Jefferson City pilots took plane to maximum altitude

Wolfgang Kemper wrote in news:d8mpdd$ent$1
@home.itg.ti.com:

John Galban wrote:

Bucky wrote:

For example, the top speed of a car could be 120 mph, but it would be
dangerous to drive it at that speed because a sudden movement in the
steering wheel could cause the car to flip over.


This can happen at 75 mph or at 50 mph. What's so magic about 120
mph? If you're point is that driving a car is dangerous, I agree. If
you're trying to make some analogous connection to flying a plane at
it's service ceiling, you missed the boat (car, plane...).

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

Little notice from a German "Autobahn" driver:
I had a Alfa Romeo where I felt very comfortable even with 150 mph
and I had a Jaguar where 120mph was nice but at 150mph I had the
impression to became instable.
I pushed a Chevy Blazer to 100 mph and was afraid to kill myself.
Everything is relative , some dudes manage to flip over at 30mph , I
have seen this last December here in Dallas, and with the right car and
environment even 200 mph are safe.

Sorry way OT.

I agree. It all depends on the vehicle, the driver, and probably
more importantly, the road conditions.

I have a Harley Sportster ('86 883) and I've pushed it over the
century mark. On a good clean road it's rock solid. Then again,
I've been nearly dumped by a railroad crossing in bad shape at
only 30mph. Damn near jolted the handle bars out of my hands.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Bob Moore" wrote in message
. 122...
Maybe cold soaking...as often happened to me

That would not depend on the altitude however. In fact, if anything,
"cold soaking" would be more of a problem at a lower altitude, since there
is more thermodynamic mass to absorb heat from the airplane (and thus the
fuel).

The predicted temp at cruise altitude determined the type of fuel
to be loaded...Jet A, Jet B, Kero A-1, or JP-4. I have had to
alter the cruise altitude due to the type of fuel that had been
previously loaded.

Thank you for that clarification. That does reinforce my understanding
that fuel temperature is unlikely to have been causal in this accident.
That is, there's no suggestion that the planned cruise altitude was low
enough for a "high temperature" fuel to have been loaded. Any cruise
altitude even moderately into the flight levels would require "low
temperature" fuel (I apologize for the generic terms...I don't know which
types have what temperature ratings).

Of course, without knowing the planned cruise altitude for certain, I
can't rule out the fuel theory. It could have been that the flight was
originally planned at a relatively low altitude. One thing your theory
has going for it is that it might explain the difficulty in restarting the
engines, since the fuel might not have had time to warm up enough during
the glide, especially assuming the temperatures would have remained too
cold to do any good for most of the glide anyway.

In any case, until such specifics are released, I still don't think that
speculation is likely to come up with much useful data. The NTSB
should be able to provide us with some real answers at some point, once
they've had enough time to sift through all of the facts.

Pete


Keep in mind that it takes a long time to cool fuel in the wing. The top of
the fuel is not even touching the skin after a small portion is burned off
and the fuel does not contact the leading edge either. The fuel with the
highest gel point (Jet A) is still good to below -40C (well below if memory
serves me correctly. Fuel gelling is a problem in long range aircraft or
aircraft that have been on the ramp in Thule in Jan. for a couple of days.
I would be surprised if it applied in this case. There just wasn't enough
time for the fuel to cool sufficiently.

Mike
MU-2

Mike,

It's been so darn long since I flew at 410 and above, however, I do
recall that we had to use PRIST in the Lears all the time to prevent
the entrained or suspended moisture in the fuel from freezing and then
clogging filters. Fuel gelling was never a problem.

That's why I'm wondering if the cause wasn't frozen moisture in the
fuel plugging filters and starving the engines, which would also tend
to prevent a restart under those conditions. Any thoughts?

All the best,
Rick

Here is another clue:
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2005/Pinn...its/314036.pdf

And, like I said. I really don't know either.

"Mike Rapoport" wrote


Where do you come up with this BS? There is no relationship between climb
rate and over temping.

Would the possibility of overheating exist from the fuel controller being
inaccurate at altitudes over 36,000 feet, as the manufacturer of the
aircraft has just warned?
--
Jim in NC

Yeah, gotta stop thinking climb rate and start thinking climb SPEED.
If you don't climb at enough speed, bad things can happen. (But climb
speed is related to rate of climb to some extent, so maybe not so far
off).

Water in the fuel certainly could have been the problem but it would be
surprising if any problem with the fuel only affected one airplane. I know
that on my airplane, the first thing to suspect when a fuel filter bypass
light illuminates is ice crystals in the fuel filter and an immediate
descent is indicated.

Mike
MU-2


wrote in message
oups.com...
Mike,

It's been so darn long since I flew at 410 and above, however, I do
recall that we had to use PRIST in the Lears all the time to prevent
the entrained or suspended moisture in the fuel from freezing and then
clogging filters. Fuel gelling was never a problem.

That's why I'm wondering if the cause wasn't frozen moisture in the
fuel plugging filters and starving the engines, which would also tend
to prevent a restart under those conditions. Any thoughts?

All the best,
Rick

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote


Where do you come up with this BS? There is no relationship between
climb
rate and over temping.

Would the possibility of overheating exist from the fuel controller being
inaccurate at altitudes over 36,000 feet, as the manufacturer of the
aircraft has just warned?
--
Jim in NC


Sure, but this is unrelated to clilmb rate.

Mike
MU-2

I'm inclined to wonder if the pressurization or oxygen system was
working properly. From what I have read, the actions of the pilots
subsequent to engine failure were not very... er... enlightened, and
make me suspect hypoxia.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain."
(chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Mike Rapoport wrote:
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

"Bob Moore" wrote in message
. 5.122...

Maybe cold soaking...as often happened to me

That would not depend on the altitude however. In fact, if anything,
"cold soaking" would be more of a problem at a lower altitude, since there
is more thermodynamic mass to absorb heat from the airplane (and thus the
fuel).


The predicted temp at cruise altitude determined the type of fuel
to be loaded...Jet A, Jet B, Kero A-1, or JP-4. I have had to
alter the cruise altitude due to the type of fuel that had been
previously loaded.

Thank you for that clarification. That does reinforce my understanding
that fuel temperature is unlikely to have been causal in this accident.
That is, there's no suggestion that the planned cruise altitude was low
enough for a "high temperature" fuel to have been loaded. Any cruise
altitude even moderately into the flight levels would require "low
temperature" fuel (I apologize for the generic terms...I don't know which
types have what temperature ratings).

Of course, without knowing the planned cruise altitude for certain, I
can't rule out the fuel theory. It could have been that the flight was
originally planned at a relatively low altitude. One thing your theory
has going for it is that it might explain the difficulty in restarting the
engines, since the fuel might not have had time to warm up enough during
the glide, especially assuming the temperatures would have remained too
cold to do any good for most of the glide anyway.

In any case, until such specifics are released, I still don't think that
speculation is likely to come up with much useful data. The NTSB
should be able to provide us with some real answers at some point, once
they've had enough time to sift through all of the facts.

Pete



Keep in mind that it takes a long time to cool fuel in the wing. The top of
the fuel is not even touching the skin after a small portion is burned off
and the fuel does not contact the leading edge either. The fuel with the
highest gel point (Jet A) is still good to below -40C (well below if memory
serves me correctly. Fuel gelling is a problem in long range aircraft or
aircraft that have been on the ramp in Thule in Jan. for a couple of days.
I would be surprised if it applied in this case. There just wasn't enough
time for the fuel to cool sufficiently.

Mike
MU-2


You are correct Mike, fuel takes hours to cool to even close to freezing
point