Looking for B-17 video...

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...
Ralph Nesbitt wrote:

Self - initiating ? I've never known a fuel air mixture explode of its own
accord outside a diesel engine. Especially with quite low temps.

Yes and that is why Nesbit is a resident idiot, at ada.

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote in message
m...

snip
There are references to several scientific papers here. Effectively it is
not uncommon for the "Air Temp" inside the "Vapour Space" of an A/C with a
"~ empty CWT" sitting on a ramp in high ambient temp conditions with the
air
handling units running, to exceed the "Flash Point" of "Jet A Vapors"
within
the ambient atmospheric conditions.

It is all bull****, Ralph; all an attempt to save TWA's managment from their
own bad decisions.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote in message
m...

snip
I have stated that

A=: "The Boeing CWT Design Philosophy" results in an "Inherently
Dangerous
Situation" across a broad spectrum of a Boeing A/C/s flight profile.

An out and out lie and a conclusion which Nesbitt is completely
unqualified
to draw.

snip of additional false statements

Challenge FAA & NTSB, not the messenger, "Me".

FAA & NTSB did not order implementation of "Specified Operating Protocols"
as SOP for operators of Boeing A/C to minimize the "Inherent Danger"
associated with the "Boeing CWT Design Philosophy" on a whim.

Your failure to accept reality is a "prime example" of 1 hand refusing to
acknowledge the other, which causes many problems in the A/C world.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote in message
y.com...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote in message
m...

snip
I have stated that

A=: "The Boeing CWT Design Philosophy" results in an "Inherently
Dangerous
Situation" across a broad spectrum of a Boeing A/C/s flight profile.

An out and out lie and a conclusion which Nesbitt is completely
unqualified
to draw.

snip of additional false statements

Challenge FAA & NTSB, not the messenger, "Me".

FAA has already capitulated to the "wire fire" theory and NTSB is of no
concern to me.

Paroting obvious lies does not make you less of a liar, Nesbitt.

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...
Tarver Engineering wrote:

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote in message
y.com...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote in message
y.com...

-Gord.
Merry Christmas to you/yours Gord. Glad to see the "Sensible Old
Hands" are
still around/lurking ADA.

Look here, Nesbitt, as long as you are calling 747s "bombs", you are
a
nut.

Why does my wishing some 1 Merry Christmas cause you such "Heart
Burn".

No, Ralph, it is you attempting to include yourself in some "sensible
old
hands" group, that gives me alarm; as you are a nut calling 747s
"bombs".
Do you have any clue how humiliated Cal Tech is for that little stunt?

Are you referring to the 'explosive mix' experiment that was conducted
using
propane ? IIRC as a substitute for Jet A fumes ?

Propane and hydrogen was the mix used by Cal Tech and they are now
humiliated for the stunt nation wide. No longer will America's Universities
even consider lending their credibility to NTSB and they can no longer get a
University to do work for them.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote in message
m...


Hopefully Phil picks this up for his section on "Tarver/Splaps
Boy/Splappy.

You do know, Ralph, that the spoiler is operated as a flap on 707, 727,
and
747 Boeing aircraft, by the automatic Yaw damper? That is of course a
predictable result, when you parrot Craig, a scab road engineer's
draftsman.
(crossing state lines to evade the engineer's Act) The Mazor sock
mighthave
been a better choice to parrot, except his puppetmaster Marron was never
more that a turboprop operator. (with knowledge of a large transport)

Interesting statement. I am sure there will be appropriate responses.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 05:20:36 GMT, "Ralph Nesbitt" wrote:


I have stated that

A=: "The Boeing CWT Design Philosophy" results in an "Inherently Dangerous
Situation" across a broad spectrum of a Boeing A/C/s flight profile.

B=: This has been determined to be a "Safety of Flight".

C=: To minimize/eliminate to the extent possible the "Inherently Dangerous
Situation" due "The Boeing CWT Design Philosophy" across the majority of the
flight spectrum of any given A/C, "Implementation of Specified Operating
Protocols" have been mandated by Air Safety Regulation/Safety Oversight
Organizations" world wide.

To my knowledge nothing "Design Philosophy" wise has changed that would
eliminate "The Inherently Dangerous Situation CWT" issue on Boeing A/C
across the models with CWT's irrespective of whether a given A/C was #1 from
the line or the latest 1 off the line.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

Would you care to provide us with a list of all of the Boeing
aircraft that have "blown up" due to this "inherantly dangerous"
condition?

Surely, with the thousands of Boeings operating around the
world such an "inherently dangerous" condition would
manifest itself in "aluminum rain".

Al Minyard

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...
Ralph Nesbitt wrote:

"Duster" wrote in message
. ..
Holy **** and all I wanted was a video... hehe this is almost better
though..

Duster

Tarver cannot get it through his head that having the air handling
units
operating under the CWT when the A/C is stationary is like putting a
pressure cooker with a small amount of fuel in it, on a stove at low
heat.

There have been several incidents world wide where Boeing A/C of
various
models have exploded sitting at gates, on ramps, taxing out, or
shortly
after take off after sitting with the air handling units running under
~
empty CWT's.

There are now "Air Safety Directives" stipulating/requiring certain
operating protocols to minimize this hazard associated with the
"Boeing
CWT
Design Philosophy".

All very true.

All very false, Ralph is lying and has not a clue.

Ok in "Detail & Specifics" explain;
What is "Very False?
Why am I allegedly "Lying About"?
What is it I do not have a "Clue About" regarding the "Inherent Dangers"
associated with "The Boeing CWT Design Philosophy"?

In the above context I am using the Term "Inherent Dangers" as defined/used
by the Liability Insurance Industry.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...
Ralph Nesbitt wrote:

Self - initiating ? I've never known a fuel air mixture explode of its
own
accord outside a diesel engine. Especially with quite low temps.

Yes and that is why Nesbit is a resident idiot, at ada.

Yesterday you were claiming Jim Knoyle's (?sp apologies if incorrect) Webb
Site was very good at pointing out/to an "Idiot". To my knowledge I am not
the subject of review anywhere on Jim's Webb Site.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
news

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote in message
m...

snip
There are references to several scientific papers here. Effectively it
is
not uncommon for the "Air Temp" inside the "Vapour Space" of an A/C with
a
"~ empty CWT" sitting on a ramp in high ambient temp conditions with the
air
handling units running, to exceed the "Flash Point" of "Jet A Vapors"
within
the ambient atmospheric conditions.

It is all bull****, Ralph; all an attempt to save TWA's managment from
their
own bad decisions.

Refute the technical issues point by point.

Especially the combined effects of varying "Ambient Atmospheric Pressure",
Temp, & Altitude have on LEL, UEL, Flame & Flash point.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type