Tenacity - Phil Gollin
At the beginning of the thread, everybody looked at Fuel, of course. After it tested "in spec.", I continued to question the part Fuel may have played in the accident. I took some ridicule, no problem. Turns out, the fuel is part of the problem here, though not in the "traditional sense".
Phil you seem to continue to focus on Fuel issues as well as vulnerability of other types. As far as I'm concerned, I think that is most appropriate.
The posters who wrote "the Fuel is in spec., what's your beef"??, may be the same ones who may seem impatient with your persistence. I hope you continue your line of comment.
Cavitation?? What part of the wear on the pumps was cavitation damage, and what part the pumps part time job as ice crusher? Ice is solid, if granular, sticky, or otherwise, and can abrade pump lobes and other metal pieces, with a decline in efficiency.
Upstream pipework?? Before the engine type comes into play, there is substantial icing in the plumbing, by test. What percentage of safety remains after the other types deal with it, GE, PW??
Final Note, and the most troubling vis a vis the AD. The FOHE cools Oil. Does it heat Fuel? Yes, but is that its designed task? It also melts Ice, as a casual read of the AD supports.
Relying for the ultimate safety of a/c, crew, and passengers, by tasking an inappropriate system with work it was not designed to do, seems cavalier, ill advised, and frankly, dangerous, given the information delivered thus far.
The Thrust Increase to avoid Icing, and the Idle Thrust to melt it means that half of the AD is expected to fail. This leaves the FOHE as the only line of defense to accomplish safety, yet it is this structure being redesigned, to be refit?? This is not even logical.
AF
Last edited by airfoilmod; 13th March 2009 at 18:13.