"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
news

"Jim Knoyle" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
news

"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:


"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
.. .
(sid) wrote:


I should have framed the question this way:
How far would either aircraft fly if there is trouble in the E&E
bay
that compromises the electrical system and you are down to DC
power...And then you lose even that?

Isn't that like saying "what would happen if the bloody wings
were to fall off"?...pretty silly statement imo.

I can't understand the obsession with DC power either. Airplanes
mostly
use
AC power for controls. I have yet to see a synchro that runs on
DC.

Almost all a/c generate A.C. power then transform and rectify
some of it to DC with TRU's so the only emergency supply of DC is
a very short lived set of batteries mostly used for emergency
flight instruments and other very essential services.

I believe the 767 has 2 DC generators on the engines.

No, it does not. An AC gen on each engine and the APU.
The eng gens are referred to as an IDG. (integrated drive
generator) The constant speed transmission and gen are
in one 'package.'

No my idiot, the 767's AC generators have a variable frequency excitation
instead of the old DC style ecitation such that no constant spee
transmission is required.

If so, why is the IDG so much bigger than your basic generator alone?
Same goes for a VSCF.

What the hell are you talking about "old DC style excitation?" Is that
meant to be a 'new' tarver classic? I suppose you wouldn't want to
'splain how the PMG is wired into the circuit?
If you're somehow referring to the old brush type generators that
we got rid of way back in the '70s, you're *still* way off base!!!
....and to think I've been drawing you a picture (twice) up on
your page for all of these years!
http://home.att.net/~j.knoyle/the_ta...hronicles.html

Actually, I'm very disappointed in the way you blew the opportunity
to explain to the folks how the ADGs and/or HMGs are incorporated
into the ETOPS 767s.

Doesn't this Knoyle retard ever get anything right?

Perhaps this will help:
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:


"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
.. .
"Jim Knoyle" wrote:

Hang on here a second now Jim, you still need two samples. As Dan
says you need 'static pressure' to read the altitude from and you
need 'pitot pressure' (ram air pressure) as well as the static
pressure to derive the airspeed reading from. Sounds like you're
saying that you can read 'both' from just the 'ram air pressure'
alone. Or did I misunderstand you?

Jim has finally figued out what a pitot tube is, but somehow he still
wants
to be correct in his archive troll. It is a great paradox.


I know...ain't life a bitch John

--

-Gord.


Like I posted before, you can continue posting that little snippet
untill the cows come home. Doesn't bother me a bit since it is
such a good example of your [dishonest] selective snipping.
You lack the character to include my response to Gord.

Jimmy

Tarverisms from the past:
That is false, even the 777 has a DC generator for each engine and the APU.
It would be unsafe to operate a transport any other way.
and
I did not say anywhere that most jets do not have AC generators. Some are
DC only, but I have no problem with bert boy, his immaginary friends, and
the two other idiots that run with him making fools of themselves once
again.