck of the LHD while waiting to take off, caused high enough
> > > > temperatures to the steel under the deck plates, to possibly warp the
> > > > understructure. This was already a known potential problem with the
> > > > new F-35B vertical takeoff jet fighter.
> > > > So now the Navy has two hot new aircraft that require an innovative
> > > > solution to the melting deck problem. The Navy also discovered that
> > > > the exhaust heat problem varied in intensity between different classes
> > > > of helicopter carriers (each with a different deck design.)
>
> > > > The Navy is looking for a solution that will not require extensive
> > > > modification of current carrier decks. This includes a lot of decks,
> > > > both the eleven large carriers, and the ten smaller LHAs and LHDs.
> > > > This is shaping up as another multi-billion dollar "oops" moment, as
> > > > the melting deck problem was never brought up during the long
> > > > development of either aircraft.
>
> > > > Previously, the Harrier was the only aircraft to put serious amounts
> > > > of heat on the carrier deck, but not enough to do damage. But when you
> > > > compare the Harrier engine with those on the V-22 and F-35B, you can
> > > > easily see that there is a lot more heat coming out of the two more
> > > > recent aircraft. Someone should have done the math before it became a
> > > > real problem.
>
> > > Use what NASA uses for the shuttle?
> > > Wouldn't cost that much at all
>
> > Yeah except for not walking, parking, raining, hailing or dropping a
> > wrench on the coating it would be great.
>
> Actually I was thinking of what they do
> at the launch pad during launch, not the
> tiles on the shuttle

Ever see photos of the pad, there is a large water tower near it. I
think 3 seconds before launch, when engines start up, there is a water
infusion into the bucket that thrust goes into. Think multiple streams
of water. Sucker lights up, hits the water, massive steam and thrust
go out the channels away from the launch pad. That's the big clouds
that occur. Makes pad much more reusable.

I think Shuttle was first system to use that, could be wrong. Makes
entire complex much more reusable.

If you can get some old Shuttle launch footage, that's one of the
standard shots from NASA and main engine start.

Awesome. Lots of plumbing though.

[Jack Linthicum]

On Dec 11, 2:42*am, frank > wrote:
> On Dec 10, 11:58*pm, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > In article
> > <93ee764a-0400-499b-b519-37e47ef04416@v2
> > 5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > *Richard > wrote:
> > > On Dec 9, 11:23*pm, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-
> > > > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <3f72b032-2be2-4377-a180-01d7a81404fe@d2
> > > > 1g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > > *Mike > wrote:
> > > > > StrategyPage.com
> > > > > December 2, 2009
>
> > > > > The Melting Deck Plates Muddle
>
> > > > > by James Dunnigan
>
> > > > > Earlier this year, the U.S. Navy discovered that the heat from the
> > > > > MV-22's gas turbine engines, which blow their exhaust right on to the
> > > > > deck of the LHD while waiting to take off, caused high enough
> > > > > temperatures to the steel under the deck plates, to possibly warp the
> > > > > understructure. This was already a known potential problem with the
> > > > > new F-35B vertical takeoff jet fighter.
> > > > > So now the Navy has two hot new aircraft that require an innovative
> > > > > solution to the melting deck problem. The Navy also discovered that
> > > > > the exhaust heat problem varied in intensity between different classes
> > > > > of helicopter carriers (each with a different deck design.)
>
> > > > > The Navy is looking for a solution that will not require extensive
> > > > > modification of current carrier decks. This includes a lot of decks,
> > > > > both the eleven large carriers, and the ten smaller LHAs and LHDs..
> > > > > This is shaping up as another multi-billion dollar "oops" moment, as
> > > > > the melting deck problem was never brought up during the long
> > > > > development of either aircraft.
>
> > > > > Previously, the Harrier was the only aircraft to put serious amounts
> > > > > of heat on the carrier deck, but not enough to do damage. But when you
> > > > > compare the Harrier engine with those on the V-22 and F-35B, you can
> > > > > easily see that there is a lot more heat coming out of the two more
> > > > > recent aircraft. Someone should have done the math before it became a
> > > > > real problem.
>
> > > > Use what NASA uses for the shuttle?
> > > > Wouldn't cost that much at all
>
> > > Yeah except for not walking, parking, raining, hailing or dropping a
> > > wrench on the coating it would be great.
>
> > Actually I was thinking of what they do
> > at the launch pad during launch, not the
> > tiles on the shuttle
>
> Ever see photos of the pad, there is a large water tower near it. I
> think 3 seconds before launch, when engines start up, there is a water
> infusion into the bucket that thrust goes into. Think multiple streams
> of water. Sucker lights up, hits the water, massive steam and thrust
> go out the channels away from the launch pad. That's the big clouds
> that occur. Makes pad much more reusable.
>
> I think Shuttle was first system to use that, could be wrong. Makes
> entire complex much more reusable.
>
> If you can get some old Shuttle launch footage, that's one of the
> standard shots from NASA and main engine start.
>
> Awesome. Lots of plumbing though.

One of the professed goals of the system is sound suppression. That's
one of the events the crowds come to the launches for---that
magnificent roar like the end of the world.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Dec 10, 4:09 pm, frank > wrote:
> On Dec 10, 1:00 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 10, 7:24 am, Jack Linthicum >
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 10, 8:53 am, "Roger Conroy" >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > "Bill Kambic" > wrote in message
>
> > > ...
>
> > > > > On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 02:57:36 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > <snipped for brevity>
>
> > > > >>Or use the rocket launch technique and spray water across the take-off
> > > > >>area.
>
> > > > > Probably less than optimal. Large clouds of hot, salt water steam
> > > > > would be an annoyance (at a minimum) to the deck crew. It would also
> > > > > be a highly corrosive material that could serious complicate
> > > > > maintenance of both ship and aircraft.
>
> > > > > Use of fresh water would likely be an excessive demand on the
> > > > > evaporators.
>
> > > > > The piping of cooling water suggested earlier would be a better idea.
> > > > > It would likely be cheaper that major modifications such as a "ski
> > > > > jump" and permit the continued use of the vertical capability of the
> > > > > aircraft.
>
> > > > A water cooled heatsink built into a part of the deck designated for "hot"
> > > > aircraft makes a lot of sense.
>
> > > You could have a place underneath to stash beer, like the old sub-
> > > mariners did.
>
> > In electronics, we have similiar problems, we usually solve using Al
> > heat sinks, fan air cooled, as the cheapest. Screw a few Al heat sinks
> > to the bottom of the locations of the deck permited to take the heat
> > and engage any fluid to cool it, even water if space is tight, <yawn>.
> > Ken
>
> Pray tell, young Skywalker, what type of electronics have you designed
> that has a few thousands pounds of metal land on it, controlled by a
> navel aviatrix, blasting used JP4 and other noxious and profane gasses
> as high speeds and easily a thousand degrees of the Farenheits? I'm
> getting a case of beer and a lot of popcorn, this is going to be a
> good one.
>
> Note to Wiki: another cite for the 'Why do EE degrees have a BS in
> front of them....'

Frank, note you've replied to me 3 times, somewhat sarcastically
on a topic that is borderline boring for most, but I own a patent on
a 'new and improved' woodstove, so I have an extra interest and
specialized knowledge on the subject, so I find the problem
intriguing,
About "degrees", and "diploma's" mine are buried somewhere in
archives, rusting away.
Ken

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article
>,
frank > wrote:


> >
> > Actually I was thinking of what they do
> > at the launch pad during launch, not the
> > tiles on the shuttle
>
> Ever see photos of the pad, there is a large water tower near it. I
> think 3 seconds before launch, when engines start up, there is a water
> infusion into the bucket that thrust goes into. Think multiple streams
> of water. Sucker lights up, hits the water, massive steam and thrust
> go out the channels away from the launch pad. That's the big clouds
> that occur. Makes pad much more reusable.
>
> I think Shuttle was first system to use that, could be wrong. Makes
> entire complex much more reusable.

Nope -- Massive water infusion was used on the Saturn V, IB, Ic, etc.

It helped cool the exhaust gases that impinged on the deflectors. A
direct hit from a rocket motor exhaust of that size would make short
work of any material you could use. As it was, there was still plenty od
flame damage to go around.




> If you can get some old Shuttle launch footage, that's one of the
> standard shots from NASA and main engine start.
>
> Awesome. Lots of plumbing though.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[Timur]

http://china-arsenal.blogspot.com/2009/12/chinas-strong-distribution-in-space.html

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Dec 11, 8:35 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Dec 10, 4:09 pm, frank > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 10, 1:00 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 10, 7:24 am, Jack Linthicum >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 10, 8:53 am, "Roger Conroy" >
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > "Bill Kambic" > wrote in message
>
> > > > ...
>
> > > > > > On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 02:57:36 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
> > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > <snipped for brevity>
>
> > > > > >>Or use the rocket launch technique and spray water across the take-off
> > > > > >>area.
>
> > > > > > Probably less than optimal. Large clouds of hot, salt water steam
> > > > > > would be an annoyance (at a minimum) to the deck crew. It would also
> > > > > > be a highly corrosive material that could serious complicate
> > > > > > maintenance of both ship and aircraft.
>
> > > > > > Use of fresh water would likely be an excessive demand on the
> > > > > > evaporators.
>
> > > > > > The piping of cooling water suggested earlier would be a better idea.
> > > > > > It would likely be cheaper that major modifications such as a "ski
> > > > > > jump" and permit the continued use of the vertical capability of the
> > > > > > aircraft.
>
> > > > > A water cooled heatsink built into a part of the deck designated for "hot"
> > > > > aircraft makes a lot of sense.
>
> > > > You could have a place underneath to stash beer, like the old sub-
> > > > mariners did.
>
> > > In electronics, we have similiar problems, we usually solve using Al
> > > heat sinks, fan air cooled, as the cheapest. Screw a few Al heat sinks
> > > to the bottom of the locations of the deck permited to take the heat
> > > and engage any fluid to cool it, even water if space is tight, <yawn>.
> > > Ken
>
> > Pray tell, young Skywalker, what type of electronics have you designed
> > that has a few thousands pounds of metal land on it, controlled by a
> > navel aviatrix, blasting used JP4 and other noxious and profane gasses
> > as high speeds and easily a thousand degrees of the Farenheits? I'm
> > getting a case of beer and a lot of popcorn, this is going to be a
> > good one.
>
> > Note to Wiki: another cite for the 'Why do EE degrees have a BS in
> > front of them....'
>
> Frank, note you've replied to me 3 times, somewhat sarcastically
> on a topic that is borderline boring for most, but I own a patent on
> a 'new and improved' woodstove, so I have an extra interest and
> specialized knowledge on the subject, so I find the problem
> intriguing,
> About "degrees", and "diploma's" mine are buried somewhere in
> archives, rusting away.
> Ken

Too add, 'refractory concrete' is a material we've considered
to form super high quality woodstoves, I suppose I could sell
the USN some to drowel over their selected deck portions.
Ken

[Malcom \Mal\ Reynolds]

In article
<318346c5-4734-47d5-9883-9ee8872cc6a7@c3
g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
frank >
wrote:

> On Dec 10, 11:58*pm, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-
> > wrote:
> > In article
> > <93ee764a-0400-499b-b519-37e47ef04416@v2
> > 5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> > *Richard > wrote:
> > > On Dec 9, 11:23*pm, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-
> > > > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <3f72b032-2be2-4377-a180-01d7a81404fe@d2
> > > > 1g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > *Mike > wrote:
> > > > > StrategyPage.com
> > > > > December 2, 2009
> >
> > > > > The Melting Deck Plates Muddle
> >
> > > > > by James Dunnigan
> >
> > > > > Earlier this year, the U.S. Navy discovered that the heat from the
> > > > > MV-22's gas turbine engines, which blow their exhaust right on to the
> > > > > deck of the LHD while waiting to take off, caused high enough
> > > > > temperatures to the steel under the deck plates, to possibly warp the
> > > > > understructure. This was already a known potential problem with the
> > > > > new F-35B vertical takeoff jet fighter.
> > > > > So now the Navy has two hot new aircraft that require an innovative
> > > > > solution to the melting deck problem. The Navy also discovered that
> > > > > the exhaust heat problem varied in intensity between different classes
> > > > > of helicopter carriers (each with a different deck design.)
> >
> > > > > The Navy is looking for a solution that will not require extensive
> > > > > modification of current carrier decks. This includes a lot of decks,
> > > > > both the eleven large carriers, and the ten smaller LHAs and LHDs.
> > > > > This is shaping up as another multi-billion dollar "oops" moment, as
> > > > > the melting deck problem was never brought up during the long
> > > > > development of either aircraft.
> >
> > > > > Previously, the Harrier was the only aircraft to put serious amounts
> > > > > of heat on the carrier deck, but not enough to do damage. But when you
> > > > > compare the Harrier engine with those on the V-22 and F-35B, you can
> > > > > easily see that there is a lot more heat coming out of the two more
> > > > > recent aircraft. Someone should have done the math before it became a
> > > > > real problem.
> >
> > > > Use what NASA uses for the shuttle?
> > > > Wouldn't cost that much at all
> >
> > > Yeah except for not walking, parking, raining, hailing or dropping a
> > > wrench on the coating it would be great.
> >
> > Actually I was thinking of what they do
> > at the launch pad during launch, not the
> > tiles on the shuttle
>
> Ever see photos of the pad, there is a large water tower near it. I
> think 3 seconds before launch, when engines start up, there is a water
> infusion into the bucket that thrust goes into. Think multiple streams
> of water. Sucker lights up, hits the water, massive steam and thrust
> go out the channels away from the launch pad. That's the big clouds
> that occur. Makes pad much more reusable.
>
> I think Shuttle was first system to use that, could be wrong. Makes
> entire complex much more reusable.
>
> If you can get some old Shuttle launch footage, that's one of the
> standard shots from NASA and main engine start.
>
> Awesome. Lots of plumbing though.

That's why I suggested it. Of course the
massive steam wasn't in my thinking when
I did. I suppose the idea of running
cold water under the deck to absorb the
heat would be best, might even be able
to use the heat for something
(pre-heating the water to be
desalinated?)

[Mr.Smartypants[_4_]]

On Dec 10, 2:21*pm, Jack Linthicum >
wrote:
> On Dec 10, 3:44*pm, "Mr.Smartypants" >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 9, 9:22*pm, Mike > wrote:
>
> > > StrategyPage.com
> > > December 2, 2009
>
> > > The Melting Deck Plates Muddle
>
> > > by James Dunnigan
>
> > > Earlier this year, the U.S. Navy discovered that the heat from the
> > > MV-22's gas turbine engines, which blow their exhaust right on to the
> > > deck of the LHD while waiting to take off, caused high enough
> > > temperatures to the steel under the deck plates, to possibly warp the
> > > understructure. This was already a known potential problem with the
> > > new F-35B vertical takeoff jet fighter.
> > > So now the Navy has two hot new aircraft that require an innovative
> > > solution to the melting deck problem. The Navy also discovered that
> > > the exhaust heat problem varied in intensity between different classes
> > > of helicopter carriers (each with a different deck design.)
>
> > > The Navy is looking for a solution that will not require extensive
> > > modification of current carrier decks. This includes a lot of decks,
> > > both the eleven large carriers, and the ten smaller LHAs and LHDs.
> > > This is shaping up as another multi-billion dollar "oops" moment, as
> > > the melting deck problem was never brought up during the long
> > > development of either aircraft.
>
> > > Previously, the Harrier was the only aircraft to put serious amounts
> > > of heat on the carrier deck, but not enough to do damage. But when you
> > > compare the Harrier engine with those on the V-22 and F-35B, you can
> > > easily see that there is a lot more heat coming out of the two more
> > > recent aircraft. Someone should have done the math before it became a
> > > real problem.
>
> > Distortion or warping of steel plating due to expansion from high
> > temperatures is a far cry from "melting".
>
> 1700 degrees was mentioned in one article.-


That would still be "distortion" not "melting".

[Jack Linthicum]

On Dec 11, 4:45*pm, "Mr.Smartypants" >
wrote:
> On Dec 10, 2:21*pm, Jack Linthicum >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 10, 3:44*pm, "Mr.Smartypants" >
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 9, 9:22*pm, Mike > wrote:
>
> > > > StrategyPage.com
> > > > December 2, 2009
>
> > > > The Melting Deck Plates Muddle
>
> > > > by James Dunnigan
>
> > > > Earlier this year, the U.S. Navy discovered that the heat from the
> > > > MV-22's gas turbine engines, which blow their exhaust right on to the
> > > > deck of the LHD while waiting to take off, caused high enough
> > > > temperatures to the steel under the deck plates, to possibly warp the
> > > > understructure. This was already a known potential problem with the
> > > > new F-35B vertical takeoff jet fighter.
> > > > So now the Navy has two hot new aircraft that require an innovative
> > > > solution to the melting deck problem. The Navy also discovered that
> > > > the exhaust heat problem varied in intensity between different classes
> > > > of helicopter carriers (each with a different deck design.)
>
> > > > The Navy is looking for a solution that will not require extensive
> > > > modification of current carrier decks. This includes a lot of decks,
> > > > both the eleven large carriers, and the ten smaller LHAs and LHDs.
> > > > This is shaping up as another multi-billion dollar "oops" moment, as
> > > > the melting deck problem was never brought up during the long
> > > > development of either aircraft.
>
> > > > Previously, the Harrier was the only aircraft to put serious amounts
> > > > of heat on the carrier deck, but not enough to do damage. But when you
> > > > compare the Harrier engine with those on the V-22 and F-35B, you can
> > > > easily see that there is a lot more heat coming out of the two more
> > > > recent aircraft. Someone should have done the math before it became a
> > > > real problem.
>
> > > Distortion or warping of steel plating due to expansion from high
> > > temperatures is a far cry from "melting".
>
> > 1700 degrees was mentioned in one article.-
>
> That would still be "distortion" not "melting".

Here are some numbers some from an amendment
BAA 09-031 Amendment 0001

Side note:
[Iron, out of the ground, melts at around 1510 degrees C (2750°F).
Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F).]

ONR is looking for thermal management technologies that can keep the
deck surface temperature below 300ºF when exposed to MV-22 exhaust
plumes for 90 minutes before takeoff, and F-35B exhaust plumes for 2
minutes when landing. And cooling the deck is not enough - any
solution has to be compatible with the deck's non-skid coating. It
also has to be affordable and capable of being installed below deck or
retrofitted above deck. Tall order.


“Structural Evaluation of an LHD-Class Amphibious
Ship Flight Deck Subjected to Exhaust Gas Heat from a MV-22 Osprey
Aircraft,” they note that deck buckling occurs at a temperature of
160oF to 170oF. Where does the 300oF limit originate?

Response: The 300 degree F is derived from the temperature limit of
the tires on aircraft.

How concentrated is the heat flux, how large an area is involved in
the 24,000BTU/min heating? I have had difficulty getting any numbers
and the information heat flux given in the BAA did not include an area
component.

Response: A range of 3-foot to 10-foot diameter is suggested.


Max exhaust temperature anticipated?
Response: This is tightly controlled. A range of max temperatures
could be 1000– 1700 deg. F.

http://www.onr.navy.mil/~/media/Files/Funding%20Announcements/BAA/09-031-amend0001.ashx

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 04:30:02 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
> wrote:

>On Dec 11, 2:42*am, frank > wrote:
>> On Dec 10, 11:58*pm, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
>> > wrote:
>> > *Richard > wrote:
>> > > On Dec 9, 11:23*pm, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > *Mike > wrote:

>> > > > > StrategyPage.com
>> > > > > December 2, 2009
>>
>> > > > > The Melting Deck Plates Muddle
>>
>> > > > > by James Dunnigan
>>
>> > > > > Earlier this year, the U.S. Navy discovered that the heat from the
>> > > > > MV-22's gas turbine engines, which blow their exhaust right on to the
>> > > > > deck of the LHD while waiting to take off, caused high enough
>> > > > > temperatures to the steel under the deck plates, to possibly warp the
>> > > > > understructure. This was already a known potential problem with the
>> > > > > new F-35B vertical takeoff jet fighter.
>> > > > > So now the Navy has two hot new aircraft that require an innovative
>> > > > > solution to the melting deck problem. The Navy also discovered that
>> > > > > the exhaust heat problem varied in intensity between different classes
>> > > > > of helicopter carriers (each with a different deck design.)
>>
>> > > > > The Navy is looking for a solution that will not require extensive
>> > > > > modification of current carrier decks. This includes a lot of decks,
>> > > > > both the eleven large carriers, and the ten smaller LHAs and LHDs.
>> > > > > This is shaping up as another multi-billion dollar "oops" moment, as
>> > > > > the melting deck problem was never brought up during the long
>> > > > > development of either aircraft.
>>
>> > > > > Previously, the Harrier was the only aircraft to put serious amounts
>> > > > > of heat on the carrier deck, but not enough to do damage. But when you
>> > > > > compare the Harrier engine with those on the V-22 and F-35B, you can
>> > > > > easily see that there is a lot more heat coming out of the two more
>> > > > > recent aircraft. Someone should have done the math before it became a
>> > > > > real problem.
>>
>> > > > Use what NASA uses for the shuttle?
>> > > > Wouldn't cost that much at all
>>
>> > > Yeah except for not walking, parking, raining, hailing or dropping a
>> > > wrench on the coating it would be great.
>>
>> > Actually I was thinking of what they do
>> > at the launch pad during launch, not the
>> > tiles on the shuttle
>>
>> Ever see photos of the pad, there is a large water tower near it. I
>> think 3 seconds before launch, when engines start up, there is a water
>> infusion into the bucket that thrust goes into. Think multiple streams
>> of water. Sucker lights up, hits the water, massive steam and thrust
>> go out the channels away from the launch pad. That's the big clouds
>> that occur. Makes pad much more reusable.
>>
>> I think Shuttle was first system to use that, could be wrong. Makes
>> entire complex much more reusable.
>>
>> If you can get some old Shuttle launch footage, that's one of the
>> standard shots from NASA and main engine start.
>>
>> Awesome. Lots of plumbing though.
>
>One of the professed goals of the system is sound suppression. That's
>one of the events the crowds come to the launches for---that
>magnificent roar like the end of the world.

Well you could hear the damned things 60 miles away at the site of the
old NNPS.

Dave <--- who watched STS-2 take off while on "cigarette break" during
Pre NPS.

Everyone was out there. The break was supposed to end about a minute or
two before launch. The instructors actually tried to get us to go
inside. It didn't work.
--
"...you know, it seems to me you suffer from the problem of
wanting a tailored fit in an off the rack world."
Dennis Juds

[Dan[_12_]]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On Dec 10, 4:09 pm, frank > wrote:
>> On Dec 10, 1:00 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 10, 7:24 am, Jack Linthicum >
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Dec 10, 8:53 am, "Roger Conroy" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> "Bill Kambic" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 02:57:36 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>> <snipped for brevity>
>>>>>>> Or use the rocket launch technique and spray water across the take-off
>>>>>>> area.
>>>>>> Probably less than optimal. Large clouds of hot, salt water steam
>>>>>> would be an annoyance (at a minimum) to the deck crew. It would also
>>>>>> be a highly corrosive material that could serious complicate
>>>>>> maintenance of both ship and aircraft.
>>>>>> Use of fresh water would likely be an excessive demand on the
>>>>>> evaporators.
>>>>>> The piping of cooling water suggested earlier would be a better idea.
>>>>>> It would likely be cheaper that major modifications such as a "ski
>>>>>> jump" and permit the continued use of the vertical capability of the
>>>>>> aircraft.
>>>>> A water cooled heatsink built into a part of the deck designated for "hot"
>>>>> aircraft makes a lot of sense.
>>>> You could have a place underneath to stash beer, like the old sub-
>>>> mariners did.
>>> In electronics, we have similiar problems, we usually solve using Al
>>> heat sinks, fan air cooled, as the cheapest. Screw a few Al heat sinks
>>> to the bottom of the locations of the deck permited to take the heat
>>> and engage any fluid to cool it, even water if space is tight, <yawn>.
>>> Ken
>> Pray tell, young Skywalker, what type of electronics have you designed
>> that has a few thousands pounds of metal land on it, controlled by a
>> navel aviatrix, blasting used JP4 and other noxious and profane gasses
>> as high speeds and easily a thousand degrees of the Farenheits? I'm
>> getting a case of beer and a lot of popcorn, this is going to be a
>> good one.
>>
>> Note to Wiki: another cite for the 'Why do EE degrees have a BS in
>> front of them....'
>
> Frank, note you've replied to me 3 times, somewhat sarcastically
> on a topic that is borderline boring for most, but I own a patent on
> a 'new and improved' woodstove, so I have an extra interest and
> specialized knowledge on the subject, so I find the problem
> intriguing,
> About "degrees", and "diploma's" mine are buried somewhere in
> archives, rusting away.
> Ken

Great, now post a link to that patent.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Strobe]

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:59:24 -0800 (PST), frank >
wrote:

>On Dec 10, 2:41Â*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>> On Dec 10, 11:04 am, Jack Linthicum >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 10, 2:00 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>> > > On Dec 10, 7:24 am, Jack Linthicum >
>> > > wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Dec 10, 8:53 am, "Roger Conroy" >
>> > > > wrote:
>>
>> > > > > "Bill Kambic" > wrote in message
>>
>> > > > ...
>>
>> > > > > > On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 02:57:36 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
>> > > > > > > wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > <snipped for brevity>
>>
>> > > > > >>Or use the rocket launch technique and spray water across the take-off
>> > > > > >>area.
>>
>> > > > > > Probably less than optimal. Â*Large clouds of hot, salt water steam
>> > > > > > would be an annoyance (at a minimum) to the deck crew. Â*It would also
>> > > > > > be a highly corrosive material that could serious complicate
>> > > > > > maintenance of both ship and aircraft.
>>
>> > > > > > Use of fresh water would likely be an excessive demand on the
>> > > > > > evaporators.
>>
>> > > > > > The piping of cooling water suggested earlier would be a better idea.
>> > > > > > It would likely be cheaper that major modifications such as a "ski
>> > > > > > jump" and permit the continued use of the vertical capability of the
>> > > > > > aircraft.
>>
>> > > > > A water cooled heatsink built into a part of the deck designated for "hot"
>> > > > > aircraft makes a lot of sense.
>>
>> > > > You could have a place underneath to stash beer, like the old sub-
>> > > > mariners did.
>>
>> > > In electronics, we have similiar problems, we usually solve using Al
>> > > heat sinks, fan air cooled, as the cheapest. Screw a few Al heat sinks
>> > > to the bottom of the locations of the deck permited to take the heat
>> > > and engage any fluid to cool it, even water if space is tight, <yawn>.
>> > > Ken
>>
>> > Troll them in the water, saves having all those pipes.
>>
>> In conventional PC's like you prolly have, is a small fan sitting
>> on the CPU Al heat sink.
>> In the high watt stuff, oil circulation is used to cool the active
>> components I've used.
>> I'm not keen on oil, a friend of mine had a damn transformer
>> explode on him and was showered with burning oil, it was not
>> pretty, and is very painful.
>> Also in my experience, I had a wood stove that started glowing
>> low red (over heated, but it was cast iron) so I sprayed it with
>> water to cool it, and that worked good.
>> A good cast iron is pretty tough stuff, better than malleable at
>> high temps I'm told.

>Learn that steam burns, did you? Let me guess, you're an engineer.

Reminds me of our last night in boot camp.
We had our coke stove glowing a nice comfortable red as we packed to ship out,
when our friends from the next hut poured a bucket of water down the chimney.
The cast iron lid went airborne and dense clouds of steam and cinders shot out,
obscuring the electric lights. A mini Krakatoa.

Well, I guess it's tradition that you never leave a perfectly shined floor for
the next intake. . .

[Dan[_12_]]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On Dec 11, 8:35 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>> On Dec 10, 4:09 pm, frank > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 10, 1:00 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>> On Dec 10, 7:24 am, Jack Linthicum >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 10, 8:53 am, "Roger Conroy" >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> "Bill Kambic" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 02:57:36 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>> <snipped for brevity>
>>>>>>>> Or use the rocket launch technique and spray water across the take-off
>>>>>>>> area.
>>>>>>> Probably less than optimal. Large clouds of hot, salt water steam
>>>>>>> would be an annoyance (at a minimum) to the deck crew. It would also
>>>>>>> be a highly corrosive material that could serious complicate
>>>>>>> maintenance of both ship and aircraft.
>>>>>>> Use of fresh water would likely be an excessive demand on the
>>>>>>> evaporators.
>>>>>>> The piping of cooling water suggested earlier would be a better idea.
>>>>>>> It would likely be cheaper that major modifications such as a "ski
>>>>>>> jump" and permit the continued use of the vertical capability of the
>>>>>>> aircraft.
>>>>>> A water cooled heatsink built into a part of the deck designated for "hot"
>>>>>> aircraft makes a lot of sense.
>>>>> You could have a place underneath to stash beer, like the old sub-
>>>>> mariners did.
>>>> In electronics, we have similiar problems, we usually solve using Al
>>>> heat sinks, fan air cooled, as the cheapest. Screw a few Al heat sinks
>>>> to the bottom of the locations of the deck permited to take the heat
>>>> and engage any fluid to cool it, even water if space is tight, <yawn>.
>>>> Ken
>>> Pray tell, young Skywalker, what type of electronics have you designed
>>> that has a few thousands pounds of metal land on it, controlled by a
>>> navel aviatrix, blasting used JP4 and other noxious and profane gasses
>>> as high speeds and easily a thousand degrees of the Farenheits? I'm
>>> getting a case of beer and a lot of popcorn, this is going to be a
>>> good one.
>>> Note to Wiki: another cite for the 'Why do EE degrees have a BS in
>>> front of them....'
>> Frank, note you've replied to me 3 times, somewhat sarcastically
>> on a topic that is borderline boring for most, but I own a patent on
>> a 'new and improved' woodstove, so I have an extra interest and
>> specialized knowledge on the subject, so I find the problem
>> intriguing,
>> About "degrees", and "diploma's" mine are buried somewhere in
>> archives, rusting away.
>> Ken
>
> Too add, 'refractory concrete' is a material we've considered
> to form super high quality woodstoves, I suppose I could sell
> the USN some to drowel over their selected deck portions.
> Ken

Tucker, have you considered the differences in application? I didn't
think so. Let me help. A wood stove is hot, yes, but there's no high
velocity jet of extremely hot gases, is there? You would have to
"drowel" more on after almost every mission.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Strobe]

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:42:41 -0800 (PST), frank >
wrote:

>On Dec 10, 11:58Â*pm, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-
> wrote:
>> In article
>> <93ee764a-0400-499b-b519-37e47ef04416@v2
>> 5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>>
>>
>> Â*Richard > wrote:
>> > On Dec 9, 11:23Â*pm, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-
>> > > wrote:
>> > > In article
>> > > <3f72b032-2be2-4377-a180-01d7a81404fe@d2
>> > > 1g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> > > Â*Mike > wrote:
>> > > > StrategyPage.com
>> > > > December 2, 2009
>>
>> > > > The Melting Deck Plates Muddle
>>
>> > > > by James Dunnigan
>>
>> > > > Earlier this year, the U.S. Navy discovered that the heat from the
>> > > > MV-22's gas turbine engines, which blow their exhaust right on to the
>> > > > deck of the LHD while waiting to take off, caused high enough
>> > > > temperatures to the steel under the deck plates, to possibly warp the
>> > > > understructure. This was already a known potential problem with the
>> > > > new F-35B vertical takeoff jet fighter.
>> > > > So now the Navy has two hot new aircraft that require an innovative
>> > > > solution to the melting deck problem. The Navy also discovered that
>> > > > the exhaust heat problem varied in intensity between different classes
>> > > > of helicopter carriers (each with a different deck design.)
>>
>> > > > The Navy is looking for a solution that will not require extensive
>> > > > modification of current carrier decks. This includes a lot of decks,
>> > > > both the eleven large carriers, and the ten smaller LHAs and LHDs.
>> > > > This is shaping up as another multi-billion dollar "oops" moment, as
>> > > > the melting deck problem was never brought up during the long
>> > > > development of either aircraft.
>>
>> > > > Previously, the Harrier was the only aircraft to put serious amounts
>> > > > of heat on the carrier deck, but not enough to do damage. But when you
>> > > > compare the Harrier engine with those on the V-22 and F-35B, you can
>> > > > easily see that there is a lot more heat coming out of the two more
>> > > > recent aircraft. Someone should have done the math before it became a
>> > > > real problem.
>>
>> > > Use what NASA uses for the shuttle?
>> > > Wouldn't cost that much at all
>>
>> > Yeah except for not walking, parking, raining, hailing or dropping a
>> > wrench on the coating it would be great.
>>
>> Actually I was thinking of what they do
>> at the launch pad during launch, not the
>> tiles on the shuttle
>
>Ever see photos of the pad, there is a large water tower near it. I
>think 3 seconds before launch, when engines start up, there is a water
>infusion into the bucket that thrust goes into. Think multiple streams
>of water. Sucker lights up, hits the water, massive steam and thrust
>go out the channels away from the launch pad. That's the big clouds
>that occur. Makes pad much more reusable.
>
>I think Shuttle was first system to use that, could be wrong. Makes
>entire complex much more reusable.
>
>If you can get some old Shuttle launch footage, that's one of the
>standard shots from NASA and main engine start.
>
>Awesome. Lots of plumbing though.

Imagine being the pilot taking off through all that steam.
Or landing, when visibility suddenly drops to zero as you come over the pad.

Now imagine again, this time remembering that there's solid lumps of ship
only a few yards from your rotors. . .


A strong refractory coating seems much more attractive.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Dec 11, 5:08 pm, Dan > wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > On Dec 10, 4:09 pm, frank > wrote:
> >> On Dec 10, 1:00 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> >>> On Dec 10, 7:24 am, Jack Linthicum >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On Dec 10, 8:53 am, "Roger Conroy" >
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> "Bill Kambic" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 02:57:36 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
> >>>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>> <snipped for brevity>
> >>>>>>> Or use the rocket launch technique and spray water across the take-off
> >>>>>>> area.
> >>>>>> Probably less than optimal. Large clouds of hot, salt water steam
> >>>>>> would be an annoyance (at a minimum) to the deck crew. It would also
> >>>>>> be a highly corrosive material that could serious complicate
> >>>>>> maintenance of both ship and aircraft.
> >>>>>> Use of fresh water would likely be an excessive demand on the
> >>>>>> evaporators.
> >>>>>> The piping of cooling water suggested earlier would be a better idea.
> >>>>>> It would likely be cheaper that major modifications such as a "ski
> >>>>>> jump" and permit the continued use of the vertical capability of the
> >>>>>> aircraft.
> >>>>> A water cooled heatsink built into a part of the deck designated for "hot"
> >>>>> aircraft makes a lot of sense.
> >>>> You could have a place underneath to stash beer, like the old sub-
> >>>> mariners did.
> >>> In electronics, we have similiar problems, we usually solve using Al
> >>> heat sinks, fan air cooled, as the cheapest. Screw a few Al heat sinks
> >>> to the bottom of the locations of the deck permited to take the heat
> >>> and engage any fluid to cool it, even water if space is tight, <yawn>.
> >>> Ken
> >> Pray tell, young Skywalker, what type of electronics have you designed
> >> that has a few thousands pounds of metal land on it, controlled by a
> >> navel aviatrix, blasting used JP4 and other noxious and profane gasses
> >> as high speeds and easily a thousand degrees of the Farenheits? I'm
> >> getting a case of beer and a lot of popcorn, this is going to be a
> >> good one.
>
> >> Note to Wiki: another cite for the 'Why do EE degrees have a BS in
> >> front of them....'
>
> > Frank, note you've replied to me 3 times, somewhat sarcastically
> > on a topic that is borderline boring for most, but I own a patent on
> > a 'new and improved' woodstove, so I have an extra interest and
> > specialized knowledge on the subject, so I find the problem
> > intriguing,
> > About "degrees", and "diploma's" mine are buried somewhere in
> > archives, rusting away.
> > Ken
>
> Great, now post a link to that patent.
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Patents are those legal things that get tossed into archives,
to be forgotten about, but your request is interesting, do they
put that online |?| I'll check.

C-dyn is old school and for transactions use snail-mail contracts,
for example today we received an order in the mail via snail,
from Vermont, that was posted Nov.30., for customized electro
gEAR. I'm thinking of complaining about the snail-mail speed.
Recently, I received 1st class Air-mail products from Indiana,
it took 10 (f**king) days to hit our box.

If anyone is interested in an experiment, I'll send you an Xmas
card, we can do addresses via email, but mine is hEAR,
http://www.trak4.com/earco/index.html
so mail us a card.
Love & Kisses
Lynne & Ken

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Ken S. Tucker ha scritto:

> Patents are those legal things that get tossed into archives,
> to be forgotten about, but your request is interesting, do they
> put that online |?| I'll check.

with goggle patents and uspto.gov all whose suffice is that you post the
patent number ;)

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

[Jack Linthicum]

On Dec 11, 8:21*pm, Strobe > wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:42:41 -0800 (PST), frank >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Dec 10, 11:58*pm, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-
> > wrote:
> >> In article
> >> <93ee764a-0400-499b-b519-37e47ef04416@v2
> >> 5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >> *Richard > wrote:
> >> > On Dec 9, 11:23*pm, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > In article
> >> > > <3f72b032-2be2-4377-a180-01d7a81404fe@d2
> >> > > 1g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >> > > *Mike > wrote:
> >> > > > StrategyPage.com
> >> > > > December 2, 2009
>
> >> > > > The Melting Deck Plates Muddle
>
> >> > > > by James Dunnigan
>
> >> > > > Earlier this year, the U.S. Navy discovered that the heat from the
> >> > > > MV-22's gas turbine engines, which blow their exhaust right on to the
> >> > > > deck of the LHD while waiting to take off, caused high enough
> >> > > > temperatures to the steel under the deck plates, to possibly warp the
> >> > > > understructure. This was already a known potential problem with the
> >> > > > new F-35B vertical takeoff jet fighter.
> >> > > > So now the Navy has two hot new aircraft that require an innovative
> >> > > > solution to the melting deck problem. The Navy also discovered that
> >> > > > the exhaust heat problem varied in intensity between different classes
> >> > > > of helicopter carriers (each with a different deck design.)
>
> >> > > > The Navy is looking for a solution that will not require extensive
> >> > > > modification of current carrier decks. This includes a lot of decks,
> >> > > > both the eleven large carriers, and the ten smaller LHAs and LHDs.
> >> > > > This is shaping up as another multi-billion dollar "oops" moment, as
> >> > > > the melting deck problem was never brought up during the long
> >> > > > development of either aircraft.
>
> >> > > > Previously, the Harrier was the only aircraft to put serious amounts
> >> > > > of heat on the carrier deck, but not enough to do damage. But when you
> >> > > > compare the Harrier engine with those on the V-22 and F-35B, you can
> >> > > > easily see that there is a lot more heat coming out of the two more
> >> > > > recent aircraft. Someone should have done the math before it became a
> >> > > > real problem.
>
> >> > > Use what NASA uses for the shuttle?
> >> > > Wouldn't cost that much at all
>
> >> > Yeah except for not walking, parking, raining, hailing or dropping a
> >> > wrench on the coating it would be great.
>
> >> Actually I was thinking of what they do
> >> at the launch pad during launch, not the
> >> tiles on the shuttle
>
> >Ever see photos of the pad, there is a large water tower near it. I
> >think 3 seconds before launch, when engines start up, there is a water
> >infusion into the bucket that thrust goes into. Think multiple streams
> >of water. Sucker lights up, hits the water, massive steam and thrust
> >go out the channels away from the launch pad. That's the big clouds
> >that occur. Makes pad much more reusable.
>
> >I think Shuttle was first system to use that, could be wrong. Makes
> >entire complex much more reusable.
>
> >If you can get some old Shuttle launch footage, that's one of the
> >standard shots from NASA and main engine start.
>
> >Awesome. Lots of plumbing though.
>
> Imagine being the pilot taking off through all that steam.
> Or landing, when visibility suddenly drops to zero as you come over the pad.
>
> Now imagine again, this time remembering that there's solid lumps of ship
> only a few yards from your rotors. . .
>
> A strong refractory coating seems much more attractive.

With a thirty knot wind over the bow?

[D Wright]

> ONR is looking for thermal management technologies that can keep the
> deck surface temperature below 300ºF when exposed to MV-22 exhaust
> plumes for 90 minutes before takeoff, and F-35B exhaust plumes for 2
> minutes when landing. And cooling the deck is not enough - any
> solution has to be compatible with the deck's non-skid coating. It
> also has to be affordable and capable of being installed below deck or
> retrofitted above deck. Tall order.
>
>
> “Structural Evaluation of an LHD-Class Amphibious
> Ship Flight Deck Subjected to Exhaust Gas Heat from a MV-22 Osprey
> Aircraft,” they note that deck buckling occurs at a temperature of
> 160oF to 170oF. Where does the 300oF limit originate?
>
> Response: The 300 degree F is derived from the temperature limit of
> the tires on aircraft.
>
> How concentrated is the heat flux, how large an area is involved in
> the 24,000BTU/min heating? I have had difficulty getting any numbers
> and the information heat flux given in the BAA did not include an area
> component.
>
> Response: A range of 3-foot to 10-foot diameter is suggested.
>
>
> Max exhaust temperature anticipated?
> Response: This is tightly controlled. A range of max temperatures
> could be 1000– 1700 deg. F.
>
> http://www.onr.navy.mil/~/media/Files/Funding%20Announcements/BAA/09-031-amend0001.ashx

With hot aircraft tires being an additional concern, what about the
impact on the feet of the flight deck crew, refueling hoses, "mule"
tires, etc? It seems like this heat issue may take on the dimensions of
a "systemic" problem.

It's just the nature of naval air ops that once an aircraft (weapons
system) is established, it will become heaver, more powerful, and the
tempo of operations will increase.

[Jack Linthicum]

On Dec 12, 11:43*am, D Wright > wrote:
> > ONR is looking for thermal management technologies that can keep the
> > deck surface temperature below 300ºF when exposed to MV-22 exhaust
> > plumes for 90 minutes before takeoff, and F-35B exhaust plumes for 2
> > minutes when landing. And cooling the deck is not enough - any
> > solution has to be compatible with the deck's non-skid coating. It
> > also has to be affordable and capable of being installed below deck or
> > retrofitted above deck. Tall order.
>
> > “Structural Evaluation of an LHD-Class Amphibious
> > Ship Flight Deck Subjected to Exhaust Gas Heat from a MV-22 Osprey
> > Aircraft,” they note that deck buckling occurs at a temperature of
> > 160oF to 170oF. Where does the 300oF limit originate?
>
> > Response: The 300 degree F is derived from the temperature limit of
> > the tires on aircraft.
>
> > How concentrated is the heat flux, how large an area is involved in
> > the 24,000BTU/min heating? I have had difficulty getting any numbers
> > and the information heat flux given in the BAA did not include an area
> > component.
>
> > Response: A range of 3-foot to 10-foot diameter is suggested.
>
> > Max exhaust temperature anticipated?
> > Response: This is tightly controlled. A range of max temperatures
> > could be 1000– 1700 deg. F.
>
> >http://www.onr.navy.mil/~/media/Files/Funding%20Announcements/BAA/09-...
>
> With hot aircraft tires being an additional concern, what about the
> impact on the feet of the flight deck crew, refueling hoses, "mule"
> tires, etc? *It seems like this heat issue may take on the dimensions of
> a "systemic" problem.
>
> It's just the nature of naval air ops that once an aircraft (weapons
> system) is established, it will become heaver, more powerful, and the
> tempo of operations will increase.

3-10 feet in diameter, just like the spec said.

[D Wright]

Jack Linthicum wrote:
> On Dec 12, 11:43 am, D Wright > wrote:
>>> ONR is looking for thermal management technologies that can keep the
>>> deck surface temperature below 300ºF when exposed to MV-22 exhaust
>>> plumes for 90 minutes before takeoff, and F-35B exhaust plumes for 2
>>> minutes when landing. And cooling the deck is not enough - any
>>> solution has to be compatible with the deck's non-skid coating. It
>>> also has to be affordable and capable of being installed below deck or
>>> retrofitted above deck. Tall order.
>>> “Structural Evaluation of an LHD-Class Amphibious
>>> Ship Flight Deck Subjected to Exhaust Gas Heat from a MV-22 Osprey
>>> Aircraft,” they note that deck buckling occurs at a temperature of
>>> 160oF to 170oF. Where does the 300oF limit originate?
>>> Response: The 300 degree F is derived from the temperature limit of
>>> the tires on aircraft.
>>> How concentrated is the heat flux, how large an area is involved in
>>> the 24,000BTU/min heating? I have had difficulty getting any numbers
>>> and the information heat flux given in the BAA did not include an area
>>> component.
>>> Response: A range of 3-foot to 10-foot diameter is suggested.
>>> Max exhaust temperature anticipated?
>>> Response: This is tightly controlled. A range of max temperatures
>>> could be 1000– 1700 deg. F.
>>> http://www.onr.navy.mil/~/media/Files/Funding%20Announcements/BAA/09-...
>> With hot aircraft tires being an additional concern, what about the
>> impact on the feet of the flight deck crew, refueling hoses, "mule"
>> tires, etc? It seems like this heat issue may take on the dimensions of
>> a "systemic" problem.
>>
>> It's just the nature of naval air ops that once an aircraft (weapons
>> system) is established, it will become heaver, more powerful, and the
>> tempo of operations will increase.
>
> 3-10 feet in diameter, just like the spec said.

Is the 'spec suggesting temps of 1,000+ F are of no consequence outside
of a ten foot circle? Where is residual heat in the equation? What if
the ten foot circle moves?

[Jack Linthicum]

On Dec 12, 12:30*pm, D Wright > wrote:
> Jack Linthicum wrote:
> > On Dec 12, 11:43 am, D Wright > wrote:
> >>> ONR is looking for thermal management technologies that can keep the
> >>> deck surface temperature below 300ºF when exposed to MV-22 exhaust
> >>> plumes for 90 minutes before takeoff, and F-35B exhaust plumes for 2
> >>> minutes when landing. And cooling the deck is not enough - any
> >>> solution has to be compatible with the deck's non-skid coating. It
> >>> also has to be affordable and capable of being installed below deck or
> >>> retrofitted above deck. Tall order.
> >>> “Structural Evaluation of an LHD-Class Amphibious
> >>> Ship Flight Deck Subjected to Exhaust Gas Heat from a MV-22 Osprey
> >>> Aircraft,” they note that deck buckling occurs at a temperature of
> >>> 160oF to 170oF. Where does the 300oF limit originate?
> >>> Response: The 300 degree F is derived from the temperature limit of
> >>> the tires on aircraft.
> >>> How concentrated is the heat flux, how large an area is involved in
> >>> the 24,000BTU/min heating? I have had difficulty getting any numbers
> >>> and the information heat flux given in the BAA did not include an area
> >>> component.
> >>> Response: A range of 3-foot to 10-foot diameter is suggested.
> >>> Max exhaust temperature anticipated?
> >>> Response: This is tightly controlled. A range of max temperatures
> >>> could be 1000– 1700 deg. F.
> >>>http://www.onr.navy.mil/~/media/Files/Funding%20Announcements/BAA/09-....
> >> With hot aircraft tires being an additional concern, what about the
> >> impact on the feet of the flight deck crew, refueling hoses, "mule"
> >> tires, etc? *It seems like this heat issue may take on the dimensions of
> >> a "systemic" problem.
>
> >> It's just the nature of naval air ops that once an aircraft (weapons
> >> system) is established, it will become heaver, more powerful, and the
> >> tempo of operations will increase.
>
> > 3-10 feet in diameter, just like the spec said.
>
> Is the 'spec suggesting temps of 1,000+ F are of no consequence outside
> of a ten foot circle? *Where is residual heat in the equation? *What if
> the ten foot circle moves?

Then the Osprey is moving

[Daniel[_3_]]

On Dec 12, 6:30*pm, D Wright > wrote:
> Jack Linthicum wrote:
> > On Dec 12, 11:43 am, D Wright > wrote:
> >>> ONR is looking for thermal management technologies that can keep the
> >>> deck surface temperature below 300ºF when exposed to MV-22 exhaust
> >>> plumes for 90 minutes before takeoff, and F-35B exhaust plumes for 2
> >>> minutes when landing. And cooling the deck is not enough - any
> >>> solution has to be compatible with the deck's non-skid coating. It
> >>> also has to be affordable and capable of being installed below deck or
> >>> retrofitted above deck. Tall order.
> >>> “Structural Evaluation of an LHD-Class Amphibious
> >>> Ship Flight Deck Subjected to Exhaust Gas Heat from a MV-22 Osprey
> >>> Aircraft,” they note that deck buckling occurs at a temperature of
> >>> 160oF to 170oF. Where does the 300oF limit originate?
> >>> Response: The 300 degree F is derived from the temperature limit of
> >>> the tires on aircraft.
> >>> How concentrated is the heat flux, how large an area is involved in
> >>> the 24,000BTU/min heating? I have had difficulty getting any numbers
> >>> and the information heat flux given in the BAA did not include an area
> >>> component.
> >>> Response: A range of 3-foot to 10-foot diameter is suggested.
> >>> Max exhaust temperature anticipated?
> >>> Response: This is tightly controlled. A range of max temperatures
> >>> could be 1000– 1700 deg. F.
> >>>http://www.onr.navy.mil/~/media/Files/Funding%20Announcements/BAA/09-....
> >> With hot aircraft tires being an additional concern, what about the
> >> impact on the feet of the flight deck crew, refueling hoses, "mule"
> >> tires, etc? *It seems like this heat issue may take on the dimensions of
> >> a "systemic" problem.
>
> >> It's just the nature of naval air ops that once an aircraft (weapons
> >> system) is established, it will become heaver, more powerful, and the
> >> tempo of operations will increase.
>
> > 3-10 feet in diameter, just like the spec said.
>
> Is the 'spec suggesting temps of 1,000+ F are of no consequence outside
> of a ten foot circle? *Where is residual heat in the equation? *What if
> the ten foot circle moves?

It's the *exhaust" that is in the 1,000-1,700 F range. The information
may be relevant since radiated heat adds to convection. The only
useful information in that whole piece would be that temporary
deformations occur in the elastic domain, so it's really not as severe
nor urgent as would be a melting deck dripping in the ocean, thank
god.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Dec 12, 12:26 am, "dott.Piergiorgio"
> wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker ha scritto:
>
> > Patents are those legal things that get tossed into archives,
> > to be forgotten about, but your request is interesting, do they
> > put that online |?| I'll check.
>
> with goggle patents and uspto.gov all whose suffice is that you post the
> patent number ;)
> Best regards from Italy,
> Dott. Piergiorgio.

Ok, found it, Canadian Patent # 1 241 883 issued Sep 13 1988.
Ken

[Jack Linthicum]

On Dec 12, 2:02*pm, Daniel > wrote:
> On Dec 12, 6:30*pm, D Wright > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Jack Linthicum wrote:
> > > On Dec 12, 11:43 am, D Wright > wrote:
> > >>> ONR is looking for thermal management technologies that can keep the
> > >>> deck surface temperature below 300ºF when exposed to MV-22 exhaust
> > >>> plumes for 90 minutes before takeoff, and F-35B exhaust plumes for 2
> > >>> minutes when landing. And cooling the deck is not enough - any
> > >>> solution has to be compatible with the deck's non-skid coating. It
> > >>> also has to be affordable and capable of being installed below deck or
> > >>> retrofitted above deck. Tall order.
> > >>> “Structural Evaluation of an LHD-Class Amphibious
> > >>> Ship Flight Deck Subjected to Exhaust Gas Heat from a MV-22 Osprey
> > >>> Aircraft,” they note that deck buckling occurs at a temperature of
> > >>> 160oF to 170oF. Where does the 300oF limit originate?
> > >>> Response: The 300 degree F is derived from the temperature limit of
> > >>> the tires on aircraft.
> > >>> How concentrated is the heat flux, how large an area is involved in
> > >>> the 24,000BTU/min heating? I have had difficulty getting any numbers
> > >>> and the information heat flux given in the BAA did not include an area
> > >>> component.
> > >>> Response: A range of 3-foot to 10-foot diameter is suggested.
> > >>> Max exhaust temperature anticipated?
> > >>> Response: This is tightly controlled. A range of max temperatures
> > >>> could be 1000– 1700 deg. F.
> > >>>http://www.onr.navy.mil/~/media/Files/Funding%20Announcements/BAA/09-...
> > >> With hot aircraft tires being an additional concern, what about the
> > >> impact on the feet of the flight deck crew, refueling hoses, "mule"
> > >> tires, etc? *It seems like this heat issue may take on the dimensions of
> > >> a "systemic" problem.
>
> > >> It's just the nature of naval air ops that once an aircraft (weapons
> > >> system) is established, it will become heaver, more powerful, and the
> > >> tempo of operations will increase.
>
> > > 3-10 feet in diameter, just like the spec said.
>
> > Is the 'spec suggesting temps of 1,000+ F are of no consequence outside
> > of a ten foot circle? *Where is residual heat in the equation? *What if
> > the ten foot circle moves?
>
> It's the *exhaust" that is in the 1,000-1,700 F range. The information
> may be relevant since radiated heat adds to convection. The only
> useful information in that whole piece would be that temporary
> deformations occur in the elastic domain, so it's really not as severe
> nor urgent as would be a melting deck dripping in the ocean, thank
> god.

The paper seems to be worried about some non-skid deck surfacing.

[Strobe]

On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 02:46:28 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
> wrote:

>On Dec 11, 8:21Â*pm, Strobe > wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:42:41 -0800 (PST), frank >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Dec 10, 11:58Â*pm, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-
>> > wrote:
>> >> In article
>> >> <93ee764a-0400-499b-b519-37e47ef04416@v2
>> >> 5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> >> Â*Richard > wrote:
>> >> > On Dec 9, 11:23Â*pm, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> > > In article
>> >> > > <3f72b032-2be2-4377-a180-01d7a81404fe@d2
>> >> > > 1g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> >> > > Â*Mike > wrote:
>> >> > > > StrategyPage.com
>> >> > > > December 2, 2009
>>
>> >> > > > The Melting Deck Plates Muddle
>>
>> >> > > > by James Dunnigan
>>
>> >> > > > Earlier this year, the U.S. Navy discovered that the heat from the
>> >> > > > MV-22's gas turbine engines, which blow their exhaust right on to the
>> >> > > > deck of the LHD while waiting to take off, caused high enough
>> >> > > > temperatures to the steel under the deck plates, to possibly warp the
>> >> > > > understructure. This was already a known potential problem with the
>> >> > > > new F-35B vertical takeoff jet fighter.
>> >> > > > So now the Navy has two hot new aircraft that require an innovative
>> >> > > > solution to the melting deck problem. The Navy also discovered that
>> >> > > > the exhaust heat problem varied in intensity between different classes
>> >> > > > of helicopter carriers (each with a different deck design.)
>>
>> >> > > > The Navy is looking for a solution that will not require extensive
>> >> > > > modification of current carrier decks. This includes a lot of decks,
>> >> > > > both the eleven large carriers, and the ten smaller LHAs and LHDs.
>> >> > > > This is shaping up as another multi-billion dollar "oops" moment, as
>> >> > > > the melting deck problem was never brought up during the long
>> >> > > > development of either aircraft.
>>
>> >> > > > Previously, the Harrier was the only aircraft to put serious amounts
>> >> > > > of heat on the carrier deck, but not enough to do damage. But when you
>> >> > > > compare the Harrier engine with those on the V-22 and F-35B, you can
>> >> > > > easily see that there is a lot more heat coming out of the two more
>> >> > > > recent aircraft. Someone should have done the math before it became a
>> >> > > > real problem.
>>
>> >> > > Use what NASA uses for the shuttle?
>> >> > > Wouldn't cost that much at all
>>
>> >> > Yeah except for not walking, parking, raining, hailing or dropping a
>> >> > wrench on the coating it would be great.
>>
>> >> Actually I was thinking of what they do
>> >> at the launch pad during launch, not the
>> >> tiles on the shuttle
>>
>> >Ever see photos of the pad, there is a large water tower near it. I
>> >think 3 seconds before launch, when engines start up, there is a water
>> >infusion into the bucket that thrust goes into. Think multiple streams
>> >of water. Sucker lights up, hits the water, massive steam and thrust
>> >go out the channels away from the launch pad. That's the big clouds
>> >that occur. Makes pad much more reusable.
>>
>> >I think Shuttle was first system to use that, could be wrong. Makes
>> >entire complex much more reusable.
>>
>> >If you can get some old Shuttle launch footage, that's one of the
>> >standard shots from NASA and main engine start.
>>
>> >Awesome. Lots of plumbing though.
>>
>> Imagine being the pilot taking off through all that steam.
>> Or landing, when visibility suddenly drops to zero as you come over the pad.
>>
>> Now imagine again, this time remembering that there's solid lumps of ship
>> only a few yards from your rotors. . .
>>
>> A strong refractory coating seems much more attractive.
>
>With a thirty knot wind over the bow?

Imagine that 30 kt wind has to work against both the rotor down draft and the
turbine exhaust (how many knots?) to remove the steam.
Imagine betting your life that the headwind wins all the time.

[BlackBeard]

On Dec 13, 1:03*am, Strobe > wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 02:46:28 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Dec 11, 8:21*pm, Strobe > wrote:
> >> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:42:41 -0800 (PST), frank >
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Dec 10, 11:58*pm, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> In article
> >> >> <93ee764a-0400-499b-b519-37e47ef04416@v2
> >> >> 5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >> >> *Richard > wrote:
> >> >> > On Dec 9, 11:23*pm, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-
> >> >> > > wrote:
> >> >> > > In article
> >> >> > > <3f72b032-2be2-4377-a180-01d7a81404fe@d2
> >> >> > > 1g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >> >> > > *Mike > wrote:
> >> >> > > > StrategyPage.com
> >> >> > > > December 2, 2009
>
> >> >> > > > The Melting Deck Plates Muddle
>
> >> >> > > > by James Dunnigan
>
> >> >> > > > Earlier this year, the U.S. Navy discovered that the heat from the
> >> >> > > > MV-22's gas turbine engines, which blow their exhaust right on to the
> >> >> > > > deck of the LHD while waiting to take off, caused high enough
> >> >> > > > temperatures to the steel under the deck plates, to possibly warp the
> >> >> > > > understructure. This was already a known potential problem with the
> >> >> > > > new F-35B vertical takeoff jet fighter.
> >> >> > > > So now the Navy has two hot new aircraft that require an innovative
> >> >> > > > solution to the melting deck problem. The Navy also discovered that
> >> >> > > > the exhaust heat problem varied in intensity between different classes
> >> >> > > > of helicopter carriers (each with a different deck design.)
>
> >> >> > > > The Navy is looking for a solution that will not require extensive
> >> >> > > > modification of current carrier decks. This includes a lot of decks,
> >> >> > > > both the eleven large carriers, and the ten smaller LHAs and LHDs.
> >> >> > > > This is shaping up as another multi-billion dollar "oops" moment, as
> >> >> > > > the melting deck problem was never brought up during the long
> >> >> > > > development of either aircraft.
>
> >> >> > > > Previously, the Harrier was the only aircraft to put serious amounts
> >> >> > > > of heat on the carrier deck, but not enough to do damage. But when you
> >> >> > > > compare the Harrier engine with those on the V-22 and F-35B, you can
> >> >> > > > easily see that there is a lot more heat coming out of the two more
> >> >> > > > recent aircraft. Someone should have done the math before it became a
> >> >> > > > real problem.
>
> >> >> > > Use what NASA uses for the shuttle?
> >> >> > > Wouldn't cost that much at all
>
> >> >> > Yeah except for not walking, parking, raining, hailing or dropping a
> >> >> > wrench on the coating it would be great.
>
> >> >> Actually I was thinking of what they do
> >> >> at the launch pad during launch, not the
> >> >> tiles on the shuttle
>
> >> >Ever see photos of the pad, there is a large water tower near it. I
> >> >think 3 seconds before launch, when engines start up, there is a water
> >> >infusion into the bucket that thrust goes into. Think multiple streams
> >> >of water. Sucker lights up, hits the water, massive steam and thrust
> >> >go out the channels away from the launch pad. That's the big clouds
> >> >that occur. Makes pad much more reusable.
>
> >> >I think Shuttle was first system to use that, could be wrong. Makes
> >> >entire complex much more reusable.
>
> >> >If you can get some old Shuttle launch footage, that's one of the
> >> >standard shots from NASA and main engine start.
>
> >> >Awesome. Lots of plumbing though.
>
> >> Imagine being the pilot taking off through all that steam.
> >> Or landing, when visibility suddenly drops to zero as you come over the pad.
>
> >> Now imagine again, this time remembering that there's solid lumps of ship
> >> only a few yards from your rotors. . .
>
> >> A strong refractory coating seems much more attractive.
>
> >With a thirty knot wind over the bow?
>
> Imagine that 30 kt wind has to work against both the rotor down draft and the
> turbine exhaust (how many knots?) to remove the steam.
> Imagine betting your life that the headwind wins all the time.

Carriers use 30kt into the wind for launching (although most modern
Naval AC can launch in harbor.) An LHP, launching or especially
landing VTOL AC is safer dealing with less wind across the deck.
Unless of course they are performing a rolling take-off.

BB

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Dec 12, 12:31 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Dec 12, 12:26 am, "dott.Piergiorgio"
>
> > wrote:
> > Ken S. Tucker ha scritto:
>
> > > Patents are those legal things that get tossed into archives,
> > > to be forgotten about, but your request is interesting, do they
> > > put that online |?| I'll check.
>
> > with goggle patents and uspto.gov all whose suffice is that you post the
> > patent number ;)
> > Best regards from Italy,
> > Dott. Piergiorgio.
>
> Ok, found it, Canadian Patent # 1 241 883 issued Sep 13 1988.
> Ken

Found some data online,
http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/cpd/eng/patent/1241883/summary.html?type=number_search#View_Images
Ken

[Typhoon502]

On Dec 11, 5:06*pm, Jack Linthicum >
wrote:
> ONR is looking for thermal management technologies that can keep the
> deck surface temperature below 300ºF when exposed to MV-22 exhaust
> plumes for 90 minutes before takeoff, and F-35B exhaust plumes for 2
> minutes when landing. And cooling the deck is not enough - any
> solution has to be compatible with the deck's non-skid coating. It
> also has to be affordable and capable of being installed below deck or
> retrofitted above deck. Tall order.

I've got this conversation at ONR in my head...

"We've got a problem. Those Ospreys are ****ing up the decks."

"Define '****ing up.'"

"Well, here's the problem. [snip detailed description and analysis]"

"Are you serious? They never accounted for that?"

"No sir."

"Well...what do we have that can take that kind of heat?"

"Nothing that I know of, sir."

"Well...damn...look, SOMEONE's gotta have something. Put out an RFI
and keep your fingers crossed."

[Dan[_12_]]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On Dec 12, 12:31 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>> On Dec 12, 12:26 am, "dott.Piergiorgio"
>>
>> > wrote:
>>> Ken S. Tucker ha scritto:
>>>> Patents are those legal things that get tossed into archives,
>>>> to be forgotten about, but your request is interesting, do they
>>>> put that online |?| I'll check.
>>> with goggle patents and uspto.gov all whose suffice is that you post the
>>> patent number ;)
>>> Best regards from Italy,
>>> Dott. Piergiorgio.
>> Ok, found it, Canadian Patent # 1 241 883 issued Sep 13 1988.
>> Ken
>
> Found some data online,
> http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/cpd/eng/patent/1241883/summary.html?type=number_search#View_Images
> Ken

OK, I grant you were honest this time.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Dec 13, 1:15 pm, Dan > wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > On Dec 12, 12:31 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> >> On Dec 12, 12:26 am, "dott.Piergiorgio"
>
> >> > wrote:
> >>> Ken S. Tucker ha scritto:
> >>>> Patents are those legal things that get tossed into archives,
> >>>> to be forgotten about, but your request is interesting, do they
> >>>> put that online |?| I'll check.
> >>> with goggle patents and uspto.gov all whose suffice is that you post the
> >>> patent number ;)
> >>> Best regards from Italy,
> >>> Dott. Piergiorgio.
> >> Ok, found it, Canadian Patent # 1 241 883 issued Sep 13 1988.
> >> Ken
>
> > Found some data online,
> >http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/cpd/eng/patent/1241883/summ...
> > Ken
>
> OK, I grant you were honest this time.
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

How would you know? My real name could be Danelda Dip****z,
masquerading as that very handsome, captain of industry, the
one and only Ken Tucker who women flock to.

Actually it was fun to find the patent online, but it's hardly sumfink
to brag about, just an honest interest in practical thermodynamics.
Ken

[PaPa Peng]

> The Melting Deck Plates Muddle

>
> The Navy is looking for a solution that will not require extensive
> modification of current carrier decks. This includes a lot of decks,
> both the eleven large carriers, and the ten smaller LHAs and LHDs.
> This is shaping up as another multi-billion dollar "oops" moment, as
> the melting deck problem was never brought up during the long
> development of either aircraft.

What about clamshell deflectors for the hot exhausts?

During warmup before takeoff the clamshell halves deflect the hot
exhaust forward and rearward, away from the deck. At the moment of
takeoff the clamshell doors close partally to reduce the deflection
angle (which will provide some vertical thrust and side thrust) or
move out of the way altogether to allow the hot exhaust to shoot the
deck.

For landing, as the aircraft comes close to deck the clamshells are
partially closed, again to deflect the hot exhausts from blowing
directly on the deck. How this will affect controllability will need
to be tested for practicality. On landing the clamshell doors will be
in full deflection mode (Fwd and Rearwd) to keep the hot gasses awway
from the deck.

[Typhoon502]

On Dec 14, 7:02*am, PaPa Peng > wrote:
> > The Melting Deck Plates Muddle
>
> > The Navy is looking for a solution that will not require extensive
> > modification of current carrier decks. This includes a lot of decks,
> > both the eleven large carriers, and the ten smaller LHAs and LHDs.
> > This is shaping up as another multi-billion dollar "oops" moment, as
> > the melting deck problem was never brought up during the long
> > development of either aircraft.
>
> What about clamshell deflectors for the hot exhausts?
>
> During warmup before takeoff the clamshell halves deflect the hot
> exhaust forward and rearward, away from the deck. *At the moment of
> takeoff the clamshell doors close partally to reduce the deflection
> angle (which will provide some vertical thrust and side thrust) or
> move out of the way altogether to allow the hot exhaust to shoot the
> deck.
>
> For landing, *as the aircraft comes close to deck the clamshells are
> partially *closed, again to deflect the hot exhausts from blowing
> directly on the deck. *How this will affect controllability will need
> to be tested for practicality. *On landing the clamshell doors will be
> in full deflection mode (Fwd and Rearwd) to keep the hot gasses awway
> from the deck.

That's what I've been thinking, at least for the Ospreys. The solution
ought to be on the airframe, not on the deck, because no matter where
the bird goes, the hot exhaust will be an issue, and not every landing
platform will be treated in the same way.

[Jack Linthicum]

On Dec 14, 10:44*am, Typhoon502 > wrote:
> On Dec 14, 7:02*am, PaPa Peng > wrote:
>
>
>
> > > The Melting Deck Plates Muddle
>
> > > The Navy is looking for a solution that will not require extensive
> > > modification of current carrier decks. This includes a lot of decks,
> > > both the eleven large carriers, and the ten smaller LHAs and LHDs.
> > > This is shaping up as another multi-billion dollar "oops" moment, as
> > > the melting deck problem was never brought up during the long
> > > development of either aircraft.
>
> > What about clamshell deflectors for the hot exhausts?
>
> > During warmup before takeoff the clamshell halves deflect the hot
> > exhaust forward and rearward, away from the deck. *At the moment of
> > takeoff the clamshell doors close partally to reduce the deflection
> > angle (which will provide some vertical thrust and side thrust) or
> > move out of the way altogether to allow the hot exhaust to shoot the
> > deck.
>
> > For landing, *as the aircraft comes close to deck the clamshells are
> > partially *closed, again to deflect the hot exhausts from blowing
> > directly on the deck. *How this will affect controllability will need
> > to be tested for practicality. *On landing the clamshell doors will be
> > in full deflection mode (Fwd and Rearwd) to keep the hot gasses awway
> > from the deck.
>
> That's what I've been thinking, at least for the Ospreys. The solution
> ought to be on the airframe, not on the deck, because no matter where
> the bird goes, the hot exhaust will be an issue, and not every landing
> platform will be treated in the same way.

Weight on the aircraft is one of the Osprey's problems. Better to make
a deck covering that does the job without burdening the aircraft.

[D Wright]

Jack Linthicum wrote:
> On Dec 14, 10:44 am, Typhoon502 > wrote:
>> On Dec 14, 7:02 am, PaPa Peng > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> The Melting Deck Plates Muddle
>>>> The Navy is looking for a solution that will not require extensive
>>>> modification of current carrier decks. This includes a lot of decks,
>>>> both the eleven large carriers, and the ten smaller LHAs and LHDs.
>>>> This is shaping up as another multi-billion dollar "oops" moment, as
>>>> the melting deck problem was never brought up during the long
>>>> development of either aircraft.
>>> What about clamshell deflectors for the hot exhausts?
>>> During warmup before takeoff the clamshell halves deflect the hot
>>> exhaust forward and rearward, away from the deck. At the moment of
>>> takeoff the clamshell doors close partally to reduce the deflection
>>> angle (which will provide some vertical thrust and side thrust) or
>>> move out of the way altogether to allow the hot exhaust to shoot the
>>> deck.
>>> For landing, as the aircraft comes close to deck the clamshells are
>>> partially closed, again to deflect the hot exhausts from blowing
>>> directly on the deck. How this will affect controllability will need
>>> to be tested for practicality. On landing the clamshell doors will be
>>> in full deflection mode (Fwd and Rearwd) to keep the hot gasses awway
>>> from the deck.
>> That's what I've been thinking, at least for the Ospreys. The solution
>> ought to be on the airframe, not on the deck, because no matter where
>> the bird goes, the hot exhaust will be an issue, and not every landing
>> platform will be treated in the same way.
>
> Weight on the aircraft is one of the Osprey's problems. Better to make
> a deck covering that does the job without burdening the aircraft.

Yes. Anything added to the aircraft subtracts payload. It also adds
another failure mode.