Manually draining refuel manifold

[Guest]

jetcal1 wrote:

we are creating by transfering a hazardous fuel/contaimanant and causing uneccessary exposure to out personnel and the cost of HAZMAT disposal by EPA standards (which we know are becoming stricter and stricter)

While I cannot not and will not address the issue of when to drain, let me comment on the above, We simply used to pour any GOOD fuel we drained into a piece of SE that ran on diesel. That eliminated the disposal problem.

I agree that is a simple solution, but not an authorized one. Dont ask me why im not an SE/AGE mechanic. Ive seen it done that way, why i have also seen it just drained on the ground. Unfortunately, a rather simple task has been overly complicated by more stringent restrictions.

[Guest]

TalonOneTF wrote:

Here\'s another view, same airplane. Noteworthy is the obvious heat damage to the ALE-40 flare dispensers---fortunately, the flares did not launch. The crew inside the airplane was trying to fight the flames that were coming from outside through the opening in the fuselage, and the fire was being fed by the residual fuel...

[img size=407]http://herkybirds.com/images/fbfiles/images/New_Picture.png

This is very interesting. Do you have any other information on this mishap and the findings. My thoughts on this would be to create or modify all Herks like the UARSSI mod with ability to drain the manifold in flight. They used to \"purge\" the manifold prior to combat entry for the combat checklist by dumping the residual fuel out of the dump mast from the manifold in the wing to reduce small arms fire incidents. As far as im aware this procedure is no longer accomplished though.

[Dan Wilson]

They used to \"purge\" the manifold prior to combat entry for the combat checklist by dumping the residual fuel out of the dump mast from the manifold in the wing to reduce small arms fire incidents. As far as im aware this procedure is no longer accomplished though.

Actually your wrong on this but you have good company. Ask most aircrew and they will give you the same reason for purging that you stated above.

In Actuality, the manifold is purged on non TCTO 949(?)aircraft to prevent a highly visible white trail (fuel vapor) that leads directly to the aircraft making the plane very easy to spot even if your down in the terrain.

I don\'t care how much you camouflage, a white trail is quite visible day or night.

The purging never really worked anyways, it was almost impossible to get a pilot to hold a heavy skid long enough to get it all out, it actually took awhile for all the fuel to empty out.

On 949 birds you don\'t have to worry about this since the x valves are controlled by switches on the overhead instead of the touchdown switches.

I am a little out of date but they still had the purge in the combat entry when I retired in 04

Dan

[Guest]

Dan Wilson wrote:

Actually your wrong on this but you have good company. Ask most aircrew and they will give you the same reason for purging that you stated above.

In Actuality, the manifold is purged on non TCTO 949(?)aircraft to prevent a highly visible white trail (fuel vapor) that leads directly to the aircraft making the plane very easy to spot even if your down in the terrain.

I don\'t care how much you camouflage, a white trail is quite visible day or night.

The purging never really worked anyways, it was almost impossible to get a pilot to hold a heavy skid long enough to get it all out, it actually took awhile for all the fuel to empty out.

On 949 birds you don\'t have to worry about this since the x valves are controlled by switches on the overhead instead of the touchdown switches.

I am a little out of date but they still had the purge in the combat entry when I retired in 04

Dan

Makes sense, it was never explained that way before, then again i think i got my info from a loadmaster :ohmy:

And yes it was removed from combat entry recently pretty sure it was post 04, at least the last couple of years i have noticed they do not do that anymore, and when i asked one time they said it was removed because it was basically pointless.

Thanks for the correction though. I love the animation, its perfect for this thread!

[mongo]

I agree that is a simple solution, but not an authorized one. Dont ask me why im not an SE/AGE mechanic.

The only reason its not authorized is due to the lack of lubricants in JET-A, JP-4 whatever the military is useing now. deisel has waxes and all kind of other junk in it primarily for lubrication.

[jetcal1]

That sounds like a good reason. How much fuel is drained from the manifold?

[Guest]

This is very interesting. Do you have any other information on this mishap and the findings.

This incident did not happen in an official combat zone, but radicals may take pot-shots at airplanes anytime and anywhere.

The crew inside the airplane was not having much success in stopping the fire, since the source of the fire (fuel) was actually outside the fuselage. A determination was made to get the airplane down ASAP. When the main landing gear doors opened and the gear started to extend, the turbulent change in the airflow actually blew the fire out (that\'s the theory/story, anyway). Once the fire was out, the airplane made it back to home station.