X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 16:30:17 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.120] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.5) with ESMTP id 5573514 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 01 Jun 2012 14:44:12 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=75.180.132.120; envelope-from=tednoel@cfl.rr.com X-Original-Return-Path: X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=QKPqt33L c=1 sm=0 a=Juz4b5MAAxrvp7e3l7SsjA==:17 a=zv7pOm2hHFMA:10 a=1F-HOIdIGasA:10 a=05ChyHeVI94A:10 a=ayC55rCoAAAA:8 a=BILm6OIsAAAA:8 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=EUq3njQXjbYkRW4q-FEA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=CVU0O5Kb7MsA:10 a=Qd3DZqS-ySEA:10 a=4PR2P7QzAAAA:8 a=4DjA6x2jtDQ-xLuAT-wA:9 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10 a=djSSOgbfo6cA:10 a=Juz4b5MAAxrvp7e3l7SsjA==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 97.101.122.192 Received: from [97.101.122.192] ([97.101.122.192:49671] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by cdptpa-oedge04.mail.rr.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.3.46 r()) with ESMTP id D9/4E-00375-85D09CF4; Fri, 01 Jun 2012 18:43:36 +0000 X-Original-Message-ID: <4FCA5DDF.10801@cfl.rr.com> X-Original-Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 14:39:27 -0400 From: Ted Noel Reply-To: tednoel@cfl.rr.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List X-Original-CC: Colyn Case Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Oxygen Generators References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010004080103020002010508" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------010004080103020002010508 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It appears that there is a semantic issue here. The oxygen generators in the ValuJet crash used a highly exothermic process that created and fed the fire. The device used in the Diamond is almost certainly an oxygen /concentrator/, not oxygen generator. Wikipedia has a nice article on the mechanism. Concentrators are less hazardous in some ways than oxygen cylinders, and are certainly safe in aircraft. Ted Noel On 6/1/2012 2:12 PM, Colyn Case wrote: > re: oxygen vs. pressurization > > If you are solo maybe it's workable but I find generally passengers question my decision to fly higher when we have to get the hoses and cannulas out. Then you either need to invest in your own refill station or always arrange with the nearest FBO that has oxygen. ...a 30 minute trip away in my case. > > re: bottles vs. generators > > I don't know the issues. I just remember an airliner that went down when oxygen generators it was carrying as cargo started burning. > > > On Jun 1, 2012, at 12:12 AM, sales@newmanaviation.com wrote: > > I was reading the latest edition of FLYING Magazine, and I noticed an article about Diamond's new 6 passenger turbodiesel twin. What really caught my interest was the statement "Diamond is not planning on pressurizing the airplane; instead, it will be equipped with an oxygen generator." > > As a builder of a non-pressurized Lancair IV, this was interesting to me. I've long wondered why I've never heard about oxygen generators being used in small planes. > > Is an oxygen generator really a substitute for pressurization? Is the main disadvantage to not having pressurization really the price of bottled oxygen? > > I've attached the short article for anyone who is interested. > > Pete > -- > For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html > > > -- > For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html > > --------------010004080103020002010508 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It appears that there is a semantic issue here. The oxygen generators in the ValuJet crash used a highly exothermic process that created and fed the fire. The device used in the Diamond is almost certainly an oxygen concentrator, not oxygen generator. Wikipedia has a nice article on the mechanism. Concentrators are less hazardous in some ways than oxygen cylinders, and are certainly safe in aircraft.

Ted Noel

On 6/1/2012 2:12 PM, Colyn Case wrote:

re: oxygen vs. pressurization

If you are solo maybe it's workable but I find generally passengers question my decision to fly higher when we have to get the hoses and cannulas out.      Then you either need to invest in your own refill station or always arrange with the nearest FBO that has oxygen.   ...a 30 minute trip away in my case.

re: bottles vs. generators

I don't know the issues.  I just remember an airliner that went down when oxygen generators it was carrying as cargo started burning.


On Jun 1, 2012, at 12:12 AM, sales@newmanaviation.com wrote:

I was reading the latest edition of FLYING Magazine, and I noticed an article about Diamond's new 6 passenger turbodiesel twin.  What really caught my interest was the statement "Diamond is not planning on pressurizing the airplane; instead, it will be equipped with an oxygen generator."
 
As a builder of a non-pressurized Lancair IV, this was interesting to me.  I've long wondered why I've never heard about oxygen generators being used in small planes.
 
Is an oxygen generator really a substitute for pressurization?  Is the main disadvantage to not having pressurization really the price of bottled oxygen?
 
I've attached the short article for anyone who is interested.
 
Pete     
<DA52.jpg>--
For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html


--
For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html

--------------010004080103020002010508--