Grandmother Goes Down at the Pole

In article ,
Mainlander *@*.* wrote:

In article .net,
says...


Col wrote:

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 20:14:58 GMT, Jerry Springer
wrote:



Mainlander wrote:


In article ,
says...


"Cub Driver" wrote in message
m...


It's getting awfully crowded down there (or up there, in terms of
latitude). No wonder the folks at McMurdo were so unfriendly to the
Kiwi who dropped in without enough fuel to reach his destination.

Yes, on the other hand they are there as the guests of the taxpayers,
and
shouldn't be treating Antartica as their own personal fiefdom.


Why didn't the Australian government spring to his rescue?

By the way they are accountable to taxpayers and shouldn't have to spend
thousands of dollars shipping in fuel (he refused to pay for the fuel he
was eventually offered)


Please show where he refused to pay for fuel??????


It was widely reported Pignut .


One other thing why don't you go to this site, read all of the links
then come back and tell us where he refused top buy fuel???? I await your
answer.
http://www.southpolestation.com/news/rv4/rv4.html

And that article further reinforces Johansen's stupidity. Quote
"Jon filed a flight plan for his trip just before departing, but he kept
his South Pole plans secret until the end, knowing that they would not be
approved. He claims to have done his homework on Antarctic flying and
weather conditions. However, his tires are too small for the ice
runway...since he didn't have the oversized low-ground-pressure balloon
tires such as used by the Twin Otters, the wheels sank into the snow and
he had to get assistance in getting towed off of the active airstrip. And
depending on the actual weather conditions, there were several other
hard-surface runways he could have diverted to---Patriot Hills, Novo,
Rothera, or even Marsh...at any of these he might have had an easier time
getting refueled."


And the article also states that the NSF people refused him access to
meteorological data. Does that sound like a responsible government
agency?

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 02:33:12 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
wrote:

In article ,
Mainlander *@*.* wrote:

In article .net,
says...


Col wrote:

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 20:14:58 GMT, Jerry Springer
wrote:



Mainlander wrote:


In article ,
says...


"Cub Driver" wrote in message
m...


It's getting awfully crowded down there (or up there, in terms of
latitude). No wonder the folks at McMurdo were so unfriendly to the
Kiwi who dropped in without enough fuel to reach his destination.

Yes, on the other hand they are there as the guests of the taxpayers,
and
shouldn't be treating Antartica as their own personal fiefdom.


Why didn't the Australian government spring to his rescue?

By the way they are accountable to taxpayers and shouldn't have to spend
thousands of dollars shipping in fuel (he refused to pay for the fuel he
was eventually offered)


Please show where he refused to pay for fuel??????


It was widely reported Pignut .


One other thing why don't you go to this site, read all of the links
then come back and tell us where he refused top buy fuel???? I await your
answer.
http://www.southpolestation.com/news/rv4/rv4.html

And that article further reinforces Johansen's stupidity. Quote
"Jon filed a flight plan for his trip just before departing, but he kept
his South Pole plans secret until the end, knowing that they would not be
approved. He claims to have done his homework on Antarctic flying and
weather conditions. However, his tires are too small for the ice
runway...since he didn't have the oversized low-ground-pressure balloon
tires such as used by the Twin Otters, the wheels sank into the snow and
he had to get assistance in getting towed off of the active airstrip. And
depending on the actual weather conditions, there were several other
hard-surface runways he could have diverted to---Patriot Hills, Novo,
Rothera, or even Marsh...at any of these he might have had an easier time
getting refueled."


And the article also states that the NSF people refused him access to
meteorological data. Does that sound like a responsible government
agency?

Again, the NSF et al are not there for general business purposes.

Are you aware that the NSF also uses pers from Ice Recon in MD as part
of their operation?

I doubt whether it would have really understood their charts.
Afterall, he wasn't the brightest bulb on the christmas tree was he.

Cath

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 23:15:49 GMT, (Bruce
Hamilton) wrote:

I hope this post doesn't sound impolite or abusive to you, as you
obviously wanted to add some data, but the storage constraints on
Avgas mean it has to be regularly retested before it can be accepted
as fuel for aircraft. Avgas is usually more stable than Mogas, but it
still has to be within a current test period.

I though gas turbines (as used in aircraft engines) would run on just
about any old liquid, as long as it has a hint of hydrocarbon in it?

David

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:51:25 +0930, David Pears
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 23:15:49 GMT, (Bruce
Hamilton) wrote:

I hope this post doesn't sound impolite or abusive to you, as you
obviously wanted to add some data, but the storage constraints on
Avgas mean it has to be regularly retested before it can be accepted
as fuel for aircraft. Avgas is usually more stable than Mogas, but it
still has to be within a current test period.

I though gas turbines (as used in aircraft engines) would run on just
about any old liquid, as long as it has a hint of hydrocarbon in it?


Yes and no, as Air New Zealand discovered. Many gas turbines have
other components like fuel pumps that turn out to be quite sensitive
to the lubricating properties of the fuel. The lubrication properties
of Avgas/Mogas are near nil. Jet A is actually pretty slippery stuff.
So while you can burn just about anything in the turbine, you have to
make sure that doing so doesn't damage something else...
David

David Pears wrote:

I though gas turbines (as used in aircraft engines) would run on just
about any old liquid, as long as it has a hint of hydrocarbon in it?

The problem is that turbine fuel ( effectively an aviation kerosine ) has to
also satisfy several requirements, both with regard to engine performance and
safety. The fundamental ones are flash point ( temperature at which the fuel
will give off sufficient vapours to ignite if a flame is applied ) and freezing
point ( engines tend to stop when fuel turns to sludge ).

Avgas has suitably low freezing point, but the flash point is far lower than
the fuel systems on a commercial Jet A1 fuelled airliner are designed to cope
with. Military airliners often use a wide cut kerosine with a flash point well
below airfield ambients.

If a plane is carrying passengers, it's usually running on Jet A1, a narrow cut
fuel with a flash point above most airfield ambient temperatures ( 38C ).
Flash point is also the easiest method of detecting whether a kerosine has been
contaminated by a gasoline. The 1997 explosion of the "empty" centre tank in
TWA Flight 800, has reignited interest in fuel flammability issues.

Kerosines tend to have more lubricity than gasolines ( higher sulphur and
viscosity ) but high pressure hydrotreating and hydrocracking have made fuels
"harder" ( less lubricity ), and NZ aviation authorities have convinced other
countries to include a lubricity specification in DefStan 91-91 but, AFAIK,
it's not yet in the more common ASTM D1655.

Note that refractory elements ( silicon, calcium, potassium, vanadium etc )
will erode-deposit on turbine blades, and they are present in higher boiling
fractions such as diesel ( which wouldn't pass the freezing point requirement -
but is used on ship and power-station gas turbines ). Fuels for gas turbines
tend to ensure such elements aren't present, even though falling out of the sky
isn't an option, as overhauls are very expensive.

There are a whole heap of other criteria for Jet fuels associated with
cleanliness, corrosivity, combustion properties, stability and approved
additives that mean than commercial aircraft tend to use a well defined narrow
cut kerosine fraction.

Bruce Hamilton

"matt weber" wrote in message reply:::

I though gas turbines (as used in aircraft engines) would run on just
about any old liquid, as long as it has a hint of hydrocarbon in it?


Yes and no, as Air New Zealand discovered. Many gas turbines have
other components like fuel pumps that turn out to be quite sensitive
to the lubricating properties of the fuel. The lubrication properties
of Avgas/Mogas are near nil. Jet A is actually pretty slippery stuff.
So while you can burn just about anything in the turbine, you have to
make sure that doing so doesn't damage something else...
David



We had Garrett turbines powering 60Hz alternators at the Cooby Creek
Tracking Station at Toowoomba in the late 60's and found the FCU's chewing
up their internal bearings like crazy until we got an anti-static additive
put in the ATK. Electrostatic corrosion.

--
JW²
Norton AntiVirus 2003 installed
************************************

Is it so very very hard to admit when one is mistaken?

Bruce wins this one.

Yeah, Jerry go ahead and belittle me now.


"Jerry Springer" wrote in message
nk.net...


Jimmy Galvin wrote:


Jerry:
You have stretched this about as far as possible. Your logic is flawed
and
you are coming across as just plane silly.
Jimmy


If you say so Jimmy then it must be true. LOL

Robert Loer wrote:
Is it so very very hard to admit when one is mistaken?

Bruce wins this one.

Yeah, Jerry go ahead and belittle me now.



Is your name Jimmy???? I have not seen you contribute anything to this
thread, did I miss your posts somewhere???
I have no problem with Bruce, he believes what he believes and I believe what I
believe. We just don't agree. I know Jon and how much planning goes into each
of his trips. What do you know Robert other that what you read? It is easy to
say what should have, could have been done after it is all over. Should I have
said to Bruce that he did not know what he was talking about? NO, that was to
strong but I still stand on the armchair quarterback part. At least Bruce was
not saying the ridiculous things that were being said here by others like he
refused to pay for fuel offered.
Once again Robert what is is that I am mistaken about?

Jerry



"Jerry Springer" wrote in message
nk.net...


Jimmy Galvin wrote:


Jerry:
You have stretched this about as far as possible. Your logic is flawed

and

you are coming across as just plane silly.
Jimmy



If you say so Jimmy then it must be true. LOL

"Jerry Springer" wrote in message
hlink.net...


Robert Loer wrote:
Is it so very very hard to admit when one is mistaken?

Bruce wins this one.

Yeah, Jerry go ahead and belittle me now.



Is your name Jimmy???? I have not seen you contribute anything to this
thread, did I miss your posts somewhere???
I have no problem with Bruce, he believes what he believes and I believe
what I
believe. We just don't agree. I know Jon and how much planning goes into
each
of his trips. What do you know Robert other that what you read? It is easy
to
say what should have, could have been done after it is all over. Should I
have
said to Bruce that he did not know what he was talking about? NO, that was
to
strong but I still stand on the armchair quarterback part. At least Bruce
was
not saying the ridiculous things that were being said here by others like
he
refused to pay for fuel offered.
Once again Robert what is is that I am mistaken about?

Jerry

No, his name is Robert. Now Jerry try to follow this. I will explain it step
by step. Robert is spelled R, o, b, e, r, t. Jimmy is spelled J, i, m, m, y.
Please note that these two names are comprised of 11 letters total. One
having 6 letters, the other having 5, and none having been used in both
names. I am trying to explain this as logically and clearly as possible.
Oops, forgot, you are logically challenged. Well OK how about (sigh) I give
up.

It is admirable that you are sticking up for your friend but the fact is he
screwed up big time and had to depend on others to pull his chestnuts out of
the fire.
Jimmy

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

Jerry Springer wrote:

Is your name Jimmy???? I have not seen you contribute anything to this
thread, did I miss your posts somewhere???


Stick it. This is a public forum. You want to communicate privately with Jimmy,
use email. Until then, don't bitch if someone else opens up.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

Yes it is a public forum, and isn't wonderful that we each can say and believe
what we want? Even you George are welcome to add your "Stick it" comment. :-)
That really sheds new light on the subject at hand.

I find your tag line interesting. Think about it.....

Anyway it is Christmas I am going to celibrate with family. Each of you that
think I am so wrong can have the last say on this.

Marry Christmas or Happy Holidays,

Jerry