Vortex6 gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

IIRC he was over-frank in an interview around the time he became
leader. He answered questions on how many sexual partners he has had
(answer 30+).

It was an interview with Piers Morgan, referred to about 70% down this
page:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/elec...71076/General-
Election-2010-Nick-Cleggs-balancing-act-as-hung-parliament-looms.html

From that link...
"(In fact, asked by Morgan whether he had slept with 30 women, Clegg
replied, 'It's a lot less than that.')"

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.co.uk...
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 14:39:30 +0100, Vortex6 wrote:

All well and good, but if Cleggover ...

I don't follow the news, especially "political" news before an
election. Has done a Paddy Pantsdown?

No. It is pretty boring really. Like most people, he has baggage/past.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...icle984233.ece

Adam

In article , Vortex6
ernibles.com scribeth thus
On 19/04/2010 16:12, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 14:39:30 +0100, Vortex6 wrote:

All well and good, but if Cleggover ...

I don't follow the news, especially "political" news before an
election. Has done a Paddy Pantsdown?

IIRC he was over-frank in an interview around the time he became leader.
He answered questions on how many sexual partners he has had (answer 30+).




Wouldn't raise an eyebrow en France;!...

Seems the flying ban is almost over least in the North?..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8630455.stm
--
Tony Sayer

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:32:48 +0100, Dave wrote:

Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
Chris J Dixon wrote:
"Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:

It was not a fall, but a deliberate fast descent to a level where
oxygen was not needed - one of the crew's oxygen masks was broken -
and where engine restart procedures might be expected to work, which
they did.

It's a pretty steep glide angle isn't it? I reckon it would feel
close enough to a fall for the passengers

The glide angle is 15:1, but he had to go down a lot faster than that
because of the oxygen mask problem.

The angle of attack would also be beneficial to re staring the engines
as well, by using the ram air to turn the compressor fan blades

Dave

Apparently they had to keep varying their angle, as the engines require a
specific range of airspeed to re-ignite, but they'd lost their airspeed
indication. They chanced losing altitude more quickly than required in
return for continual variations, hoping that one of their ignition attempts
would co-incide with the right airspeed.

I don't know how true this is, but that was what was stated on Air Crash
Investigation - funnily enough repeated a couple of nights ago.

SteveW

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I wasn't aware that you could charter an F16 for a commercial flight.
Tell me more. Sounds like fun.


Not AFAIK, but the opposition is possible.

http://www.bestrussiantour.com/jet_flights

About 300 quid a minute. I thought Concorde was expensive enough!

If you want DIY they do trainer stuff too.

Andy

Steve Walker wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:32:48 +0100, Dave wrote:

Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
Chris J Dixon wrote:
"Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:

It was not a fall, but a deliberate fast descent to a level where
oxygen was not needed - one of the crew's oxygen masks was broken -
and where engine restart procedures might be expected to work, which
they did.

It's a pretty steep glide angle isn't it? I reckon it would feel
close enough to a fall for the passengers
The glide angle is 15:1, but he had to go down a lot faster than that
because of the oxygen mask problem.
The angle of attack would also be beneficial to re staring the engines
as well, by using the ram air to turn the compressor fan blades

Dave

Apparently they had to keep varying their angle, as the engines require a
specific range of airspeed to re-ignite,

I never went into this in any depth, so I have to accept what you say,
but I have my doubts. I dabbled in spin trials many years ago, but
didn't get to meet the aircrew till many years later to ask them.

but they'd lost their airspeed
indication.

I can't see that happening. There is a pitot static system on aircraft
that doesn't require power.
Pitot reads the air speed from probes that point forward and this air is
transferred to a simple gauge that measures and displays the speed.
Usually duplicated so that the co pilot gets a reading from a separate
probe from the pilots source.

The static side of the system relies on static wedges fitted to the side
of the aircraft, whose orifices are pointing sideways and are protected
from being pressurised by the wedges I mentioned. They are designed to
measure accurately the air pressure and calculate the altitude from air
pressure, this is a measure of vacuum from ground QFE (ground air
pressure at the time they are about to taxi out. They get this from the
control tower and on route from air traffic controllers, who get their
info from any number of ships when they fly over the sea.

They chanced losing altitude more quickly than required in
return for continual variations, hoping that one of their ignition attempts
would co-incide with the right airspeed.

That's something I'll look into, thanks.

I don't know how true this is, but that was what was stated on Air Crash
Investigation - funnily enough repeated a couple of nights ago.

I've watched that a few times and I always thought it was either padded,
or bulled up for TV.

I have spent some time working with our UK Aircraft Accident
Investigation Branch on three crashes and they didn't work like the ones
in the US prog.


Dave

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Steve Walker wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:32:48 +0100, Dave wrote:

Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
Chris J Dixon wrote:
"Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:

It was not a fall, but a deliberate fast descent to a level where
oxygen was not needed - one of the crew's oxygen masks was broken -
and where engine restart procedures might be expected to work, which
they did.

It's a pretty steep glide angle isn't it? I reckon it would feel
close enough to a fall for the passengers
The glide angle is 15:1, but he had to go down a lot faster than that
because of the oxygen mask problem.
The angle of attack would also be beneficial to re staring the engines
as well, by using the ram air to turn the compressor fan blades

Dave

Apparently they had to keep varying their angle, as the engines require a
specific range of airspeed to re-ignite,

I never went into this in any depth, so I have to accept what you say, but
I have my doubts. I dabbled in spin trials many years ago, but didn't get
to meet the aircrew till many years later to ask them.

but they'd lost their airspeed
indication.

I can't see that happening. There is a pitot static system on aircraft
that doesn't require power.
Pitot reads the air speed from probes that point forward and this air is
transferred to a simple gauge that measures and displays the speed.
Usually duplicated so that the co pilot gets a reading from a separate
probe from the pilots source.

The probes fill up with ash.
the same happens with the engine sensors and various other bits.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Chris J Dixon wrote:
"Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:

It was not a fall, but a deliberate fast descent to a level where
oxygen was not needed - one of the crew's oxygen masks was broken -
and where engine restart procedures might be expected to work, which
they did.

It's a pretty steep glide angle isn't it? I reckon it would feel
close enough to a fall for the passengers

Chris

No, its about one in 20: right up there with a sailplane.


And IIRC there was no 'fast' descent, there was a controlled glide back
towards the emergency landing site.

Are you sure you are not thinking about the Gimli glider? Captain Moody
managed to get engines restarted, so could fly to the airport.

Colin Bignell

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:27:09 +0100, Vortex6
wrote:

On 19/04/2010 16:12, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 14:39:30 +0100, Vortex6 wrote:

All well and good, but if Cleggover ...

I don't follow the news, especially "political" news before an
election. Has done a Paddy Pantsdown?

IIRC he was over-frank in an interview around the time he became leader.
He answered questions on how many sexual partners he has had (answer 30+).


No, the exact quote was "less than 30".

dennis@home wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message
...
Steve Walker wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:32:48 +0100, Dave wrote:

Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
Chris J Dixon wrote:
"Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:

It was not a fall, but a deliberate fast descent to a level where
oxygen was not needed - one of the crew's oxygen masks was broken
- and where engine restart procedures might be expected to work,
which they did.

It's a pretty steep glide angle isn't it? I reckon it would feel
close enough to a fall for the passengers
The glide angle is 15:1, but he had to go down a lot faster than
that because of the oxygen mask problem.
The angle of attack would also be beneficial to re staring the
engines as well, by using the ram air to turn the compressor fan blades

Dave

Apparently they had to keep varying their angle, as the engines
require a
specific range of airspeed to re-ignite,

I never went into this in any depth, so I have to accept what you say,
but I have my doubts. I dabbled in spin trials many years ago, but
didn't get to meet the aircrew till many years later to ask them.

but they'd lost their airspeed
indication.

I can't see that happening. There is a pitot static system on aircraft
that doesn't require power.
Pitot reads the air speed from probes that point forward and this air
is transferred to a simple gauge that measures and displays the speed.
Usually duplicated so that the co pilot gets a reading from a separate
probe from the pilots source.

The probes fill up with ash.

I very much doubt it, as there is no air flow through them. Because of
this, the ash would flow around them. We never encountered this problem
with any aircraft supplied to Saudi Arabia.

the same happens with the engine sensors and various other bits.

The engine sensors are only interested in the air temp into the engine.
There are no other bits.

Dave

"Dave" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message
...
Steve Walker wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:32:48 +0100, Dave wrote:

Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
Chris J Dixon wrote:
"Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:

It was not a fall, but a deliberate fast descent to a level where
oxygen was not needed - one of the crew's oxygen masks was broken -
and where engine restart procedures might be expected to work,
which they did.

It's a pretty steep glide angle isn't it? I reckon it would feel
close enough to a fall for the passengers
The glide angle is 15:1, but he had to go down a lot faster than that
because of the oxygen mask problem.
The angle of attack would also be beneficial to re staring the engines
as well, by using the ram air to turn the compressor fan blades

Dave

Apparently they had to keep varying their angle, as the engines require
a
specific range of airspeed to re-ignite,

I never went into this in any depth, so I have to accept what you say,
but I have my doubts. I dabbled in spin trials many years ago, but
didn't get to meet the aircrew till many years later to ask them.

but they'd lost their airspeed
indication.

I can't see that happening. There is a pitot static system on aircraft
that doesn't require power.
Pitot reads the air speed from probes that point forward and this air is
transferred to a simple gauge that measures and displays the speed.
Usually duplicated so that the co pilot gets a reading from a separate
probe from the pilots source.

The probes fill up with ash.

I very much doubt it, as there is no air flow through them. Because of
this, the ash would flow around them. We never encountered this problem
with any aircraft supplied to Saudi Arabia.

Which volcano eruptions have these Saudi jets been flying through?


the same happens with the engine sensors and various other bits.

The engine sensors are only interested in the air temp into the engine.
There are no other bits.


fuel flow, air flow, temps, pressures and lots of things.
There are lots of bits affected by ash, the turbine blades are one of them.

Dave

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 10:47:50 +0100, Rob Horton wrote:

John wrote:
js.b1 wrote:
Air France, 2 German Airlines, Dutch Airline and BA achieved
successful test flights.

An issue is the density of ash - below a certain level it may be
immaterial.

I suspect the real issue is the move to 2 turbines from 4... #1 -
reliability calculations for 2 turbines in place of 4 do not include
ash
#2 - high altitude may be critical for efficiency with 2 large high
bypass turbines

The 767 has a very high rate of climb to get to cruise altitude as
quickly as possible. Burning fuel at low altitude may not put it in
the drink, but may well require surcharges.

The successful test flights did not say at what altitude they were
performed.

Who are you replying to? Because you've chopped ALL previous content
your posting makes no sense. By all means cut out excess text but
please keep the context of the messages.


It's the comment from Bruce. I use Thunderbird which uses a tree view to
display messages so that you can intuitively and instantly see and
understand how all of the messages relate. A consequence of this is that
having a load of previous text at the top of a posting becomes annoying.
Click on message, scroll down past previous stuff, click on next
message and scroll down previous stuff, etc. Be much better if everyone
top posted instead. No, I am not trying to troll or be antagonistic,
it's just my personal experience.

But, of course, you have to keep the old messages indefinitely to ensure
you have context for later posts.

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

dennis@home wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message
...
Steve Walker wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:32:48 +0100, Dave wrote:

Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
Chris J Dixon wrote:
"Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:

It was not a fall, but a deliberate fast descent to a level
where oxygen was not needed - one of the crew's oxygen masks
was broken - and where engine restart procedures might be
expected to work, which they did.

It's a pretty steep glide angle isn't it? I reckon it would feel
close enough to a fall for the passengers
The glide angle is 15:1, but he had to go down a lot faster than
that because of the oxygen mask problem.
The angle of attack would also be beneficial to re staring the
engines as well, by using the ram air to turn the compressor fan
blades

Dave

Apparently they had to keep varying their angle, as the engines
require a
specific range of airspeed to re-ignite,

I never went into this in any depth, so I have to accept what you
say, but I have my doubts. I dabbled in spin trials many years ago,
but didn't get to meet the aircrew till many years later to ask them.

but they'd lost their airspeed
indication.

I can't see that happening. There is a pitot static system on
aircraft that doesn't require power.
Pitot reads the air speed from probes that point forward and this
air is transferred to a simple gauge that measures and displays the
speed. Usually duplicated so that the co pilot gets a reading from a
separate probe from the pilots source.

The probes fill up with ash.

I very much doubt it, as there is no air flow through them. Because of
this, the ash would flow around them. We never encountered this
problem with any aircraft supplied to Saudi Arabia.

Which volcano eruptions have these Saudi jets been flying through?

The sands of Saudi Arabia. Don't forget, I worked on development from
1978 to 1999 and the Saudi jets were shipped and sorted during that period.

the same happens with the engine sensors and various other bits.

The engine sensors are only interested in the air temp into the engine.
There are no other bits.


fuel flow,

Done at the engine, before the high pressure pumps if I recall.

air flow,

Calculated from the speed of the engine when the aircraft was built.
after the aircraft is built and before it makes its first flight, there
is an engine run done that checks the amount of fuel that an engine
needs and this is compared with the engine is sucking through. This is
almost a days work. This is programmed into the engine control unit and
stays there until the engine is changed. The next time this is checked,
is when an engine is changed and the aircraft is subjected to another
engine run.

temps,

Taken from the compression area in the engine.

pressures and lots of things.

In the cockpit, there are only NL, NH gauges. These are to tell the crew
what the temperature in the low pressure and high pressure chambers are.

There are lots of bits affected by ash, the turbine blades are one of them.

Along with, possibly the bearings in that area.

I can't remember what your area of expertise is, but please leave others
to write about theirs.

Dave

In message , "dennis@home"
writes
The probes fill up with ash.

I very much doubt it, as there is no air flow through them. Because
of this, the ash would flow around them. We never encountered this
problem with any aircraft supplied to Saudi Arabia.

Which volcano eruptions have these Saudi jets been flying through?


the same happens with the engine sensors and various other bits.

The engine sensors are only interested in the air temp into the engine.
There are no other bits.


fuel flow, air flow, temps, pressures and lots of things.
There are lots of bits affected by ash, the turbine blades are one of them.

Stick to telephones dennis

it's obvious that you have found another discipline which you don't
understand and are determined to show everyone


--
geoff

fuel flow, air flow, temps, pressures and lots of things.
There are lots of bits affected by ash, the turbine blades are one of them.

Things will wear out a lot quicker when they start flying again,
so air fares will increase.

Paint, glass, etc.

[g]

Tim Watts wrote:
Vortex6
wibbled on Monday 19 April 2010 14:39

On 19/04/2010 12:56, Bruce wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 04:45:23 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:
Incidentally oil has dropped to 80$pb.

That means a drop in petrol prices of about 1p per litre in September.

;-)

All well and good, but if Cleggover gets his hands anywhere near UK's
controls in a couple of weeks he will be giving all of us a thorough
reaming....and I am sure fuel duty will be no exception.

Face it - after the election, everyone will be giving us a good reaming. In
the meantime, it's mostly the oil companies.

the question is, who gets reamed.

Will it be the private sector, the public sector or those on the sosh?

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:35:04 +0100, Dave wrote:

The probes fill up with ash.

I very much doubt it, as there is no air flow through them. Because of
this, the ash would flow around them. We never encountered this problem
with any aircraft supplied to Saudi Arabia.

Wrong type of dust.

Fine, sharp, volcanic ash is not the same a smooth, weatherered,
desert dust. I would not expect it to behave in the same way.

--
Cheers
Dave.

"Dave" wrote in message
...

Which volcano eruptions have these Saudi jets been flying through?

The sands of Saudi Arabia. Don't forget, I worked on development from 1978
to 1999 and the Saudi jets were shipped and sorted during that period.

Don't forget that sand is weathered rock not volcanic ash.
Ash is more like moon dust than sand.

the same happens with the engine sensors and various other bits.

The engine sensors are only interested in the air temp into the engine.
There are no other bits.


fuel flow,

Done at the engine, before the high pressure pumps if I recall.

air flow,

Calculated from the speed of the engine when the aircraft was built.
after the aircraft is built and before it makes its first flight, there is
an engine run done that checks the amount of fuel that an engine needs and
this is compared with the engine is sucking through. This is almost a days
work. This is programmed into the engine control unit and stays there
until the engine is changed. The next time this is checked, is when an
engine is changed and the aircraft is subjected to another engine run.

temps,

Taken from the compression area in the engine.

pressures and lots of things.

In the cockpit, there are only NL, NH gauges. These are to tell the crew
what the temperature in the low pressure and high pressure chambers are.

There are lots of bits affected by ash, the turbine blades are one of
them.

Along with, possibly the bearings in that area.

I can't remember what your area of expertise is, but please leave others
to write about theirs.

You have zero expertise in volcanic ash, please don't comment on stuff that
you don't have any experience with.
Especially don't try and pretend sand is the same as volcanic ash,
assumptions like that kill people


Dave

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.co.uk...
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:35:04 +0100, Dave wrote:

The probes fill up with ash.

I very much doubt it, as there is no air flow through them. Because of
this, the ash would flow around them. We never encountered this problem
with any aircraft supplied to Saudi Arabia.

Wrong type of dust.

Fine, sharp, volcanic ash is not the same a smooth, weatherered,
desert dust. I would not expect it to behave in the same way.

Well someone else actually has some understanding that it isn't sand unlike
Dave, huge and of course geoff.
I assume Dave will never post here again after stating only people with
experience of a particular subject should post.

dennis@home
wibbled on Tuesday 20 April 2010 10:54


Especially don't try and pretend sand is the same as volcanic ash,
assumptions like that kill people

Pratt & Whitney/GE/Rolls Royce tea room:

Engineer 1: Do you think our engines will handle that volcanic ash?

Engineer 2: Dunno - let's Google uk.d-i-y - I heard they know everything.

Yep - sound advice.



;- (for the hard-of-humour )

--
Tim Watts

Managers, politicians and environmentalists: Nature's carbon buffer.

On Apr 18, 9:56*pm, Dave wrote:
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Nightjar \"cpb\"@"
"insertmysurnamehere saying something like:

There is a problem, in that most of the aircraft needed are already
grounded in Europe.

Which is another madness.
Most of the needed aircraft could be flown to the west well under
20Kfeet and then go higher once clear of Ireland.

Perhaps that is why 2 EU guvmints have flown an aircraft each to decide
what the dust can do to the turbine part at the back of the engine.
It's a simple test to find out.

Dave

Easy like driving one Toyota and declaring the brand safe as you
didn't encounter any problems.

MBQ

dennis@home wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message
...

Which volcano eruptions have these Saudi jets been flying through?

The sands of Saudi Arabia. Don't forget, I worked on development from
1978 to 1999 and the Saudi jets were shipped and sorted during that
period.

Don't forget that sand is weathered rock not volcanic ash.
Ash is more like moon dust than sand.

the same happens with the engine sensors and various other bits.

The engine sensors are only interested in the air temp into the engine.
There are no other bits.


fuel flow,

Done at the engine, before the high pressure pumps if I recall.

air flow,

Calculated from the speed of the engine when the aircraft was built.
after the aircraft is built and before it makes its first flight,
there is an engine run done that checks the amount of fuel that an
engine needs and this is compared with the engine is sucking through.
This is almost a days work. This is programmed into the engine control
unit and stays there until the engine is changed. The next time this
is checked, is when an engine is changed and the aircraft is subjected
to another engine run.

temps,

Taken from the compression area in the engine.

pressures and lots of things.

In the cockpit, there are only NL, NH gauges. These are to tell the
crew what the temperature in the low pressure and high pressure
chambers are.

There are lots of bits affected by ash, the turbine blades are one of
them.

Along with, possibly the bearings in that area.

I can't remember what your area of expertise is, but please leave
others to write about theirs.

I have left this post untrimmed.

You have zero expertise in volcanic ash, please don't comment on stuff
that you don't have any experience with.

I am not writing about volcanic ash but what it can do to a jet engine,
that is another subject altogether.

Especially don't try and pretend sand is the same as volcanic ash,
assumptions like that kill people

Now this is why I left this post un-trimmed. Just where did I write, or
infer that they are the same?

Subject closed, for me.

Dave

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:35:04 +0100, Dave wrote:

The probes fill up with ash.
I very much doubt it, as there is no air flow through them. Because of
this, the ash would flow around them. We never encountered this problem
with any aircraft supplied to Saudi Arabia.

Wrong type of dust.

I had assumed that everyone knew that the desert contained sand and not
volcanic dust.

Fine, sharp, volcanic ash is not the same a smooth, weatherered,
desert dust. I would not expect it to behave in the same way.

It doesn't, it tends to turn into glass in the combustion chamber.


Dave

Dave wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:35:04 +0100, Dave wrote:

The probes fill up with ash.
I very much doubt it, as there is no air flow through them. Because
of this, the ash would flow around them. We never encountered this
problem with any aircraft supplied to Saudi Arabia.

Wrong type of dust.

I had assumed that everyone knew that the desert contained sand and not
volcanic dust.


well its broadly similar, but a lot more abrasive.


Both are essentially ground glass more or less, but the sand is a lot
rounder. It doesn't tend to stick together in clumps.

And, by and large, it's a lot coarser too.

On 20/04/2010 17:00, Dave wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:35:04 +0100, Dave wrote:

The probes fill up with ash.
I very much doubt it, as there is no air flow through them. Because
of this, the ash would flow around them. We never encountered this
problem with any aircraft supplied to Saudi Arabia.

Wrong type of dust.

I had assumed that everyone knew that the desert contained sand and not
volcanic dust.

Fine, sharp, volcanic ash is not the same a smooth, weatherered,
desert dust. I would not expect it to behave in the same way.

It doesn't, it tends to turn into glass in the combustion chamber.


Dave


I see that UK flight bans have been extended again this afternoon, though
it's curious looking at http://www.radarvirtuel.com/ at the moment to
see planes flying all over Europe and even European planes happily
flying over the UK.

Must be the wrong kind of dust over here................or maybe the
government are scared of personal injury lawyers which seem to be a
strangely British phenomenon within Europe.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:35:04 +0100, Dave wrote:

The probes fill up with ash.
I very much doubt it, as there is no air flow through them. Because of
this, the ash would flow around them. We never encountered this problem
with any aircraft supplied to Saudi Arabia.

Wrong type of dust.

I had assumed that everyone knew that the desert contained sand and not
volcanic dust.

Fine, sharp, volcanic ash is not the same a smooth, weatherered,
desert dust. I would not expect it to behave in the same way.

It doesn't, it tends to turn into glass in the combustion chamber.


Only over 1600 C, I'm informed, whereas the volcanic ash melts at about 900.

I am not claiming expertise, though.

Is this (penultimate sentence) correct ?


--
FERGUS O'ROURKE
www.twitter.com/ubfid
www.irish-lawyer.com
(Not just law stuff)

On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 17:20:46 +0100, Vortex6 wrote:

I see that UK flight bans have been extended again this afternoon,
though it's curious looking at http://www.radarvirtuel.com/ at the
moment to see planes flying all over Europe and even European planes
happily flying over the UK.

Some of them are helicopters...!

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

"Dave" wrote in message
...


I can't remember what your area of expertise is, but please leave others
to write about theirs.

I have left this post untrimmed.

Why?
Are you idle?


You have zero expertise in volcanic ash, please don't comment on stuff
that you don't have any experience with.

I am not writing about volcanic ash but what it can do to a jet engine,
that is another subject altogether.

Do as you say others should do and don't comment on stuff you have no
experience in.
This is about volcanic ash and nothing to do with Saudi sand or anything
else you have experience in.


Especially don't try and pretend sand is the same as volcanic ash,
assumptions like that kill people

Now this is why I left this post un-trimmed. Just where did I write, or
infer that they are the same?

Subject closed, for me.

Good, now remember not to comment on anything else you don't have experience
in either.

Dave

Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
...
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:35:04 +0100, Dave wrote:

The probes fill up with ash.
I very much doubt it, as there is no air flow through them. Because of
this, the ash would flow around them. We never encountered this problem
with any aircraft supplied to Saudi Arabia.
Wrong type of dust.
I had assumed that everyone knew that the desert contained sand and not
volcanic dust.

Fine, sharp, volcanic ash is not the same a smooth, weatherered,
desert dust. I would not expect it to behave in the same way.
It doesn't, it tends to turn into glass in the combustion chamber.


Only over 1600 C, I'm informed, whereas the volcanic ash melts at about 900.

I am not claiming expertise, though.

Is this (penultimate sentence) correct ?

I'm no expert on the combustion chamber, or the melting points, try
asking Dennis, he claims to know more than us.

Dave

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ill.co.uk...
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:35:04 +0100, Dave wrote:

The probes fill up with ash.

I very much doubt it, as there is no air flow through them. Because of
this, the ash would flow around them. We never encountered this problem
with any aircraft supplied to Saudi Arabia.

Wrong type of dust.

Fine, sharp, volcanic ash is not the same a smooth, weatherered,
desert dust. I would not expect it to behave in the same way.

Well someone else actually has some understanding that it isn't sand
unlike Dave, huge and of course geoff.
I assume Dave will never post here again after stating only people with
experience of a particular subject should post.

As usual dennis - your ability to misquote is almost on par with your
general ignorance

where did I mention that volcanic ash wasn't like sand?



--
geoff

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
hill.co.uk...
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:35:04 +0100, Dave wrote:

The probes fill up with ash.

I very much doubt it, as there is no air flow through them. Because of
this, the ash would flow around them. We never encountered this problem
with any aircraft supplied to Saudi Arabia.

Wrong type of dust.

Fine, sharp, volcanic ash is not the same a smooth, weatherered,
desert dust. I would not expect it to behave in the same way.

Well someone else actually has some understanding that it isn't sand
unlike Dave, huge and of course geoff.
I assume Dave will never post here again after stating only people with
experience of a particular subject should post.

As usual dennis - your ability to misquote is almost on par with your
general ignorance

where did I mention that volcanic ash wasn't like sand?

Try reading what you post.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
...
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:35:04 +0100, Dave wrote:

The probes fill up with ash.
I very much doubt it, as there is no air flow through them. Because of
this, the ash would flow around them. We never encountered this
problem with any aircraft supplied to Saudi Arabia.
Wrong type of dust.
I had assumed that everyone knew that the desert contained sand and not
volcanic dust.

Fine, sharp, volcanic ash is not the same a smooth, weatherered,
desert dust. I would not expect it to behave in the same way.
It doesn't, it tends to turn into glass in the combustion chamber.


Only over 1600 C, I'm informed, whereas the volcanic ash melts at about
900.

I am not claiming expertise, though.

Is this (penultimate sentence) correct ?

I'm no expert on the combustion chamber, or the melting points, try asking
Dennis, he claims to know more than us.

Nowhere have I claimed that, however you have on several occasions now and
you have been wrong on all of them IIRC.

As for the melting points I don't know, however I can make an educated
guess.. the lava is dull red and is therefore about 1000C and it is molten.
However even if the ash melts at the same temp as sand it doesn't mean both
will melt if they are sucked into a jet engine, grain size and transit time
will have a significant effect.

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
whill.co.uk...
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:35:04 +0100, Dave wrote:

The probes fill up with ash.

I very much doubt it, as there is no air flow through them. Because of
this, the ash would flow around them. We never encountered this problem
with any aircraft supplied to Saudi Arabia.

Wrong type of dust.

Fine, sharp, volcanic ash is not the same a smooth, weatherered,
desert dust. I would not expect it to behave in the same way.

Well someone else actually has some understanding that it isn't sand
unlike Dave, huge and of course geoff.
I assume Dave will never post here again after stating only people
with experience of a particular subject should post.

As usual dennis - your ability to misquote is almost on par with your
general ignorance

where did I mention that volcanic ash wasn't like sand?

Try reading what you post.

OK - here's what I posted retard

"Stick to telephones dennis

it's obvious that you have found another discipline which you don't
understand and are determined to show everyone"

Now explain exactly where I even mentioned sand YTC




--
geoff

dennis@home wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
...
Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
...
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:35:04 +0100, Dave wrote:

The probes fill up with ash.
I very much doubt it, as there is no air flow through them.
Because of this, the ash would flow around them. We never
encountered this problem with any aircraft supplied to Saudi
Arabia.
Wrong type of dust.
I had assumed that everyone knew that the desert contained sand
and not volcanic dust.

Fine, sharp, volcanic ash is not the same a smooth, weatherered,
desert dust. I would not expect it to behave in the same way.
It doesn't, it tends to turn into glass in the combustion chamber.


Only over 1600 C, I'm informed, whereas the volcanic ash melts at
about 900.

I am not claiming expertise, though.

Is this (penultimate sentence) correct ?

I'm no expert on the combustion chamber, or the melting points, try
asking Dennis, he claims to know more than us.

Nowhere have I claimed that, however you have on several occasions
now and you have been wrong on all of them IIRC.

As for the melting points I don't know, however I can make an educated
guess.. the lava is dull red and is therefore about 1000C and it is
molten. However even if the ash melts at the same temp as sand it
doesn't mean both will melt if they are sucked into a jet engine,
grain size and transit time will have a significant effect.

Seems to be some assumption there, or as you say an "educated guess". When
in a hole?

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
owhill.co.uk...
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:35:04 +0100, Dave wrote:

The probes fill up with ash.

I very much doubt it, as there is no air flow through them. Because
of
this, the ash would flow around them. We never encountered this
problem
with any aircraft supplied to Saudi Arabia.

Wrong type of dust.

Fine, sharp, volcanic ash is not the same a smooth, weatherered,
desert dust. I would not expect it to behave in the same way.

Well someone else actually has some understanding that it isn't sand
unlike Dave, huge and of course geoff.
I assume Dave will never post here again after stating only people with
experience of a particular subject should post.

As usual dennis - your ability to misquote is almost on par with your
general ignorance

where did I mention that volcanic ash wasn't like sand?

Try reading what you post.

OK - here's what I posted retard

"Stick to telephones dennis

it's obvious that you have found another discipline which you don't
understand and are determined to show everyone"

Now explain exactly where I even mentioned sand YTC

Try reading your posts, I am not a primary school teacher so I am not
qualified to teach you the basics.

"Clot" wrote in message
...


Seems to be some assumption there, or as you say an "educated guess". When
in a hole?


If you mean that I assume the lava radiates as a blackbody then no, its not
an assumption.

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
news:nyyfbegfubjuvyypbz.l16cah1.pminews@srv1. howhill.co.uk...
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:35:04 +0100, Dave wrote:

The probes fill up with ash.

I very much doubt it, as there is no air flow through them.
Because of
this, the ash would flow around them. We never encountered this
problem
with any aircraft supplied to Saudi Arabia.

Wrong type of dust.

Fine, sharp, volcanic ash is not the same a smooth, weatherered,
desert dust. I would not expect it to behave in the same way.

Well someone else actually has some understanding that it isn't
sand unlike Dave, huge and of course geoff.
I assume Dave will never post here again after stating only people
with experience of a particular subject should post.

As usual dennis - your ability to misquote is almost on par with
your general ignorance

where did I mention that volcanic ash wasn't like sand?

Try reading what you post.

OK - here's what I posted retard

"Stick to telephones dennis

it's obvious that you have found another discipline which you don't
understand and are determined to show everyone"

Now explain exactly where I even mentioned sand YTC

Try reading your posts, I am not a primary school teacher so I am not
qualified to teach you the basics.

I've just retyped it for you, you stupid ****

I don't need to re-read it, the only contribution to the thread to that
point was what I typed above

Are you just TOO stupid to read at all ?

--
geoff

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "www.GymRatZ.co.uk"
saying something like:

I'd be happy to oblige...
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pi...2&id=591699515
You'll see some non-volcanic ones in there too as well as some random
others.
:¬)

Cheers for that. I was unsucessful in getting much in the way of sunsets
as the groundline was too high and the sun was very low before any
effect kicked in - taking it through hedges didn't work very well.
A couple of months ago there was a spectacular one and I suspect it
might have been the same cause - or perhaps some other source - maybe
Saharan dust.

Every morning now, there's a film of dust on the cars...