X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 06:10:09 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [68.166.96.66] (HELO server1.AirForceMechanical.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.11) with ESMTP id 4663076 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 04 Jan 2011 00:41:05 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.166.96.66; envelope-from=Kevin@AirForceMechanical.com Received: from [192.168.0.54] ([192.168.0.54]) by server1.AirForceMechanical.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 4 Jan 2011 00:37:47 -0500 From: Kevin Kossi Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-696-132333171 Subject: Re: [LML] Re: post crash fire control X-Original-Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 00:40:29 -0500 In-Reply-To: X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: X-Original-Message-Id: <672904AC-E545-4A1F-9887-40B8892C4922@airforcemechanical.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) X-Original-Return-Path: kevin@airforcemechanical.com X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Jan 2011 05:37:47.0421 (UTC) FILETIME=[84C504D0:01CBABD1] --Apple-Mail-696-132333171 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Bob, I know those are made for RV Lavs. and have no intension of using one in = my plane, unless I install a lavatory, but the aviation industry must = make something with a low profile that is designed for fuel dumping? Kevin On Jan 3, 2011, at 8:35 AM, Robert Mitchell wrote: > My motorhome had a couple of these, they tend to drip (ooze) a little = after a time. Not good in aviation. > Bob Mitchell > L320 >=20 > Sent from my iPad >=20 > On Jan 1, 2011, at 5:29 PM, Kevin Kossi = wrote: >=20 >> 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 dump valve into each wing to dump the fuel for certain = cases of emergency landings 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 = mounted 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 = industry offers such a valve, or the compatibility of the materials with = the fuel or the reliability or temperature and pressure limits, or how = air will get into the tank to replace the fuel, but it seams like the = logical general direction? >>=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 well as mechanical/structural failure. >>> =20 >>> 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 tank 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 certainly will be. It is all a matter of time and = temperature. In tank ships, you need around 2 gallons or so to make the = space fuel rich. Frequently there is more than this trapped behind the = tank scale. >>> =20 >>> For the reasons stated earlier, I wouldn't be too concerned about an = explosion 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 plane came to rest in. A hundred gallons spread out on the = runway could make a real big fire real fast and would be difficult to = survive if you were caught in the middle. Two cups of gas in the same = scenario would be a much more survivable situation.=20 >>> =20 >>> Another benefit of draining the tanks before impact is the reduction = in gross weight and therefore stall/impact speed. >>> =20 >>> Rob >>> In a message dated 12/30/10 20:10:11 Eastern Standard Time, = colyncase@earthlink.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 = leakage risk. >>> sounds like you are in this business? >>>=20 >>>=20 >>=20 --Apple-Mail-696-132333171 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; 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 <kevin@airforcemechanical.com<= /a>> wrote:












Kevin Kossi



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

Colyn,
 
I am a forensic engineer and work quite a bit with fire and = explosion 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 tank 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 certainly will be. It is all a matter of time and = temperature. In tank ships, you need 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 explosion 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 plane came to rest in. A hundred gallons spread out = on the runway could make a real big fire real fast and would be = difficult to survive if you were caught in the middle. Two cups of gas = in the same scenario would be a much more survivable = situation. 
 
Another benefit of draining the tanks before impact is the = reduction in gross weight and therefore stall/impact speed.
 
Rob
Rob,   interesting info.=20
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 leakage risk.
sounds like you are in this business?

=



= --Apple-Mail-696-132333171--