Air Force uniform prototype makes debut

(BUFDRVR) wrote:

I've likely started
thousands of aircraft engines and NEVER had an engine fire on
start

I've started 8 engines at least 300 times (2400 starts) and I've only had 2
engine fires on start and one of them was a torch that the crew chief, in my
opinion, over reacted to.


BUFDRVR

Sure...and just about anyone who starts a/c engines can say the
same...fireguards are a waste of time...
--

-Gord.

"Gord Beaman" wrote
(BUFDRVR) wrote:

I've likely started
thousands of aircraft engines and NEVER had an engine fire on
start

I've started 8 engines at least 300 times (2400 starts) and I've only had 2
engine fires on start and one of them was a torch that the crew chief, in my
opinion, over reacted to.


BUFDRVR

Sure...and just about anyone who starts a/c engines can say the
same...fireguards are a waste of time...

We had a DC-3 burn-up on start in Pleiku once. Course that was
a gasoline fire. It was full of body bags going to Saigon. What a mess.
Digging latrines was good duty that week. That was a month before
the Cathay Pacific airliner blew-up over Pleiku at 29k ft. We had
raining body parts on that deal.

Sure...and just about anyone who starts a/c engines can say the
same...fireguards are a waste of time...

I think it depends on the aircraft. Despite the extremely rare occurances, I
actually believe they serve a purpose during a BUFF engine start, at least for
#4 (the first engine started). In the BUFF, we have no APU and rely on an AGE
cart for starting #4 and # 5 engine. The carts are old (imagine that) and
generally not designed to spin your engines any higher than about 25% RPM, so
basically, until you have #4 on line, you have limited ability to motor out a
fire, which obviously increases your probability of needing fire retardant and
a fire guard.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR wrote:

Sure...and just about anyone who starts a/c engines can say the
same...fireguards are a waste of time...

I think it depends on the aircraft. Despite the extremely rare occurances, I
actually believe they serve a purpose during a BUFF engine start, at least for
#4 (the first engine started). In the BUFF, we have no APU and rely on an AGE
cart for starting #4 and # 5 engine. The carts are old (imagine that) and
generally not designed to spin your engines any higher than about 25% RPM, so
basically, until you have #4 on line, you have limited ability to motor out a
fire, which obviously increases your probability of needing fire retardant and
a fire guard.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Why do you start #4 & #5 first? Do they have more electrical/hydraulic capacity?

Given the age of those engines, I would want to start #1 & #8 first, in case they
blow up!

( The above includes both an honest question and a non serious smartass comment.)

Bob McKellar, who only had to start #1 on his own airplane long ago

Why do you start #4 & #5 first?

The sequence is; #4 then #5, then the rest. You could use #3 or #6 to start as
well, I'm guessing they just picked #4 because they needed to pick an inboard
engine and #4 was the closest to the watchful eyes of the Aircraft Commander
(I'm not really sure why they picked #4 out of the 4 they could have?)

You want to use inboard engines because the bleed air manifold connecting to
the outboard engines is only designed to have cooled air blown into it, not hot
air out of it. Basically, if you start #8, then run up #8 to start the rest,
you can over temp the "plumbing" leading from the #8 engine. Same is true for
#1, #2 and #7. On occasions, the manifold for one of the outboard engines will
stick open after the switch has been placed to CLOSED and either during the
anti-ice check, or initial takeoff you'll get a manifold overheat light. The
bad part is, you have no idea which engine and have to go through a little
"trial and error" to figure out which engine is the criminal. On takeoff the
light comes on immediately upon turning the air conditioning on (somewhere
prior to 10,000').



BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR wrote:

Why do you start #4 & #5 first?

The sequence is; #4 then #5, then the rest. You could use #3 or #6 to start as
well, I'm guessing they just picked #4 because they needed to pick an inboard
engine and #4 was the closest to the watchful eyes of the Aircraft Commander
(I'm not really sure why they picked #4 out of the 4 they could have?)

You want to use inboard engines because the bleed air manifold connecting to
the outboard engines is only designed to have cooled air blown into it, not hot
air out of it. Basically, if you start #8, then run up #8 to start the rest,
you can over temp the "plumbing" leading from the #8 engine. Same is true for
#1, #2 and #7. On occasions, the manifold for one of the outboard engines will
stick open after the switch has been placed to CLOSED and either during the
anti-ice check, or initial takeoff you'll get a manifold overheat light. The
bad part is, you have no idea which engine and have to go through a little
"trial and error" to figure out which engine is the criminal. On takeoff the
light comes on immediately upon turning the air conditioning on (somewhere
prior to 10,000').

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

So all the engines are all "plumbed" together? As long as one of the 8 is running,
you can send "starting air" to the others (within the limits you mentioned.)?

Starting is all with bleed air, no electric motors?

Given all this complexity, why was an APU not fitted? It would not seem to add
much to the plumbing. Is this due to the general plan of a large AFB with lots of
handy ground techs and their equipment running around?

Bob McKellar

So all the engines are all "plumbed" together?

Yes.

As long as one of the 8 is running,
you can send "starting air" to the others (within the limits you mentioned.)?

Yes.

Starting is all with bleed air, no electric motors?

The starters ("spark") are DC, but initial engine rotation is provided by bleed
air.

Given all this complexity, why was an APU not fitted?

Are there any jets built before 1962 that have APUs? Did the Comet have an APU?
If the answer is yes to either of those, my only guess would be, to save
weight, they did without the APU. Hell, they took the G model's and H model's
ailerons off to save weight.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

there is another way to start the engines as well. the Starter cartridges
placed in the engine starter fires from battery power and propels the
engines to motor up. it was use on alerts. and a bitch to clean up after an
exercise. we would put two on # 4 & #5 engines for a normal alert status,
and a cart in all eight engines for a quick start alert.
"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
So all the engines are all "plumbed" together?

Yes.

As long as one of the 8 is running,
you can send "starting air" to the others (within the limits you
mentioned.)?

Yes.

Starting is all with bleed air, no electric motors?

The starters ("spark") are DC, but initial engine rotation is provided by
bleed
air.

Given all this complexity, why was an APU not fitted?

Are there any jets built before 1962 that have APUs? Did the Comet have an
APU?
If the answer is yes to either of those, my only guess would be, to save
weight, they did without the APU. Hell, they took the G model's and H
model's
ailerons off to save weight.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

From: "Gord Beaman" )
Date: 2/20/2004 7:35 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(BUFDRVR) wrote:

I've likely started
thousands of aircraft engines and NEVER had an engine fire on
start

I've started 8 engines at least 300 times (2400 starts) and I've only had 2
engine fires on start and one of them was a torch that the crew chief, in my
opinion, over reacted to.


BUFDRVR

Sure...and just about anyone who starts a/c engines can say the
same...fireguards are a waste of time...
--

-Gord.

On the other hand when an F-4E burns on engine start having a fire guard comes
in very handy getting the aircrew out safely. In the 2 years I was at Hahn AB
it happened only once as far as I recall. It justified the expense as far as I
am concerned. It was the only case of one of my aircraft in 20 years. It's a
small price to pay.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Sure...and just about anyone who starts a/c engines can say the
same...fireguards are a waste of time...

Well, I for one was always glad to have one when we were starting an bombed up,
fueled up F-4 using the cartridge start system. It was always a relief to see
that the world was still there after the black/red smoke cloud cleared. A few
got burned up to the wheels on that little operation. Ditto with hot pit
refueling. There is/was a gate guard as Davis-Monthan AFB that caught fire
with a loss of life when the refueling nozzle slipped off and raw JP4 got
sucked into the inlet on #1, belched flame and caught the pool of fuel under
the jet on fire. Backseater jumped out the left side of the plane as was the
usual route, right into the flame. If he had gone the right side or over the
nose as the fronst seater did he wold have survived.