Looking for B-17 video...

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

What Cal Tech did was peer reviewed to much snickering; don't count on a
sequel.

Then you should be able to cite some good scathing peer reviews, right?

I could put forward the outright refusal of the University system refusing
to do any more work for NTSB, due to their misuse of the material. As usual
though, I will expect you to do your own research.

In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

I could put forward the outright refusal of the University system refusing
to do any more work for NTSB, due to their misuse of the material.

Then you have a link, or a reference which mentions this, right?

As usual though, I will expect you to do your own research.

As usual, it doesn't exist, and you were hoping nobody would notice.

And you're not even going to mention the two other Boeing-made planes
(737s in Manila 1991, and Bangkok 2001) which have exploded on the
ground from exactly the sort of fuel-tank problem that got TWA 800,
right?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

I could put forward the outright refusal of the University system
refusing
to do any more work for NTSB, due to their misuse of the material.

Then you have a link, or a reference which mentions this, right?

As usual though, I will expect you to do your own research.

As usual, it doesn't exist, and you were hoping nobody would notice.

More likely, it doesn't really matter what you imagine, Chad.

And you're not even going to mention the two other Boeing-made planes
(737s in Manila 1991, and Bangkok 2001) which have exploded on the
ground from exactly the sort of fuel-tank problem that got TWA 800,
right?

No, in fact that detail has already been covered; in this thread. There is
an AD covering the 737 -300 and earlier wire bundle problem. The idea that
their is a "design philosophy" that causes 747 CWT's to be bombs is nutty.
The 747 not only lacks the "too short" wire bundle of some 737s, but that
bundle is not even routed through the CWT in 747s, like the 737.

The best part was when Blakey invalidated the NTSB's 737 rudder PCU finding.
When she tied USAir 427 to "rudder reversal, due to flow seperation", the
blatant waste of money Hall's NTSB was comes into full focus.

In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:


No, in fact that detail has already been covered; in this thread. There is
an AD covering the 737 -300 and earlier wire bundle problem. The idea that
their is a "design philosophy" that causes 747 CWT's to be bombs is nutty.

Well, since it's you claiming that it's "nutty," it's pretty much 100%
certain that that's exactly what causes it.

And it's really funny that, since you claim there's no problem, Boeing
just spent all of theat time and money redesigning their fuel tanks...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:


No, in fact that detail has already been covered; in this thread. There
is
an AD covering the 737 -300 and earlier wire bundle problem. The idea
that
their is a "design philosophy" that causes 747 CWT's to be bombs is
nutty.

Well, since it's you claiming that it's "nutty," it's pretty much 100%
certain that that's exactly what causes it.

What "it" are you after there, my lun?

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:


No, in fact that detail has already been covered; in this thread.
There
is
an AD covering the 737 -300 and earlier wire bundle problem. The idea
that
their is a "design philosophy" that causes 747 CWT's to be bombs is
nutty.

Well, since it's you claiming that it's "nutty," it's pretty much 100%
certain that that's exactly what causes it.

What "it" are you after there, my lun?

Tarver will it ever get through to you an "Inherent Danger" was identified
in "The Classic Boeing CWT Design Philosophy".

To minimize/reduce this "Inherent Danger" it was necessary to carry
additional fuel in the CWT of Boeing A/C with CWT's based on "The Classic
Boeing CWT Design Philosophy". This increased operating costs for the
following reasons;

A:= Necessary to carry extra fuel in CWT reducing "Payload".

B:= Carry fuel normally carried in wing tanks in CWT, resulting in wing
stress issues shortening life of A/C.

C:= A & B above resulted in reduced "Market Value" of Boeing A/C with CWT's
of "The Classic Boeing CWT Design Philosophy".

A, B, & C above resulted in Air Bus taking over a greater % of the market
for "Pax A/C". This is why Air Bus has delivered more Pax A/C this year &
probably will for some time until Boeing can fully implement the "New CWT
Design Philosophy" across its product line.

The above reasons are the basis for Boeing changing it's "CWT Design
Philosophy".

Some have made logical arguments Tarver is not the "Swiftest" re; A/C
electronic issues, & he certainly has no grasp of the CWT issue.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

What "it" are you after there, my lun?

The "it" you chopped out of the reply.

Still can't even spell your insults, eh Tarver?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

I could put forward the outright refusal of the University system
refusing
to do any more work for NTSB, due to their misuse of the material.

Then you have a link, or a reference which mentions this, right?

As usual though, I will expect you to do your own research.

As usual, it doesn't exist, and you were hoping nobody would notice.

More likely, it doesn't really matter what you imagine, Chad.

And you're not even going to mention the two other Boeing-made planes
(737s in Manila 1991, and Bangkok 2001) which have exploded on the
ground from exactly the sort of fuel-tank problem that got TWA 800,
right?

No, in fact that detail has already been covered; in this thread. There
is
an AD covering the 737 -300 and earlier wire bundle problem. The idea
that
their is a "design philosophy" that causes 747 CWT's to be bombs is nutty.
The 747 not only lacks the "too short" wire bundle of some 737s, but that
bundle is not even routed through the CWT in 747s, like the 737.

Wrong again, Tarver! There is a single connector with shielded wiring
running from said connector to each of the probes in the tank. The
setup is identical for both the 737 and 747 (and all other Boeing
transports, for that matter) with the only difference being in the number
of probes per tank. That is the only wiring inside the tank i.e. passive
fuel quantity probes (capacitors). As I've said before, the fuel pump
motors and valve actuators are outside of the tank.
Yes, John, I've assisted in the replacement of dozens of fuel qty.
harnesses, though most were 737s.

The best part was when Blakey invalidated the NTSB's 737 rudder PCU
finding.
When she tied USAir 427 to "rudder reversal, due to flow seperation", the
blatant waste of money Hall's NTSB was comes into full focus.


No comment.

JK

Jim Knoyle wrote:

snip

Wrong again, Tarver! There is a single connector with shielded wiring
running from said connector to each of the probes in the tank. The
setup is identical for both the 737 and 747 (and all other Boeing
transports, for that matter) with the only difference being in the number
of probes per tank. That is the only wiring inside the tank i.e. passive
fuel quantity probes (capacitors). As I've said before, the fuel pump
motors and valve actuators are outside of the tank.

Uh ?

Please correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the impression that certain pumps
(scavenge ?) were located internally to the tank, using fuel as a coolant IIRC
too.

Some pumps ( 737s - late models ? ) were shown to have been mis-manufactured
resulting in a possible spark hazard when worn due to internal wire chafing.

This was a while back - someone must also remember this ?


Graham

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

Jim Knoyle wrote:

snip

Wrong again, Tarver! There is a single connector with shielded wiring
running from said connector to each of the probes in the tank. The
setup is identical for both the 737 and 747 (and all other Boeing
transports, for that matter) with the only difference being in the
number
of probes per tank. That is the only wiring inside the tank i.e. passive
fuel quantity probes (capacitors). As I've said before, the fuel pump
motors and valve actuators are outside of the tank.

Uh ?

Please correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the impression that certain
pumps
(scavenge ?) were located internally to the tank, using fuel as a coolant
IIRC
too.

Fuel is cycled through the pump for cooling *but* in all cases the
pumps can be removed and replaced from outside the tanks
without tank entry. All three 747 ctr tank pumps can be replaced
from the wheelwell. Lt. and rt. 737 ctr tank pumps can be replaced
by removing an underwing plate, pulling the shutoff valve handle and
removing/installing the pump. They are pretty much 'plugged into'
the plumbing.

Some pumps ( 737s - late models ? ) were shown to have been
mis-manufactured
resulting in a possible spark hazard when worn due to internal wire
chafing.

This was a while back - someone must also remember this ?


I read about that too but never was involved with this in 27 years
at a Major. Lots of potentially serious problems are found and
avoided/fixed by the way the system is set up. I've found a few
myself . That reminds me of the two guys at UAL who got the
award for devising the pins for keeping JT9D cowlings from
slipping out of track on 747s.

JK