X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 08:35:34 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [64.98.42.223] (HELO smtprelay.b.hostedemail.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.11) with ESMTP id 4661592 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 02 Jan 2011 14:08:12 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.98.42.223; envelope-from=rmitch1@hughes.net Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (b-bigip1 [10.5.19.254]) by smtprelay02.b.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 69AF314AB5BF; Sun, 2 Jan 2011 19:07:38 +0000 (UTC) X-Panda: scanned! X-Spam-Summary: 2,-1.05263,0,239d239507708ae8,d41d8cd98f00b204,rmitch1@hughes.net,lml@lancaironline.net:lml@lancaironline.net,RULES_HIT:152:355:379:476:541:599:601:960:962:972:973:983:988:989:1189:1208:1221:1260:1261:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1431:1437:1515:1516:1517:1518:1535:1544:1575:1589:1594:1605:1676:1685:1711:1730:1776:1792:2198:2199:2377:2553:2557:2559:2562:2610:2689:2693:2899:2902:3027:3138:3586:3636:3642:3769:3865:3866:3867:3868:3869:3870:3871:3872:3873:3874:4119:4605:5007:6119:6757:7652:7903:8603:9040:9177:10004:10016,0,RBL:none,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fn,MSBL:none,DNSBL:none,Custom_rules:0:0:0 X-Session-Marker: 726D6974636831406875676865732E6E6574 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 8483 Received: from [192.168.1.5] (ip68-3-249-108.ph.ph.cox.net [68.3.249.108]) (Authenticated sender: rmitch1@hughes.net) by omf10.b.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Sun, 2 Jan 2011 19:07:37 +0000 (UTC) References: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPad Mail 8C148) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-5-7989978 X-Original-Message-Id: X-Original-Cc: "lml@lancaironline.net" X-Mailer: iPad Mail (8C148) From: Robert Mitchell Subject: Re: [LML] Re: post crash fire control X-Original-Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2011 12:08:03 -0700 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List --Apple-Mail-5-7989978 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii My motorhome had a couple of these, they tend to drip (ooze) a little after a= time. Not good in aviation. Bob Mitchell L320 Sent from my iPad On Jan 1, 2011, at 5:29 PM, Kevin Kossi wrote= : > Rob, >=20 > I have been thinking about this for some time and am glad the occasion has= come up to discuss it. >=20 > I am building a Legacy and was trying to figure out how to incorporate a d= ump valve into each wing to dump the fuel for certain cases of emergency lan= dings or imminent crash. >=20 > So far I came up with this valve: > >=20 > they offer it with a stainless steel paddle in 2" & 3", one could be mount= ed at the bottom of each wing at the lowest spot to dump the fuel. >=20 >=20 > I haven't really done much research into wether or not the aviation indust= ry offers such a valve, or the compatibility of the materials with the fuel o= r the reliability or temperature and pressure limits, or how air will get in= to the tank to replace the fuel, but it seams like the logical general direc= tion? >=20 > Of course, one fear would be inadvertent dumping of the fuel or leaks. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Kevin Kossi >=20 >=20 >=20 > On Dec 31, 2010, at 1:10 AM, REHBINC wrote: >=20 >> Colyn, >> =20 >> I am a forensic engineer and work quite a bit with fire and explosion as w= ell as mechanical/structural failure. >> =20 >> If I had a way to drain the fuel before crashing, I would get the tanks a= s dry as possible. A couple ounces of gasoline trapped somewhere in the tank= would be plenty to make the space fuel rich. It isn't realistic to expect t= he entire tank to be fuel rich before impact, but a portion of it certainly w= ill be. It is all a matter of time and temperature. In tank ships, you need a= round 2 gallons or so to make the space fuel rich. Frequently there is more t= han this trapped behind the tank scale. >> =20 >> For the reasons stated earlier, I wouldn't be too concerned about an expl= osion risk of the wing tanks (At least as long as I wasn't standing on it at= the time!). My biggest concern would be the size of the fuel puddle the pla= ne came to rest in. A hundred gallons spread out on the runway could make a r= eal big fire real fast and would be difficult to survive if you were caught i= n the middle. Two cups of gas in the same scenario would be a much more surv= ivable situation.=20 >> =20 >> Another benefit of draining the tanks before impact is the reduction in g= ross weight and therefore stall/impact speed. >> =20 >> Rob >> In a message dated 12/30/10 20:10:11 Eastern Standard Time, colyncase@ear= thlink.net writes: >> Rob, interesting info. >> So sounds like if you do have a quick drain, you don't want to completely= empty it. >> I have no idea how to build a quick drain that would not create some leak= age risk. >> sounds like you are in this business? >>=20 >>=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail-5-7989978 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
My motorhome had a couple of these, the= y tend to drip (ooze) a little after a time.  Not good in aviation.
Bob Mitchell
L320

Sent from my iPad

On= Jan 1, 2011, at 5:29 PM, Kevin Kossi <kevin@airforcemechanical.com> wrote:

=
Rob,

I ha= ve been thinking about this for some time and am glad the occasion has come u= p to discuss it.

I am building a Legacy and was try= ing to figure out how to incorporate a dump valve into each wing to dump the= fuel for certain cases of emergency landings or imminent crash.
<= br>
So far I came up with this valve:
<dump valve.jpg= >

they offer it with a stainless steel paddle in= 2" & 3", one could be mounted at the bottom of each wing at the lowest s= pot to dump the fuel.


I haven't real= ly done much research into wether or not the aviation industry offers such a= valve, or the compatibility of the materials with the fuel or the reliabili= ty or temperature and pressure limits, or how air will get into the tank to r= eplace the fuel, but it seams like the logical general direction?
=
Of course, one fear would be inadvertent dumping of the fuel o= r leaks.




Kevin Kossi



On Dec 31, 2010, a= t 1:10 AM, REHBINC wrote:

Colyn,
 
I am a forensic engineer and work quite a bit with fire and explos= ion as well as mechanical/structural failure.
 
If I had a way to drain the fuel before crashing, I would get the tanks= as dry as possible. A couple ounces of gasoline trapped somewhere in the ta= nk would be plenty to make the space fuel rich. It isn't realistic to expect= the entire tank to be fuel rich before impact, but a portion of it certainl= y will be. It is all a matter of time and temperature. In tank ships, you ne= ed around 2 gallons or so to make the space fuel rich. Frequently there= is more than this trapped behind the tank scale.
 
For the reasons stated earlier, I wouldn't be too concerned about an ex= plosion risk of the wing tanks (At least as long as I wasn't standing on it a= t the time!). My biggest concern would be the size of the fuel puddle the pl= ane came to rest in. A hundred gallons spread out on the runway could m= ake a real big fire real fast and would be difficult to survive if you were c= aught in the middle. Two cups of gas in the same scenario would be a much mo= re survivable situation. 
 
Another benefit of draining the tanks before impact is the reduction in= gross weight and therefore stall/impact speed.
 
Rob
In a message dated 12/30/10 20:10:11 Eastern Standard Time, c= olyncase@earthlink.net writes:
Rob,   interesting info.=20
So sounds like if you do have a quick drain, you don't want to complete= ly empty it.
I have no idea how to build a quick drain that would not create some le= akage risk.
sounds like you are in this business?



<= /blockquote>= --Apple-Mail-5-7989978--