Looking for B-17 video...

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

Once again, Ralph, Boeing made some boost pump wire bundles for early
737s
that run throuh the CWT too short, that error created a "source of
ignition"; but it has absolutely nothing to do with the 747 CWT.

But the rest of the flawed electrical equipment in the 747 could, as
shown by the various TWA 800 investigations.

There was never anything wrong with the electrical system on a factory 747
and what you write is nutty.

Funny how you keep harping on the one thing you *think* you know, but
keep "forgetting" the rest...

In fact, I am deleting video and cartoon evidence from the record. I have
shown where several of the sales tools NTSB used to peddle their pre-drawn
conclusion in a technocratic way. The statistical evidence since that time
points to a large flaw in NTSB's motives, but no problem with the 747.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

There was never anything wrong with the electrical system on a factory 747
and what you write is nutty.

"A factory 747." I note that you neglect to mention a 747 that had been
flying for a few years. And I also note that you don't mention the very
specific problems with older 747s...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Chad Irby wrote:

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

There was never anything wrong with the electrical system on a factory 747
and what you write is nutty.

"A factory 747." I note that you neglect to mention a 747 that had been
flying for a few years. And I also note that you don't mention the very
specific problems with older 747s...

I suspect that was intentional. A 'factory new' 747 is assuredly fine. The FAA
says so for one !

What I suspect few expected was that some of the early a/c would continue to fly
so long, being the solid brick ****houses that they are.

Also, in depth knowledge of wire ageing was in its infancy when the 747 came off
the drawing board.

I confess to having learnt a great deal about ageing issues when it came to TWA
800.

One of the most interesting subtle issues was the surely well intentioned use of
silver plated crimp connectors in the FQIS. Turns out that after a few decades,
the sulphur in the fuel has combined sufficiently with the silver on the
connector to form a semi-conductive silver sulphide film on terminal blocks,
capable of providing an ignition source if sufficient voltage is applied.

The lessson has been learnt - thanks in part IIRC to a Tower Air 747 that
reported erratic fuel quantity readings.

These days nickel plated parts are used.


Graham

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

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

Once again, Ralph, Boeing made some boost pump wire bundles for early
737s
that run throuh the CWT too short, that error created a "source of
ignition"; but it has absolutely nothing to do with the 747 CWT.

But the rest of the flawed electrical equipment in the 747 could, as
shown by the various TWA 800 investigations.

There was never anything wrong with the electrical system on a factory 747
and what you write is nutty.

Funny how you keep harping on the one thing you *think* you know, but
keep "forgetting" the rest...

In fact, I am deleting video and cartoon evidence from the record. I have
shown where several of the sales tools NTSB used to peddle their pre-drawn
conclusion in a technocratic way. The statistical evidence since that
time
points to a large flaw in NTSB's motives, but no problem with the 747.

Why did Boeing spend the money to change their "Basic CWT Design Philosophy"
& implement this "CWT Design Philosophy" across all commercial Pax AC with
CWT's?

Why has the operating costs of all Boeing Commercial A/C with CWT's
increased to eliminate the "Inherent Danger" associated with the "Heritage
Boeing CWT Design Philosophy"?

Why has the value of all Boeing A/C built to the "Heritage Boeing CWT Design
Philosophy" decreased in value?

Why have the "Maintence Costs" of Boeing A/C built to "Heritage Boeing CWT
Design Philosophy" increased exponentially because of the need to eliminate
the "Inherent Danger" associated with the ""Heritage Boeing CWT Design
Philosophy"?
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

You do know, Ralph, that the spoiler is operated as a flap on 707, 727, and
747 Boeing aircraft, by the automatic Yaw damper?

I have seen nothing in any manual that associates the spoilers in the 747-400
with the yaw dampers, and have not seen any wiring diagram that indicates they
are connected. I don't think the yaw damper has any control over the spoilers
in the 744.

"John R Weiss" wrote:

"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

You do know, Ralph, that the spoiler is operated as a flap on 707, 727, and
747 Boeing aircraft, by the automatic Yaw damper?

I have seen nothing in any manual that associates the spoilers in the 747-400
with the yaw dampers, and have not seen any wiring diagram that indicates they
are connected. I don't think the yaw damper has any control over the spoilers
in the 744.

John "Splaps Boy" Tarver is famous for inventing nonexistent aircraft parts.

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

snip
One of the most interesting subtle issues was the surely well intentioned
use of
silver plated crimp connectors in the FQIS. Turns out that after a few
decades,
the sulphur in the fuel has combined sufficiently with the silver on the
connector to form a semi-conductive silver sulphide film on terminal
blocks,
capable of providing an ignition source if sufficient voltage is applied.

That ignition source relies on the 140 Ampres of three phase under the
flight deck floor of TWA-800. (ie upper deck alley) The best that can be
said for TWA-800 is that the market punished the perpitrators perfectly.

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote in message
gy.com...

snip
Why did Boeing spend the money to change their "Basic CWT Design
Philosophy"
& implement this "CWT Design Philosophy" across all commercial Pax AC with
CWT's?

Politics; the same reason NTSB lied in the first palce.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote in message
gy.com...

snip
Why did Boeing spend the money to change their "Basic CWT Design
Philosophy"
& implement this "CWT Design Philosophy" across all commercial Pax AC
with
CWT's?

Politics; the same reason NTSB lied in the first palce.

IMHO "Market Pressure" would be a better description of why the change was
made.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

Tarver Engineering wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

snip
One of the most interesting subtle issues was the surely well intentioned
use of
silver plated crimp connectors in the FQIS. Turns out that after a few
decades,
the sulphur in the fuel has combined sufficiently with the silver on the
connector to form a semi-conductive silver sulphide film on terminal
blocks,
capable of providing an ignition source if sufficient voltage is applied.

That ignition source relies on the 140 Ampres of three phase under the
flight deck floor of TWA-800. (ie upper deck alley) The best that can be
said for TWA-800 is that the market punished the perpitrators perfectly.

Actually, the Smiths Industries ? report on an ex Tower Air cwt terminal block
indicated visible flame with 9V applied from a 'transistor radio battery' IIRC.



Graham