A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Grandmother Goes Down at the Pole



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old December 24th 03, 03:58 PM
Jerry Springer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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

  #62  
Old December 24th 03, 04:57 PM
Jimmy Galvin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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

And Merry Christmas to you and your family Jerry.
Best wishes,
Jimmy


  #63  
Old December 24th 03, 06:31 PM
G.R. Patterson III
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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...."
  #64  
Old January 4th 04, 04:18 AM
Big John
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Let me add a bit.

In the early days of Jet A/C, the fuel was JP-1. We used it in the
F/P-80 and T-33. If we had to land at a field that didn't have the
JP-1 we could fill up with gasoline and use it to get to a field that
had JP-1. We had to watch the TPT and not exceed the red line but the
gas worked fine.

We lost a little thrust using the gasoline vs JP-1 but just adjusted
the legs to fit to the range with gasoline.

Big John


On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:55:18 +1300, Bruce Hamilton
wrote:

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


  #65  
Old January 4th 04, 08:04 PM
zxc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

ftB
ig John wrote in message . ..
Let me add a bit.

In the early days of Jet A/C, the fuel was JP-1. We used it in the
F/P-80 and T-33. If we had to land at a field that didn't have the
JP-1 we could fill up with gasoline and use it to get to a field that
had JP-1. We had to watch the TPT and not exceed the red line but the
gas worked fine.

We lost a little thrust using the gasoline vs JP-1 but just adjusted
the legs to fit to the range with gasoline.

Big John


On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:55:18 +1300, Bruce Hamilton
wrote:

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

  #66  
Old January 13th 04, 01:23 PM
Paul Sengupta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bah. First I'd heard about this, not read much aviation press
recently.

http://www.polarfirst.com/html/press.php?recno=4

I see the helicopter they were flying was a Bell 407. Jennifer's
previous round the world record flights were all in an R-44, with
"Q" (Quentin Smith) either as co-pilot (1996) or flying another
helicopter (another R-44) alongside, with Colin Bodil flying his
microlight (2000).

http://www.earthrounders.com/other.html

Polly Vacher is also on her way to circumnavigate the world
via the two poles (having done it the "easy" way in 2001) in
her Piper Dakota.

http://www.worldwings.org/
http://www.earthrounders.com/singles.html

Paul

"BJ" wrote in message
...
http://www.falklandnews.com/public/s...2549&source=12
"Following the reception of a distress call early this morning, a
massive search for 63 year-old Jenny Murray and her co-pilot, Colin
Bodil began and culminated in their successful rescue.



  #67  
Old January 13th 04, 04:10 PM
Dennis O'Connor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Wonder if she/they will get the bill for the cost of the rescue and the cost
of removing the aircraft and containing any spills... Here in Michigan the
state and the coast guard is getting stern about this with the ice fishermen
and the snowmobilers... Stay out on the ice after a warning has been posted
and have to be rescued and you will get a bill in the thousands of
dollars...

denny
"Paul Sengupta" wrote in message
...
Bah. First I'd heard about this, not read much aviation press
recently.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.