HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Frank: " "and number of crashes by size and power type".

Funny U should bring this Up a few years ago I printed a Google map (Earth View) and made a simple matrix with No. Date Pilot I then Estamated )or used GPS location to determianwhere a plane crashed. I'd put an "X" on the map with the corrisponding Number. We had 50 Crashes thet I knew of, from 15 April to 10 Oct.
The criteria for getting o the map if U will was it was totaled not repaable. 19 of those 50 crashes were right on the field. Well That winter I started the same type of record here in AJ at the Arizona Model aviators Park.. Well I had 6 or 7 crashes logged in 4 days. I posted this Log on the field Bullitian Board Went to log a couple more a day or 2 later and Guess What ... I found the Log in the Trash Can ... They didn't want to know, Much less have some record of crashes. Go Figure.

Spelly is still KPUT's

Sport_Pilot

That is not an sUAV! I meant a small sUAV the size of our model aircraft. That was much much larger and certainly not a good comparison with model airplanes. The military have many hand launched drones and someone said they just bounce off the aircraft.

Sport_Pilot

Fuel cells never explode and rarely catch fire. You can put a match to jet fuel and it will not ignite. It has to contact red hot exhaust and a spark, or be extremely mixed and thrashed around such as in a crash.

Sport_Pilot

LOL did it have the same fonts, spelling, and punctuation we see here? Go figure!

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

plane still landed Is the ruptured Fuel Tank did not catch fire or exploed.

]Fuel cells never explode and rarely catch fire NOT TRUE Just Google it.

phlpsfrnk

Says someone I'll wager has never experienced a JP-5 fuel fed fire.

While at sea on 18 April, however, Marathon suffered a fuel leak and fire in the turbine spaces that burned into the crew spaces

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Marathon_(PGM-89)

You just keep putting matches in fuel, please.

Frank

Sport_Pilot

I KNEW this would happen. Why? Because there are plenty of examples of fire occurring, but then nobody reports when the tank ruptures or engine explodes but there is no fire. But if you are going to give me an example please be current as nobody uses JP-5 which was watered down kerosene. I believe JP-8 is the norm which is Diesel fuel with additives and no dye. I have seen the tests and it takes a violent fire or agitation to start a fire. The point is that a mid air from a model airplane is not likely to start a fire on a full scale aircraft. Nor do much else either.

cj_rumley

I'm saving this post so I can cite an expert when I need to.

bradpaul

I wonder what damage a Phantom I drone at 1200g and a 350 mm wingspan would have done to that wing of the C-130?

BTW as the RQ-7 has a 20' wingspan why did the props not have damage?

DGM

If you guys hate the AMA so much why don't you start your own organization. OH that's right.. it would require you to actually do something other than sit back and complain.

804

My Feedback: (1)

I'm here for you cj.

You may be unaware of this, but in the recent FAA authorization legislation,
congress called out for the development of a new coating to protect aircraft from errant drones.
DOD and, I believe, the USAF, came up with something called, "Drone Repelling Instantly Vulcanized Elastomeric Latex"
I think he is talking about DRIVEL.

Sport_Pilot

I am only saying someone said this, I have not stated this as fact.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Not sure how you interpret and find all that 'hate' you mention but wouldn't be the first time someone played the "hate AMA" card successfully in here... You might get that to stick as well...but I'm not buying.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

When I was in the USAF I ounce ran out of lighter fluid for my Zippo so I filled it with JP4 from the fule dump at the end of an engine run on a Hound Dog Missle ...Well I went through 3 or 4 flints before I burned all the JP4 out of the Zippo ...When I did get it to light there was a big Yellow flame and a lot of black smoke.. Looked like an F-4 Phantom in AB.. blackened the cigarette too.

... > World-wide Civil Jet Fuel Grades

http://www.shell.com/global/products...xtwithimage_19

• Jet A-1
• Jet A
• Jet B
• TS-1
• American Civil Jet Fuels
• UK Jet Fuels
• Former Soviet Union and East European Jet Fuels
• Chinese Jet Fuels
• International Specifications - AFQRJOS Checklist
• Other National Civil Jet Fuel Specifications

[h=1]https://www.shell.com/global/product...el-grades.html

Military Jet Fuel Grades and Specifications (NATO) - Shell Global[/h]

• [h=4]Products & Services[/h]

You are here:
... > Military Jet Fuel Grades



[h=1]Military Jet Fuel Grades and Specifications (NATO)[/h]Shell provides fuels for military use

• JP-4
• JP-8
• JP-5

[h=3]JP-4[/h]


JP-4 used to be the primary jet fuel for the USAF but was phased out in the 1990s because of safety problems. A few airforces around the world still use it but there is very little production.
JP-4 is the military equivalent of Jet B with the addition of corrosion inhibitor and anti-icing additives; it meets the requirements of the U.S. Military Specification MIL-PRF-5624S Grade JP-4. The UK Military specification for this grade is DEF STAN 91-88 AVTAG/FSII (formerly DERD 2454),where FSII stands for Fuel Systems Icing Inhibitor. NATO Code F-40.



[h=3]JP-8[/h]


JP-8 is the military equivalent of Jet A-1 with the addition of corrosion inhibitor and anti-icing additives; it meets the requirements of the U.S. Military Specification MIL-T-83188D. It is the dominant military jet fuel grade for NATO airforces. The UK also have a specification for this grade namely DEF STAN 91-87 AVTUR/FSII (formerly DERD 2453). NATO Code F-34.
To read more about the fuel, download its MSDS now.



[h=3]JP-5[/h]


JP-5 is a high flash point kerosine meeting the requirements of the U.S. Military Specification MIL-PRF-5624S Grade JP-5. The UK Military specification for this grade is DEF STAN 91-86 AVCAT/FSII (formerly DERD 2452). This is primarily jet fuel for use in aircraft carriers. NATO Code F-44.





[h=2]Page Tools[/h]

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

When the "sUAS RQ-7 PILOT" saw the 400 MPH C-130 chasing him down he went Knife edge & pulled left (Port for Frankie) and dive to keep from getting run over at his cruise speed of 84 mph. About a logical as all these STUPID Forums on RCU with all of us same TROLLS preaching to the Chuior or just argueing to see hems self in PRINT .....
Man that's gona bring the "RATH" of the small groups of posters here. No U's all has a nice day. I's off ta tka Big Bird Flyin fer the next 3 days thar boys.

Damrn spller ckkr stils broked srry

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Every AMA member should of gotten this Notic from the AMA Read it Watch it And Comment on the NPRM before April 24th. It's Vital to our hoby with what the FAA wants and will do if we don't make objection to it ... For those that belive the NPRM as written and feature FAR's it will make DO NOT only pertain to Comerical Use of sUAS and TOY MODEL AIR PLANES. It (if inacted as written into FAR's it will out lay any thing over 55 lbs any thing over 87 MPH Max altitude 500' ext.

Please read and watch the video and then comment to the FAA before ther take yout TOY airplanes away or make tham Useless and worthless, if they can. Government will take anything U don't veitmently protect.

U should of recieved this today but check It out Here.

http://view.exacttarget.com/?j=fe561...0575741372&r=0

[TABLE="class: yiv8177313427, width: 450"]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #E5E5E5, colspan: 8"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #E5E5E5"][/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #000000"]

[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #E5E5E5"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="colspan: 2"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

NorfolkSouthern

I looked at the comments on the NPRM. I'm seeing that the majority of people commenting unfavorably to the AMA, models, and drones. Better to leave things unsaid. Adding more comments will only cause the FAA to heighten restrictions that already exist. Be careful what you wish for!

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Mr. NSRR:
Would U please Post the URL where u found "the comments on the NPRM" Thanks.

NorfolkSouthern

See if this works:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documen...2015-0150-0017

Sport_Pilot

I looked at about 10 and all of them were copies of the AMA version. Some added additional items but I suspect that will not be noticed. Propose that we DO comment and refer to the AMA version but then add our own opinions. I don't see how not commenting will help in any way.

phlpsfrnk

Thank you HoundDog,
When I was in the military I fought a fuel fed shipboard fire for 28 tense minutes. My point was that only ignorant people with a cavalier attitude for safety that have never experienced what those fuels are capable of talk about putting matches out in them.

Frank

Sport_Pilot

I was not advocating putting a match to the fuel. But JP5 has a flash point of 140 degrees, so unless the fuel temp is raised to 140 degrees F, or violently agitated (such as in a crash), a match or even a spark will not ignite the fuel. For JP 8 the flash point is just over 100 degrees F. Even kerosene will not ignite with a match at room temp, but I think the flash point is lower at 90 or so.

TimJ

hmmmm Thats odd. I just ignited my Kerosene camping stove with a match.....very odd. So you may want to explain that a little better...... Think about liquid vs vapor, maybe that will help you out.......

BobbyMcGee

Yeah ... I wished for world peace. Now look what happened!

I'm sorry ...

Sport_Pilot

It will ignite from a wick which increases the evaporation, now put a small amount of kerosene in a bottle cap or similar small container and try to ignite it. Even heavy oil will ignite with the right wick.

Here is an explanation of how high flash point liquids can be ignited with wicks, sprays, and other means.

http://firepedia.com/the-truth-about-flash-point/