Wed Jul 29, 2009 8:40 pm
Oh ok, I'll have to ask Brian or Dennis About it sometime.
Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:11 pm
FYI this thread is now off topic... Steering it back now.
Ryan
Ryan
Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:22 pm
RyanShort1 wrote:FYI this thread is now off topic... Steering it back now.
Ryan
Ryan, quit being the thread police. This is extremely interesting, just let it run. Going off topic is not necessarily a bad thing unless it is totally unrelated. This is related to the topic. What if T-33 driver (Paul) or one of the other 3 or 4 T-33 pilots here were reading this and wanted to know about the tip tank smoke generators? The "potential" CG issues with these on T-33's is extremely relevant.
If you're not careful, I might have to say those magic words, "CAF tramp stamp". There.......hahaha!
Wed Jul 29, 2009 11:00 pm
Very on topic...
The moral of the story is that you always have to be very careful whenever you make a change to an aircraft. Even something as seemingly simple as a smoke system can kill you unless it is properly and thoroughly engineered. You have a potentially flammable fluid penenetrating firewalls and being injected into a hot exhaust system. FAA approval is no guarantee of adequate enginering or safety either.
I don't know that Frank Sanders' crash was caused by the smoke system or not, but there is a lesson to be learned from the discussion of possible causes.
The moral of the story is that you always have to be very careful whenever you make a change to an aircraft. Even something as seemingly simple as a smoke system can kill you unless it is properly and thoroughly engineered. You have a potentially flammable fluid penenetrating firewalls and being injected into a hot exhaust system. FAA approval is no guarantee of adequate enginering or safety either.
I don't know that Frank Sanders' crash was caused by the smoke system or not, but there is a lesson to be learned from the discussion of possible causes.
Wed Jul 29, 2009 11:11 pm
warbird1 wrote:Ryan, quit being the thread police. This is extremely interesting, just let it run. Going off topic is not necessarily a bad thing unless it is totally unrelated. This is related to the topic.
Hmmm... I started the thread, and I can't ask to get back closer to the topic I started? Most odd and not amusing. I found the other interesting as well, but maybe not the kind of information I was looking for. At any rate, I did participate in asking Jack for more information, so I'm not totally opposed to it.
Ryan
Thu Jul 30, 2009 1:02 am
RyanShort1 wrote:warbird1 wrote:Ryan, quit being the thread police. This is extremely interesting, just let it run. Going off topic is not necessarily a bad thing unless it is totally unrelated. This is related to the topic.
Hmmm... I started the thread, and I can't ask to get back closer to the topic I started? Most odd and not amusing. I found the other interesting as well, but maybe not the kind of information I was looking for. At any rate, I did participate in asking Jack for more information, so I'm not totally opposed to it.
Ryan
There's enough room in this thread that we can talk about both. If you want to get back closer to the topic, then find a quote from someone earlier in the thread and ask a question. As soon as a question is asked that you want info on, then BAM, we're back to where you wanted. In other words, you can use questions to "steer" threads. It's just all part of internet strategy. I think that topics, especially safety related such as this, are much too important to not discuss or drop because it doesn't strictly adhere to the original question. Starting another thread on that topic or breaking it off might destroy the "momentum" of the thread and lose valuable information. I believe that all threads should have very minimal intervention by mods unless it were totally unrelated. If you, for example, started talking about your personal problems on this thread, then I think most people would agree that it was way, way off-topic and totally unrelated. I believe that we should just let threads run their course naturally. That seems to get the most information from people. After all, isn't that why we are all here?
Just my 2 cents.
Thu Jul 30, 2009 2:31 am
Ryan,
What did you want to put the smoke system into ? and are there any others that all ready have a system installed ?
If I do another homebuilt, it will have a smoke system, if just for making myself more visiable.
What did you want to put the smoke system into ? and are there any others that all ready have a system installed ?
If I do another homebuilt, it will have a smoke system, if just for making myself more visiable.
Thu Jul 30, 2009 6:28 am
Matt Gunsch wrote:Ryan,
What did you want to put the smoke system into ? and are there any others that all ready have a system installed ?
If I do another homebuilt, it will have a smoke system, if just for making myself more visible.
I don't have an aircraft yet to put any system on...
I guess some more of what I'd like to know is:
1. Are there different types of smoke systems?
2. How much do typical installations weigh?
3. What kind of maintenance do they entail?
Etc...
Ryan
Thu Jul 30, 2009 6:31 am
Matt Gunsch wrote:Ryan,
What did you want to put the smoke system into ? and are there any others that all ready have a system installed ?
If I do another homebuilt, it will have a smoke system, if just for making myself more visiable.
Ryan,
Do a google on aircraft smoke systems and you should get info to ponder.
I recently asked a similar question in this forum myself as I need to replace a pump in a smoke oil system on a T-6.
There is a ton of knowledge to to gleaned here out of the posts. If they wander a bit I'm sure it is still useful and entertaining.
As Matt stated find someone who has installed one in the same type of aircraft, if none have happened try finding a system for the same or a similar engine.
If it is a normal category aircraft there will be some paperwork to file with the FAA. If it hasn't ever been done on your type of aircraft or engine type you will have to do substantial work to prove to the FAA it will work and be safe.
Rich
Thu Jul 30, 2009 7:15 am
Thanks... I guess the thread can carry on however now.
I will ask two more questions - has anyone seen an L-5 installation? - what about vintage smoke systems - didn't the USAAF have some pods for smoke screen generation?
Ryan
I will ask two more questions - has anyone seen an L-5 installation? - what about vintage smoke systems - didn't the USAAF have some pods for smoke screen generation?
Ryan
Thu Jul 30, 2009 7:21 am
51fixer wrote:If it is a normal category aircraft there will be some paperwork to file with the FAA. If it hasn't ever been done on your type of aircraft or engine type you will have to do substantial work to prove to the FAA it will work and be safe.
I'm guessing the T-33's pods must have had some other sort of smoke as they weren't anywhere near an engine, eh?
Ryan
Thu Jul 30, 2009 8:00 am
RyanShort1 wrote:51fixer wrote:If it is a normal category aircraft there will be some paperwork to file with the FAA. If it hasn't ever been done on your type of aircraft or engine type you will have to do substantial work to prove to the FAA it will work and be safe.
I'm guessing the T-33's pods must have had some other sort of smoke as they weren't anywhere near an engine, eh?
Ryan
They are smoke generators.
http://www.sanderssmoke.com/
Thu Jul 30, 2009 9:50 am
RyanShort1 wrote:Thanks... I guess the thread can carry on however now.
I will ask two more questions - has anyone seen an L-5 installation? - what about vintage smoke systems - didn't the USAAF have some pods for smoke screen generation?
Ryan
Cessna O-2A's had a smoke system that is pretty compact and may be worth looking into.
Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:05 am
RyanShort1 wrote:Matt Gunsch wrote:Ryan,
What did you want to put the smoke system into ? and are there any others that all ready have a system installed ?
If I do another homebuilt, it will have a smoke system, if just for making myself more visible.
I don't have an aircraft yet to put any system on...
I guess some more of what I'd like to know is:
1. Are there different types of smoke systems?
2. How much do typical installations weigh?
3. What kind of maintenance do they entail?
Etc...
Ryan
1. Are there different types of smoke systems? All are basically the same, a tank, pump and injectors. One of the bigggest differences is wether or not there is a fluid solonoid in the system, and how close to the injectors is it located. If you see a plane that puffs smoke after the system is off, it prob does not has a solonoid, and the puffs are oil being drawn into the exhaust by the exhaust pressure. The closer to the injectors you have the solonoid, the less chance of puffing.
2. How much do typical installations weigh? Depends on tank size, pump type and size, On the T-6 we had a 15 gallon tank, and a ADI pump.
3. What kind of maintenance do they entail? Normally very little, remove and clean the injectors, everyonce in a while, how often depends on what you use for oil, Pella or corvis oil burned cleanly with good amount of smoke, We tried used transmission fluid and it smoked ok, but the injectors seemed to carbon up alot faster, and not as much smoke.
Thu Jul 30, 2009 11:45 am
I talked to one of the Skytyper folks in Chino about their smoke systems which they had in T-6s and currently have in Grumman Tigers. The smoke oil needs to vaporize. If it actually burns, you don't get as much smoke. They don't use Corvis oil because it is hard to get (at least on the west coast). I've forgotten now what they use, but it is relatively inexpensive and is available from the local distributor in drums. Their systems use commercially available rectangular plastic tanks (in the Grummans) that are available in various sizes and are experimenting with multiple tanks to get different colors. They make their own injectors from stainless steel hydraulic fittings with the ends capped off and small holes drilled in them, again to help vaporize the oil. They use two injectors on the T-6 installation to get sufficient smoke. The tanks were located under the rear seat.