Re: Coalition casualties for september

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Coalition casualties for september
>From: Malev
>Date: 10/1/03 4:45 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 1 Oct 2003 01:33:20 -0700, (Michael Petukhov)
>wrote:
>
>
>>
>>servicemen killed in the war against Iraq:
>
><snip - whatever, crossposted>
>
>Are you gonna post lists of people who drowned in their bath tubs / were
>eaten
>by crocodiles / had heart attacks due to over eating / fell overboard
>ferries /
>dived under trains etc ?


None that you listed were sent to their deaths for political purposes.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Stephen Harding]

ArtKramr wrote:

> >Are you gonna post lists of people who drowned in their bath tubs / were eaten
> >by crocodiles / had heart attacks due to over eating / fell overboard ferries /
> >dived under trains etc ?
>
> None that you listed were sent to their deaths for political purposes.

In all fairness, people killed in every war die for political purposes.
Iraq, Panama, Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI, ...

It ultimately all boils down to politics.


SMH

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Coalition casualties for september
>From: Stephen Harding
>Date: 10/1/03 12:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>ArtKramr wrote:
>
>> >Are you gonna post lists of people who drowned in their bath tubs / were
>eaten
>> >by crocodiles / had heart attacks due to over eating / fell overboard
>ferries /
>> >dived under trains etc ?
>>
>> None that you listed were sent to their deaths for political purposes.
>
>In all fairness, people killed in every war die for political purposes.
>Iraq, Panama, Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI, ...
>
>It ultimately all boils down to politics.
>
>
>SMH


All very true, But it is a question of "was it worth it?" Of all of the above
only WW II was really worth it. Your mileage may vary.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[TJ]

Michael Petukhov wrote:

> 6 (Royal Navy)
> 4 (Royal Air Force)
> 10 (Royal Marines)
> 31 [3] (Royal Army)

Royal Army Michael?!

Michael, what about all those "hidden Coalition casualties" that you were
bumping your gums about during the initial stages of the conflict?

TJ

[Michael Petukhov]

(ArtKramr) wrote in message >...
> >Subject: Re: Coalition casualties for september
> >From: Malev
> >Date: 10/1/03 4:45 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >On 1 Oct 2003 01:33:20 -0700, (Michael Petukhov)
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>servicemen killed in the war against Iraq:
> >
> ><snip - whatever, crossposted>
> >
> >Are you gonna post lists of people who drowned in their bath tubs / were
> >eaten
> >by crocodiles / had heart attacks due to over eating / fell overboard
> >ferries /
> >dived under trains etc ?
>
>
> None that you listed were sent to their deaths for political purposes.

What? I do not read you clearly. what "political purposes" are you
talking about?

Michael

>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Coalition casualties for september
>From: (Jeffrey Smidt)
>Date: 10/1/03 2:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
(Michael Petukhov) wrote in message
>...
>> http://www.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php?articleId=21321&lang=en
>>
>> servicemen killed in the war against Iraq:
>>
>> Total announced as of 30th of September: 367 (314 US, 51 UK, 1
>> Denmark, 1 Spain)
>>
>> Total casualties after 1st of May: 196 (176 US, 18 UK, 1 Denmark, 1
>> Spain)
>>
>
>Yep, sounds about right. Thats what happens when your fighting a war.
> We just need to make sure their sacrifice is worth it and not give in
>to the panty waists.
>
>Seems all the 'freedom fighteres' are still rushing to Iraq to fight
>the Great Satan. Bring em on, we will help em on their way to see
>Paradise. Bon Voyage.


"we?" You mean you are over there fighting?


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Ron]

>
>Not really. A fair number of people are injured or killed by
>exploding truck and tractor tires. They do run just a bit more
>pressure than your typical car tires, you know....
>

One can calculate the potential by finding the number of square inches, and
multiply by the pressure, assuming a tire is inflated when it blows up.

It can be quite a bit of energy...

I almost was killed too a couple of years ago while changing a flat tire...I
was on the lake ponchartrain bridge outside of N'awlins, and had a blowout
halfway across that 20 mile long bridge. While changing the tire, I notice a
car heading right for me..I move out of the way enough so that I only get a
glancing hit across my ass, as opposed to a square hit to my body. The car
that hit me kept going, right back into their lane, never slowing or stopping.



Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

[Michael Petukhov]

"TJ" > wrote in message >...
> Michael Petukhov wrote:
>
> > 6 (Royal Navy)
> > 4 (Royal Air Force)
> > 10 (Royal Marines)
> > 31 [3] (Royal Army)
>
> Royal Army Michael?!
>
> Michael, what about all those "hidden Coalition casualties" that you were
> bumping your gums about during the initial stages of the conflict?
>
> TJ

Cite please, I cannot really recall. These are official casualties list.
Since Bush would be very much interested in hiding real numbers of
US losses in Iraq I can imagine that there are also more complete lists
of coalition casualties. But so far unfortunately I have not seen any
creadible enough data on that matters. However do not worry if I find
I'll post it as well.

Michael

[Peter Kemp]

On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 22:21:37 +0100, "Brian Sharrock"
> wrote:

<snip aquaplaning info>

Thanks Brian, absolutely fascinating - I'd always assumed lower
pressure was better for grip - which probably explains my first car
accident a few years back.

Imagine a very battered Ford Escort worth slightly less than it's tank
of petrol (yes, this was in the UK). Then imagine a 21 year old
discovering what aquaplaning is rather too close to a brand new Jaguar
XJS. Ooops :-)

Anyway thanks again for the info.

Peter Kemp
---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

[Pete]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> (ZZBunker) wrote:
>
> > 400 psi is not that
> > high for any aircraft. Since the wheels rims and
> > struts on jets of that size and speed need to absorb on
> > the order of several million psi shock loading.
>
> Sure it is...most large a/c tire pressures aren't that high...as
> I mentioned, I don't know about little aircraft though.

F-15/16 are 250psi, IIRC. Depending on ambient conditions.

Just before I got to Griffiss in '78, a tire shop guy was killed by a B-52
tire. Seems he neglected to put it in the cage, AND neglected to take the
air out before starting on the split rim bolts. Supposedly, he got ~1/3 of
them out before the remainining ones let go. One of the bolts was embedded
in a wall in the next office over.

Pete

[charles krin]

On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 17:56:05 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:

>"Brian Sharrock" > wrote:
>
>>Now, go and check your tire pressures before the next rain shower.
>
>Yep that's right...we used to use "nine times the sq root of the
>tire pressure" for the onset of hydroplaning, which is about
>right...you ever think about where a steel wheel rolling on a
>flat steel surface will hydroplane?... :)

follow ups trimmed...

I doubt that the rail road rolling stock has much problem with
hydroplaning...

ck
--
The Ten Commandments display was removed from the Alabama Supreme Court
building, But here was a good reason for the move.*

You can't post "Thou Shalt Not Steal" in a building full of lawyers and
politicians without creating a hostile work environment.

Edna H. on alt.books.m-lackey, 20030930

[charles krin]

On 2 Oct 2003 13:07:42 -0700, (Kevin Brooks)
wrote:

>
>Changing tires can be nasty business, and not (as Vkince seems to
>believe) only in the military. Care and common sense are required--it
>has long been the practice in the US Army to require use of a "tire
>cage" (a stout steel frame/cage) during inflation of tires. In the
>absence of a cage, while in the field and away from our parent unit, I
>did authorize a field-expedient on one occasion; we were assembling a
>truck tire (either deuce and a half or five ton, can't recall which),
>so we removed the inner rear dual and placed the tire to be inflated
>on that hub, then locked down the outer (good) tire in place before
>inflation of the inner assembly (using the outer tire as protection in
>the event the rim popped).

follow ups trimmed...

that's one way...another was to put the tire to be inflated/mounted
with the split rim *facing the ground* prior to inflating...

the approved method was to use an 'inflation cage' to hold the tire
while bringing it up to pressure..

and both the TMs and PM *strongly advocated* using a remote operated
inflator so that no tender pieces of flesh were any where near the
rims when the pressure was coming up.

ck
--
The Ten Commandments display was removed from the Alabama Supreme Court
building, But here was a good reason for the move.*

You can't post "Thou Shalt Not Steal" in a building full of lawyers and
politicians without creating a hostile work environment.

Edna H. on alt.books.m-lackey, 20030930

[[email protected]]

charles krin > wrote:

>On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 17:56:05 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
>wrote:
>
>>"Brian Sharrock" > wrote:
>>
>>>Now, go and check your tire pressures before the next rain shower.
>>
>>Yep that's right...we used to use "nine times the sq root of the
>>tire pressure" for the onset of hydroplaning, which is about
>>right...you ever think about where a steel wheel rolling on a
>>flat steel surface will hydroplane?... :)
>
>follow ups trimmed...
>
>I doubt that the rail road rolling stock has much problem with
>hydroplaning...
>
>ck

I agree...
--

-Gord.

[Duke of URL]

"charles krin" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 17:56:05 GMT, "Gord Beaman"
> ) wrote:
>> "Brian Sharrock" > wrote:
>>
>>> Now, go and check your tire pressures before the next rain shower.
>>
>> Yep that's right...we used to use "nine times the sq root of the
>> tire pressure" for the onset of hydroplaning, which is about
>> right...you ever think about where a steel wheel rolling on a
>> flat steel surface will hydroplane?... :)
>
> follow ups trimmed...
> I doubt that the rail road rolling stock has much problem with
> hydroplaning...

It actually is a serious consideration when the rails are underwater,
as happens frequently out here in the Plains when we get heavy rain.
Engineers have to be aware that it's going to take longer than usual
to come to a stop.

[[email protected]]

"Duke of URL" <macbenahATkdsiDOTnet> wrote:

>"charles krin" > wrote in message

>> On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 17:56:05 GMT, "Gord Beaman"
>> ) wrote:
>>> "Brian Sharrock" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Now, go and check your tire pressures before the next rain shower.
>>>
>>> Yep that's right...we used to use "nine times the sq root of the
>>> tire pressure" for the onset of hydroplaning, which is about
>>> right...you ever think about where a steel wheel rolling on a
>>> flat steel surface will hydroplane?... :)
>>
>> follow ups trimmed...
>> I doubt that the rail road rolling stock has much problem with
>> hydroplaning...
>
>It actually is a serious consideration when the rails are underwater,
>as happens frequently out here in the Plains when we get heavy rain.
>Engineers have to be aware that it's going to take longer than usual
>to come to a stop.
>
>
Sure it will, but it's from the lubrication of the water reducing
the friction between the wheels and the rail, not hydroplaning.
--

-Gord.

[Peter Skelton]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 19:04:01 GMT, "Gord Beaman"
) wrote:

>"Duke of URL" <macbenahATkdsiDOTnet> wrote:
>
>>"charles krin" > wrote in message

>>> On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 17:56:05 GMT, "Gord Beaman"
>>> ) wrote:
>>>> "Brian Sharrock" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Now, go and check your tire pressures before the next rain shower.
>>>>
>>>> Yep that's right...we used to use "nine times the sq root of the
>>>> tire pressure" for the onset of hydroplaning, which is about
>>>> right...you ever think about where a steel wheel rolling on a
>>>> flat steel surface will hydroplane?... :)
>>>
>>> follow ups trimmed...
>>> I doubt that the rail road rolling stock has much problem with
>>> hydroplaning...
>>
>>It actually is a serious consideration when the rails are underwater,
>>as happens frequently out here in the Plains when we get heavy rain.
>>Engineers have to be aware that it's going to take longer than usual
>>to come to a stop.
>>
>>
>Sure it will, but it's from the lubrication of the water reducing
>the friction between the wheels and the rail, not hydroplaning.

There is a difference between lubrication and hydroplaning?
Aren't they different aspects of the same thing?

Peter Skelton

[Keith Willshaw]

"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 19:04:01 GMT, "Gord Beaman"
> ) wrote:

>
> There is a difference between lubrication and hydroplaning?
> Aren't they different aspects of the same thing?
>

That depends on the type of lubrication.

Hydrodynamic lubrication is essentially the same
thing as aquaplaning, the fluid forms a complete
layer between the surfaces and the wheel
(or bearing) , this is how plain bearings in engines work
when the engine is at speed. The function of the oil
pump is to help maintain this continuous layer of oil.

In the case of boundary layer lubrication there is no
complete layer but instead individual molecules fill
pits and troughs in the bearing surface effectively making
it smoother and more slippery. When you first start
your engine this is the form of lubrication that occurs
until the oil pressure builds up.

Keith

Keith

[Peter Skelton]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 21:34:21 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:

>
>"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 19:04:01 GMT, "Gord Beaman"
>> ) wrote:
>
>>
>> There is a difference between lubrication and hydroplaning?
>> Aren't they different aspects of the same thing?
>>
>
>That depends on the type of lubrication.
>
>Hydrodynamic lubrication is essentially the same
>thing as aquaplaning, the fluid forms a complete
>layer between the surfaces and the wheel
>(or bearing) , this is how plain bearings in engines work
>when the engine is at speed. The function of the oil
>pump is to help maintain this continuous layer of oil.
>
>In the case of boundary layer lubrication there is no
>complete layer but instead individual molecules fill
>pits and troughs in the bearing surface effectively making
>it smoother and more slippery. When you first start
>your engine this is the form of lubrication that occurs
>until the oil pressure builds up.

So in the context we were discussing, it's the same thing.

Peter Skelton

[Keith Willshaw]

"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 21:34:21 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 19:04:01 GMT, "Gord Beaman"
> >> ) wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> There is a difference between lubrication and hydroplaning?
> >> Aren't they different aspects of the same thing?
> >>
> >
> >That depends on the type of lubrication.
> >
> >Hydrodynamic lubrication is essentially the same
> >thing as aquaplaning, the fluid forms a complete
> >layer between the surfaces and the wheel
> >(or bearing) , this is how plain bearings in engines work
> >when the engine is at speed. The function of the oil
> >pump is to help maintain this continuous layer of oil.
> >
> >In the case of boundary layer lubrication there is no
> >complete layer but instead individual molecules fill
> >pits and troughs in the bearing surface effectively making
> >it smoother and more slippery. When you first start
> >your engine this is the form of lubrication that occurs
> >until the oil pressure builds up.
>
> So in the context we were discussing, it's the same thing.
>

Not necessarily, the conditions needed to establish the
hydrodynamic layer are quite complex and are dependent
on pressure and viscosity as well as the bearing load.

With a steel rail and steel wheel the bearing load is high and
water isnt very viscous. The pressure gradient is dependent
mainly on wheel speed since the water effectively forms
a wedge.

Normally you wouldnt expect the result to create enough
pressure to cause a water layer to form. However if you
get wheel slip then it will, a fact known to all engine designers
and suspended solids in the water, especially clay or silt can
cause it too.

Keith

[[email protected]]

Peter Skelton > wrote:

>On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 19:04:01 GMT, "Gord Beaman"
) wrote:
>
>>"Duke of URL" <macbenahATkdsiDOTnet> wrote:
>>
>>>"charles krin" > wrote in message

>>>> On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 17:56:05 GMT, "Gord Beaman"
>>>> ) wrote:
>>>>> "Brian Sharrock" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, go and check your tire pressures before the next rain shower.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep that's right...we used to use "nine times the sq root of the
>>>>> tire pressure" for the onset of hydroplaning, which is about
>>>>> right...you ever think about where a steel wheel rolling on a
>>>>> flat steel surface will hydroplane?... :)
>>>>
>>>> follow ups trimmed...
>>>> I doubt that the rail road rolling stock has much problem with
>>>> hydroplaning...
>>>
>>>It actually is a serious consideration when the rails are underwater,
>>>as happens frequently out here in the Plains when we get heavy rain.
>>>Engineers have to be aware that it's going to take longer than usual
>>>to come to a stop.
>>>
>>>
>>Sure it will, but it's from the lubrication of the water reducing
>>the friction between the wheels and the rail, not hydroplaning.
>
>There is a difference between lubrication and hydroplaning?
>Aren't they different aspects of the same thing?
>
>Peter Skelton

I see that quite a number answered this so I'll just give my gut
reaction to your suggestion Peter. I feel that it isn't
hydroplaning because speed isn't required to start the process.
The wheel will 'slide' on the rail just as easily no matter how
slowly it's being moved, therefore it's not the 'pressure' of the
wedge of fluid 'lifting the wheel' but the molecules of the
lubricant that's filling the dips and valleys between the two
surfaces that's reducing the friction.
--

-Gord.

[Fred J. McCall]

Peter Skelton > wrote:

:On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 19:04:01 GMT, "Gord Beaman"
) wrote:
:>>
:>Sure it will, but it's from the lubrication of the water reducing
:>the friction between the wheels and the rail, not hydroplaning.
:
:There is a difference between lubrication and hydroplaning?
:Aren't they different aspects of the same thing?

Actually, this is true. Hydroplaning is actually a lubrication
phenomenon. We don't generally consider it 'hydroplaning' when it is
a braking phenomenon, though.

At least I don't think we do. :-)


--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer

[[email protected]]

Fred J. McCall > wrote:

>Peter Skelton > wrote:
>
>:On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 19:04:01 GMT, "Gord Beaman"
) wrote:
>:>>
>:>Sure it will, but it's from the lubrication of the water reducing
>:>the friction between the wheels and the rail, not hydroplaning.
>:
>:There is a difference between lubrication and hydroplaning?
>:Aren't they different aspects of the same thing?
>
>Actually, this is true. Hydroplaning is actually a lubrication
>phenomenon. We don't generally consider it 'hydroplaning' when it is
>a braking phenomenon, though.
>
>At least I don't think we do. :-)

I don't either...you need speed to get the conditions that
constitute hydroplaning. You aren't required to be above any
particular speed to cause 'sliding' with a lubricant like grease
so I don't think that it's the same thing at all.
--

-Gord.

[Brian Allardice]

In article >, "GordBeaman" says...

>Sure it will, but it's from the lubrication of the water reducing
>the friction between the wheels and the rail, not hydroplaning.

Well, as long as you don't have the wrong kind of leaves.....

Cheers,
dba

[Fred J. McCall]

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

:Fred J. McCall > wrote:
:
:>Peter Skelton > wrote:
:>
:>:On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 19:04:01 GMT, "Gord Beaman"
) wrote:
:>:>>
:>:>Sure it will, but it's from the lubrication of the water reducing
:>:>the friction between the wheels and the rail, not hydroplaning.
:>:
:>:There is a difference between lubrication and hydroplaning?
:>:Aren't they different aspects of the same thing?
:>
:>Actually, this is true. Hydroplaning is actually a lubrication
:>phenomenon. We don't generally consider it 'hydroplaning' when it is
:>a braking phenomenon, though.
:>
:>At least I don't think we do. :-)
:
:I don't either...you need speed to get the conditions that
:constitute hydroplaning. You aren't required to be above any
:particular speed to cause 'sliding' with a lubricant like grease
:so I don't think that it's the same thing at all.

Although actually it is probably easier to 'grease-o-plane' than it is
to hydroplane, given the viscosity of the stuff. As I understand it
(which is at a pretty basic level - apparently this is an immensely
complex subject when you start looking at the mechanisms) we refer to
hydroplaning (non-boat type) when a vehicle which has freely rolling
contact with another surface is going sufficiently fast that it
essentially 'traps' a thin layer of water (or whatever) between the
surface of its wheels/tires and the surface it is rolling across by
essentially exceeding the speed with which the lubricant can flow out
from under the wheels. Poorly stated, but what it amounts to is that
the lubricant doesn't have the chance to flow out from under the
wheels/tires before the vehicle has moved on to the next bit of
surface.

I used to think this was a surface tension sort of effect when I was
young, but apparently it is not. For tired vehicles, other than sheer
speed the biggest determinant is inflation pressure of the tires.
Lower inflation pressures for the same weight vehicle allow a larger
surface area of the tire to come in contact with the surface being
traveled across. This means the lubricant fluid (water, in the case
we normally think of) must essentially flow out from under a larger
surface area for the tire to make contact with the pavement. This is
why tread patterns CAN help, if they provide channels for the water to
flow out from under the road contact surfaces. Large decreases in
vehicle weight can also make this much worse, as they lower the
pressure forcing the lubricant out from between the tire and the
roadway.

The preceding is why commercial airline pilots are taught that
hydroplaning is a function of aircraft speed, tire inflation pressure,
and gross vehicle weight (because the difference between loaded weight
and unloaded weight can be an appreciable percentage of the weight of
the vehicle).

[So now everyone can tell me how I'm wrong. :-)]

[Peter Skelton]

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 02:12:12 GMT, "Gord Beaman"
) wrote:

>Peter Skelton > wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 19:04:01 GMT, "Gord Beaman"
) wrote:
>>
>>>"Duke of URL" <macbenahATkdsiDOTnet> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"charles krin" > wrote in message

>>>>> On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 17:56:05 GMT, "Gord Beaman"
>>>>> ) wrote:
>>>>>> "Brian Sharrock" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now, go and check your tire pressures before the next rain shower.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yep that's right...we used to use "nine times the sq root of the
>>>>>> tire pressure" for the onset of hydroplaning, which is about
>>>>>> right...you ever think about where a steel wheel rolling on a
>>>>>> flat steel surface will hydroplane?... :)
>>>>>
>>>>> follow ups trimmed...
>>>>> I doubt that the rail road rolling stock has much problem with
>>>>> hydroplaning...
>>>>
>>>>It actually is a serious consideration when the rails are underwater,
>>>>as happens frequently out here in the Plains when we get heavy rain.
>>>>Engineers have to be aware that it's going to take longer than usual
>>>>to come to a stop.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Sure it will, but it's from the lubrication of the water reducing
>>>the friction between the wheels and the rail, not hydroplaning.
>>
>>There is a difference between lubrication and hydroplaning?
>>Aren't they different aspects of the same thing?
>>
>>Peter Skelton
>
>I see that quite a number answered this so I'll just give my gut
>reaction to your suggestion Peter. I feel that it isn't
>hydroplaning because speed isn't required to start the process.
>The wheel will 'slide' on the rail just as easily no matter how
>slowly it's being moved, therefore it's not the 'pressure' of the
>wedge of fluid 'lifting the wheel' but the molecules of the
>lubricant that's filling the dips and valleys between the two
>surfaces that's reducing the friction.

That is not correct. Speed is a factor.

Peter Skelton

[charles krin]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 12:08:54 -0500, "Duke of URL"
<macbenahATkdsiDOTnet> wrote:

>"charles krin" > wrote in message

>> On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 17:56:05 GMT, "Gord Beaman"
>> ) wrote:
>>> "Brian Sharrock" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Now, go and check your tire pressures before the next rain shower.
>>>
>>> Yep that's right...we used to use "nine times the sq root of the
>>> tire pressure" for the onset of hydroplaning, which is about
>>> right...you ever think about where a steel wheel rolling on a
>>> flat steel surface will hydroplane?... :)
>>
>> follow ups trimmed...
>> I doubt that the rail road rolling stock has much problem with
>> hydroplaning...
>
>It actually is a serious consideration when the rails are underwater,
>as happens frequently out here in the Plains when we get heavy rain.
>Engineers have to be aware that it's going to take longer than usual
>to come to a stop.
>
>
I agree, but I doubt that this is a result of traditional
hydroplaning...but rather as a lesser level of 'lubrication' between
the rail and wheel...

ck
--
The Ten Commandments display was removed from the Alabama Supreme Court
building, But here was a good reason for the move.*

You can't post "Thou Shalt Not Steal" in a building full of lawyers and
politicians without creating a hostile work environment.

Edna H. on alt.books.m-lackey, 20030930

[[email protected]]

Peter Skelton > wrote:

>On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 02:12:12 GMT, "Gord Beaman"
) wrote:
>
>>Peter Skelton > wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 19:04:01 GMT, "Gord Beaman"
) wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Duke of URL" <macbenahATkdsiDOTnet> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"charles krin" > wrote in message

>>>>>> On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 17:56:05 GMT, "Gord Beaman"
>>>>>> ) wrote:
>>>>>>> "Brian Sharrock" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now, go and check your tire pressures before the next rain shower.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yep that's right...we used to use "nine times the sq root of the
>>>>>>> tire pressure" for the onset of hydroplaning, which is about
>>>>>>> right...you ever think about where a steel wheel rolling on a
>>>>>>> flat steel surface will hydroplane?... :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> follow ups trimmed...
>>>>>> I doubt that the rail road rolling stock has much problem with
>>>>>> hydroplaning...
>>>>>
>>>>>It actually is a serious consideration when the rails are underwater,
>>>>>as happens frequently out here in the Plains when we get heavy rain.
>>>>>Engineers have to be aware that it's going to take longer than usual
>>>>>to come to a stop.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Sure it will, but it's from the lubrication of the water reducing
>>>>the friction between the wheels and the rail, not hydroplaning.
>>>
>>>There is a difference between lubrication and hydroplaning?
>>>Aren't they different aspects of the same thing?
>>>
>>>Peter Skelton
>>
>>I see that quite a number answered this so I'll just give my gut
>>reaction to your suggestion Peter. I feel that it isn't
>>hydroplaning because speed isn't required to start the process.
>>The wheel will 'slide' on the rail just as easily no matter how
>>slowly it's being moved, therefore it's not the 'pressure' of the
>>wedge of fluid 'lifting the wheel' but the molecules of the
>>lubricant that's filling the dips and valleys between the two
>>surfaces that's reducing the friction.
>
>That is not correct. Speed is a factor.
>
>Peter Skelton

Speed is a factor in what?...hydroplaning?, of course it is, in
the case of a wheel losing traction because of the action of a
lubricant?, no it isn't.
--

-Gord.

[[email protected]]

Fred J. McCall > wrote:

>
>The preceding is why commercial airline pilots are taught that
>hydroplaning is a function of aircraft speed, tire inflation pressure,
>and gross vehicle weight (because the difference between loaded weight
>and unloaded weight can be an appreciable percentage of the weight of
>the vehicle).
>
>[So now everyone can tell me how I'm wrong. :-)]
>

Well, I believe you 'are' wrong in only one little area here. The
Canadian Armed Forces taught that the only thing that had a
bearing on hydroplaning speed was the tire pressure when there
was sufficient water depth available.

Aircraft weight has no bearing because weight governs the tire
pressure and size. The magic figure is "Nine times the square
root of the tire pressure". Both the USAF and the RCAF believe
that and that's plenty good enough for me sir.

If you ever convince them both that they're wrong then please
have them send me letters of abject apology.

Hell, I'll even accept a mousey little 'oops'.

:)
--

-Gord.

[Peter Skelton]

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 22:48:27 GMT, "Gord Beaman"
) wrote:

>Peter Skelton > wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 02:12:12 GMT, "Gord Beaman"
) wrote:
>>
>>>Peter Skelton > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 19:04:01 GMT, "Gord Beaman"
) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Duke of URL" <macbenahATkdsiDOTnet> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"charles krin" > wrote in message

>>>>>>> On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 17:56:05 GMT, "Gord Beaman"
>>>>>>> ) wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Brian Sharrock" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now, go and check your tire pressures before the next rain shower.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yep that's right...we used to use "nine times the sq root of the
>>>>>>>> tire pressure" for the onset of hydroplaning, which is about
>>>>>>>> right...you ever think about where a steel wheel rolling on a
>>>>>>>> flat steel surface will hydroplane?... :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> follow ups trimmed...
>>>>>>> I doubt that the rail road rolling stock has much problem with
>>>>>>> hydroplaning...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It actually is a serious consideration when the rails are underwater,
>>>>>>as happens frequently out here in the Plains when we get heavy rain.
>>>>>>Engineers have to be aware that it's going to take longer than usual
>>>>>>to come to a stop.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>Sure it will, but it's from the lubrication of the water reducing
>>>>>the friction between the wheels and the rail, not hydroplaning.
>>>>
>>>>There is a difference between lubrication and hydroplaning?
>>>>Aren't they different aspects of the same thing?
>>>>
>>>>Peter Skelton
>>>
>>>I see that quite a number answered this so I'll just give my gut
>>>reaction to your suggestion Peter. I feel that it isn't
>>>hydroplaning because speed isn't required to start the process.
>>>The wheel will 'slide' on the rail just as easily no matter how
>>>slowly it's being moved, therefore it's not the 'pressure' of the
>>>wedge of fluid 'lifting the wheel' but the molecules of the
>>>lubricant that's filling the dips and valleys between the two
>>>surfaces that's reducing the friction.
>>
>>That is not correct. Speed is a factor.
>>
>>Peter Skelton
>
>Speed is a factor in what?...hydroplaning?, of course it is, in
>the case of a wheel losing traction because of the action of a
>lubricant?, no it isn't.

Speed is a factor in the ease of slippage of a rail car wheel on
a wet track.

Peter Skelton

[Fred J. McCall]

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

:Fred J. McCall > wrote:
:
:>
:>The preceding is why commercial airline pilots are taught that
:>hydroplaning is a function of aircraft speed, tire inflation pressure,
:>and gross vehicle weight (because the difference between loaded weight
:>and unloaded weight can be an appreciable percentage of the weight of
:>the vehicle).
:>
:>[So now everyone can tell me how I'm wrong. :-)]
:
:Well, I believe you 'are' wrong in only one little area here. The
:Canadian Armed Forces taught that the only thing that had a
:bearing on hydroplaning speed was the tire pressure when there
:was sufficient water depth available.
:
:Aircraft weight has no bearing because weight governs the tire
:pressure and size. The magic figure is "Nine times the square
:root of the tire pressure". Both the USAF and the RCAF believe
:that and that's plenty good enough for me sir.

Yes, that probably is good enough for you. It is not, however, the
actual truth, but rather a useful rule of thumb that holds pretty
closely for most circumstances.

The airlines disagree. So do the folks who study this sort of thing,
whose simulation tools tend to go down to all the very small effects.
Even the bias of the tire belting and how the cords are constructed
has an effect.

:If you ever convince them both that they're wrong then please
:have them send me letters of abject apology.
:
:Hell, I'll even accept a mousey little 'oops'.

I'd suggest they need to take it up with commercial airlines, which
disagree with them and include weight in their gross approximation,
since the typical aircraft that they operate can change weight quite
drastically in the normal course of operations.

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

[[email protected]]

Peter Skelton > wrote:
>>>
>>>That is not correct. Speed is a factor.
>>>
>>>Peter Skelton
>>
GB wrote:
>>Speed is a factor in what?...hydroplaning?, of course it is, in
>>the case of a wheel losing traction because of the action of a
>>lubricant?, no it isn't.
>
>Speed is a factor in the ease of slippage of a rail car wheel on
>a wet track.
>
>Peter Skelton

Of course it is Peter, if 'speed' weren't involved then there'd
be no slippage would there now?. You can't have slippage without
speed being involved can you?

My point is that there must be a certain speed attained by a tire
before there can be a wedge of water forced between the tire and
the road surface to attain that condition known as hydroplaning.
--

-Gord.

[[email protected]]

Fred J. McCall > wrote:


>:If you ever convince them both that they're wrong then please
>:have them send me letters of abject apology.
>:
>:Hell, I'll even accept a mousey little 'oops'.
>
>I'd suggest they need to take it up with commercial airlines, which
>disagree with them and include weight in their gross approximation,
>since the typical aircraft that they operate can change weight quite
>drastically in the normal course of operations.

Ok Fred...It's certainly possible that I'm wrong (along with a
few authority figures) but it's also possible that you're right
about 'Rule of thumb' etc. The one thing that I strongly doubt
though is that the Airlines factor in weight when computing this
figure. I grant that it may make some very slight measurable
difference but I doubt that it makes 'enough' difference to
consider in aircraft operations. The only person who frequents
these haunts and who would likely know (that I know of) is John
Weiss.

Unless you have a credible cite?.

--

-Gord.

[Fred J. McCall]

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

:Fred J. McCall > wrote:
:
:
:>:If you ever convince them both that they're wrong then please
:>:have them send me letters of abject apology.
:>:
:>:Hell, I'll even accept a mousey little 'oops'.
:>
:>I'd suggest they need to take it up with commercial airlines, which
:>disagree with them and include weight in their gross approximation,
:>since the typical aircraft that they operate can change weight quite
:>drastically in the normal course of operations.
:
:Ok Fred...It's certainly possible that I'm wrong (along with a
:few authority figures) but it's also possible that you're right
:about 'Rule of thumb' etc.

Oh, it is. And you're even being inaccurate in what you claim. The
figure you come up with is the most common rule of thumb for what is
called 'dynamic hydroplaning' to compute 'minimum hydroplaning speed'.
Minimum hydroplaning speed is the minimum speed at which dynamic
hydroplaning MAY begin. Looking about on the web, one finds the
multiplication factor used with the square root of tire pressure to
range from 7 to 9 (with 7 given as used for treadless tires, most
airlines using 8.7 for aircraft mains, and everyone else using 9).

As a rule of thumb, it works fairly well for aircraft. This is
because aircraft tires tend to be of similar profile, material, and
tread pattern. It works less well for automobiles and other light
vehicles, which may have tires of varying profiles and designs,
however. See, for example,
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/general/hydroplaning.htm.

I will also note that you totally ignore both viscous hydroplaning and
rubber reversion hydroplaning, which can occur at virtually any speed.

:The one thing that I strongly doubt
:though is that the Airlines factor in weight when computing this
:figure. I grant that it may make some very slight measurable
:difference but I doubt that it makes 'enough' difference to
:consider in aircraft operations. The only person who frequents
:these haunts and who would likely know (that I know of) is John
:Weiss.
:
:Unless you have a credible cite?.

Try www.ejapilots.com/airlines/delta.htm (appears to currently be
unavailable), where question and answer 22 from a Delta pilot quiz
read:

"22) What three things affect hydroplaning?
Tire Pressure, Weight, and Depth of Water."

It was available the last time this went round and round, which is
where I saw it in the first place.

We done yet, or do I need to spend yet more time digging up things to
beat on you with? :-)


--
"Nekubi o kaite was ikenai"
["It does not do to slit the throat of a sleeping man."]
-- Admiral Yamamoto

[[email protected]]

Fred J. McCall > wrote:

GB wrote:
>:Unless you have a credible cite?.
>
>Try www.ejapilots.com/airlines/delta.htm (appears to currently be
>unavailable), where question and answer 22 from a Delta pilot quiz
>read:
>
>"22) What three things affect hydroplaning?
>Tire Pressure, Weight, and Depth of Water."
>
>It was available the last time this went round and round, which is
>where I saw it in the first place.
>
>We done yet, or do I need to spend yet more time digging up things to
>beat on you with? :-)

Oh, I dunno Fred...all you've given me so far has been one cite
which doesn't look too authoritative to me, another cite which
doesn't work (I checked it too) and your assurances that this
dead site held "Some Delta Pilot's" assurances that the three
things that affect hydroplaning is "Tire Pressure, Weight and
Water Depth". Hell's bells, he didn't think that speed was
important enough to mention, humm.

Well, I'm a Flight Engineer with multi thousands of hours
airtime, multi tens of years experience and let me assure you
that when this first came out and was studied and tested in the
sixties that it was heavily drilled into our trade. From that I
say that a practical rule of thumb in this regard is that;

"Hydroplaning will commence (given sufficient water depth) at a
speed that is dependant on the tire pressure", That speed (in
Knots) will be approximately nine times the square root of that
tire pressure (in PSI).

I also say that "No, I don't require any more things to beat on
me with unless they're more authoritative than you've shown so
far".
--

-Gord.

[Fred J. McCall]

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

:Fred J. McCall > wrote:
:
:GB wrote:
:>:Unless you have a credible cite?.
:>
:>Try www.ejapilots.com/airlines/delta.htm (appears to currently be
:>unavailable), where question and answer 22 from a Delta pilot quiz
:>read:
:>
:>"22) What three things affect hydroplaning?
:>Tire Pressure, Weight, and Depth of Water."
:>
:>It was available the last time this went round and round, which is
:>where I saw it in the first place.
:>
:>We done yet, or do I need to spend yet more time digging up things to
:>beat on you with? :-)
:
:Oh, I dunno Fred...all you've given me so far has been one cite
:which doesn't look too authoritative to me,

Well, to be honest, I'm not to concerned about how authoritative
things may look to you, since you seem to be in the category of "my
mind is made up, so stop clouding the issue with facts". All you've
given me so far is assertion, which I DEFINITELY find less than
authoritative.

:another cite which
:doesn't work (I checked it too) and your assurances that this
:dead site held "Some Delta Pilot's" assurances that the three
:things that affect hydroplaning is "Tire Pressure, Weight and
:Water Depth". Hell's bells, he didn't think that speed was
:important enough to mention, humm.

Not what I said at all. I said it was a question from a test that
Delta used for incoming pilots.

If you're going to call me a liar, at least get the statement you
claim is a lie correct. I would claim that you are a liar, since all
you've offered is mere personal assertion, but that wouldn't be right.
I think you're just stubbornly (and incorrectly) convinced you have
the only answer.

If you Google, the text of the question and answer still shows up in
the find list, even though the page is not available.

But don't bother to look. I'm sure it will only upset you.

:Well, I'm a Flight Engineer with multi thousands of hours
:airtime, multi tens of years experience and let me assure you
:that when this first came out and was studied and tested in the
:sixties that it was heavily drilled into our trade. From that I
:say that a practical rule of thumb in this regard is that;
:
:"Hydroplaning will commence (given sufficient water depth) at a
:speed that is dependant on the tire pressure", That speed (in
:Knots) will be approximately nine times the square root of that
:tire pressure (in PSI).

Except, of course, that everyone else involved in the industry doesn't
seem to be in full agreement with you. Somehow I suspect that if you
add up all their experience, it's more than yours. Based on the fact
that you think your preceding argument from authority ought to be
effective, you should now be prepared to change your mind.

:I also say that "No, I don't require any more things to beat on
:me with unless they're more authoritative than you've shown so
:far".

Deal. You're free to keep your head up and firmly locked in its
present location for just as long as you wish to (and can stand the
odor).


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[[email protected]]

Fred J. McCall > wrote:

>
>Not what I said at all. I said it was a question from a test that
>Delta used for incoming pilots.
>
>If you're going to call me a liar, at least get the statement you
>claim is a lie correct. I would claim that you are a liar, since all
>you've offered is mere personal assertion, but that wouldn't be right.
>I think you're just stubbornly (and incorrectly) convinced you have
>the only answer.
>

Hey!!...McCall!!...where did I call you a liar?!?. Try to be at
least somewhat honest here buster. I did damned well NOT call you
a liar...I severely resent that accusation. And You DID NOT say
that it was from a test for incoming pilots.

Here's what you said:
....where question and answer 22 from a Delta pilot quiz
:>read:
:>
:>"22) What three things affect hydroplaning?
:>Tire Pressure, Weight, and Depth of Water."

....here's what I said:
"Some Delta Pilot's" assurances that the three things that
affect hydroplaning is "Tire Pressure, Weight and Water Depth"

Now mister where did I LIE? It's almost word for word what you
said after all.

>If you Google, the text of the question and answer still shows up in
>the find list, even though the page is not available.

Now what would be the gain in that pray tell me?...I believe what
you said...

>
>But don't bother to look. I'm sure it will only upset you.

Hardly...why would an error made by a commercial pilot upset me?
>
>:Well, I'm a Flight Engineer with multi thousands of hours
>:airtime, multi tens of years experience and let me assure you
>:that when this first came out and was studied and tested in the
>:sixties that it was heavily drilled into our trade. From that I
>:say that a practical rule of thumb in this regard is that;
>:
>:"Hydroplaning will commence (given sufficient water depth) at a
>:speed that is dependant on the tire pressure", That speed (in
>:Knots) will be approximately nine times the square root of that
>:tire pressure (in PSI).
>
>Except, of course, that everyone else involved in the industry doesn't
>seem to be in full agreement with you.

That's really quite funny McCall...you seem to think that you
have the ear of everyone in the aircraft industry and what's more
you make that preposterous statement right out in public here.

Aren't you even the slightest bit red faced?!?...remember, these
words are archived for all time!...<snort>

> Somehow I suspect that if you
>add up all their experience, it's more than yours.

...good god, of course...get a grip...


>Based on the fact
>that you think your preceding argument from authority ought to be
>effective, you should now be prepared to change your mind.
>

The day never dawns when I'm not open to being proven wrong
sir...

I'll make you a deal...wnen (if) you prove me wrong then I'll
stand up on my hind legs and admit that I was wrong (I've sure
done that before). Hell, I won't even ask you to do the same,
because I really don't give a rat's ass.

>:I also say that "No, I don't require any more things to beat on
>:me with unless they're more authoritative than you've shown so
>:far".
>

>Deal. You're free to keep your head up and firmly locked in its
>present location for just as long as you wish to (and can stand the
>odor).

Really not a wonderful debater are you McCall?...just can't help
but let your anger get the upper hand can you?...Losing ones
temper is usually a sign of running out of arguments but we'll
see...we'll see... :)
--

-Gord.

[Alan Minyard]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 05:19:48 GMT, Fred J. McCall > wrote:

>"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
>
>:Fred J. McCall > wrote:
>:
>:GB wrote:
>:>:Unless you have a credible cite?.
>:>
>:>Try www.ejapilots.com/airlines/delta.htm (appears to currently be
>:>unavailable), where question and answer 22 from a Delta pilot quiz
>:>read:
>:>
>:>"22) What three things affect hydroplaning?
>:>Tire Pressure, Weight, and Depth of Water."
>:>
>:>It was available the last time this went round and round, which is
>:>where I saw it in the first place.
>:>
>:>We done yet, or do I need to spend yet more time digging up things to
>:>beat on you with? :-)
>:
>:Oh, I dunno Fred...all you've given me so far has been one cite
>:which doesn't look too authoritative to me,
>
>Well, to be honest, I'm not to concerned about how authoritative
>things may look to you, since you seem to be in the category of "my
>mind is made up, so stop clouding the issue with facts". All you've
>given me so far is assertion, which I DEFINITELY find less than
>authoritative.
>
>:another cite which
>:doesn't work (I checked it too) and your assurances that this
>:dead site held "Some Delta Pilot's" assurances that the three
>:things that affect hydroplaning is "Tire Pressure, Weight and
>:Water Depth". Hell's bells, he didn't think that speed was
>:important enough to mention, humm.
>
>Not what I said at all. I said it was a question from a test that
>Delta used for incoming pilots.
>
>If you're going to call me a liar, at least get the statement you
>claim is a lie correct. I would claim that you are a liar, since all
>you've offered is mere personal assertion, but that wouldn't be right.
>I think you're just stubbornly (and incorrectly) convinced you have
>the only answer.
>
>If you Google, the text of the question and answer still shows up in
>the find list, even though the page is not available.
>
>But don't bother to look. I'm sure it will only upset you.
>
>:Well, I'm a Flight Engineer with multi thousands of hours
>:airtime, multi tens of years experience and let me assure you
>:that when this first came out and was studied and tested in the
>:sixties that it was heavily drilled into our trade. From that I
>:say that a practical rule of thumb in this regard is that;
>:
>:"Hydroplaning will commence (given sufficient water depth) at a
>:speed that is dependant on the tire pressure", That speed (in
>:Knots) will be approximately nine times the square root of that
>:tire pressure (in PSI).
>
>Except, of course, that everyone else involved in the industry doesn't
>seem to be in full agreement with you. Somehow I suspect that if you
>add up all their experience, it's more than yours. Based on the fact
>that you think your preceding argument from authority ought to be
>effective, you should now be prepared to change your mind.
>
>:I also say that "No, I don't require any more things to beat on
>:me with unless they're more authoritative than you've shown so
>:far".
>
>Deal. You're free to keep your head up and firmly locked in its
>present location for just as long as you wish to (and can stand the
>odor).

So, if speed is not a factor an aircraft could hydro plane behind
the tow tractor? Sitting on the ramp? I rather doubt it. Any one
familiar with the mechanism of hydro planing knows that the
speed of the tire is a critical component.

The last time that you drove an automobile in a rain storm
did it hydro plane at a "stop" sign?

Al Minyard

[[email protected]]

Alan Minyard > wrote:

>
>So, if speed is not a factor an aircraft could hydro plane behind
>the tow tractor? Sitting on the ramp? I rather doubt it. Any one
>familiar with the mechanism of hydro planing knows that the
>speed of the tire is a critical component.
>
>The last time that you drove an automobile in a rain storm
>did it hydro plane at a "stop" sign?
>
>Al Minyard

What are you referring to here Al?, the Delta pilot's answer?.
--

-Gord.

[Alan Minyard]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 17:51:04 GMT, "Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

>Alan Minyard > wrote:
>
>>
>>So, if speed is not a factor an aircraft could hydro plane behind
>>the tow tractor? Sitting on the ramp? I rather doubt it. Any one
>>familiar with the mechanism of hydro planing knows that the
>>speed of the tire is a critical component.
>>
>>The last time that you drove an automobile in a rain storm
>>did it hydro plane at a "stop" sign?
>>
>>Al Minyard
>
>What are you referring to here Al?, the Delta pilot's answer?.

Exactly. Saying that the only things that effect hydorplaning are inflation
pressure, weight, and water depth is ridiculous. Speed is a critical
variable.

Al Minyard

[[email protected]]

Alan Minyard > wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 17:51:04 GMT, "Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
>
>>Alan Minyard > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>So, if speed is not a factor an aircraft could hydro plane behind
>>>the tow tractor? Sitting on the ramp? I rather doubt it. Any one
>>>familiar with the mechanism of hydro planing knows that the
>>>speed of the tire is a critical component.
>>>
>>>The last time that you drove an automobile in a rain storm
>>>did it hydro plane at a "stop" sign?
>>>
>>>Al Minyard
>>
>>What are you referring to here Al?, the Delta pilot's answer?.
>
>Exactly. Saying that the only things that effect hydorplaning are inflation
>pressure, weight, and water depth is ridiculous. Speed is a critical
>variable.
>
>Al Minyard

Of course...poor Fred is doing some reaching I think so I'd tend
not to blame Delta too much for this one...as I said before it's
water depth, tire pressure and speed. Nothing else makes enough
difference to consider.
--

-Gord.