Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.66; envelope-from=Dastaten@earthlink.net
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=simple;
  s=test1; d=earthlink.net;
  h=Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:X-Accept-Language:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
  b=ld/K+Ee8U42wxOMRtt4lrRcKkMgmFNbXdZ6QDb6ZRMVFCuYxeTbc2zgWQLu5B3no;
Message-ID: <427A2C69.6000806@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 09:23:37 -0500
From: David Staten <Dastaten@earthlink.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Circuit breaker article( redundancy power)
References: <list-933033@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-933033@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

The air force and ANG had F4's as well.. did they re-design THOSE as 
well? or did they just pray not to get nailed by the magic BB?
 
Dave

Jim Sower wrote:

> <... When you route all 3 lines in the same path ...>
> I know.  That's the difference between a "backup" system and a 
> "redundant" system.
>
> In the mid '60s, the Air Force spent millions re-routing the backup 
> hydraulic system of the F-105 to the other side of the airplane from 
> the primary.  The Navy wasn't so astute.  ALL of the hydraulics of the 
> F4 came together like in one giant manifold in the center of the belly 
> (interestingly, right at the aim point :o) where one round would make 
> you ballistic.
>
> Great engineering ... Jim S.
>
>
> David Staten wrote:
>
>> Yea.. I believe it was an L-1011.. but the problem was the 
>> uncontained engine failure caused the breach of all 3 engine driven 
>> hydraulic systems. When you route all 3 lines in the same path.. well..
>>  
>> There IS a limit to the amount of redundancy you can have.. and how 
>> much you can "armor" fluid lines and cable paths..
>>
>> You can put enough redundant and protected systems into your craft 
>> that it would be named "The Dodo Bird" because it would be too damn 
>> heavy to fly.
>>  
>> Dave
>>
>> Jim Sower wrote:
>>
>>> <... You do not have to have more than one level of redundancy to 
>>> basically eliminate any chance of total failure of the system with 
>>> failures in the 1000 hour range ...>
>>> You might want to talk to the crew of that 757 or L1011 or whatever 
>>> it was that crashed in Souix City(?) a few years back because it 
>>> lost ONE of THREE engines and immediately went ballistic.
>>>
>>> The devil made me say that :o) ... Jim S.
>>>
>>>
>>> WALTER B KERR wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Ian
>>>> I would think that in the case of airliners they have so many 
>>>> redundant systems that if one goes down they have two or three 
>>>> others to continue with, so there is no emergency situation in 
>>>> there case.
>>>> Georges
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>> You do not have to have more than one level of redundancy to 
>>>> basically eliminate any chance of total failure of the system with 
>>>> failures in the 1000 hour range such as fuses as long as the pilot 
>>>> has time to try the backup system? I will take reduncancy ever day 
>>>> of the week compared to a single CB circuit albeit it I have 
>>>> parallel master switch circuit breaker's but I do not intend to 
>>>> reset one as long as the other is working :>)
>>>>  
>>>> I know we are not changing anyone's veiws on CB vs fuses, but it 
>>>> has been an interesting dialogue.
>>>>  
>>>> Bernie
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>>>  Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>  Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html
>>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>>>  Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
>>>
>>
>>>>  Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html
>>>
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>
>>>  Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
>>>  Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html
>>
>