OzOne

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 23:42:38 +1000, "Noddy" <me@home.com> wrote:

>
>"the_dawggie" <the_dawggie@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:5b36d5ee-698d-4a18-a976-24c31b185697@v16g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Ok, didn't crash in a dangerous manner, but came close to it.
>
>It didn't crash *at all*, you ****ing idiot.

Many would call the 'landing' a controlled crash.
"As soon as the wheels touched the runway, Pearson "stood on the
brakes", blowing out two of the aircraft's tires. The unlocked nose
wheel collapsed and was forced back into its housing, causing the
aircraft's nose to scrape along the ground. The plane slammed into a
guard rail which made the plane lose a bit more speed to stop it from
flying off the runway." (wiki)




OzOne of the three twins

I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

John_H

the_dawggie wrote:
>
>Still, by volume diesel has highest energy content:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density

Hadn't bothered to check it out previously, but you need to get your
sources right.

The Wiki table uses gross calorific values (though it isn't stated).
The only relevant figures for the purposes of this discussion are the
nett energy values (a little bit of googling should be able to tell
you why).

Hence the numbers you've previously quoted are inflated (even on a
volume basis). The Bosch figures Athol cited are correct.

It's also relevant to the most basic engine theory... which is the
direct relationship between specific fuel consumption and an engine's
thermodynamic efficiency.

--
John H

the_dawggie

On Aug 28, 9:23*am, John_H <john4...@inbox.com> wrote:
> the_dawggie wrote:
>
> >Still, by volume diesel has highest energy content:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
>
> Hadn't bothered to check it out previously, but you need to get your
> sources right. *
>
> The Wiki table uses gross calorific values (though it isn't stated).
> The only relevant figures for the purposes of this discussion are the
> nett energy values (a little bit of googling should be able to tell
> you why).

I thought the numbers a little high myself, the ratios not really.

I've proved to myself properly produced biodiesel is highest
by volume, making and using the stuff myself.

> It's also relevant to the most basic engine theory... which is the
> direct relationship between specific fuel consumption and an engine's
> thermodynamic efficiency.

I agree with that.

the_dawggie

On Aug 27, 11:42*pm, "Noddy" <m...@home.com> wrote:
> "the_dawggie" <the_dawg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5b36d5ee-698d-4a18-a976-24c31b185697@v16g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Ok, didn't crash in a dangerous manner, but came close to it.
>
> It didn't crash *at all*, you ****ing idiot.

It did, explain damage to the front of it. If I did to that to my
truck
I'd say I crashed it.

John McKenzie

Noddy wrote:
>
> "the_dawggie" <the_dawggie@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d7cb0cc3-299e-4d59-8cc3-4191bf68ea6b@25g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Yep, and is exactly why there was an airline crash because changing
> > over to SI units saw an aircraft being filled in pounds, not kg as it
> > ran out of fuel ... Air Canada Flight 143
>
> What, the pilotds doing the pre flight check didn't notice the tanks were
> lower than usual, or the engineer couldn't read the guages?
>
> Where do you get this ****ing bullshit from?

Actually he's telling the truth. The problem was compounded by a burnt
out circuit board which blanked out the fuel guages. The ground crew
filled it to the wrong measuring unit, but the right 'amount' of units
if that makes sense, and the pilots had no way of knowing. they _should_
have double checked, but just read the note affixed to the guages saying
they were to be repaired at the next stop they were heading to.

They glided for a bunch of kms after all engines died, and were going to
shortfall the landing strip, diverted to a disused airfield one of the
pilots had once landed on, which had been (unbeknownst to them)
converted to a drag strip. It was much closer and they had to do a
manuever (without power, I remind y'all) normally done in gliding, not
done in a plane, a combo of banking with ailerons, rudder and elevator
so that it went down sideways (sorta) and dropped altitude without
gaining airspeed. And they landed it with only minor damage to the front
landing gear which didn't properly extend. Ironically, had it extended
properly, they wouldn't have been able to stop as quick and would have
killed a couple of kids who were riding bikes at one end of the strip,
and being kids, seeing the plane coming, tried to outrun it, instead of
dodge to the side!


--
John McKenzie

tosspam@aol.com abuse@yahoo.com abuse@hotmail.com abuse@earthlink.com
abuse@aol.com vice.president@whitehouse.gov president@whitehouse.gov
sweep.day@accc.gov.au uce@ftc.gov admin@loopback abuse@iprimus.com.au
$LOGIN@localhost world's #1 sardine whisperer root@mailloop.com
$USER@$HOST $LOGNAME@localhost -h1024@localhost abuse@msn.com
abuse@federalpolice.gov.au fraudinfo@psinet.com abuse@asio.gov.au
$USER@localhost abuse@sprint.com abuse@fbi.gov abuse@cia.gov

John McKenzie

Athol wrote:
>
binding options as well -- with paperback at the bottom of the heap.
>
> I'd probably just drop an email to the woman there who handles their
> bookshop stuff. They're always a bit disorganised, so I wouldn't be
> the slightest bit surprised to find that it really is the 7th edition
> but they forgot to change the details in the description.
>
> Is your email address valid?

HI, terry tightarse here - if you update yours, would you be up for
selling the version you currently have to an aus.cars regular?


--
John McKenzie

tosspam@aol.com abuse@yahoo.com abuse@hotmail.com abuse@earthlink.com
abuse@aol.com vice.president@whitehouse.gov president@whitehouse.gov
sweep.day@accc.gov.au uce@ftc.gov admin@loopback abuse@iprimus.com.au
$LOGIN@localhost world's #1 sardine whisperer root@mailloop.com
$USER@$HOST $LOGNAME@localhost -h1024@localhost abuse@msn.com
abuse@federalpolice.gov.au fraudinfo@psinet.com abuse@asio.gov.au
$USER@localhost abuse@sprint.com abuse@fbi.gov abuse@cia.gov

hippo

the_dawggie <the_dawggie@hotmail.com> Aug 27, 2008 at 05:18 AM wrote:


>On Aug 27, 8:50=A0pm, "Noddy" <m...@home.com> wrote:
>> "the_dawggie" <the_dawg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
news:d7cb0cc3-299e-4d59-8cc3-4191bf68ea6b@25g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
>
>> > Yep, and is exactly why there was an airline crash because changing
>> > over to SI units saw an aircraft being filled in pounds, not kg as
it
>> > ran out of fuel ... Air Canada Flight 143
>>
>> What, the pilotds doing the pre flight check didn't notice the tanks
were
>> lower than usual, or the engineer couldn't read the guages?
>>
>> Where do you get this ****ing bullshit from?

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider

>Ok, didn't crash in a dangerous manner, but came close to it.

You might like this postscript taken from
http://www.teamdan.com/archive/gimli.html

An amusing side-note to the Gimli story is that after Flight 143 had
landed safely, a group of Air Canada mechanics were dispatched to drive
down and begin effecting repair. They piled into a van with all their
tools. They reportedly ran out of fuel en-route, finding themselves
stranded somewhere in the backwoods of Manitoba

Cheers



--
Message posted using http://www.talkaboutautos.com/group/aus.cars/
More information at http://www.talkaboutautos.com/faq.html

the_dawggie

On Aug 28, 2:54*pm, John McKenzie <jmac_melbou...@bigpond.com> wrote:

> and being kids, seeing the plane coming, tried to outrun it, instead of
> dodge to the side!

I thought about that, going sidewards might have been a
difficult decision, they would have had no idea what that
aircraft would have done, riding on grass might not have
worked. It would indeed be interesting to ask them.

D Walford

OzOne wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 23:42:38 +1000, "Noddy" <me@home.com> wrote:
>
>> "the_dawggie" <the_dawggie@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:5b36d5ee-698d-4a18-a976-24c31b185697@v16g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> Ok, didn't crash in a dangerous manner, but came close to it.
>> It didn't crash *at all*, you ****ing idiot.
>
> Many would call the 'landing' a controlled crash.
> "As soon as the wheels touched the runway, Pearson "stood on the
> brakes", blowing out two of the aircraft's tires. The unlocked nose
> wheel collapsed and was forced back into its housing, causing the
> aircraft's nose to scrape along the ground. The plane slammed into a
> guard rail which made the plane lose a bit more speed to stop it from
> flying off the runway." (wiki)
>
>
Its a great story and all concerned were lucky the pilot did such a
brilliant job landing with no power.



Daryl

Noddy

"the_dawggie" <the_dawggie@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:83ecef4f-e0ab-4ab6-8f17-f464ebfa9f8f@n38g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 27, 11:42 pm, "Noddy" <m...@home.com> wrote:

> It did, explain damage to the front of it. If I did to that to my truck
> I'd say I crashed it.

I don't know who is the bigger retard. You, or me for talking to you.

--
Regards,
Noddy.