Author Topic: T-6 & O2  (Read 1320 times)

Offline TEShaw

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 817
T-6 & O2
« on: December 30, 2018, 09:23:32 AM »
This NYTimes article today describes long-standing hypoxia issues in USN and USAF.

For those so inclined:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/27/magazine/air-force-hypoxia-pilots-navy.html?action=click&module=Discovery&pgtype=Homepage

There's also a 'famous' Lindbergh story [elsewhere] where he recounts high-altitude test flights in a P-47 in 1943 where he recognizes hypoxia coming on and has to power dive from 40,000 feet to regain his breath in time.

regards,

Airman T. E. Shaw

Offline Vraciu

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14139
Re: T-6 & O2
« Reply #1 on: December 30, 2018, 09:31:13 AM »
These systems have gone from being bullet proof to a frigging disaster.    Reinventing the wheel...  OBOGS.  It’s a nice idea, but geeze.

« Last Edit: December 30, 2018, 09:34:40 AM by Vraciu »
”KILLER V”
Charter Member of the P-51 Mustang Skin Mafia
- THE DAMNED -
King of the Hill Champ Tour 219 - Win Percentage 100
"1v1 Skyyr might be the best pilot ever to play the game." - Via PM, Name Redacted

Offline Ciaphas

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1955
      • DethKlokDave
T-6 & O2
« Reply #2 on: December 30, 2018, 09:40:05 AM »
The Obogs system design sucks. Having to rely on bleed air from an engine should have been a red flag and alerted engineers to serious design flaws that would eventually lead to hypoxia.

The old method wasn't broke but I suppose the "lights and flare" of a new "technology" was to much for some to resist.

I work on T-6's and can safely that we have perhaps 10-15 aircraft that are down in some form of OBOGS repair and nightly we have OBOGS concentrators go faulty.

crap design = crap design always



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
10.(Jabo)/JG 26 Nuisance Raids Scenario


Offline Vraciu

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14139
Re: T-6 & O2
« Reply #3 on: December 31, 2018, 06:17:55 PM »
The Obogs system design sucks. Having to rely on bleed air from an engine should have been a red flag and alerted engineers to serious design flaws that would eventually lead to hypoxia.

The old method wasn't broke but I suppose the "lights and flare" of a new "technology" was to much for some to resist.

I work on T-6's and can safely that we have perhaps 10-15 aircraft that are down in some form of OBOGS repair and nightly we have OBOGS concentrators go faulty.

crap design = crap design always



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ugh.   


Thanks for confirming what I often imagined.   :(
”KILLER V”
Charter Member of the P-51 Mustang Skin Mafia
- THE DAMNED -
King of the Hill Champ Tour 219 - Win Percentage 100
"1v1 Skyyr might be the best pilot ever to play the game." - Via PM, Name Redacted

Offline Ciaphas

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1955
      • DethKlokDave
Re: T-6 & O2
« Reply #4 on: December 31, 2018, 07:41:24 PM »
The old system was just fine like I said previously. The ejection seats (fighters/bomber aircraft) contain an emergency oxygen supply bottle (1800 psi) that lasts roughly 15 minutes. That is more than enough time for a flight suit insert to get his/her aircraft to an acceptable altitude. In the case of some ACES II equipped aircraft (F-16, F-15, B1, B2, A-10) they have an oxygen bottle on the side of the seat that provides well above the 15 minute standard that the smaller O2 cylinders give.


IMHO, it was just another bull crud gimmick that a manufacturer was able to slide past those that are supposed to be sourcing the best equipment for our military.

Who would of thunk that cross contamination of consumable fluids could rifle past all those pesky filters used to ensure contaminate free breathing oxygen for the aircrew... .

10.(Jabo)/JG 26 Nuisance Raids Scenario


Offline DaveBB

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1356
Re: T-6 & O2
« Reply #5 on: January 01, 2019, 06:44:23 AM »
I see the advantages of the onboard oxygen generation.  The old system required actual tanks to store liquid or compressed oxygen.  Not only does it take up a lot of room, but it is explosive.  Hopefully they have the OBOGS figured out now.
Currently ignoring Vraciu as he is a whoopeeed retard.

Offline Ciaphas

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1955
      • DethKlokDave
Re: T-6 & O2
« Reply #6 on: January 01, 2019, 10:12:58 AM »
I see the advantages of the onboard oxygen generation.  The old system required actual tanks to store liquid or compressed oxygen.  Not only does it take up a lot of room, but it is explosive.  Hopefully they have the OBOGS figured out now.

They don't even have a clue as to what is causing the problem and where in the process it's breaking down. They are just throwing band-aids at it hoping it will just go away. Other than the compressed oxygen being explosive, which isn't really that big of a deal as the cylinder that they are stored in are really durable and I can't remember an incident within the last 20 yrs where an O2 cylinder cooked off while installed on an aircraft (fighter/attack experience only). You had a system that was easy to troubleshoot and fix as it's a contained/sealed system. With the OBOGS MOD you have several outside potential sources/points of failure. The more points of possible failure you have, typically the cost to find and fix the repair goes up, the situations in which the failure occurs is broadened and the potential for failure grows drastically.


To mix any non O2 system with an O2 system is asking for catastrophic failure. For instance we have a clean room for servicing and handling O2 cylinders. This is to prevent any contact with oils/greases/fuels or any other contaminate that can and will cause the cylinder to go BOOM. We also use an O2 generation plant to produce O2 for aircrew. Even in our clean room that damn thing has caught fire, while it's cool to see a 5ft flame of doom, it sure does scare the heck out of you and your co-workers.

Now imagine this in an aircraft, a non sealed system designed to generate onboard O2 for aircrew that is sealed essentially with a filter system. What could go wrong there?

It boils down to the OBOGS system being a poor design and the problem is only exacerbated by the knee jerk reaction by those who have not a single clue how the system operates in it's environment away from the technical drawings that they rely on. Oh, before anyone says "but they are engineers", If I had a dollar for every time an engineer recommended a fix and it just ended up muddling up the situation I would be a millionaire.

This OBOGS situation is going to take a few things to get fixed:

1. Engineers and those that yay or nay these designs need to swallow their pride and admit that it's a horrible design.

2. Implement an OBOGS system overhaul by removing the need for engine bleed air

and... .

3. Revisit the "Old but reliable" system and research the feasibility of a design change to potentially replace OBOGS systems for aircrew (this is different than OBOGS on passenger aircraft as the distribution of the system is wider allowing for more protection from contamination from bleed air and the OBOGS concentrators).


 
10.(Jabo)/JG 26 Nuisance Raids Scenario


Offline eagl

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6769
Re: T-6 & O2
« Reply #7 on: January 01, 2019, 01:27:31 PM »
I flew using OBOGS for about 4 years, in the F-15E and T-6.  When new-ish, the system works fine.  I preferred the F-15E system where the system had a small accumulator good for several minutes if the OBOGS, bleed, or engines failed, but the T-6 one worked fine.  I have no firm info on why it's not working now several years later, however my pet theory is that they changed suppliers for some of the parts, maybe the molecular sieve or separator or something, and the new parts do not function properly or work as designed.
Everyone I know, goes away, in the end.

Offline Ciaphas

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1955
      • DethKlokDave
Re: T-6 & O2
« Reply #8 on: January 01, 2019, 02:11:04 PM »
It is possible for a bunk company to fake a mil spec and have their product get cycled through the supply system.

several years ago we had that issue with F-16 canopy dry seals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: January 01, 2019, 05:03:49 PM by Ciaphas »
10.(Jabo)/JG 26 Nuisance Raids Scenario


Offline DaveBB

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1356
Re: T-6 & O2
« Reply #9 on: January 03, 2019, 07:43:38 PM »
Regarding that- I worked for a nondestructive testing lab in the late 2000s.  Companies would send in standard pieces of equipment (poor quality), and we would examine them to military and nuclear standards.  If they passed examination,  all of a sudden this ordinary piece of junk (standard intercoolers, transformer boxes, water valves) were fit for military and nuclear use.  Milspec stuff isn't higher quality (normally), it just has more testing performed and is far more expensive due to documentation.
Currently ignoring Vraciu as he is a whoopeeed retard.

Offline Ciaphas

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1955
      • DethKlokDave
Re: T-6 & O2
« Reply #10 on: January 03, 2019, 09:30:08 PM »
agreed for tools and equipment but for consumables such as filters. O-rings and such. Having that Mil spec means the world.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
10.(Jabo)/JG 26 Nuisance Raids Scenario


Offline Shuffler

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27070
Re: T-6 & O2
« Reply #11 on: January 04, 2019, 09:39:06 AM »
agreed for tools and equipment but for consumables such as filters. O-rings and such. Having that Mil spec means the world.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Important in metallurgy too.
80th FS "Headhunters"

S.A.P.P.- Secret Association Of P-38 Pilots (Lightning In A Bottle)

Offline Ciaphas

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1955
      • DethKlokDave
T-6 & O2
« Reply #12 on: January 04, 2019, 11:10:54 AM »
NDI is important but they can not inspect everything(consumables) unless they are JOAPS and SOAPS etc...

Consumable items do not get NDI'd and the only QC is at the manufactures level.

Finding a faulty filter or other components requires the individual, base level and command level to have the fortitude to see a PQDR through to it's conclusion. Oh, it comes with a butt load of paperwork that many can't be bothered with so the PQDR never gets filed.

One item that only feeds these issues is a lack of integrity and the mighty ego. Fix those and you fix 80% of the problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
10.(Jabo)/JG 26 Nuisance Raids Scenario