Posted on 01/11/2017 7:33:07 AM PST by Freemeorkillme
McLame can suck Hilary’s shoes for all I care, as long as he votes to confirm all of Trumps appointments, especially the supreme court.
My personal observation of McStain in the last couple of years is that he is exhibiting signs of senile dementia. I seriously believe he is not mentally competent.
I agree and hate the mans guts, but just dont want to alienate him any more than he already is until we get through these confirmations.
Interesting post.
I think there is a host of other things to attribute to McCain outside of this, though.
BTW-I didn’t see anywhere in post 37 where “accidental” or “intentional” was ascribed to the to the article. I do see the article uses the term “deliberately”. Was that what you meant?
FReeRegards,
FMOKM
Post 37, and I’m not saying its right wrong bad or good, says....
A wet start is when the pilot starts the engine by starting the fuel flow and hitting the igniters, but the fuel does not light up and both pools in the engine and comes out the tailpipe. When the pilot sees that the EGT does not rise, they stop, and the fuel must be dissipated by various means before another start is attempted.
The writer mixed up the order of the fuel and ignitors. Normally you would have the turbine spinning above 12% with ignitors firing, then introduce fuel.
My point, is that if someone wanted to induce a wet start “to be funny”, they would mess with the start sequence. Probably adding fuel before proper engine speed (about 12%) may do it. Some airplanes used to do similar things on shutdown, kind of a backfire.
I’m just saying that in those days, NATOPS wasn’t followed as religiously as in subsequent decades. Doing funny things was more common.
Again, I wasnt there. So I have to default that he did NOT start the fire.
As you can see from the spotting diagram, there is no way he could have wet started or hot started into the face of any pilot behind him, because his tailpipe was out over the sea. I spent many hours in exactly that launch spotting configuration, all clustered near the ramp.
In the article, the writer says he did it with deliberate and malicious intent. I may not have been clear, but in case you are interested, there are only four (and ONLY four) possible ways you can get a "wet start":
1 - Equipment malfunction such as the spark igniter being down and not starting the fuel air mixture, or the huffer not spinning the engine fast enough.
2 - Fuel contamination rendering it non-combustible
3 - Improper technique: Person in the cockpit fails to push the throttle outbound at the correct RPM to activate the igniter due to ignorance, poor technique or distraction.
4 - Deliberate action: the person in the cockpit fails to push the throttle outbound. This is certainly something that John McCain COULD have done.
I will tell you, from my four years working around jet aircraft and years of that on the flight deck in many roles, I never, ever, ever saw any kind of tomfoolery or horseplay from anyone in a cockpit on a carrier. Never. Ever. Those people are all business, and for good reason. There are many lessons written in blood. It is far too dangerous to screw around. Believe me when I tell you, his last name might have been, Halsey, Nimitz, or Mahan and he wouldn't have done it. It is ridiculous to even think of it.
People don't do it, because people get killed, and one of those people getting killed could potentially be you, but only if you are lucky. If you did something like that, you would be a pariah, and you would likely be grounded.
What people do ashore is quite different, and do I think it is possible a pilot might do an intentional hot start on the line, or a mechanic doing one to clown around at the high power test stand where nobody might be around? Sure...it is possible. Unlikely, but possible. This isn't like some pilot flying by the tower fast and slow, or flying under a bridge or something, they do that because they think nobody will see them in the case of powerlines or a bridge) but on the flight deck of a carrier at combat, that would cause you to lose your wings. Of that I have no doubt.
If there are any Freepers reading this thread who have carrier experience, they might chime in, but even in the case of the craziness, stupidity, or high-spritedness that might surround wartime operations, I have zero doubt someone would do this as a prank, even if their tailpipe WAS pointed out over the ocean.
And by the way, you are correct. The fuel control sending fuel and sparking takes place simultaneously after the correct RPM was reached. In my haste, to type, that didn’t come out correctly!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.