Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:38 AM - Re: Carbon Monoxide Filters (Craig Payne)
2. 04:15 AM - Harness FOD (Rob Rowe)
3. 05:59 AM - Re: Carbon Monoxide Filters (Tim Gagnon)
4. 06:55 AM - Re: Re: Carbon Monoxide Filters (Roger Kemp)
5. 02:15 PM - Red Air III Site Moved (viperdoc)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Carbon Monoxide Filters |
I believe that there may be another answer to CO-contamination for *many* of the
flight and ground conditions that we normally encounter in a flight. However,
this solution would add weight and look ugly. On a CJ-6, anything that looked
Ugly would stand out like a turd in a punch bowl. On a Yak, well....maybe you
wouldn't notice as much :>)
What I'm talking about would look a little like the Canadian Harvard with exhaust
tube running back along the fuselage. In case of the Yak/CJ, the tubes would
not go through the cowl but exit out the bottom through a cowl bump that allows
removal of the cowl without messing with the exhaust tubes. The tubes would
run along the fuselage to a point under the wing root. Yes, weight would be
added and it would be noticable (on a CJ anyway)
With such a system, gases would be expelled past the point of airflow over the
wing, and away from the wheel well area on CJ's. However, there would still be
problems in certain acro conditions of tumbles, inverted spins, tail slides and
the other things I don't do anyway.
Craig Payne
cpayne@joimail.com
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
With recent posts on the Snowbird's incident, harnesses & FOD the following link
to the UK AAIB's report into a fatal YAK-52 accident last year highlights how
extraneous factors may all too easily combine to make the improbable possible.
While not explicitly stating which harnesses were subsequently tested ... it would
appear logical that the larger the fittings the greater the potential to jam
in the controls of either cockpit.
My own arbitrary ground check of a stock Russian harness suggested it was more
likely to jam in the rear cockpit rather than the front.
However best to check your aircraft & form your own opinions ... regardless it
will drive home the real risk of a loose harness as FOD, or indeed any other object
falling into the control well under the seats.
The report makes salutary reading, which is why I've deliberately not gone into
detail to encourage everyone to read it ... suffice to say a screwdriver was
found (yet again), but not positively show to be a factor ... it will be interesting
to see if the CAA mandates further (cockpit) FOD barriers as a result.
Fly safe.
Rob R.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=131173#131173
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Carbon Monoxide Filters |
Craig,
You need to stay out of my head. I have an airborne picture of me in my airplane
hanging on the wall in the man cave and was looking over the lines of the -50
and thinking the EXACT same thing.
There is someone out there smarter than me who can figure iy out.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=131180#131180
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Carbon Monoxide Filters |
One other thing on the SNJ,Harvard,T-6 is that the their exhaust ring is
sleeved and slotted. So one segment fits into the other segment so there is
minimal leakage around the connections. The last T-6 or Harvard I looked at,
the exhaust was a single ring that exited on the side of the cowling so
exhaust flows over the wing not under it.
I would be curious as to what values Tj is seeing with his Tarantula exhaust
on his 50. It sends the exhaust gases over the wing. It certainly decreases
the collective flow effect under the tail venting gas up into the empennage
at the strut opening on the 50. Remember, the Bernoulli effect of the prop
wash accelerating over the top of the canopy causing a high pressure on top
of the canopy and a low pressure area in the cockpit. The base effect is
increase suction of gases into the cockpit. You can see this in the smokers
at high alpha. Their cockpits are full of smoke. Why there is a relative low
inside the cockpit and the gas is in trained into that low.
Doc
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Craig Payne
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 5:37 AM
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Carbon Monoxide Filters
I believe that there may be another answer to CO-contamination for *many* of
the flight and ground conditions that we normally encounter in a flight.
However, this solution would add weight and look ugly. On a CJ-6, anything
that looked Ugly would stand out like a turd in a punch bowl. On a Yak,
well....maybe you wouldn't notice as much :>)
What I'm talking about would look a little like the Canadian Harvard with
exhaust tube running back along the fuselage. In case of the Yak/CJ, the
tubes would not go through the cowl but exit out the bottom through a cowl
bump that allows removal of the cowl without messing with the exhaust tubes.
The tubes would run along the fuselage to a point under the wing root. Yes,
weight would be added and it would be noticable (on a CJ anyway)
With such a system, gases would be expelled past the point of airflow over
the wing, and away from the wheel well area on CJ's. However, there would
still be problems in certain acro conditions of tumbles, inverted spins,
tail slides and the other things I don't do anyway.
Craig Payne
cpayne@joimail.com
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Red Air III Site Moved |
Attention All,
Due to an impending arrival of Scottie's grandbaby (and low interest in this
year's event), Red Air III is moving to 08A (Wetumpka, Alabama). We will
stage out of my hanger (which is large enough to host this event). We are
negotiating with the FBO for a fuel discount. The dates remain the same.
Please go to the RPA website to see the additional details. Please call the
Jamison Inn to cx your rooms in Selma. Accommodations for the number
currently signed up will be split between mine and Scottie's lake houses. A
block of rooms will also be reserved at the Days Inn in Prattville, Al. The
number is334-285-5312 for those so inclined.
The Itenary remains the same. Just a change in senary with a chance for
lake low levels and air field attaches on an island airport! Time to get
TACTICAL!
Let me know if there are any drop outs or new additions!
Doc
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|