hi alt oxygen

[Arquebus257WeaMag]

Im just wondering why pure oxygen is used for high altitude flying
instead of regular air. I thought prolonged exposures to breathing
pure oxygen can be harmfull as you can become oxygen dependant.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Arquebus257WeaMag" > wrote in message
m...
> Im just wondering why pure oxygen is used for high altitude flying
> instead of regular air. I thought prolonged exposures to breathing
> pure oxygen can be harmfull as you can become oxygen dependant.

http://www.batnet.com/mfwright/hypoxia.html
Hypoxia

Hypoxia is a state of oxygen deficiency in the body which is sufficient to
cause an impairment of function. Hypoxia is caused by the reduction in
partial pressure of oxygen, inadequate oxygen transport, or the inability of
the tissues to use oxygen.

In brief, being drunk is kind of the same as being exposed to high altitude.
In both cases, oxygen to your brain and muscles is reduced.

[Leslie Swartz]

You live off off something called the "partial pressure of oxygen" in the
medium you are breathing. As altitude increases, the partial pressure of
oxygen in air decreases. Therefore, you must "enrich" the breathing medium
with more oxygen in order to achieve the *same* partial pressure of oxygen
that exists at lower altitudes.

Two solutions: 1) increase the relative percentage of oxygen inht e
medium, or 2) pressurize hte medium. 1) is much less expensive than 2).

Steve Swartz

(The partial pressure of oxygen is what gets the O2 across your lung tissue
into your bloodstream. As total pressure decreases, the partial pressure of
oxygen decreases. Eventually, as ambient pressure goes down, you would need
to breathe pure *pressurized* [3.2 psi IIRC] oxygen in order to make up the
deficit.)

"Arquebus257WeaMag" > wrote in message
m...
> Im just wondering why pure oxygen is used for high altitude flying
> instead of regular air. I thought prolonged exposures to breathing
> pure oxygen can be harmfull as you can become oxygen dependant.

[Cub Driver]

Thank you for the information. Very interesting!

On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 11:46:52 -0500, "Leslie Swartz"
> wrote:

>You live off off something called the "partial pressure of oxygen" in the
>medium you are breathing. As altitude increases, the partial pressure of
>oxygen in air decreases. Therefore, you must "enrich" the breathing medium
>with more oxygen in order to achieve the *same* partial pressure of oxygen
>that exists at lower altitudes.
>
>Two solutions: 1) increase the relative percentage of oxygen inht e
>medium, or 2) pressurize hte medium. 1) is much less expensive than 2).
>
>Steve Swartz
>
>(The partial pressure of oxygen is what gets the O2 across your lung tissue
>into your bloodstream. As total pressure decreases, the partial pressure of
>oxygen decreases. Eventually, as ambient pressure goes down, you would need
>to breathe pure *pressurized* [3.2 psi IIRC] oxygen in order to make up the
>deficit.)
>
>"Arquebus257WeaMag" > wrote in message
m...
>> Im just wondering why pure oxygen is used for high altitude flying
>> instead of regular air. I thought prolonged exposures to breathing
>> pure oxygen can be harmfull as you can become oxygen dependant.
>

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[WaltBJ]

Here's some quick and dirty info on oxygen - normally about 1/5 of
'air'. So the 'partial pressure' is 1/5 of 29.92 inches/760 mm Hg
equalling 152mm O2. The ambient air pressure drops by 1/2 every 18,000
feet (roughly). So at sea level you get 1/5 of 760mm; at 18,000 you
get 1/5 of 380mm. At about 34000 you get the equivalent of sea level
oxygen partial pressure breathing 100% oxygen. If you keep going on up
pretty soon you reach a dangerously low level of partial pressure -
that's at about 41,000. So modern diluter-demand O2 regulators start
feeding you oxygen under pressure. Easy to inhale - you have to work
to exhale. This gets worse as you keep going up. At 50,000 cabin
pressure it is physically demanding to exhale and the mask has to be
very tightly strapped on your face. Not to mention painful. Note that
so far we don't have any 'cabin pressure' - air bled from the
engine(s) to remedy the situation. Also as you keep climbing into
areas of lesser pressure water boils at progrssively lower
temperatures. At 63,000 ambient pressure water boils at 98.6F/37C -
body temp. That means your lungs are now filled with water vapor and
you can no longer absorb oxygen. Hence pressure cabins and pressure
suits over 50,000 feet. Breathing pure oxygen for extended periods of
time is a hassle. First, there is no water in Aviator's oxygen - can't
take the chance of water freezing in the lines. Therefore every breath
you're becoming more and more dehydrated. Second, oxygen can flood the
inner ears (through the eustachian tubes) and late at night in bed
that oxygen gets absorbed by the blood and you wake up with giant
earaches. Third, if you're breathing pure O2 and pulling lots of G -
the lower airsacs in your lungs tend to stick together because with
pure O2 you're not breathing as deeply. Back on the ground when you
take a deep breath it feels as if someone just knifed you. This is
termed 'atelactasis'.
Now, oxygen is used to keep pilots crew and passengers functioning at
more or less an efficient level. Rule of thumb - O2 over 10,000 feet.
There is a 'cheat' where one can got to 12 for 30 minutes. But the
brain needs O2 to function properly. With hard training one can
function adequately at higher altitudes. But even the best can screw
up - read 'Into Thin Air'. FWIW I used to teach this stuff.
Walt BJ

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: hi alt oxygen
>From: (WaltBJ)
>Date: 3/10/04 9:12 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Here's some quick and dirty info on oxygen - normally about 1/5 of
>'air'. So the 'partial pressure' is 1/5 of 29.92 inches/760 mm Hg
>equalling 152mm O2. The ambient air pressure drops by 1/2 every 18,000
>feet (roughly). So at sea level you get 1/5 of 760mm; at 18,000 you
>get 1/5 of 380mm. At about 34000 you get the equivalent of sea level
>oxygen partial pressure breathing 100% oxygen. If you keep going on up
>pretty soon you reach a dangerously low level of partial pressure -
>that's at about 41,000. So modern diluter-demand O2 regulators start
>feeding you oxygen under pressure. Easy to inhale - you have to work
>to exhale. This gets worse as you keep going up. At 50,000 cabin
>pressure it is physically demanding to exhale and the mask has to be
>very tightly strapped on your face. Not to mention painful. Note that
>so far we don't have any 'cabin pressure' - air bled from the
>engine(s) to remedy the situation. Also as you keep climbing into
>areas of lesser pressure water boils at progrssively lower
>temperatures. At 63,000 ambient pressure water boils at 98.6F/37C -
>body temp. That means your lungs are now filled with water vapor and
>you can no longer absorb oxygen. Hence pressure cabins and pressure
>suits over 50,000 feet. Breathing pure oxygen for extended periods of
>time is a hassle. First, there is no water in Aviator's oxygen - can't
>take the chance of water freezing in the lines. Therefore every breath
>you're becoming more and more dehydrated. Second, oxygen can flood the
>inner ears (through the eustachian tubes) and late at night in bed
>that oxygen gets absorbed by the blood and you wake up with giant
>earaches. Third, if you're breathing pure O2 and pulling lots of G -
>the lower airsacs in your lungs tend to stick together because with
>pure O2 you're not breathing as deeply. Back on the ground when you
>take a deep breath it feels as if someone just knifed you. This is
>termed 'atelactasis'.
>Now, oxygen is used to keep pilots crew and passengers functioning at
>more or less an efficient level. Rule of thumb - O2 over 10,000 feet.
>There is a 'cheat' where one can got to 12 for 30 minutes. But the
>brain needs O2 to function properly. With hard training one can
>function adequately at higher altitudes. But even the best can screw
>up - read 'Into Thin Air'. FWIW I used to teach this stuff.
>Walt BJ


I was just glad to get rid of the high pressure system with the spitbag to the
low pressure demand mask. It doesn't take much to make me happy.


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

[QDurham]

>>There is a 'cheat' where one can got to 12 for 30 minutes. But the
>>brain needs O2 to function properly. With hard training one can
>>function adequately at higher altitudes.

Pensacola. Low pressure tank. 30,000 feet pressure. Instructor asks for
volunteer. (I tend to do dumb things) I said OK. "Please take this pencil
and write your name on this clipboard." "How many times?" "Don't worry. I'll
tell you when to stop."

Off comes mask. I write and I write and at the 4th perfect signature I stop --
wondering why am I doing this. "Hell, I can do this for the rest of my life."
(30,00 feet. Yeah) Instructor slams mask back on. My vision instantly
changed from looking down a soda straw to wide open, COLOR!, side vision. Wow!
Last signature was a straight line. (Hmmmm. Looked OK at the time.)

At 30K, one has about 4 seconds of useful consciousness -- unless one holds
one's breath. That may net one a couple of seconds more. No pain. No strain.
Quite pleasant. Been there. Done that. Fast and almost fun.

Humans need a constant supply of oxygen and we store almost none. Lack of
oxygen doesn't hurt. What hurts and gives the feeling of strangulation is an
overabundance of carbon dioxide. Want to know what too much CO2 feels like?
Hold your breath for 3-4 minutes.

Throw in a little exhaust gas and the ceiling easily drops to 20K or lower.

Quent

[rnf2]

On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 11:46:52 -0500, "Leslie Swartz"
> wrote:

>You live off off something called the "partial pressure of oxygen" in the
>medium you are breathing. As altitude increases, the partial pressure of
>oxygen in air decreases. Therefore, you must "enrich" the breathing medium
>with more oxygen in order to achieve the *same* partial pressure of oxygen
>that exists at lower altitudes.
>
>Two solutions: 1) increase the relative percentage of oxygen inht e
>medium, or 2) pressurize hte medium. 1) is much less expensive than 2).
>
>Steve Swartz
>
>(The partial pressure of oxygen is what gets the O2 across your lung tissue
>into your bloodstream. As total pressure decreases, the partial pressure of
>oxygen decreases. Eventually, as ambient pressure goes down, you would need
>to breathe pure *pressurized* [3.2 psi IIRC] oxygen in order to make up the
>deficit.)
>
>"Arquebus257WeaMag" > wrote in message
m...
>> Im just wondering why pure oxygen is used for high altitude flying
>> instead of regular air. I thought prolonged exposures to breathing
>> pure oxygen can be harmfull as you can become oxygen dependant.
>
Same basic idea of the PPO2 is why SCUBA divers going down need to cut
the oxy levels of their breathing gas down to avoid PPO2 levels above
1.4 ATA... so you can find divers using as low as 5% oxy in a deep
dive Trimix (Oxy, Nitrogen, and Helium) bottom gas

[Cub Driver]

On 10 Mar 2004 21:12:59 -0800, (WaltBJ) wrote:

>Rule of thumb - O2 over 10,000 feet.

It used to amuse me, in the days before the Eisenhower Tunnel, that
the highway over Loveland Pass in CO took the driver above the
altitude at which the USAF wanted pilots to use oxygen masks.

At Aspen of course we skied all winter at above 11,000 feet. (At
Loveland, the parking lot was higher than that.) Do you suppose that's
why ski bums are famously so unstable?


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Guy Alcala]

Cub Driver wrote:

> On 10 Mar 2004 21:12:59 -0800, (WaltBJ) wrote:
>
> >Rule of thumb - O2 over 10,000 feet.
>
> It used to amuse me, in the days before the Eisenhower Tunnel, that
> the highway over Loveland Pass in CO took the driver above the
> altitude at which the USAF wanted pilots to use oxygen masks.
>
> At Aspen of course we skied all winter at above 11,000 feet. (At
> Loveland, the parking lot was higher than that.) Do you suppose that's
> why ski bums are famously so unstable?

The difference being the rate at which you ascend from lower altitudes,
although the military's 10,000 foot rule seems very conservativ. IIRR,
even the FAA allows pilots to fly between 12,500 and 14,000 ft. for 1/2 an
hour without O2, and pax can do it indefinitely. Pity the poor fighter
pilots in WW1, who used to climb up to 17-20,000 feet without O2 and
patrol there for an hour or so in open, unheated cockpits. And suffered
massive headaches as a result.

Guy

[Rick]

Guy Alcala wrote:

> The difference being the rate at which you ascend from lower altitudes,
> although the military's 10,000 foot rule seems very conservativ. IIRR,
> even the FAA allows pilots to fly between 12,500 and 14,000 ft. for 1/2 an
> hour without O2, and pax can do it indefinitely. Pity the poor fighter
> pilots in WW1, who used to climb up to 17-20,000 feet without O2 and
> patrol there for an hour or so in open, unheated cockpits. And suffered
> massive headaches as a result.


Ah, memories come back ... in my old freight dog days I used to fly with
an older guy who hated to waste fuel on pressurization while crossing
the Rockies in Montana. His only complaint was that he had a hard time
keeping his cigarettes lit when the MEA's were in the flight levels.

Rick

[Rick]

Tarver Engineering wrote:

> In brief, being drunk is kind of the same as being exposed to high altitude.
> In both cases, oxygen to your brain and muscles is reduced.

Even briefer, being Tarver illustrates the results of chronic hypoxia.

Rick

[M. J. Powell]

In message >, Guy Alcala
> writes
>Cub Driver wrote:
>
>> On 10 Mar 2004 21:12:59 -0800, (WaltBJ) wrote:
>>
>> >Rule of thumb - O2 over 10,000 feet.
>>
>> It used to amuse me, in the days before the Eisenhower Tunnel, that
>> the highway over Loveland Pass in CO took the driver above the
>> altitude at which the USAF wanted pilots to use oxygen masks.
>>
>> At Aspen of course we skied all winter at above 11,000 feet. (At
>> Loveland, the parking lot was higher than that.) Do you suppose that's
>> why ski bums are famously so unstable?
>
>The difference being the rate at which you ascend from lower altitudes,
>although the military's 10,000 foot rule seems very conservativ. IIRR,
>even the FAA allows pilots to fly between 12,500 and 14,000 ft. for 1/2 an
>hour without O2, and pax can do it indefinitely. Pity the poor fighter
>pilots in WW1, who used to climb up to 17-20,000 feet without O2 and
>patrol there for an hour or so in open, unheated cockpits. And suffered
>massive headaches as a result.

Not to mention the castor oil...

Mike
-
M.J.Powell

[David Lesher]

Cub Driver > writes:

>At Aspen of course we skied all winter at above 11,000 feet. (At
>Loveland, the parking lot was higher than that.) Do you suppose that's
>why ski bums are famously so unstable?

You can make up for some deficiency by doing more breathing.
Ed Gauss, an old AK bush pilot, told the story that he'd be
on O2 & his wife would keep awake without, by playing her
harmonica.
--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Rick wrote:
>
> Ah, memories come back ... in my old freight dog days I used to fly with
> an older guy who hated to waste fuel on pressurization while crossing
> the Rockies in Montana. His only complaint was that he had a hard time
> keeping his cigarettes lit when the MEA's were in the flight levels.
>


Maybe it was lit... he just couldn't see the glow.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

[Tarver Engineering]

"Rick" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> > In brief, being drunk is kind of the same as being exposed to high
altitude.
> > In both cases, oxygen to your brain and muscles is reduced.
>
> Even briefer, being Tarver illustrates the results of chronic hypoxia.

"Rick" > wrote in message
link.net...

> Ah, memories come back ... in my old freight dog days I used to fly with
> an older guy who hated to waste fuel on pressurization while crossing
> the Rockies in Montana. His only complaint was that he had a hard time
> keeping his cigarettes lit when the MEA's were in the flight levels.

chronic hypoxia

Bwahahahahahahahaha

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: hi alt oxygen
>From: "Tarver Engineering"
>Date: 3/11/04 8:32 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Rick" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>> Tarver Engineering wrote:
>>
>> > In brief, being drunk is kind of the same as being exposed to high
>altitude.
>> > In both cases, oxygen to your brain and muscles is reduced.
>>
>> Even briefer, being Tarver illustrates the results of chronic hypoxia.
>
>"Rick" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
>> Ah, memories come back ... in my old freight dog days I used to fly with
>> an older guy who hated to waste fuel on pressurization while crossing
>> the Rockies in Montana. His only complaint was that he had a hard time
>> keeping his cigarettes lit when the MEA's were in the flight levels.
>
>chronic hypoxia
>
>Bwahahahahahahahaha
>
>
Actually you are right. Oxygen drunks were not uncommon (hic)



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

[Tarver Engineering]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: hi alt oxygen
> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
> >Date: 3/11/04 8:32 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"Rick" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
> >> Tarver Engineering wrote:
> >>
> >> > In brief, being drunk is kind of the same as being exposed to high
> >altitude.
> >> > In both cases, oxygen to your brain and muscles is reduced.
> >>
> >> Even briefer, being Tarver illustrates the results of chronic hypoxia.
> >
> >"Rick" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> >
> >> Ah, memories come back ... in my old freight dog days I used to fly
with
> >> an older guy who hated to waste fuel on pressurization while crossing
> >> the Rockies in Montana. His only complaint was that he had a hard time
> >> keeping his cigarettes lit when the MEA's were in the flight levels.
> >
> >chronic hypoxia
> >
> >Bwahahahahahahahaha
> >
> >
> Actually you are right. Oxygen drunks were not uncommon (hic)

I knew a few of those.

[OXMORON1]

Altitude Chamber training or refresher class. Anyone have a problem with
theirs?

My only "problem" was the green tint to the atmosphere and the insane giggling
of the older O-4 thru O-6 and the horrified looks of the newer Flight Nurse
trainees.
I had a tough time keeping a straight face and the more you laugh the more
green air you inhale.
My last refresher was at Offut and the class was about equally split between
old farts and new farts, with a few of us mid level farts thrown in the mix.

Rick
MFE

[ArtKramr]

>ubject: Chamber Ride was:Re: hi alt oxygen
>From: (OXMORON1)
>Date: 3/11/04 9:10 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Altitude Chamber training or refresher class. Anyone have a problem with
>theirs?
>
>My only "problem" was the green tint to the atmosphere and the insane
>giggling
>of the older O-4 thru O-6 and the horrified looks of the newer Flight Nurse
>trainees.
>I had a tough time keeping a straight face and the more you laugh the more
>green air you inhale.
>My last refresher was at Offut and the class was about equally split between
>old farts and new farts, with a few of us mid level farts thrown in the mix.
>
>Rick
>MFE


One chamber ride I will never forget is the gas chamber ride. Phosgene, Mustard
and tear gasses. Unforgettable


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

[[email protected]]

(QDurham) wrote:

>>>There is a 'cheat' where one can got to 12 for 30 minutes. But the
>>>brain needs O2 to function properly. With hard training one can
>>>function adequately at higher altitudes.
>
>Pensacola. Low pressure tank. 30,000 feet pressure. Instructor asks for
>volunteer. (I tend to do dumb things) I said OK. "Please take this pencil
>and write your name on this clipboard." "How many times?" "Don't worry. I'll
>tell you when to stop."
>
>Off comes mask. I write and I write and at the 4th perfect signature I stop --
>wondering why am I doing this. "Hell, I can do this for the rest of my life."
>(30,00 feet. Yeah) Instructor slams mask back on. My vision instantly
>changed from looking down a soda straw to wide open, COLOR!, side vision. Wow!
> Last signature was a straight line. (Hmmmm. Looked OK at the time.)
>
>At 30K, one has about 4 seconds of useful consciousness -- unless one holds
>one's breath. That may net one a couple of seconds more. No pain. No strain.
> Quite pleasant. Been there. Done that. Fast and almost fun.
>
>Humans need a constant supply of oxygen and we store almost none. Lack of
>oxygen doesn't hurt. What hurts and gives the feeling of strangulation is an
>overabundance of carbon dioxide. Want to know what too much CO2 feels like?
>Hold your breath for 3-4 minutes.
>
>Throw in a little exhaust gas and the ceiling easily drops to 20K or lower.
>
>Quent

Yes, this is exactly correct...the Canadian Armed Forces has this
tank setup in Trenton Ontario. The short course is called HAI for
'high altitude indoctrination' and the effects are as Quent
mentions.

In addition to what he says the effects of hypoxia onset versus
altitude is very un linear. The armed Forces mandate oxygen use
above 10,000 ft but you can easily survive for very long periods
at 20,000 while sitting quietly (I've done it) but increase this
altitude by only slightly and bad things start to happen rapidly,
right down to several seconds of consciousness at 30k.
--

-Gord.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: hi alt oxygen
>From: "Gord Beaman" )
>Date: 3/11/04 10:07 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <8o91509jd5cda3kuuemn759

>n addition to what he says the effects of hypoxia onset versus
>altitude is very un linear. The armed Forces mandate oxygen use
>above 10,000 ft but you can easily survive for very long periods
>at 20,000 while sitting quietly (I've done it) but increase this

Sure. But you can't operate a bombsight with any degree of accuracy under those
conditions. Keep your mask on. And at night from the ground up.


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

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

> >ubject: Chamber Ride was:Re: hi alt oxygen
> >From: (OXMORON1)
> >Date: 3/11/04 9:10 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >Altitude Chamber training or refresher class. Anyone have a problem with
> >theirs?
> >
> >My only "problem" was the green tint to the atmosphere and the insane
> >giggling
> >of the older O-4 thru O-6 and the horrified looks of the newer Flight
> >Nurse
> >trainees.
> >I had a tough time keeping a straight face and the more you laugh the
> >more
> >green air you inhale.
> >My last refresher was at Offut and the class was about equally split
> >between
> >old farts and new farts, with a few of us mid level farts thrown in the
> >mix.
> >
> >Rick
> >MFE
>
>
> One chamber ride I will never forget is the gas chamber ride. Phosgene,
> Mustard
> and tear gasses. Unforgettable
>

Tear gasses, sure. But mustard and phosgene? Mustard, when purified
(agent HD rather than H) often has no smell at all. You don't notice
anything until the burns start appearing. Phosgene really has no
acceptable safety limit that could be used for training.

By WWII, phosgene wasn't widely accepted as a chemical agent. Cyanogen
or cyanogen chloride would have been far more likely to have been used
as quick-casualty agents. Again, no practical safe limit.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Chamber Ride was:Re: hi alt oxygen
>From: Howard Berkowitz
>Date: 3/11/04 12:27 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>> >ubject: Chamber Ride was:Re: hi alt oxygen
>> >From: (OXMORON1)
>> >Date: 3/11/04 9:10 AM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >Altitude Chamber training or refresher class. Anyone have a problem with
>> >theirs?
>> >
>> >My only "problem" was the green tint to the atmosphere and the insane
>> >giggling
>> >of the older O-4 thru O-6 and the horrified looks of the newer Flight
>> >Nurse
>> >trainees.
>> >I had a tough time keeping a straight face and the more you laugh the
>> >more
>> >green air you inhale.
>> >My last refresher was at Offut and the class was about equally split
>> >between
>> >old farts and new farts, with a few of us mid level farts thrown in the
>> >mix.
>> >
>> >Rick
>> >MFE
>>
>>
>> One chamber ride I will never forget is the gas chamber ride. Phosgene,
>> Mustard
>> and tear gasses. Unforgettable
>>
>
>Tear gasses, sure. But mustard and phosgene? Mustard, when purified
>(agent HD rather than H) often has no smell at all. You don't notice
>anything until the burns start appearing. Phosgene really has no
>acceptable safety limit that could be used for training.
>
>By WWII, phosgene wasn't widely accepted as a chemical agent. Cyanogen
>or cyanogen chloride would have been far more likely to have been used
>as quick-casualty agents. Again, no practical safe limit.


Mustard had an acrid smell. Phosgene had the smell; of new mown hay. At leas
that is the way they were described to us before we went into the chamber. But
those of us who were city boys had no idea of what new mown hay smelled like.
But we found out soon enough.


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

[Guy Alcala]

"M. J. Powell" wrote:

> In message >, Guy Alcala
> > writes

<snip>

> >The difference being the rate at which you ascend from lower altitudes,
> >although the military's 10,000 foot rule seems very conservativ. IIRR,
> >even the FAA allows pilots to fly between 12,500 and 14,000 ft. for 1/2 an
> >hour without O2, and pax can do it indefinitely. Pity the poor fighter
> >pilots in WW1, who used to climb up to 17-20,000 feet without O2 and
> >patrol there for an hour or so in open, unheated cockpits. And suffered
> >massive headaches as a result.
>
> Not to mention the castor oil...

IIRR, that mainly resulted in nausea and diarrhea, treated with copious amounts
of alcohol.

Guy

[Dave Eadsforth]

In article >, ArtKramr
> writes
>>Subject: Re: hi alt oxygen
>>From: "Gord Beaman" )
>>Date: 3/11/04 10:07 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <8o91509jd5cda3kuuemn759
>
>>n addition to what he says the effects of hypoxia onset versus
>>altitude is very un linear. The armed Forces mandate oxygen use
>>above 10,000 ft but you can easily survive for very long periods
>>at 20,000 while sitting quietly (I've done it) but increase this
>
>Sure. But you can't operate a bombsight with any degree of accuracy under those
>conditions. Keep your mask on. And at night from the ground up.
>
>
>Arthur Kramer
>344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

Just out of interest, Art, did you ever have to use the A-7 mask (and
presumably a throat mike?) or was the A-14 in universal use while you
were operational?

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: hi alt oxygen
>From: Dave Eadsforth
>Date: 3/11/04 3:51 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >, ArtKramr
> writes
>>>Subject: Re: hi alt oxygen
>>>From: "Gord Beaman" )
>>>Date: 3/11/04 10:07 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <8o91509jd5cda3kuuemn759
>>
>>>n addition to what he says the effects of hypoxia onset versus
>>>altitude is very un linear. The armed Forces mandate oxygen use
>>>above 10,000 ft but you can easily survive for very long periods
>>>at 20,000 while sitting quietly (I've done it) but increase this
>>
>>Sure. But you can't operate a bombsight with any degree of accuracy under
>those
>>conditions. Keep your mask on. And at night from the ground up.
>>
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>>344th BG 494th BS
>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>>
>
>Just out of interest, Art, did you ever have to use the A-7 mask (and
>presumably a throat mike?) or was the A-14 in universal use while you
>were operational?
>
>Cheers,
>
>Dave
>
>--
>Dave Eadsforth


In training at Cadet school we used a mask that had a rubber bag hannging down.
We called it a spit bag. Every few minutes you had to pull the plug from the
bottom of the bag and drain out the saliva. In cold weather it froze and
couldn't be drained. Once we graduated and went to transitional we were used
low pressure demand masks. More comfortable. Besides those early high pressure
systems were given to blowing up if even a minute amount of grease came in
contactwith the oxygen. It was a 1,000 lb/sq/ inch sytem., The later demand
masks worked on a low pressure system and were much safer as well as more
comfortable. Sorry.I don't remember the designations.


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

[WaltBJ]

More trivia on flight and oxygen:
1) the F102 always gave us 100%- there was no diluter function. Some
ground-pounding designer made the decision we'd always be wearing
pressure suits to go after those high-altitude bombers. As it turned
out it generally took a direct order to get a pilot airborne in the
old skin-tight MC-3&4 partial pressure suits, because they were very
unconfortable and visual lookout was definitely impaired because you
had to use your free hand to shove your head around to look to each
side. Well, one of our guys came down with his lower face singed -
claimed the oxygen had flamed his moustache wax. Good story but what
had reallyy happened was that he forgot to shut off his oxygen when he
lit a cigarette . . .speaking of p-suits I always had a good laugh
when I saw the Russky pics of their MiG21 pilots walking along in
p-suits that looked jusy like our partial pressure suits. Their flight
surgeons were a lot more involved in daily activities than ours -
thank God.
Next story - this crusty old WW2 pilot and I were off to Tyndall from
RG in a T33 - the wx down there was DS and we were at about 37000 to
save enough fuel for an alternate. He tried to light a cig but it
wouldn't take - the next hour he spent whining at me because I
wouldn't descend so he could grab a smoke.
Bends - we used to get bubbles under our skin in the older T33s
because the pressurization was so weak. Felt like little bugs crawling
under the skin (mobile chiggers?). So before a p-suit flight we
normally prebreathed 100% O2 for 30 minutes to flush out the N2 to
minimize the chance of getting bends. We were on another U2 intercept
mission when my squadron mate stopped the flightline trolley, opened
up his faceplate, threw up, wiped off his lips, closed the faceplate
and motioned to the young, now wide-eyed, airman driver to press on.
Hangovers and p-suits don't really go together. He still hacked the
mission, though.
Speaking of nicotine fits - I had a friend who used to chew tobacco in
a 104 - he kept a Prince Albert can in his Gsuit pocket to catch the
spit. Never was able to bounce him at just the right time, though.
Being a non-smoker I just don't understand guys like that.
As for the Rocky Mountains, when we get flatlanders up here for a
visit and take them for a drive up over Trail Ridge road - peak
altitude about 12,200, they usually doze off because they won't
breathe (pant) enough. Both the Pikes Peak and Mt. Evans roads will
let you drive up over 14,000.
Walt BJ

[Dave Eadsforth]

In article >, WaltBJ
> writes
>More trivia on flight and oxygen:

SNIP of fascinating trivia about high altitude breathing - more welcome
anytime!

>breathe (pant) enough. Both the Pikes Peak and Mt. Evans roads will
>let you drive up over 14,000.
>Walt BJ

I went to Pike's Peak many years ago and was told that the engines of
the VW we were trucked in had special aspiration arrangements - no
surprise there.

But the people didn't have the same arrangements! Soon after we
arrived, some kids started running around and throwing snowballs fairly
indiscriminately. But one guy just smiled and said 'Don't worry, folks,
it won't last long'. And how true, within a minute the kids were
horizontal... :-)

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

[Cub Driver]

On 11 Mar 2004 19:31:57 -0800, (WaltBJ) wrote:

>MC-3&4 partial pressure suits, because they were very
>unconfortable and visual lookout was definitely impaired because you
>had to use your free hand to shove your head around to look to each
>side.

Good grief!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

On 11 Mar 2004 19:31:57 -0800, (WaltBJ) wrote:

>Trail Ridge road - peak
>altitude about 12,200, they usually doze off because they won't
>breathe (pant) enough.

When I was a ski-bum at Aspen, the conventional wisdom in the ski
patrol was that the turkeys (paying customers) breathed too much, or
too often, or too deeply. They claimed that the most important part of
their kit was a paper bag. You gave it to the immobilized turkey and
made him breath into it for a time, thus getting more carbon dioxide
into his lungs.

Of course skiers are exercising, so perhaps more like to over-breathe
than under-breathe.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Dave Eadsforth]

In article >, ArtKramr
> writes
>>Subject: Re: hi alt oxygen
>>From: Dave Eadsforth
>>Date: 3/11/04 3:51 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>>
>>
>>Just out of interest, Art, did you ever have to use the A-7 mask (and
>>presumably a throat mike?) or was the A-14 in universal use while you
>>were operational?
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Dave
>>
>>--
>>Dave Eadsforth
>
>
>In training at Cadet school we used a mask that had a rubber bag hannging down.

I guess that that might have been an A-7 or an A-8 - I'm no expert, I
just looked up a few things on the net once this thread started.

> We called it a spit bag. Every few minutes you had to pull the plug from the
>bottom of the bag and drain out the saliva.

Yuk!

> In cold weather it froze and
>couldn't be drained.

Now I wonder if a swig of whisky could have solved that?

> Once we graduated and went to transitional we were used
>low pressure demand masks. More comfortable.

That sounds like the A-14 demand mask

> Besides those early high pressure
>systems were given to blowing up if even a minute amount of grease came in
>contactwith the oxygen.

Charming - and an opportunity for an act of malice...

> It was a 1,000 lb/sq/ inch sytem., The later demand
>masks worked on a low pressure system and were much safer as well as more
>comfortable.

From the photos I have seen it covered almost the whole of the lower
face, which instinctively looks more comfortable than some other types.
I have used the RAF Type H, which edges into the cheeks somewhat, and
when you take it off you look like Homer Simpson.

> Sorry.I don't remember the designations.

I only discovered them recently...

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

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: hi alt oxygen
>From: Dave Eadsforth
>Date: 3/12/04 3:25 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >, ArtKramr
> writes
>>>Subject: Re: hi alt oxygen
>>>From: Dave Eadsforth
>>>Date: 3/11/04 3:51 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: >
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Just out of interest, Art, did you ever have to use the A-7 mask (and
>>>presumably a throat mike?) or was the A-14 in universal use while you
>>>were operational?
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>
>>>Dave
>>>
>>>--
>>>Dave Eadsforth
>>
>>
>>In training at Cadet school we used a mask that had a rubber bag hannging
>down.
>
>I guess that that might have been an A-7 or an A-8 - I'm no expert, I
>just looked up a few things on the net once this thread started.
>
>> We called it a spit bag. Every few minutes you had to pull the plug from
>the
>>bottom of the bag and drain out the saliva.
>
>Yuk!
>
>> In cold weather it froze and
>>couldn't be drained.
>
>Now I wonder if a swig of whisky could have solved that?
>
>> Once we graduated and went to transitional we were used
>>low pressure demand masks. More comfortable.
>
>That sounds like the A-14 demand mask
>
>> Besides those early high pressure
>>systems were given to blowing up if even a minute amount of grease came in
>>contactwith the oxygen.
>
>Charming - and an opportunity for an act of malice...
>
>> It was a 1,000 lb/sq/ inch sytem., The later demand
>>masks worked on a low pressure system and were much safer as well as more
>>comfortable.
>
>From the photos I have seen it covered almost the whole of the lower
>face, which instinctively looks more comfortable than some other types.
>I have used the RAF Type H, which edges into the cheeks somewhat, and
>when you take it off you look like Homer Simpson.
>
>> Sorry.I don't remember the designations.
>
>I only discovered them recently...
>
>>


We could usually open up the frozen spit bag opening by rolling it hard between
our thumb and forefinger until the ice cracked, then blow hard into the mask to
blow the opening clear. What a pain especially if it froze when we were busy.
And it always seemed to freeze when we were busy.


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

[[email protected]]

Dave Eadsforth > wrote:

>
>From the photos I have seen it covered almost the whole of the lower
>face, which instinctively looks more comfortable than some other types.
>I have used the RAF Type H, which edges into the cheeks somewhat, and
>when you take it off you look like Homer Simpson.
>

That was the kind that we wore in the fifties , sixties etc. Sort
of a dark green colour and they had a carbon microphone in them
for the intercom system.
--

-Gord.

[Dave Eadsforth]

In article >, Gord Beaman
<?@?.?> writes
>Dave Eadsforth > wrote:
>
>>
>>From the photos I have seen it covered almost the whole of the lower
>>face, which instinctively looks more comfortable than some other types.
>>I have used the RAF Type H, which edges into the cheeks somewhat, and
>>when you take it off you look like Homer Simpson.
>>
>
>That was the kind that we wore in the fifties , sixties etc. Sort
>of a dark green colour and they had a carbon microphone in them
>for the intercom system.
>--
>
>-Gord.

Yup, Gord, that's the one; still very much in favour as the 'H' will
plug into both the WWII 'C' helmet loom and the post-war 'G' canvas
helmets.

If you want a good laugh, let me have your mail id and I'll send you a
picture of me taken last year after a Tiger Moth flight; with my H mask,
C helmet, the C jack plug shoved into a NATO converter and then into a
carbon mike convertor box - everything dangles (including me - I'd just
finished stretching my back when the shutter was snapped).

Cheers,

Dave
--
Dave Eadsforth

[Guy Alcala]

WaltBJ wrote:

> More trivia on flight and oxygen:

<snip>

> As for the Rocky Mountains, when we get flatlanders up here for a
> visit and take them for a drive up over Trail Ridge road - peak
> altitude about 12,200, they usually doze off because they won't
> breathe (pant) enough.

(Almost totally OT) Ah, Trail Ridge road. When my '88 Subaru GL Turbo 4WD
Wagon was almost brand new, I took four people and all our gear for a week
over Trail Ridge (we'd driven from California, but spent a night and half
day in Great Basin Nat. Park, including sleeping at 10,000 feet). The
Subaru only had 115 hp and had a curb weight of about 3,000 lb., and
virtually everyone had a better power/weight ratio and was faster than I
was -- at sea level. So there we were, climbing up the west side on a
hot, muggy summer day (it was in the high '80s or low '90s, I forget
which, when we passed through Granby @ 8,500 feet), and all of a sudden I
found I was just about the most powerful car on the road, as I passed what
were far more powerful cars (at sea level) while driving uphill at ca.
10,000 ft. I could drive as fast as I wanted to (max. 40-50 or so) uphill
on the fairly open two-lane road, with 1-2,000 foot dropoffs on the side
and usually no guardrails on the turns. Coming back over from east to west
was the same.

I never did find out what the critical altitude on the turbo was, but
judging by its performance on Trail Ridge that day it must have been well
over 14,000 feet (allowing for density altitude). Couldn't have a more
clear illustration of a turbo's thin air performance advantage than that.
I later took the car up to 13,200 feet in the White Mountains one
September with two people and gear, and I don't remember any altitude
problems there either, at least for the car (it was graded gravel and
dirt, so I wasn't driving very fast in any case). Both of _us_ had AMS
from ascending too fast from sea level, even though we'd slept at 9,000
feet the night before.

My Subaru Forester (some SOB stole my old Subie in its fifteenth year, or
I'd still be happily driving it) doesn't have a turbo (they only came out
with the XT turbo model in June or so of last year, and I had to buy a car
that January). It's got about 165 hp and more torque, so my old turbo
would come up short up to about 8,000 feet or so, but have more power
above that. Living in the SF Bay Area at sea level and driving up to the
Sierra it hasn't been a problem so far, but I have yet to carry that much
of a load that high, that hot. The highest paved road in California goes
over Tioga Pass (9,941 ft.) in Yosemite, and it handled that fine with two
people and backpacking gear last August, so I probably don't need a turbo
here, and I'm happy not to have to worry about the turbo blowing up or
suffering other expensive problems (not that I had any, but I changed my
oil every 3,000 miles and let it idle down properly after hard driving).
But if I was living in Colorado up against the Front Range and/or
commuting across it, I'd sure want one. I've read that Subaru developed
the Turbo Forester XT precisely because the normally-aspirated model was
left gasping for breath commuting through the Eisenhower tunnel (@11,000
feet). As Homer Simpson might say, "210 hp all the way up, M'mm."

Guy

[QDurham]

Guy wrote in (small) part:
>The highest paved road in California goes
over Tioga Pass (9,941 ft.) in Yosemite...> The lower parking lot in
Bristlecone Forest is over 10 grand. I think there is an upper lot at about 12
-- which had my old Porsche 912 gasping. One of the treees there is arguably
the oldest living thing on our planet. Stunningly gorgeous drive. Do it!
The UC Berkeley research station on the top of White Mountain is about 14,250
feet up. Pretty sure road is paved, although not available to the public.
Bring your snow tractor in winter.

If you are unaccustomed to altitude and plan on such a trip, get a small squirt
bottle of "4-Way Nasal Spray." When you wake up in the middle of the night at
8K, gasping for air, stick in nose, squirt-squirt, and go back to sleep
breathing easily. Amazing.


Quent

[[email protected]]

Dave Eadsforth > wrote:

>>
>>That was the kind that we wore in the fifties , sixties etc. Sort
>>of a dark green colour and they had a carbon microphone in them
>>for the intercom system.
>>--
>>
>>-Gord.
>
>Yup, Gord, that's the one; still very much in favour as the 'H' will
>plug into both the WWII 'C' helmet loom and the post-war 'G' canvas
>helmets.
>
>If you want a good laugh, let me have your mail id and I'll send you a
>picture of me taken last year after a Tiger Moth flight; with my H mask,
>C helmet, the C jack plug shoved into a NATO converter and then into a
>carbon mike convertor box - everything dangles (including me - I'd just
>finished stretching my back when the shutter was snapped).
>
>Cheers,
>
>Dave

Ok Dave...I need to do it in a sort of round about fashion though
(it has the ad(disad)vantage of showing my picture also) use the
URL http://www.qrz.com/ and type into the little window 've1eo'.
That's my Amateur Radio callsign, then click on 'show email
address' just below my picture...

Why I'm so touchy about spam is that I got into a real mess here
on usenet with spam. I had my real address showing somewhere in
my message headers and in about two years it had built up to 5 or
6 hundred msgs a day. Last measured it at 945 pieces in a 12 hour
period. It had shut my email right down so I had to change my
email address. Hateful task that...
--

-Gord.

[Guy Alcala]

QDurham wrote:

> Guy wrote in (small) part:
> >The highest paved road in California goes
> over Tioga Pass (9,941 ft.) in Yosemite...> The lower parking lot in
> Bristlecone Forest is over 10 grand.

Yup, you're right, I couldn't remember if the pavement went all the way to Schulman
Grove (10,100 feet). At least when I first drove it 20-some years ago, IIRR the
pavement ran out somewhat lower, somewhere between Sierra Viewpoint @ 9,280 ft. and
Schulman. But unlike Hwy 120 over Tioga Pass, given the winding nature of the road
above Grandview Campground @ 8,500 feet, speed and passing ability really isn't an
issue there.

> I think there is an upper lot at about 12
> -- which had my old Porsche 912 gasping. One of the treees there is arguably
> the oldest living thing on our planet.

Unless they've found an older one, Methuselah is at Schulman Grove, not the higher
Patriarch Grove (11,200 ft.)

> Stunningly gorgeous drive. Do it!

Have. Also backpacked/skiied it ;-)

>
> The UC Berkeley research station on the top of White Mountain is about 14,250
> feet up. Pretty sure road is paved, although not available to the public.
> Bring your snow tractor in winter.

It certainly wasn't paved the last time I was up there, around 1991 or 92.
Pavement runs out at Schulman, and it's graded dirt/gravel from there on to the Mt.
Barcroft Research Station @ 12,400 ft. (rather than the 13,200 I wrote in my
previous post. Mt. Barcroft itself is 13,040 -- I checked the topo to refresh my
memory), degrading to a jeep trail from there to the top. There's a gate 2 miles
short of Barcroft at around 11,700 or so, which is normally locked, motor vehicle
travel beyond it being for official use only, so private parties have to park at
the gate and hike/bike if they wish to go further. On that particular trip we were
able to drive right up to Barcroft because we were part of a class, and were
staying at the station that night. Oh, living rough, satellite TV, table tennis
and billiards! It seems to be a fairly popular mountain bike ride from the gate to
the top, being (IIRR) between 13-15 miles round trip, and I've also day-hiked to
the top and back from there in a fairly easy day (provided you've acclimatized and
are in good hiking shape).

Guy

[John Keeney]

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
. ..
> WaltBJ wrote:
>
> > More trivia on flight and oxygen:
>
> <snip>
>
> > As for the Rocky Mountains, when we get flatlanders up here for a
> > visit and take them for a drive up over Trail Ridge road - peak
> > altitude about 12,200, they usually doze off because they won't
> > breathe (pant) enough.
>
> (Almost totally OT) Ah, Trail Ridge road. When my '88 Subaru GL Turbo 4WD
> Wagon was almost brand new, I took four people and all our gear for a week
> over Trail Ridge (we'd driven from California, but spent a night and half
> day in Great Basin Nat. Park, including sleeping at 10,000 feet). The
> Subaru only had 115 hp and had a curb weight of about 3,000 lb., and
> virtually everyone had a better power/weight ratio and was faster than I
> was -- at sea level. So there we were, climbing up the west side on a
> hot, muggy summer day (it was in the high '80s or low '90s, I forget
> which, when we passed through Granby @ 8,500 feet), and all of a sudden I
> found I was just about the most powerful car on the road, as I passed what
> were far more powerful cars (at sea level) while driving uphill at ca.
> 10,000 ft. I could drive as fast as I wanted to (max. 40-50 or so) uphill
> on the fairly open two-lane road, with 1-2,000 foot dropoffs on the side
> and usually no guardrails on the turns. Coming back over from east to west
> was the same.

Hmm, I was across Trail Ridge Road a couple of times last summer (same
trip) but never really noticed a loss of power there or down at Pike's Peak.
Just must not have been putting my foot in it hard enough to notice. That
and mass-air-flow sensors driving the fuel injection helps.

> of a load that high, that hot. The highest paved road in California goes
> over Tioga Pass (9,941 ft.) in Yosemite, and it handled that fine with two

Nice developed campground up there, Tuolumne Meadows, only 8600'
but sub freezing temperatures of a night about anytime of the year. Good
tent sleeping.
Seems like the airliners come through that gap pretty low of a night.
Oh, watch the speed up there, the only place I've ever seen a National
Park Service radar speed trap, at 0-dark:30 no less.


Just to make some attempt to getting this on topic I'll mention that the
Navy has a mobile home or two parked at the top of Pike's Peak doing
some kind of aeronautical research.

[Guy Alcala]

John Keeney wrote:

> "Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > WaltBJ wrote:
> >
> > > More trivia on flight and oxygen:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > As for the Rocky Mountains, when we get flatlanders up here for a
> > > visit and take them for a drive up over Trail Ridge road - peak
> > > altitude about 12,200, they usually doze off because they won't
> > > breathe (pant) enough.
> >
> > (Almost totally OT) Ah, Trail Ridge road. When my '88 Subaru GL Turbo 4WD
> > Wagon was almost brand new, I took four people and all our gear for a week
> > over Trail Ridge (we'd driven from California, but spent a night and half
> > day in Great Basin Nat. Park, including sleeping at 10,000 feet). The
> > Subaru only had 115 hp and had a curb weight of about 3,000 lb., and
> > virtually everyone had a better power/weight ratio and was faster than I
> > was -- at sea level. So there we were, climbing up the west side on a
> > hot, muggy summer day (it was in the high '80s or low '90s, I forget
> > which, when we passed through Granby @ 8,500 feet), and all of a sudden I
> > found I was just about the most powerful car on the road, as I passed what
> > were far more powerful cars (at sea level) while driving uphill at ca.
> > 10,000 ft. I could drive as fast as I wanted to (max. 40-50 or so) uphill
> > on the fairly open two-lane road, with 1-2,000 foot dropoffs on the side
> > and usually no guardrails on the turns. Coming back over from east to west
> > was the same.
>
> Hmm, I was across Trail Ridge Road a couple of times last summer (same
> trip) but never really noticed a loss of power there or down at Pike's Peak.
> Just must not have been putting my foot in it hard enough to notice. That
> and mass-air-flow sensors driving the fuel injection helps.

Modern computerized engine controls undoubtedly help, compared to older cars
tuned for sea level. but how much of a load were you hauling, and in what?

> > of a load that high, that hot. The highest paved road in California goes
> > over Tioga Pass (9,941 ft.) in Yosemite, and it handled that fine with two
>
> Nice developed campground up there, Tuolumne Meadows, only 8600'
> but sub freezing temperatures of a night about anytime of the year. Good
> tent sleeping.

It's even better sleeping on one of the domes like Pothole or Lembert, with the
sky as your roof. It's warmer and you've got a better view. Of course I would
never do such a thing (koff), as it's illegal. But I do spend a fair amount of
mountain time in/around Tuolomne.

> Seems like the airliners come through that gap pretty low of a night.
> Oh, watch the speed up there, the only place I've ever seen a National
> Park Service radar speed trap, at 0-dark:30 no less.

Shockin' , jus' shockin' ;-). It's a great road to drive fast in the middle of
the night when the motorhomes and other tourists are all tucked up in bed,
coming up from Crane Flat on the west, but I do take it easy through the meadow
itself.

> Just to make some attempt to getting this on topic I'll mention that the
> Navy has a mobile home or two parked at the top of Pike's Peak doing
> some kind of aeronautical research.

Likewise, I'll mention that there's a tanker track almost directly above the
White Mountains. I got to watch a Buff refueling from a KC-135 last time I was
up there, while taking breaks from reading "Desert Solitaire."

Guy

[Steve]

On 11 Mar 2004 17:10:16 GMT, (OXMORON1) wrote:

>My last refresher was at Offut and the class was about equally split between
>old farts and new farts, with a few of us mid level farts thrown in the mix.

Thats a lot of farts for a small chamber. No wonder you couldn't keep a
straight face. :)


--
Steve.

[rnf2]

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 21:46:53 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:

>Dave Eadsforth > wrote:
>
>>>
>>>That was the kind that we wore in the fifties , sixties etc. Sort
>>>of a dark green colour and they had a carbon microphone in them
>>>for the intercom system.
>>>--
>>>
>>>-Gord.
>>
>>Yup, Gord, that's the one; still very much in favour as the 'H' will
>>plug into both the WWII 'C' helmet loom and the post-war 'G' canvas
>>helmets.
>>
>>If you want a good laugh, let me have your mail id and I'll send you a
>>picture of me taken last year after a Tiger Moth flight; with my H mask,
>>C helmet, the C jack plug shoved into a NATO converter and then into a
>>carbon mike convertor box - everything dangles (including me - I'd just
>>finished stretching my back when the shutter was snapped).
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Dave
>
>Ok Dave...I need to do it in a sort of round about fashion though
>(it has the ad(disad)vantage of showing my picture also) use the
>URL http://www.qrz.com/ and type into the little window 've1eo'.
>That's my Amateur Radio callsign, then click on 'show email
>address' just below my picture...
>
>Why I'm so touchy about spam is that I got into a real mess here
>on usenet with spam. I had my real address showing somewhere in
>my message headers and in about two years it had built up to 5 or
>6 hundred msgs a day. Last measured it at 945 pieces in a 12 hour
>period. It had shut my email right down so I had to change my
>email address. Hateful task that...

[rnf2]

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 21:46:53 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:


>Why I'm so touchy about spam is that I got into a real mess here
>on usenet with spam. I had my real address showing somewhere in
>my message headers and in about two years it had built up to 5 or
>6 hundred msgs a day. Last measured it at 945 pieces in a 12 hour
>period. It had shut my email right down so I had to change my
>email address. Hateful task that...


Spoof it...

My email as far as Usenet is concerened is
a computerised bot prog will try and use the whole thing... a thinking
human being can look at it and select to remove the obvious spam
blocking thing :)

[rnf2]

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 07:57:39 GMT, Guy Alcala
> wrote:

>WaltBJ wrote:
>
>> More trivia on flight and oxygen:
>
><snip>
>
>> As for the Rocky Mountains, when we get flatlanders up here for a
>> visit and take them for a drive up over Trail Ridge road - peak
>> altitude about 12,200, they usually doze off because they won't
>> breathe (pant) enough.
>
>(Almost totally OT) Ah, Trail Ridge road. When my '88 Subaru GL Turbo 4WD
>Wagon was almost brand new, I took four people and all our gear for a week
>over Trail Ridge (we'd driven from California, but spent a night and half
>day in Great Basin Nat. Park, including sleeping at 10,000 feet). The
>Subaru only had 115 hp and had a curb weight of about 3,000 lb., and
>virtually everyone had a better power/weight ratio and was faster than I
>was -- at sea level. So there we were, climbing up the west side on a
>hot, muggy summer day (it was in the high '80s or low '90s, I forget
>which, when we passed through Granby @ 8,500 feet), and all of a sudden I
>found I was just about the most powerful car on the road, as I passed what
>were far more powerful cars (at sea level) while driving uphill at ca.
>10,000 ft. I could drive as fast as I wanted to (max. 40-50 or so) uphill
>on the fairly open two-lane road, with 1-2,000 foot dropoffs on the side
>and usually no guardrails on the turns. Coming back over from east to west
>was the same.
>
>I never did find out what the critical altitude on the turbo was, but
>judging by its performance on Trail Ridge that day it must have been well
>over 14,000 feet (allowing for density altitude). Couldn't have a more
>clear illustration of a turbo's thin air performance advantage than that.
>I later took the car up to 13,200 feet in the White Mountains one
>September with two people and gear, and I don't remember any altitude
>problems there either, at least for the car (it was graded gravel and
>dirt, so I wasn't driving very fast in any case). Both of _us_ had AMS
>from ascending too fast from sea level, even though we'd slept at 9,000
>feet the night before.
>
>My Subaru Forester (some SOB stole my old Subie in its fifteenth year, or
>I'd still be happily driving it) doesn't have a turbo (they only came out
>with the XT turbo model in June or so of last year, and I had to buy a car
>that January). It's got about 165 hp and more torque, so my old turbo
>would come up short up to about 8,000 feet or so, but have more power
>above that. Living in the SF Bay Area at sea level and driving up to the
>Sierra it hasn't been a problem so far, but I have yet to carry that much
>of a load that high, that hot. The highest paved road in California goes
>over Tioga Pass (9,941 ft.) in Yosemite, and it handled that fine with two
>people and backpacking gear last August, so I probably don't need a turbo
>here, and I'm happy not to have to worry about the turbo blowing up or
>suffering other expensive problems (not that I had any, but I changed my
>oil every 3,000 miles and let it idle down properly after hard driving).
>But if I was living in Colorado up against the Front Range and/or
>commuting across it, I'd sure want one. I've read that Subaru developed
>the Turbo Forester XT precisely because the normally-aspirated model was
>left gasping for breath commuting through the Eisenhower tunnel (@11,000
>feet). As Homer Simpson might say, "210 hp all the way up, M'mm."
>
>Guy


I wonder what my Isuzu Bighorn (Trooper to you 'Mericans) 2.8 diesel
turbo would be like there :) But for those that live high... aren't
there any factory supercharged cars to use? Like the Australian 3.8l
V6 SS Commodore? The Merlin and Griffin engines on the Spitfires were
supercharged, and they certainly went high enough :)

[[email protected]]

rnf2 > wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 21:46:53 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
>wrote:
>
>
>>Why I'm so touchy about spam is that I got into a real mess here
>>on usenet with spam. I had my real address showing somewhere in
>>my message headers and in about two years it had built up to 5 or
>>6 hundred msgs a day. Last measured it at 945 pieces in a 12 hour
>>period. It had shut my email right down so I had to change my
>>email address. Hateful task that...
>
>
>Spoof it...
>
>My email as far as Usenet is concerened is
>a computerised bot prog will try and use the whole thing... a thinking
>human being can look at it and select to remove the obvious spam
>blocking thing :)

Yes...I did that...see my id line above...but somewhere in the
header my real email address was showing. It's in the area that
shows when you select "Show all header fields".

--

-Gord.

[James Hart]

rnf2 wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 07:57:39 GMT, Guy Alcala
> > wrote:
>
>> WaltBJ wrote:
>>
>>> More trivia on flight and oxygen:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> As for the Rocky Mountains, when we get flatlanders up here for a
>>> visit and take them for a drive up over Trail Ridge road - peak
>>> altitude about 12,200, they usually doze off because they won't
>>> breathe (pant) enough.
>>
>> (Almost totally OT) Ah, Trail Ridge road. When my '88 Subaru GL
>> Turbo 4WD Wagon was almost brand new, I took four people and all our
>> gear for a week over Trail Ridge (we'd driven from California, but
>> spent a night and half day in Great Basin Nat. Park, including
>> sleeping at 10,000 feet). The Subaru only had 115 hp and had a curb
>> weight of about 3,000 lb., and virtually everyone had a better
>> power/weight ratio and was faster than I was -- at sea level. So
>> there we were, climbing up the west side on a hot, muggy summer day
>> (it was in the high '80s or low '90s, I forget which, when we passed
>> through Granby @ 8,500 feet), and all of a sudden I found I was just
>> about the most powerful car on the road, as I passed what were far
>> more powerful cars (at sea level) while driving uphill at ca. 10,000
>> ft. I could drive as fast as I wanted to (max. 40-50 or so) uphill
>> on the fairly open two-lane road, with 1-2,000 foot dropoffs on the
>> side and usually no guardrails on the turns. Coming back over from
>> east to west was the same.
>>
>> I never did find out what the critical altitude on the turbo was, but
>> judging by its performance on Trail Ridge that day it must have been
>> well over 14,000 feet (allowing for density altitude). Couldn't
>> have a more clear illustration of a turbo's thin air performance
>> advantage than that. I later took the car up to 13,200 feet in the
>> White Mountains one September with two people and gear, and I don't
>> remember any altitude problems there either, at least for the car
>> (it was graded gravel and dirt, so I wasn't driving very fast in any
>> case). Both of _us_ had AMS from ascending too fast from sea level,
>> even though we'd slept at 9,000 feet the night before.
>>
>> My Subaru Forester (some SOB stole my old Subie in its fifteenth
>> year, or I'd still be happily driving it) doesn't have a turbo (they
>> only came out with the XT turbo model in June or so of last year,
>> and I had to buy a car that January). It's got about 165 hp and
>> more torque, so my old turbo would come up short up to about 8,000
>> feet or so, but have more power above that. Living in the SF Bay
>> Area at sea level and driving up to the Sierra it hasn't been a
>> problem so far, but I have yet to carry that much of a load that
>> high, that hot. The highest paved road in California goes over
>> Tioga Pass (9,941 ft.) in Yosemite, and it handled that fine with
>> two people and backpacking gear last August, so I probably don't
>> need a turbo here, and I'm happy not to have to worry about the
>> turbo blowing up or suffering other expensive problems (not that I
>> had any, but I changed my oil every 3,000 miles and let it idle down
>> properly after hard driving). But if I was living in Colorado up
>> against the Front Range and/or commuting across it, I'd sure want
>> one. I've read that Subaru developed the Turbo Forester XT
>> precisely because the normally-aspirated model was left gasping for
>> breath commuting through the Eisenhower tunnel (@11,000 feet). As
>> Homer Simpson might say, "210 hp all the way up, M'mm."
>>
>> Guy
>
>
> I wonder what my Isuzu Bighorn (Trooper to you 'Mericans) 2.8 diesel
> turbo would be like there :) But for those that live high... aren't
> there any factory supercharged cars to use? Like the Australian 3.8l
> V6 SS Commodore? The Merlin and Griffin engines on the Spitfires were
> supercharged, and they certainly went high enough :)

Could always buy a Jaguar, they certainly do a supercharged version.

--
James...
www.jameshart.co.uk

[Tex Houston]

"James Hart" > wrote in message
...
> Could always buy a Jaguar, they certainly do a supercharged version.
>
> --
> James...

Chrysler PT Cruiser Turbo.

Tex

[[email protected]]

"Tex Houston" > wrote:

>
>"James Hart" > wrote in message
...
>> Could always buy a Jaguar, they certainly do a supercharged version.
>>
>> --
>> James...
>
>Chrysler PT Cruiser Turbo.
>
>Tex
>
Problem with the cruiser is the very thin paint on them.


Showroom salesman asked what I meant by that (in the hearing
range of two customers) and acted really insulted when I answered
"Paints not thick enough to cover the ugly". :)
--

-Gord.

[John Keeney]

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
. ..
> John Keeney wrote:
>
> > "Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > > WaltBJ wrote:
> > >
> > > > More trivia on flight and oxygen:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > As for the Rocky Mountains, when we get flatlanders up here for a
> > > > visit and take them for a drive up over Trail Ridge road - peak
> > > > altitude about 12,200, they usually doze off because they won't
> > > > breathe (pant) enough.
> > >
> > > (Almost totally OT) Ah, Trail Ridge road. When my '88 Subaru GL Turbo
4WD
> > > Wagon was almost brand new, I took four people and all our gear for a
week
> > > over Trail Ridge (we'd driven from California, but spent a night and
half
> > > day in Great Basin Nat. Park, including sleeping at 10,000 feet). The
> > > Subaru only had 115 hp and had a curb weight of about 3,000 lb., and
> > > virtually everyone had a better power/weight ratio and was faster than
I
> > > was -- at sea level. So there we were, climbing up the west side on a
> > > hot, muggy summer day (it was in the high '80s or low '90s, I forget
> > > which, when we passed through Granby @ 8,500 feet), and all of a
sudden I
> > > found I was just about the most powerful car on the road, as I passed
what
> > > were far more powerful cars (at sea level) while driving uphill at ca.
> > > 10,000 ft. I could drive as fast as I wanted to (max. 40-50 or so)
uphill
> > > on the fairly open two-lane road, with 1-2,000 foot dropoffs on the
side
> > > and usually no guardrails on the turns. Coming back over from east to
west
> > > was the same.
> >
> > Hmm, I was across Trail Ridge Road a couple of times last summer (same
> > trip) but never really noticed a loss of power there or down at Pike's
Peak.
> > Just must not have been putting my foot in it hard enough to notice.
That
> > and mass-air-flow sensors driving the fuel injection helps.
>
> Modern computerized engine controls undoubtedly help, compared to older
cars
> tuned for sea level. but how much of a load were you hauling, and in
what?

Not really hauling that much, I'ld be hard pressed to say what at the
moment.
The car was/is a '92 Buick Century four door with the 3.3L engine. The best
I recall the car stayed in high gear.
It's been considerable longer since I've been there (late 80's?), but seems
to
me the road coming into Yosemite from the east side was quite a bit steeper.

> > > of a load that high, that hot. The highest paved road in California
goes
> > > over Tioga Pass (9,941 ft.) in Yosemite, and it handled that fine with
two
> >
> > Nice developed campground up there, Tuolumne Meadows, only 8600'
> > but sub freezing temperatures of a night about anytime of the year. Good
> > tent sleeping.
>
> It's even better sleeping on one of the domes like Pothole or Lembert,
with the
> sky as your roof. It's warmer and you've got a better view. Of course I
would

I like the cold nights when I'm camping. Best night's sleep I've ever had
was in a tent at Tuolumne Meadows with a low of 28 degrees. Cooked
supper on the fire then spent the night up until about midnight in the
meadow watching the stars and planes. Back to the tent in the trees, sheet,
pillow, sleeping bag, socks and underwear, a wonderful night.

> never do such a thing (koff), as it's illegal. But I do spend a fair
amount of
> mountain time in/around Tuolomne.

I've got to admit, they make it illegal I'll most likely not do it. I'll
cuss
the idiots that put them in charge by hiring them or electing them but
they got there by the rules of the game and get to make the other rules.

> > Seems like the airliners come through that gap pretty low of a night.
> > Oh, watch the speed up there, the only place I've ever seen a National
> > Park Service radar speed trap, at 0-dark:30 no less.
>
> Shockin' , jus' shockin' ;-). It's a great road to drive fast in the
middle of
> the night when the motorhomes and other tourists are all tucked up in bed,
> coming up from Crane Flat on the west, but I do take it easy through the
meadow
> itself.
>
> > Just to make some attempt to getting this on topic I'll mention that the
> > Navy has a mobile home or two parked at the top of Pike's Peak doing
> > some kind of aeronautical research.
>
> Likewise, I'll mention that there's a tanker track almost directly above
the
> White Mountains. I got to watch a Buff refueling from a KC-135 last time
I was
> up there, while taking breaks from reading "Desert Solitaire."

[Cub Driver]

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 00:39:47 -0500, "John Keeney" >
wrote:

>I like the cold nights when I'm camping. Best night's sleep I've ever had
>was in a tent at Tuolumne Meadows with a low of 28 degrees.

Lookshury! Lookshury! 28 degrees isn't cold. When I was a boy, we
YEARNED for 28 degrees. When I was a boy, 28 degrees was the HIGH FOR
THE YEAR.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

You might try www.mailblocks.com, though in my experience the free
account isn't generous enough unless you empty the Pending mailbox
every day. Pay $10 a year and you're golden.

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:35:11 +1300, rnf2 >
wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 21:46:53 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
>wrote:
>
>
>>Why I'm so touchy about spam is that I got into a real mess here
>>on usenet with spam. I had my real address showing somewhere in
>>my message headers and in about two years it had built up to 5 or
>>6 hundred msgs a day. Last measured it at 945 pieces in a 12 hour
>>period. It had shut my email right down so I had to change my
>>email address. Hateful task that...
>
>
>Spoof it...
>
>My email as far as Usenet is concerened is
>a computerised bot prog will try and use the whole thing... a thinking
>human being can look at it and select to remove the obvious spam
>blocking thing :)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[[email protected]]

Cub Driver > wrote:

>On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 00:39:47 -0500, "John Keeney" >
>wrote:
>
>>I like the cold nights when I'm camping. Best night's sleep I've ever had
>>was in a tent at Tuolumne Meadows with a low of 28 degrees.
>
>Lookshury! Lookshury! 28 degrees isn't cold. When I was a boy, we
>YEARNED for 28 degrees. When I was a boy, 28 degrees was the HIGH FOR
>THE YEAR.
>
...and you walked 5 miles to school, uphill both ways, right?...

:)
--

-Gord.

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Cub Driver > writes:
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 00:39:47 -0500, "John Keeney" >
> wrote:
>
>>I like the cold nights when I'm camping. Best night's sleep I've ever had
>>was in a tent at Tuolumne Meadows with a low of 28 degrees.
>
> Lookshury! Lookshury! 28 degrees isn't cold. When I was a boy, we
> YEARNED for 28 degrees. When I was a boy, 28 degrees was the HIGH FOR
> THE YEAR.

The year! Heh! Why, back in the Pleistocene, we only dreamed about 28
degrees. We measured our snowbanks in miles.


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[QDurham]

>We measured our snowbanks in miles

Where'd you get that "we" business paleface?

Quent

[John Keeney]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 00:39:47 -0500, "John Keeney" >
> wrote:
>
> >I like the cold nights when I'm camping. Best night's sleep I've ever had
> >was in a tent at Tuolumne Meadows with a low of 28 degrees.
>
> Lookshury! Lookshury! 28 degrees isn't cold. When I was a boy, we
> YEARNED for 28 degrees. When I was a boy, 28 degrees was the HIGH FOR
> THE YEAR.

Ah, you grew up with my Dad then.
Fourteen miles to school, through the woods, fording the creeks,
the snow never less than knee-deep and up hill both ways. Of course
he had to go in an hour early to build the fire so he could claim the
10 cent a year payment for having done so.

[rnf2]

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 05:31:17 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote:

>On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 00:39:47 -0500, "John Keeney" >
>wrote:
>
>>I like the cold nights when I'm camping. Best night's sleep I've ever had
>>was in a tent at Tuolumne Meadows with a low of 28 degrees.
>
>Lookshury! Lookshury! 28 degrees isn't cold. When I was a boy, we
>YEARNED for 28 degrees. When I was a boy, 28 degrees was the HIGH FOR
>THE YEAR.
>
>all the best -- Dan Ford
>email: (requires authentication)
>
>see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
>and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Now if you're talking in Centigrade... 28 is roasting for here... 25
is a nice comfortable temp :)

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
(QDurham) writes:
>>We measured our snowbanks in miles
>
> Where'd you get that "we" business paleface?

My little brother. He had it easy. because somebody had to navigate,
so he stood on my shoulders to be able to see out of the ruts.

Then there was the time that we were driving the Mammoths down past
Lake Umbagog to Mooslucmeguntic. Well, what with the glaciers & all,
the bridge pilings were looking mighty shakey. ANd there's nothing
crankier than a wet Mammoth. (THey don't swim so well - the hair bogs
'em down.) So I looked the situation over, and figured that if I stood
on the ice, I could sorta prop things up as the Mammoths crossed.
Well, things went O.K. for the first two, but Jumbo was #3, and his
weight drove my feet plumb throught the ice. If I hadn't been so good
at treading water...

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[QDurham]

>Then there was the time that we were driving the Mammoths down past
>Lake Umbagog to Mooslucmeguntic. Well, what with the glaciers & all,
>the bridge pilings were looking mighty shakey. ANd there's nothing
>crankier than a wet Mammoth. (THey don't swim so well - the hair bogs
>'em down.) So I looked the situation over, and figured that if I stood
>on the ice, I could sorta prop things up as the Mammoths crossed.
>Well, things went O.K. for the first two, but Jumbo was #3, and his
>weight drove my feet plumb throught the ice. If I hadn't been so good
>at treading water...
>
Thank you for making that clear. I bet you could fill us in on that rare
French feline, the "épeé-toothed tiger."

Quent
>

[Guy Alcala]

Peter Stickney wrote:

> In article >,
> Cub Driver > writes:
> > On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 00:39:47 -0500, "John Keeney" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>I like the cold nights when I'm camping. Best night's sleep I've ever had
> >>was in a tent at Tuolumne Meadows with a low of 28 degrees.
> >
> > Lookshury! Lookshury! 28 degrees isn't cold. When I was a boy, we
> > YEARNED for 28 degrees. When I was a boy, 28 degrees was the HIGH FOR
> > THE YEAR.
>
> The year! Heh! Why, back in the Pleistocene, we only dreamed about 28
> degrees. We measured our snowbanks in miles.

Proving that everything important in life can be learned from Monty Python.
And here I was worried about being off-topic;-)

Guy

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
(QDurham) writes:
>>Then there was the time that we were driving the Mammoths down past
>>Lake Umbagog to Mooslucmeguntic. Well, what with the glaciers & all,
>>the bridge pilings were looking mighty shakey. ANd there's nothing
>>crankier than a wet Mammoth. (THey don't swim so well - the hair bogs
>>'em down.) So I looked the situation over, and figured that if I stood
>>on the ice, I could sorta prop things up as the Mammoths crossed.
>>Well, things went O.K. for the first two, but Jumbo was #3, and his
>>weight drove my feet plumb throught the ice. If I hadn't been so good
>>at treading water...
>>
> Thank you for making that clear. I bet you could fill us in on that rare
> French feline, the "épeé-toothed tiger."

Ah, yes. the Mahairdontinow Smilodon Gallis. An elegant creature, for
a more civilized time. Not so random or clumsy as Appalachian
Culverin...

We did see a few of them. Some apparently migrated to what's now
Canada across the Polar Ice Bridge, and, with the abundant supplies of
Salmon, Frogs, and Gastropods, set up A colony in the Eastern part of
the Contitnent. Many, however, considered to climate too extreme, and
pushed further South, settling in what is now Louisiana in the
Mississippi Delta region. Unfortunately, the Epee-Toothed Tigre has
fallen t0 the same fate as it cousin, the Sabre Toothed Tiger - in
order to gain needed supplements to its diet, it needed to
occasionally eat an Honest Politician.

--
Pete Stickney
Did I ever tell you the one about the Travelling Mammoth Hunter and
the Chieftan's Daughter?

[David Lesher]

"Tex Houston" > writes:


>> Could always buy a Jaguar, they certainly do a supercharged version.
>>
>> --
>> James...

>Chrysler PT Cruiser Turbo.


It's supercharged, or turbocharged?
Non-minor difference.



--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[Tex Houston]

"David Lesher" > wrote in message
...
> "Tex Houston" > writes:
>
>
> >> Could always buy a Jaguar, they certainly do a supercharged version.
> >>
> >> --
> >> James...
>
> >Chrysler PT Cruiser Turbo.
>
>
> It's supercharged, or turbocharged?
> Non-minor difference.


Turbocharged, but if the idea is to compensate for the thinner air at
altitude or increase air pressure at all altitudes both techniques work.
There are also supercharger kits for the Cruiser (at least there were ones
developed when the PT was new). Mine has nearly 50,000 miles.

I prefer the supercharger techniques myself but anyone who can match engines
with what units are available and still retain the drivability is way beyond
my skill level.

Tex