|
Grex > Agora46 > #148: Fat Albert loses engine, dumps fuel over Seattle | |
|
| Author |
Message |
tod
|
|
Fat Albert loses engine, dumps fuel over Seattle
| 
Aug 6 21:38 UTC 2003 |
This item has been erased.
|
| 41 responses total. |
tod
|
|
response 1 of 41:
|
Aug 6 21:42 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 2 of 41:
|
Aug 6 22:06 UTC 2003 |
WHat was the plume of smoke?
|
tod
|
|
response 3 of 41:
|
Aug 6 22:09 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
sno
|
|
response 4 of 41:
|
Aug 7 01:39 UTC 2003 |
Makes me wonder how much lawn damage was done by the fuel.
"My lawn just up and died!", said John Phillips while looking over the
yellow turf that once was his front yard.
|
tod
|
|
response 5 of 41:
|
Aug 7 04:17 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
sno
|
|
response 6 of 41:
|
Aug 8 01:23 UTC 2003 |
I'd be surprised if the fuel was dropped over the same runway where
the plane was intended to land. Sparks.
|
tod
|
|
response 7 of 41:
|
Aug 8 02:42 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
russ
|
|
response 8 of 41:
|
Aug 8 02:54 UTC 2003 |
Hmmm. Fun target for a model rocket....
|
scott
|
|
response 9 of 41:
|
Aug 8 12:14 UTC 2003 |
Russ, please report to your neighborhood tribunal. Giving such information
to possible terrorists is punsishable. ;)
|
bru
|
|
response 10 of 41:
|
Aug 8 13:39 UTC 2003 |
I think the dispersal is such that there is not enough of a mixture to be
combustable.
|
cross
|
|
response 11 of 41:
|
Aug 8 18:36 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
russ
|
|
response 12 of 41:
|
Aug 9 01:55 UTC 2003 |
A Hercules doesn't burn avgas, it burns jet fuel. Kerosene is a
lot less volatile than gasoline and will hang around a lot longer.
Come to think of it, those engines would probably run just fine on
biodiesel (with about a 10% loss of range). Not only is biodiesel
a lot less volatile than even jet fuel, it's also biodegradable.
|
tod
|
|
response 13 of 41:
|
Aug 9 18:53 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
russ
|
|
response 14 of 41:
|
Aug 11 00:02 UTC 2003 |
Flash point of methanol is something like 50 degrees F, so an aerial
methanol dump could come down as a combustible (and toxic) cloud.
Flash point of biodiesel is over 300 degrees F, it has a lot more
energy per gallon, and it wouldn't require redesigning the fuel system.
|
i
|
|
response 15 of 41:
|
Aug 11 01:26 UTC 2003 |
"...damaged plane blankets city with french-fry grease before making
emergency landing..."
|
tod
|
|
response 16 of 41:
|
Aug 11 15:30 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
russ
|
|
response 17 of 41:
|
Aug 12 22:52 UTC 2003 |
What would you rather have raining down from the sky: french-fry
grease, or toxic, flammable, water-contaminating and possibly
carcinogenic chemicals derived from black sludge?
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 18 of 41:
|
Aug 12 22:59 UTC 2003 |
I'd actually go for the french-fry grease. Easier to clean out of the
clothes. (Obvious answer for a loaded question, right?)
|
tod
|
|
response 19 of 41:
|
Aug 12 23:54 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 20 of 41:
|
Aug 13 02:29 UTC 2003 |
Actually, in #17 the words 'flammable' and 'possibly carcinogenic' apply
to both kerosene and french fry grease.
|
oval
|
|
response 21 of 41:
|
Aug 13 11:45 UTC 2003 |
ya i was thinking there ain't much difference, though one sounds tastier.
|
dcat
|
|
response 22 of 41:
|
Aug 13 19:48 UTC 2003 |
I'm thinking the french-fry grease probably wouldn't be too good for the
water, either.
|
gull
|
|
response 23 of 41:
|
Aug 13 21:51 UTC 2003 |
Probably not, though I suppose it'd biodegrade better than kerosene.
|
russ
|
|
response 24 of 41:
|
Aug 14 04:07 UTC 2003 |
Actually, fry-grease is not flammable as I understand the nomenclature.
It is designated "combustible", as its flash point is over 300 degrees F.
This puts it in the same class as such dangerous substances as wood,
paper, cotton and wool. You don't want to put ANY of these things on
you and then light them on fire.
|