Do Hercules military aircraft use the same fuel as civilian aircraft?
Eoin Dubsky
I'd like to know what fuel a Hercules (C-130) flies on, and whether it
is any different from the fuel a civilian aircraft would use.
Furthermore, if its a refueling type Herc (KC-130 or HC-130) what kind
of fuel would it fill up with (is there any difference?).
Thanks,
Eoin
Martin Herker
This is from an old reference but it lists the following
primary fuel - JP-4
alternate fuels - JP-5 / JP-8 or commercial Jet A or Jet B
emergency fuel - AVGAS
The engines have to be trimmed for best performance with the different
fuels. Not sure if that can be done from the flight engineer's console
or it has to be done at the engine by a mechanic. That is because each
of the fuels have a different viscosity and heat value.
Vern
"Eoin Dubsky" <sl...@redbrick.dcu.ie> wrote in message
news:1f0b1ee2.02110...@posting.google.com...
UK Hercs - F34
Brett
| Eoin Dubsky wrote:
| > Hi,
| >
| > I'd like to know what fuel a Hercules (C-130) flies on, and whether
it
| > is any different from the fuel a civilian aircraft would use.
| > Furthermore, if its a refueling type Herc (KC-130 or HC-130) what
kind
| > of fuel would it fill up with (is there any difference?).
| >
| > Thanks,
| > Eoin
|
| This is from an old reference but it lists the following
|
| primary fuel - JP-4
USAF transition to JP-8 as primary fuel worldwide was completed by 1996,
so JP-4 would now be considered an alternate fuel.
Unknown
There's not nearly the difference between fuel for jet engines
that there is for fuel for piston engines. In general, most jet
engines take about the same fuel, quite close to diesel,
kerosene, furnace oil, that kind of thing. Some have special
additives for special conditions, anti-icing etc. Piston engines,
however, are quite particular about their fuels, they can quite
quickly be ruined by incorrect fuel, this isn't true of jets.
Gord Beaman.
Harry Andreas
<big_v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
NATO F-34 is the same as JP-8.
--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur
William Hughes
Herks will burn anything - JP-8, JP-4, avgas, Scotch, lighter fluid...
William Hughes, San Antonio, Texas - email: cvp...@texas.net
website: The Carrier Project, http://cvproj.home.texas.net/
Unknown
>On Thu, 07 Nov 2002 12:33:31 -0800, in rec.aviation.military
>and...@computer.org (Harry Andreas) wrote:
>> In article <103668733...@doris.uk.clara.net>, "Vern"
>> <big_v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > "Eoin Dubsky" <sl...@redbrick.dcu.ie> wrote in message
>> > news:1f0b1ee2.02110...@posting.google.com...
>> > > Hi,
>> > >
>> > > I'd like to know what fuel a Hercules (C-130) flies on, and whether it
>> > > is any different from the fuel a civilian aircraft would use.
>> > > Furthermore, if its a refueling type Herc (KC-130 or HC-130) what kind
>> > > of fuel would it fill up with (is there any difference?).
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Eoin
>> >
>> > UK Hercs - F34
>>
>> NATO F-34 is the same as JP-8.
>
>Herks will burn anything - JP-8, JP-4, avgas, Scotch, lighter fluid...
>
>
Yep, Moose Head beer, most anything, s'longs it's clean...
--
Gord Beaman.
B25flyer
And one reason for this is the TD...Temp Datum....system. I have 3000 hours in
a civil Herc and still do not understan how the system really works.
Walt
Earl Heron
called a Temperature Datum (TD)system that was an automatic fuel control of
sorts that allowed for the burning of different fuels--typically as an
emergency measure. The crew was required to record time logged on strange
fuels and ensure certain time-used limits were respected as well as ensuring
certain maintenance tasks were completed after burning "strange fuels" such
as AVGAS.
Earl Heron
________________________
Jets Press Publishing
By Mechanics, for everyone -- about Jets
http://www.jjetspress.com
"Brett" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:9Xwy9.49230$15.1...@www.newsranger.com...
Unknown
Oh, I do, I flew the Convair 580 (RCAF) for around 2,000 hours as
F/E, they have the T-56-A7-A engine, very similar to the Herc and
P-3 engine. The TD system is a very nice engine control system
indeed, very smooth. Basically, when set to 'Control' it makes
the engine produce a Turbine Inlet Temperature (TIT) that
corresponds to a particular power lever position throughout the
'Alpha' (flight) range. If a particular power lever position
didn't result in a particular TIT then the TD valve would 'put'
or 'take' some fuel to 'make it so' (as Jean Luc Picard would
say...) :). Very nice, I love that engine/prop combination.
--
Gord Beaman.
Rick
>>(TIT) that corresponds to a particular power lever position"
?? There must be a lot more to it than that isn't there? It seems like
that would only provide a sort of temp limiting function that would
decrease fuel flow and torque with increasing altitude for any given
thrust lever setting ... you could never "temp out" which is nice but
then you would also increase fuel flow and torque for a given lever
position as altitude decreased ... not necessarily what you might want.
Garret engines use a power computer that kind of performed a similar
task, it limited temp to a given range for lever setting/torque/rpm and
compressor discharge pressure. We used to fool it with a tweak of the
speed levers to gain a few more knots in cruise (we called it super
cruise) until the engine shop noticed an increase in hot section
problems.
What am I missing?
Rick
William Hughes
(B25flyer) wrote:
Don't sweat it - nobody does. At least, according to the flight engineers I used
to hang out with way back when - I was a survival systems tech on EC-130Bs.
C Knowles
whatever the operator uses. Or, a military C-130 will use JP-8 (or whatever)
and a civil L-100 will use Jet A (or whatever). As long as it's a jet fuel
the crew probably won't notice it as they are very similar. I was a C-130 FE
for 5 years and never really understood the ins and outs of the TD system
either, it just worked, although I seem to remember it could hang up on
start and cause problems. I've been on KC-10s for 17 years and can tell you
we don't see a difference on the engine gages. We do see a difference on the
fuel gages as the fuels have different weights. The newer JP-8 is heavier
than the old JP-5.
Normally, modern tankers carry one type of fuel for both its own use and
offload. We can however, carry different fuels if the need arises. Back when
the AF used JP-4 and the Navy used JP-5, we normally offloaded JP-4 to
land-based receivers. If the receivers were operating off a carrier we
carried JP-5 for the them. The reason was that fumes from the JP-4 (with a
lower flash point) might cause a flash fire on the flight/hanger deck. Also,
we only offloaded JP-7 to the SR-71, and it had to be flash-checked before
takeoff. My understanding was that if JP-7 were contaminated with JP-4, the
sled couldn't burn it. We could burn JP-7 just fine, but it did not
lubricate as well as conventional fuels and would cause fuel pump failures
with prolonged usage. It also caused leaks as it shrunk our fuel seals.
Curt
"Eoin Dubsky" <sl...@redbrick.dcu.ie> wrote in message
news:1f0b1ee2.02110...@posting.google.com...
Tarver Engineering
"Rick" <tu...@dearthlink.not> wrote in message
news:3DCB20D9...@dearthlink.not...
> >>"... it makes the engine produce a Turbine Inlet Temperature
> >>(TIT) that corresponds to a particular power lever position"
>
> ?? There must be a lot more to it than that isn't there? It seems like
> that would only provide a sort of temp limiting function that would
> decrease fuel flow and torque with increasing altitude for any given
> thrust lever setting ... you could never "temp out" which is nice but
> then you would also increase fuel flow and torque for a given lever
> position as altitude decreased ... not necessarily what you might want.
That would be the case, but part of a seperate system.
> Garret engines use a power computer that kind of performed a similar
> task, it limited temp to a given range for lever setting/torque/rpm and
> compressor discharge pressure. We used to fool it with a tweak of the
> speed levers to gain a few more knots in cruise (we called it super
> cruise) until the engine shop noticed an increase in hot section
> problems.
Did you get fined, or jailed?
> What am I missing?
Apples and oranges.
John
Rick
I thought as much, but am curious why some intermediate lever position
would need to be linked to a certain TIT. Who cares where the levers are
anyway, (as long as they are all four the same) just move them until the
desired torque or limiting temp is obtained and fly the airplane ...
>>"Did you get fined, or jailed?"
Neither, but after the technique became known the training department
came down hard on standards and there were threats of dismissal for
anyone caught supercruising.
Rick
Tarver Engineering
"Rick" <tu...@dearthlink.not> wrote in message
> >>"That would be the case, but part of a seperate system."
>
> I thought as much, but am curious why some intermediate lever position
> would need to be linked to a certain TIT. Who cares where the levers are
> anyway, (as long as they are all four the same) just move them until the
> desired torque or limiting temp is obtained and fly the airplane ...
The operator was required to operate the aircraft within a certain total
inlet temperature in order to avoid a premature overhaul. The device just
gave the operator some help in achieving that goal.
> >>"Did you get fined, or jailed?"
>
> Neither, but after the technique became known the training department
> came down hard on standards and there were threats of dismissal for
> anyone caught supercruising.
Yea, I can see how that might happen.
Along the same vein, the transition of F-4 operators into the F-106 tended
to be the end of the type, as the F-4 had temperature limits were backed off
quite a way; while the F-106 was literal.
John
Unknown
> >>"... it makes the engine produce a Turbine Inlet Temperature
> >>(TIT) that corresponds to a particular power lever position"
>
>?? There must be a lot more to it than that isn't there? It seems like
>that would only provide a sort of temp limiting function that would
>decrease fuel flow and torque with increasing altitude for any given
>thrust lever setting ...
No, why would it do that Rick?...the TIT is controlled by the
power lever position, say you set the lever at 80% of travel,
let's say that that corresponds to 400 deg C...now it won't
matter what altitude you climb/descend to you'll always have 400
deg C TIT. Mind you, this is the case until you run out of range
of the TD system but it's quite wide. Remember that the power
lever controlling the FCU has primary control so that OAT and
altitude affect the fuel flow from it but the TD merely 'trims'
this flow to make the TIT equal the power lever pos'n.
> you could never "temp out" which is nice but
>then you would also increase fuel flow and torque for a given lever
>position as altitude decreased ... not necessarily what you might want.
>
Not at all...see above...
>Garret engines use a power computer that kind of performed a similar
>task, it limited temp to a given range for lever setting/torque/rpm and
> compressor discharge pressure. We used to fool it with a tweak of the
>speed levers to gain a few more knots in cruise (we called it super
>cruise) until the engine shop noticed an increase in hot section
>problems.
>
>What am I missing?
>
>Rick
Well, I don't know Rick, it's actually quite simple as these
things go.
--
Gord Beaman.
Rick
I found an Air Force site that describes the TD system. As I thought, it
does not merely map the lever position to TIT.
The fuel control responds to all the normal inputs (which includes lever
position) but delivers 120 percent of the fuel demand. The TD valve will
modulate to dump or pass whatever percentage is needed to compensate for
the difference in heating value of other fuels. The valve position is
derived by comparing the actual(averaged)TIT to that which would
correspond to the lever position and power when burning "standard" fuel
in the prevailing conditions.
The site is located at:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/c-130-bar.htm#2.3
Rick
Tarver Engineering
"Rick" <tu...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3DCC02B...@earthlink.net...
> >>" No, why would it do that Rick?"
>
> I found an Air Force site that describes the TD system. As I thought, it
> does not merely map the lever position to TIT.
>
> The fuel control responds to all the normal inputs (which includes lever
> position) but delivers 120 percent of the fuel demand. The TD valve will
> modulate to dump or pass whatever percentage is needed to compensate for
> the difference in heating value of other fuels. The valve position is
> derived by comparing the actual(averaged)TIT to that which would
> correspond to the lever position and power when burning "standard" fuel
> in the prevailing conditions.
TIT is always an average, that is why it is Total Inlet Temperature;
refering to the multiple thermocouples it is averaged across. (ie Total)
John
Unknown
Of course...how is that different than what I said Rick?...it
just 'trims' what the main fuel control gives it so that the
resultant TIT corresponds to a given lever pos'n.
Say, for instance, that you have a 'low output' fuel, then the
TIT will 'tend' to be lower at a particular power lever pos'n so
the TD syst. detects this discrepancy and 'trims' the flow
upwards till the TIT corresponds to the lever pos'n. Not very
complicated at all, hell, nowhere near as complicated as the
prop/engine controls of the Napier-Eland turboprop that the
Allison replaced on the Convair 580. That was a proper bitch to
adjust. (or to understand even).
BTW, good technical site for the Herc, I'll save it, thanks.
--
Gord Beaman.
B25flyer
>does not merely map the lever position to TIT.
Ok so we got an argument going as to what the TD system does. Gord, you summed
it up pretty well and that is the reason the FEs saved my butt a few times.
They knew how it worked, and when it acted up they just put the TD switch in
NULL and we drove on.
So back to the original reason for the post. How ever it works is the reason
the T-56 or 501D22A will burn just about anything but water.
Walt
Scet
"William Hughes" <cvp...@texas.net> wrote in message
news:s59msukt0hgob5bqj...@4ax.com...
That may be the case with yourself and the guys you worked with, but it's
just not that complicated. I've worked on T56-A-14's for 14 years now and I
feel I've got a pretty good idea of how the system operates.There are guys I
work with who have years more experience than me and listening to them
trouble shoot some T56 problems is impressive to say the least.
Scet
Tarver Engineering
<FE-VR7-...@munged.org> wrote in message
news:hokosu419kokj8tfc...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 8 Nov 2002 10:47:40 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> <jta...@sti.net> apparently wrote:
>
> >
> >"Rick" <tu...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >news:3DCC02B...@earthlink.net...
> >> >>" No, why would it do that Rick?"
> >>
> >> I found an Air Force site that describes the TD system. As I thought,
it
> >> does not merely map the lever position to TIT.
> >>
> >> The fuel control responds to all the normal inputs (which includes
lever
> >> position) but delivers 120 percent of the fuel demand. The TD valve
will
> >> modulate to dump or pass whatever percentage is needed to compensate
for
> >> the difference in heating value of other fuels. The valve position is
> >> derived by comparing the actual(averaged)TIT to that which would
> >> correspond to the lever position and power when burning "standard" fuel
> >> in the prevailing conditions.
> >
> >TIT is always an average, that is why it is Total Inlet Temperature;
> >refering to the multiple thermocouples it is averaged across. (ie Total)
>
Yes really, on every jet engine TIT is Total Inlet Temperature.
The name refers to the fact that it is an average across several
thermocouples.
John P. Tarver, MS/PE
USAF jet engine mechanic '74-'80
paulb
taught that avgas was forbidden because of such high volatility, the engines
compress air at 72 parts oxygen to 1 part fuel verses piston engine of
approximately 10 parts air to 1 part fuel. Are your sure that avgas is
allowed even in emergency?
N329DF
keep track of how long it is run on AVGAS
Matt Gunsch,
A&P,IA,Private Pilot
Riding member of the Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team
GWRRA,NRA,GOA
John R Weiss
The jet engines on the P-2 Neptune ran on nothing but 115 Octane AvGas.
The J-85 engines in the T-2C Buckeye had a switch on the fuel control to change
when running AvGas, but it was an authorized fuel with the switch in the proper
position. They could also run on mixtures of AvGas and JP-4/5.
The air-to-fuel ratio is about the same (by weight) for AvGas and jet fuel
(about 15:1, IIRC). The major difference between the fuels in this context is
that of density, so any fuel metered by volume has to be adjusted for the proper
density.
FWIW, a 747 can run on any common commercial (Jet-A, -A1, -A50, -B) or military
(JP-4, -5, -8) jet fuel, too (AvGas not authorized, though).
Also, for safety reasons, AvGas is no longer authorized on aircraft carriers;
only JP-5 and JP-8.
------------------
John Weiss
Seattle, WA
Remove NOSPAM from reply address
"paulb" <pau...@comcast.net> wrote...
Unknown
>> Not really. On the T56 engine TIT = (T)urbine (I)nlet (T)empreture.
>
>Yes really, on every jet engine TIT is Total Inlet Temperature.
>
>The name refers to the fact that it is an average across several
>thermocouples.
>
>John P. Tarver, MS/PE
>
>USAF jet engine mechanic '74-'80
>
Hope thay didn't pay you much...
--
Gord Beaman.
Unknown
Unknown
>
>
>TIT is always an average, that is why it is Total Inlet Temperature;
>refering to the multiple thermocouples it is averaged across. (ie Total)
>
>John
>
No John, why would anyone specify 'Total Inlet Temperature'?...as
opposed to what?, maybe Partial Inlet Temp?...don't be such a
silly.
It's Turbine Inlet Temp of course. Look here:
Glossary of Terms located at:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/c-130-bar.htm#2.3
"PUT" Refers to the condition when the TD Amp sends a signal to
the TD Valve to add fuel.
"TAKE" Refers to the condition when the TD Amp sends a signal to
the TD Valve to restrict some fuel.
TIT Turbine Inlet Temperature
UHF Ultra High Frequency
USAF United States Air Force
VHF Very High Frequency
End quote.
But then, why do I bother?...tarver wouldn't recognise proof if
it bit him in the ass.
--
Gord Beaman.
Rick
Shh, you might upset the Air Force, Allison, and Rolls Royce, they
still think that T-5 on the T56 is TURBINE inlet temperature.
They do use Total Inlet Temp like other folks do, in reference to what
the compressor sees.
Rick
William Hughes
<ldg...@REMOVE.ihug.com.au> wrote:
> That may be the case with yourself and the guys you worked with, but it's
> just not that complicated. I've worked on T56-A-14's for 14 years now and I
> feel I've got a pretty good idea of how the system operates.There are guys I
> work with who have years more experience than me and listening to them
> trouble shoot some T56 problems is impressive to say the least.
Fourteen years ago, I'd been gone from the Hercules for ten years. Think an
additional 24 years of operational experience and data might have something to
do with it?
Nele_VII
(or US) equivalent "brands" of fuel?
I am asking it because I recall that two Su27's, when on route from US where
they were visiting US-base were almost lost (engines cut at high altitude,
but pilots managed to re-light them at lower altitude). If I recall
correctly, it was not JP-8's "fault" with which Sukhoi's were topped up, but
"mixing" it with remaining Russian fuel inside tanks (simmilar to that sad
accident with Sukhoi's and An-124).
Also, does anybody know can, for example, An-24/26/30/32 (or An-72, the
Hercules counterpart) run on AVGAS?
I know that Su-25 Frogfoot can fly on almost everything that comes form the
oil refinery-car petrol, diesel, heating oil (i.e. naphtha, as we call it
here), AVGAS, vodka... (kidding ;)
--
Nele
NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA
Bob McKellar
Peter Stickney
When the U.S. Navy first started flying jets, they ran them on avgas.
It saved having to keep two different kinds of fuel on board. All
Navy jets up through the F9F-6/FJ-3 used avgas as their primary fuel.
Avgas was also used in the jets of mixed-powered aircraft, like the
P-2, the B-36, KB-50, and KC-97L. There's nothing intrinsically wrong
with burning it (Although you might want to mix a little lube oil in
to keep things from drying out too much.
As for the compression, it's not that big of a deal. A typical jet
even today has a compression ratio of somewhere around 25:1 - it was
much less in the '50s & '60s, typically between 4:1 and 12-13:1, so
the pressure (And the temperature rise that goes with it) is fairly
moderate.) (Take the compression ratio as pressure in Atm) A typical
Aviation Recip has a compression ratio of 6.5-7.0 or so (For, say, a
Merlin), but it's also using compressed air from the superchargers.
The total compressed pressure in a Merlin cylinder at takeoff power
(not allowing for whatever losses occur) is 13.25 Atm. At Emergency
Power, without water injection, it's 14.55, and with water injection,
it's somewhere around 17.37. The Reno Racers pull much higher
manifold pressures than these, so I don't think it's much of a factor.
Other than the higher fire hazerd, both in the airplane and in the
storage tanks, the drawback to gasoline is its low density. The
energy content (BTU/lb) of Avgas and the Kerosine based jet fuels is
about the same - in order to reach the same temp, you burn about the
same weight of fuel. But Gasolines have a density of about 6.0
#/gallon (U.S. Gallons), and Kerosines Weigh in at between 6.5 and 6.8
#/gallon. So, for a given number of gallons of fuel, you go farther on
Kerosine.
--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster
Mike Dennis
(thousands really!) clearly has a sensor labeled Turbine Inlet Temperature.
It's that way on the drawings and in the manuals from GE and P&W. Someone
might want to let them know they've screwed up. I'm also sure the FAA would
like to correct the mistakes in their documents as well.
"Gord Beaman" <ve...@rac.ca> wrote in message
news:vt1psuse9po819ot0...@4ax.com...
Tarver Engineering
<FE-VR7-...@munged.org> wrote in message
news:t04psuk011dmfk1gn...@4ax.com...
>
> "Aviation Machinist Mate CHIEF" USN (1951 -1973)
Oh well then, even electricity is queer in the Navy. :)
John
Tarver Engineering
"Mike Dennis" <MikeD...@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:iTaz9.3150$tY3.1...@twister.neo.rr.com...
> Looks like JT is up to his old tricks again! Every jet I've every seen
> (thousands really!) clearly has a sensor labeled Turbine Inlet
Temperature.
How about several thermocouples?
TAT at the inlet and TIT at the turbine inlet are both Totals, because they
are an average across several "sensors". On the other hand, when the PFM
crowd calls aircraft systems different names, it doesn't really matter.
John
Tarver Engineering
"Rick" <tu...@dearthlink.not> wrote in message
> >>"Yes really, on every jet engine TIT is Total Inlet Temperature."
>
> Shh, you might upset the Air Force, Allison, and Rolls Royce, they
> still think that T-5 on the T56 is TURBINE inlet temperature.
That is fine for the PFM crowd, but for those that might need to know how
the system is instrumented, Toatl is the word.
> They do use Total Inlet Temp like other folks do, in reference to what
> the compressor sees.
They use total like everyone else does, wherever the reading is an average
across multiple sensors. Now in conversation, using the word Turbine is OK.
Especially if you might have to explain the concept to a pilot.
John P. Tarver, MS/PE
Tarver Engineering
> "Tarver Engineering" <jta...@sti.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >TIT is always an average, that is why it is Total Inlet Temperature;
> >refering to the multiple thermocouples it is averaged across. (ie Total)
> >
> >John
> >
>
> No John, why would anyone specify 'Total Inlet Temperature'?...as
> opposed to what?, maybe Partial Inlet Temp?...don't be such a
> silly.
We specify Toatl Inlet Temperature because it describes the instrumentation
and how it is an average across multiple thermocouples. Not that your
trainers wasted any time explaining how an airplane works.
John
Unknown
>
>TAT at the inlet and TIT at the turbine inlet are both Totals, because they
>are an average across several "sensors".
What God damned foolishness...
For an engineer you certainly don't have many smarts do you?...
Since when in the English language does the 'average' of several
readings equal a 'total'?. Look the words up in a dictionary.
You wouldn't say that the 'total' of three temperatures was the
same as the 'average' of them would you?. Of course not, so why
can't you see that you're wrong here?.
You just cannot be as stupid as you profess to be.
So what's your excuse?.
Huh?.
--
Gord Beaman.
Tarver Engineering
> "Tarver Engineering" <jta...@sti.net> wrote:
> >
> >TAT at the inlet and TIT at the turbine inlet are both Totals, because
they
> >are an average across several "sensors".
>
> What God damned foolishness...
No, it is a very good idea to use a name that describes the system.
Now certain pilots, that could understand the idea of a average, would be
able to operate through a failure of a single thermocouple.
> For an engineer you certainly don't have many smarts do you?...
I am a genius Gordo.
> Since when in the English language does the 'average' of several
> readings equal a 'total'?. Look the words up in a dictionary.
A series arangment of thermocouples provides each sensor's output Totaled
together. In this case, all that is required is a simple devide to generate
an average.
> You wouldn't say that the 'total' of three temperatures was the
> same as the 'average' of them would you?. Of course not, so why
> can't you see that you're wrong here?.
Well lets look at the problem as math Gord:
say we add five thermocouples in a series circuit, and the output of that
circuit is the Total Inlet Temperature. At some computer, the average
temperature can be determined simply by knowing the number of thermocouples
and then assist the operator is holding a constant TIT.
Can you sort of see how a series sensor circuit ouptuts a Total, Gord?
> You just cannot be as stupid as you profess to be.
Don't be angry that you are clueless Gord, it is all part of the PFM
training you received. You don't really need to know how the aircraft
works. :)
> So what's your excuse?.
Glad to educate you Gord.
Now say thank you.
John P. Tarver, MS/PE
Rick
thermocouples are not wired in series. You do not seem to understand air
data at all. Total inlet temperature is what it is and will not change
with anyting other than altitude, speed, and OAT. TIT will not effect
compressor inlet temperature.
The fuel control will use compressor inlet temp as an input to determine
the fuel flow needed to produce a gross power output and then the pilot
or in the TD system, a modulating valve will adjust TIT Turbine Inlet
Temperature to the desired level.
Even us pilots understand that stuff ... several others are attempting
to help you with terminology, accept that help graciously or you will
continue to dig yourself into a hole.
Rick
B25flyer
>continue to dig yourself into a hole.
>
He already has.
Walt
Unknown
God yes!...years ago.
He seems to think that you can quantify temperature with the word
'total', you cannot do that, it's like trying to quantify 'speed'
with 'total'. "His car was moving at a total speed of 100 MPH"
and the temperature was a total of 30 degrees C that day...har
har!...
Average, sure, not total...smarten up tarver...everyone's
laughing at you.
--
Gord Beaman.
Tarver Engineering
"Rick" <tu...@dearthlink.not> wrote in message
> You appear to be terribly confused with thermocouple connections ...
> thermocouples are not wired in series.
Yes Rick, the thermocouples at the turbine inlet are connected in series.
> You do not seem to understand air data at all.
That would expalain Skylight's TSOA c-106 air data system approvals :)
> Total inlet temperature is what it is and will not change
> with anyting other than altitude, speed, and OAT. TIT will not effect
> compressor inlet temperature.
What does that have to do with anything Rick?
> The fuel control will use compressor inlet temp as an input to determine
> the fuel flow needed to produce a gross power output and then the pilot
> or in the TD system, a modulating valve will adjust TIT Turbine Inlet
> Temperature to the desired level.
No Ricky, the fuel controller uses pressure one and temperature zero, from
the pitot tube, to adjust fuel flow.
> Even us pilots understand that stuff ...
Not a chance of that Rick.
> several others are attempting
> to help you with terminology, accept that help graciously or you will
> continue to dig yourself into a hole.
You are a fucking moron Rick, stick with pure fucking magic, 'cause you know
nothing about aircraft systems.
Tarver Engineering
"B25flyer" <b25f...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021109233400...@mb-mh.aol.com...
> > accept that help graciously or you will
> >continue to dig yourself into a hole.
> >
>
> He already has.
Rick couldn't find his ass with both hands.
John
Tarver Engineering
> b25f...@aol.com (B25flyer) wrote:
>
> >> accept that help graciously or you will
> >>continue to dig yourself into a hole.
> >>
> >
> >He already has.
> >
> >Walt
>
>
> God yes!...years ago.
>
> He seems to think that you can quantify temperature with the word
> 'total', you cannot do that, it's like trying to quantify 'speed'
> with 'total'. "His car was moving at a total speed of 100 MPH"
> and the temperature was a total of 30 degrees C that day...har
> har!...
A series connected circuit of thermocouples, at the turbine inlet, puts out
a Total voltage, related to the temperature of the inlet. The term Total is
used because the circuit outputs a summed value. Same as everywhere else in
a turbine engine.
> Average, sure, not total...smarten up tarver...everyone's
> laughing at you.
No Gord, everyone with a clue is laughing at you.
1+1+1+1+1= 5
See how a Total works, old fool?
John P. Tarver, MS/PE
Rick
Tsk, tsk, tsk ... sticks and stones and all that but for averaging,
themocouples are wired in parallel.
Turbine Inlet Temperature is jsut what it says it is. On the T-56 it is
obtained by averaging the output of 18 thermocouples wired in parallel
and eve though they are as wrong as the rest of us in this thread, the
Air Force, Rolls Royce, Allison, and even the Navy refer to T-5 as
TURBINE INLET TEMPERATURE.
Perhaps you can apply your exemplary social and technical skills to help
those organizations to finally "get it right" and then the rest of us
will follow ... I can't speak for the others here but it disturbs me to
think that my following such a group of amateurs and incompetents as the
fools who built the engine and its major users has lead to such distress
as you exhibit here.
Have a really nice day.
Rick
Tarver Engineering
"Rick" <tu...@dearthlink.not> wrote in message
> >>"You are a fucking moron Rick,"
>
> Tsk, tsk, tsk ... sticks and stones and all that but for averaging,
> themocouples are wired in parallel.
No way, that would be stupid.
> Turbine Inlet Temperature is jsut what it says it is. On the T-56 it is
> obtained by averaging the output of 18 thermocouples wired in parallel
That is a lot of wire, perhaps you would like to rethink your rediculess
assertion.
> and eve though they are as wrong as the rest of us in this thread, the
> Air Force, Rolls Royce, Allison, and even the Navy refer to T-5 as
> TURBINE INLET TEMPERATURE.
That is fine for the PFM crowd, but quite incorrect.
> Perhaps you can apply your exemplary social and technical skills to help
> those organizations to finally "get it right" and then the rest of us
> will follow ... I can't speak for the others here but it disturbs me to
> think that my following such a group of amateurs and incompetents as the
> fools who built the engine and its major users has lead to such distress
> as you exhibit here.
Much the same as my duscussion with Buffdriver assisted the USAF in
understanding how the B-52's spoilers work. I wonder if the USAF altered
their training, or just left the hairless monkeys ignorant.
> Have a really nice day.
I am.
John P. Tarver, MS/PE
Scet
"Tarver Engineering" <jta...@sti.net> wrote in message
news:3dcebfd7$1...@news.sierratel.com...
>
> "Rick" <tu...@dearthlink.not> wrote in message
> news:3DCEB6A9...@dearthlink.not...
> > >>"You are a fucking moron Rick,"
> >
> > Tsk, tsk, tsk ... sticks and stones and all that but for averaging,
> > themocouples are wired in parallel.
>
> No way, that would be stupid.
>
> > Turbine Inlet Temperature is jsut what it says it is. On the T-56 it is
> > obtained by averaging the output of 18 thermocouples wired in parallel
>
> That is a lot of wire, perhaps you would like to rethink your rediculess
> assertion.
>
> > and eve though they are as wrong as the rest of us in this thread, the
> > Air Force, Rolls Royce, Allison, and even the Navy refer to T-5 as
> > TURBINE INLET TEMPERATURE.
>
<snip>
This is how it is John, love it or leave it, there are no ifs or buts.
The 18 thermocouples each have two seperate sensing elements in all, 36
junctions are therefore involved. One element of each of the 18 units is
connected in parallel to provide an averaged signal to the TD amplifier. The
TD amplifier uses this signal to determine the actual TIT of the engine. The
other element is also connected in parallel. It provides the averaged signal
representing TIT that is shown on the flight station TIT indicator. It is
this reason that an engine that seems to gain efficiency has really got a
problem with the indicating system, be it a thermocouple, wiring or the
terminal block.
The reason that the T56 engines use a system of multiple thermocouples
connected in parallel is to provide an accurate, overall temperature
reading. Because of the gas flow velocities involved and the short distance
between the fuel nozzles and the turbine inlet, the combustion gases may mix
incompletely. This causes temperature variations at the turbine inlet.
The temperature averaging function of the thermocouple circuit has the
purpose of sampling a number of these hotter and cooler areas. It is then
able tosupply a valid average temperature signal to the TD amplifier and
flight station TIT indicator.
Scet
Unknown
Thank you...this is how I remember it being taught 'Lo these many
years ago'. Sorry John, tough as it may be, you lose.
--
Gord...
John Mazor
news:3dcebfd7$1...@news.sierratel.com...
> Much the same as my duscussion with Buffdriver assisted the USAF in
> understanding how the B-52's spoilers work. I wonder if the USAF
altered
> their training, or just left the hairless monkeys ignorant.
Good lord.
John Keeney
>
> But then, why do I bother?
I've often wondered that myself.
Look, there are two possibilities:
1) he's really so stupid that he's going to get everything
wrong and is incapable of accepting correction or
2) he gets off on yanking your chain.
Which ever the case, in these silly him against the world
arguments there is zero chance of anybody winning. So,
either quit arguing or admit it's mindless "fun" akin to
strip poker played only amongst straight guys.
gj
this might be of interest...
Air force switches fuel to cut costs
Sunday, November 10 – Online Edition, Posted at 2:18 PM EST
Halifax — Canada's air force will be topping up its tanks
with a different brand of jet fuel in hopes of saving
taxpayers $89-million over the next 10 years. It also plans
to keep less fuel on hand as a cost-saving measure.
A senior military official acknowledged that the fuel switch
could have an effect on some flight operations because the
new type performs poorly in cold weather.
"If we're going into a cold area, we can simply change our
flight pattern so we don't have to stay overnight," Major
Bill Grimshaw said in an interview from Ottawa.
And if an aircraft is forced to stay in a cold climate
overnight, Maj. Grimshaw said, there are measures that can
be taken to ensure it isn't stalled on the ground.
"We can remove the fuel from the aircraft, recirculate it
through tanks, warm it up and put it back in the aircraft,"
he said.
For decades the country's jetfighters, helicopters,
transports and trainers have filled up with a type of fuel
known as JP-4.
Canadian aircraft have flown with that type even though all
other North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries and most
commercial airlines long ago switched to a different type
known as JP-8.
The U.S. Air Force changed over in 1979 but the Canadian
Forces steadfastly refused.
"We didn't see a benefit to it," Maj. Grimshaw said.
"We had some concerns about the characteristics of the fuel
and its operating properties and the effect it might have on
our cold-weather operations."
Also, JP-8 was notoriously hard on engines, resulting in
more maintenance time.
Three years ago, the Americans developed a fuel additive
that solved the wear-and-tear problem, but Maj. Grimshaw
said the cold-weather concerns remain.
After conducting a study and field trials, air force
officials have determined that the official freezing point
of JP-8, which is -47 C, may be acceptable.
The switch is to be made next spring.
At the same time the air force intends to cut infrastructure
at air bases, such as tank farms, and reduce the amount of
fuel it keeps on hand.
Maj. Grimshaw said the changes make sense because the air
force isn't flying as much as it once did.
"We don't have the same operational requirements as we did
before," he said.
"At each wing we have significant fuel-storage tanks. At
each of the bases we can reduce some of the holdings."
Copyright © 2002 Bell Globemedia Interactive Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
gj
By DOUG SAUNDERS
From Monday's Globe and Mail
Monday, November 11 – Online Edition, Posted at 2:18 AM EST
Canadians overwhelmingly want to see more money spent on the
armed forces and are emotionally attached to the country's
military history, but this Remembrance Day finds them deeply
divided over the military's role, a new poll finds.
Like Defence Minister John McCallum, most Canadians want to
see military spending increased — 75 per cent agreed with
him that the budget of the Canadian military needs to be
increased, a number that rises to 82 per cent if Quebec is
excluded.
But they were reluctant to finance the military by cutting
back on other popular, big-ticket government programs. Only
5 per cent thought funding should come from health care, 13
per cent said the environment and 14 per cent suggested
agriculture.
Half of Canadians believe the military's role should be
expanded. But the other half were divided as to whether a
reduced military should become a peacekeeping force or an
elite special-operations unit.
The poll was conducted by Ipsos-Reid and sponsored by The
Globe and Mail and the Dominion Institute, an organization
that promotes national history. It surveyed 1,002 adult
Canadians over two days last week, with results that are
considered to be accurate to within 3.1 percentage points,
19 times out of 20.
The poll reveals a disjunction between the abstract,
emotional desire among Canadians to honour, acknowledge and
fund the military, on one hand, and on the other a lack of
knowledge of military history and a broad reluctance to
support the military through volunteer service.
It showed that half (52 per cent) of Canadians plan to
attend a Remembrance Day ceremony Monday, an increase from
previous years. Fully 84 per cent said Canadians should do
more to honour those who have fought in wars. And a strong
majority of Canadians (65 per cent) said they think Nov. 11,
Remembrance Day, "has a greater meaning for them personally"
than does Sept. 11, the date of last year's terrorist
attacks in the United States.
This, according to Rudyard Griffiths of the Dominion
Institute, indicates a return to an acknowledgment of
Canada's war sacrifices, after a generation during which
this role was neglected or underplayed.
"Increasingly it's becoming a civic occasion on parallel
with Canada Day," he said. "Certainly, there's anecdotal
evidence that the crowds are growing larger around the
cenotaph."
But in terms of specifics, Canadians did not fare well —
again, putting them in good company with their Defence Minister.
Mr. McCallum was unable to properly name Vimy Ridge earlier
this year as the site of Canada's most significant victory
(he called it "Vichy," the name of the French Nazi regime).
While citizens did better on this one — 64 per cent named it
on a multiple-choice question — only 31 per cent named
Dieppe as the site of the famous massacre of Canadians in 1942.
But Canadians showed an emotional attachment to their
military that does not seem to be reflected in a specific
vision of the military's role or a basic knowledge of
military history.
It found no Canadian consensus on the role of the military.
Despite the support for funding, only half (53 per cent)
said they would opt for "a better-funded and equipped
all-purpose armed force capable of undertaking traditional
defence and combat roles at home and abroad."
Most of the rest (32 per cent of those surveyed) said they
favour a force that has been "downsized and reconfigured as
a small but well-equipped peacekeeping and
disaster-assistance force ready to be deployed anywhere in
the world on short notice." Only 13 per cent said they
favour a smaller military "refocused around specialized
combat roles such as military engineering, snipers or
special forces . . . and supplied with the best equipment
available for those roles."
Military service seemed unpopular: Only 33 per cent said
they could foresee an international conflict — presumably
including an invasion of Canada — that would compel them to
volunteer for military service.
When the numbers are looked at on a province-by-province
basis, as usual Quebeckers showed far less commitment to the
military. In a reversal of the Canadian pattern, 53 per cent
of Quebeckers said they thought Sept. 11 had more meaning
for them than Nov. 11. And only 53 per cent of Quebeckers
supported increased military spending.
But this is a far more mild schism than previous surveys
have shown. Quebec's attitude toward the Canadian military
has been ambivalent at least since the conscription crises
of the First and Second World Wars, but this week's poll
indicates a mellowing of attitude.
Especially surprising were the results when Quebeckers were
asked whether they could foresee a situation in which they
would volunteer for military service. Their numbers — 28 per
cent — were not much lower than those of the rest of Canada.
"It's interesting that Quebec wasn't way out of the
average," Mr. Griffiths said. "On this question, Quebeckers
were willing to volunteer in a big way, which we haven't
seen before."
Glenn
> news:3DCEB6A9...@dearthlink.not...
> > >>"You are a fucking moron Rick,"
> >
> > Tsk, tsk, tsk ... sticks and stones and all that but for averaging,
> > themocouples are wired in parallel.
>
> No way, that would be stupid.
>
Ok genius, lets imagine just for a sec that the OEM did wire the
thermocouples in series. What would happen if just one thermocouple unit
went open-circuit due to some sort of failure?
Need help? - no TIT signal at all for fuel flow scheduling or cockpit
indication.
Doesn't seem so stupid now.....
They ARE wired in parallel, and it IS Turbine Inlet Temperature. Give it up
buddy, you are just plain wrong.
Glenn
(GE T700, Honeywell T53 and Rolls Royce 250 Systems Instructor)
Steve
they are wired in parallel. The Job Guides and TO's all refer to it as
Turbine Inlet Temperature.
Steve
"Scet" <ldg...@REMOVE.ihug.com.au> wrote in message
news:aqn46p$ipr$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
Unknown
Oh of course you're right John, it's nr 2...
(what a thought, the one about strip poker...enough to put one
off his feed) :)
--
...Gord.
Tarver Engineering
> news:3dcebfd7$1...@news.sierratel.com...
> >
> > "Rick" <tu...@dearthlink.not> wrote in message
> > news:3DCEB6A9...@dearthlink.not...
> > > >>"You are a fucking moron Rick,"
> > >
> > > Tsk, tsk, tsk ... sticks and stones and all that but for averaging,
> > > themocouples are wired in parallel.
> >
> > No way, that would be stupid.
> >
> > > Turbine Inlet Temperature is jsut what it says it is. On the T-56 it
is
> > > obtained by averaging the output of 18 thermocouples wired in parallel
> >
> > That is a lot of wire, perhaps you would like to rethink your rediculess
> > assertion.
> >
> > > and eve though they are as wrong as the rest of us in this thread, the
> > > Air Force, Rolls Royce, Allison, and even the Navy refer to T-5 as
> > > TURBINE INLET TEMPERATURE.
> >
>
> <snip>
>
> This is how it is John, love it or leave it, there are no ifs or buts.
>
> The 18 thermocouples each have two seperate sensing elements in all, 36
> junctions are therefore involved. One element of each of the 18 units is
> connected in parallel to provide an averaged signal to the TD amplifier.
Now we see where you are getting into trouble Skat, you are confusing a
parallel connection with a series connection.
Glad to educate you.
John P. Tarver, MS/.PE
Tarver Engineering
"Glenn" <gbe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3dcf...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" <jta...@sti.net> wrote in message
> news:3dcebfd7$1...@news.sierratel.com...
> >
> > "Rick" <tu...@dearthlink.not> wrote in message
> > news:3DCEB6A9...@dearthlink.not...
> > > >>"You are a fucking moron Rick,"
> > >
> > > Tsk, tsk, tsk ... sticks and stones and all that but for averaging,
> > > themocouples are wired in parallel.
> >
> > No way, that would be stupid.
> >
>
> Ok genius, lets imagine just for a sec that the OEM did wire the
> thermocouples in series. What would happen if just one thermocouple unit
> went open-circuit due to some sort of failure?
That doesn't happen, the thermocouples short out. (no voltage output)
Either way, the reliability of what are now 36 themocouples, according to
Skat, with 18 wired in parallel creates an instant reliability nightmare.
Actually, it does apear that Skat has confused a functional digram (PFM)
with a wire diagram and somehow doubled the number of elements to justify
his delusion.
As my qualifications on matters of reliability, I will offer my development
of the RPL model (ie AS9100) and the Rome data produced from the RPL model.
(COTS)
> Need help? - no TIT signal at all for fuel flow scheduling or cockpit
> indication.
Nope, you have obviosly never worked thermocouples, or any probabilities
problem.
> Doesn't seem so stupid now.....
Actually, it is completely rediculess.
What are your qualifications for making such a rediculess statement, Glenn?
John P. Tarver, MS/PE
Tarver Engineering
"Steve" <res0...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:6NMz9.3594$TL6....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> Yup, he's right. Each ISO we have to test the thermocouple harnesses and
> they are wired in parallel. The Job Guides and TO's all refer to it as
> Turbine Inlet Temperature.
So you are claiming 36 junctions too? :)
John
Tarver Engineering
"John Mazor" <maz...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:aqnh2o$pmt$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Now Johnny Mazor, your spoiler flap troll at ram did some real work. The
thing grew into another 18 .sci threads before it was over. Buffdriver even
submitted his new information to the USAF.
Just as ALPA's operators at United have taken my advice and are being more
than clear as to their desire to see the Airline stay out of Chapter 11. I
feel it is important to avoid the moral hazard of ALPA bankrupting an ESOP
they negotiated, as their are those who would like to see the system split
into smaller pieces and second tier wages for most professional operators.
You might want to visit CBS.MarketWatch.com for quotes.
Glad to educate you Johnny.
John P. Tarver, MS/PE
Rick
Thank heavens you are still willing to reeducate all those idiots who
design and build so much hardware so badly, and that's not to mention
the ignorance of all those tech writers and editors who perpetuated the
mistakes for so long ... you could have saved the industry years of
shame and who knows how much money if only they had talked to you first.
Here is an opportunity for you to take this discussion directly to
Lockheed and finally sort them out. They have even been so foolish as to
publish technical material without first checking with you!
Just look at the rubbish they printed here:
http://www.lmassc.com/Vol_09/V9N3.pdf
It is an old document but it's never too late for someone with your
knowledge and ability to undo a generation of misinformed technicians.
They don't just claim the thermocouples are wired in parallel but they
have the temerity to claim that the temperature of the gas entering the
turbine is called Turbine Inlet Temperature! Go get em Tarver!
Please let us know how Lockheed and Allison respond to your good efforts
to correct their years of stupidity. I bet they will be glad you called.
Rick
Tarver Engineering
"Rick" <tu...@dearthlink.not> wrote in message
>
> Thank heavens you are still willing to reeducate all those idiots who
> design and build so much hardware so badly, and that's not to mention
> the ignorance of all those tech writers and editors who perpetuated the
> mistakes for so long ... you could have saved the industry years of
> shame and who knows how much money if only they had talked to you first.
They certainly were smarter than Sket and yourself, confusing a functional
diagram for a wiring diagram. In fact, the totalized series thermocouple
circuit produces a signal identical to the parallel average presented in the
functional diagrams; in a much more reliable manner. In this way, the PFM
crowd can be shielded from their own ignorance, without the slightest
problem.
But, it is the circuit iself that defines a Total in engine instrumentation.
John P. Tarver, MS/PE
Unknown
>
>Now we see where you are getting into trouble Skat, you are confusing a
>parallel connection with a series connection.
>
minimally educated people know the difference.
You might benefit a lot from a community college 'basics of
electricity course'.
--
...Gord.
Unknown
Speaking of education, it's 'there' vice 'their'. Now let's see
if you can see where it goes in your post.
--
...Gord.
Rick
>>in engine instrumentation."
You seem to be obfuscating a bit here, Tarver ... how about leave TOTAL
out of the discussion since it was shown very early that it never was
and never will be Total Inlet Temperature that describes the gas
temperature entering the turbine on a T56.
>>"... confusing a functional diagram for a wiring diagram."
You are the ONLY person here who even mentioned a wiring diagram. The
rest of us referred to the manufacturers and Lockheed's description of
the system as using thermocouples wired in parallel to obtain the
Turbine Inlet Temperature (TIT).
The only Total here is in my observation of your pathetic attempts to
cover your ass ... you have made a total ass of yourself and continue to
build on that effort in each of your posts.
Rick
Steve
Well, at the t-block there are 4 connections coming from the thermocouple
harnesses. Two are marked "AMP" , and the other two are marked "IND". If you
hook a ohmmeter to one connector on the t-block end of the harness you will
read continuity at only one terminal at each thermocouple. (the same lead at
each thermocouple) In troubleshooting a TD problem we will sometimes switch
the leads from the IND side to the AMP side and do a engine run.
Steve
:o)
"Tarver Engineering" <jta...@sti.net> wrote in message
news:3dd0...@news.sierratel.com...
David Lesher
>Early jet engines ran on AvGas a lot!
>The jet engines on the P-2 Neptune ran on nothing but 115 Octane AvGas.
>The J-85 engines in the T-2C Buckeye had a switch on the fuel control to change
>when running AvGas, but it was an authorized fuel with the switch in the proper
>position. They could also run on mixtures of AvGas and JP-4/5.
There was that minor case of the B36 as well...
Peter Stickney
The mixed power types all, as far as I've been able to find out,
burned only AVGAS. (The ones that I've been able to check on directly
are the B-36, the KB-50, the KC-97L, the C-119K, the C-123K, the
Jet-Pack C-82 and C-119, the P-2, and the P-4. I haven't been able to
get any good stuff on the Shackleton, but I'd expect it to be all
AVGAS too). There's nothing wrong with a jet burning AVGAS, except
that you can't carry as many BTUs/Gallon, there's a bit more of a fire
hazard, and it doesn't lubricate the innards of the engine quite as
well.
--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster
Scet
Skat? your a real thinker aren't you John?
Those who cannot attack the thought instead attack the thinker.
>
>
Scet
>
>
> Either way, the reliability of what are now 36 themocouples, according to
> Skat, with 18 wired in parallel creates an instant reliability nightmare.
> Actually, it does apear that Skat has confused a functional digram (PFM)
> with a wire diagram and somehow doubled the number of elements to justify
> his delusion.
No John, again you've just misunderstood a basic paragraph of technical
information. Here it is again, I'll type it a little slower this time, just
for some of our *special* friends....
The 18 thermocouples each have two separate sensing elements in all, 36
junctions are therefore involved. See John? The key to this paragraph is "18
thermocouples and 2 separate sensing elements" 18x2=36, hence the part
about the 36 junctions. It really is neat John,18 thermocouples, 4 wires for
each thermocouple, two separate harnesses, connecting to a single terminal
block. The harnesses connect onto the block in the following manner. The
block consists of 8 studs. Each harness terminates in 4 wires, the LH
harness has 2 wires for the TD system and 2 wires for the TIT indicator, the
RH harness is identical. 4 studs accept both the LH and RH harness
terminals, 2 wires per stud, making 8 wires on the 4 studs. The remaining 4
studs accept the aircraft connections to the block, 2 for the TIT indicator
and the remaining 2 lead to the TD amp. The terminal block itself is a "T"
configuration, 4 studs make the horizontal part of the "T", the remaining 4
the base.
At no time did I mention 36 thermocouples nor did I confuse, or look at for
that matter, one diagram with another.
Rick provided this link for your enjoyment John,
http://www.lmassc.com/Vol_09/V9N3.pdf
I hope you don't mind me using it Rick?, on page 1 Lockheed have the
audacity to claim TIT is Turbine Inlet Temperature and on page 4 there are a
couple of mentions of thermocouples being connected in parallel. Can you say
that John? Parallel? I know you can. What are Lockheed thinking?!?!?!?
Have a bit of a read mate, I'm sure you'll be able to tell us what else they
have been getting wrong all these years.
Scet
Rick
Glad to see someone used it ... Tarver obviously hasn't.
Nice try on explaining the operation to him but I think he has passed
the stage of his life where he is able to accept information that
doesn't conflict with his poorly formed concepts of "how things work." I
don't think he will use any of his writings here in his resume <G>
Tarver wrote:
>>"That doesn't happen, the thermocouples short out.
>>(no voltage output)..."
See, he doesn't even know what a thermocouple IS, much less how it works
and what the common failure mode is in that application.
Kind of sad really, to watch a formerly competent man, he was a P.Eng
after all (or at least claims as much), slip into the sort of dementia
he demonstrates in this thread.
Rick
Scet
"Rick" <tu...@dearthlink.not> wrote in message
Thanks Rick. Your right it is sad.
Scet
>
lostg...@gmail.com
If C130J landed and crew request JP8 while not available at the station, can same aircraft use JET A-1 alternatively.
Thanks
Daryl
of corrosion inhibitor and anti-icing additives. So, yes, the Herkypig
can run just fine on Jet A-1 to get it home.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com