G'day all
We were discussing the various MTOWs of the heavies and the question of how
much the average paint job on a 747 would weigh came up. I guessed at
around 3 tonnes but could anyone enlighten?
Cheers
Joe
according to the national geo show recently.... "100 gallons" of paint to
paint a Luftansa 400
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:02:06 +1000
Ben Matthes wrote:
> speaking of weight, I was told the other day that depeleted uranium is
> often used as counter-weights in flying surface controls in modern
> airliners, anyone heard of this practice before?
Yes, DU is routinely used in civilian aircraft and ships. A crashed
aircraft tends to burn a lot longer than an anti-tank slug, hence
inhalation of uranium dust near a crash site would tend to be more
likely than on the battlefield.
Cheers
David
b--.--..-.--@no-spam (Ben Matthes) wrote in
<ivcigvohqqaais6udvoecm4sngqqq71o6a@no-spam>:
>Hello David and all,
>
>speaking of weight, I was told the other day that depeleted uranium is
>often used as counter-weights in flying surface controls in modern
>airliners, anyone heard of this practice before?
>
>:-)
>TIA
>Ben.
>
yes
--
Trevor Fenn
There are too many zz's in my email address above.
Take two zz's and email me in the morning.
"Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just"
The Star Spangled Banner
Francis Scott Key
Ben Matthes <b--.--..-.--@no-spam> wrote in
news:gb0lgvc8gvb4fvqoicjfbga2rsmvo08lrm@no-spam
> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:22:52 -0000, ozzzpilot@no-spam (Trevor
> Fenn) a man of few words, wrote:
> yes you have heard it before?
For what little it's worth, I sat down with a calculometer
one day, at about the time we were discussing the relative
ability of VH-OJB and one of the new ERs to carry the
'Wunala Dreaming' livery. I applied the highly scientific
process of assuming that a B747 was a cylinder of the diameter
that a B747 actually is just aft of the wing root, searched
the net for coverage reccomendations for Taubmans Extra
Gloss Enamel something-or-other, assumed two coats, and
assumed 1 litre == 1 kilogram and came up with a figure,
IIRC, in the order of 750Kg.
By the time you kick some of the inaccuracies out of my
'highly scientific process', the figures from 400Kg to
600Kg start to sound pretty realistic.
I seem to remember (but I could be completely wrong) JB
suggesting a figure a bit over a tonne for the 'Wunala
Dreaming' scheme and, assuming a bit extra paint goes
into that design, that's probably pretty much on the
money too. It's gotta weigh more than two coats of plain
old white.
G
GB wrote:
> Ben Matthes <b--.--..-.--@no-spam> wrote in
> news:gb0lgvc8gvb4fvqoicjfbga2rsmvo08lrm@no-spam
>
>>On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:22:52 -0000, ozzzpilot@no-spam (Trevor
>>Fenn) a man of few words, wrote:
>>yes you have heard it before?
>
>
> For what little it's worth, I sat down with a calculometer
> one day, at about the time we were discussing the relative
> ability of VH-OJB and one of the new ERs to carry the
> 'Wunala Dreaming' livery. I applied the highly scientific
> process of assuming that a B747 was a cylinder of the diameter
> that a B747 actually is just aft of the wing root, searched
> the net for coverage reccomendations for Taubmans Extra
> Gloss Enamel something-or-other, assumed two coats, and
> assumed 1 litre == 1 kilogram and came up with a figure,
> IIRC, in the order of 750Kg.
>
> By the time you kick some of the inaccuracies out of my
> 'highly scientific process', the figures from 400Kg to
> 600Kg start to sound pretty realistic.
>
> I seem to remember (but I could be completely wrong) JB
> suggesting a figure a bit over a tonne for the 'Wunala
> Dreaming' scheme and, assuming a bit extra paint goes
> into that design, that's probably pretty much on the
> money too. It's gotta weigh more than two coats of plain
> old white.
>
> G
Well it looks like OEJ gets the same paint job its basic red now.
rm
...
> In fact the current anti tank round
> in the M1A1 Abrams tank is non-explosive, it is just a block of DU.
...
Right, so where can I buy some to cast bullets for my .44?
-c.
(Dirty Harry)
{{{(-_-)}}}
"GB" <gb@no-spam> wrote in message
news:jBvOa.125$3F6.5362@no-spam
> Ben Matthes <b--.--..-.--@no-spam> wrote in
> news:gb0lgvc8gvb4fvqoicjfbga2rsmvo08lrm@no-spam
> > On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:22:52 -0000, ozzzpilot@no-spam (Trevor
> > Fenn) a man of few words, wrote:
> > yes you have heard it before?
>
> For what little it's worth, I sat down with a calculometer
> one day, at about the time we were discussing the relative
> ability of VH-OJB and one of the new ERs to carry the
> 'Wunala Dreaming' livery. I applied the highly scientific
> process of assuming that a B747 was a cylinder of the diameter
> that a B747 actually is just aft of the wing root, searched
> the net for coverage reccomendations for Taubmans Extra
> Gloss Enamel something-or-other, assumed two coats, and
> assumed 1 litre == 1 kilogram and came up with a figure,
> IIRC, in the order of 750Kg.
The weight of the paint wet compared to cured is vastly different as the
solvents, medium etc would have evaporated during the drying/curing process.
If you knew the weight of the solids *only* that went into the paint that
was used, then you would have a very close figure.
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 10:33:31 +1000
matt weber wrote:
> Despite what you may have heard, the radiation hazard from DU is nil.
It's not nil, but it is extremely low. Depleted uranium (>99.8% U-238)
is not highly radioactive. It is called depleted because it has most of
the radioactive isotpoes removed for use as nuclear fuel. It's about 40%
less radioactive than natural uranium (the natural mixture of U-234,
U-235 and U-238).
Most of the radiation it does emit is alpha particles, which can be
blocked by a piece of paper. There is a small amount of beta which will
not penetrate clothing or boots. The tiny amount of gamma is roughly the
same level as background radiation, to which everybody on the planet is
exposed every day.
DU poses a very low radiological threat so long as it remains outside
the body. If fragments enter the body and are not removed (shrapnel is
not always removed from survivable wounds) it can have a long term
radiological effect.
But uranium, like all other heavy metals, is toxic. Even in high doses
the toxicity will get you long before any radiation does. It's not that
different to cadmium, mercury or lead poisoning.
Not forgetting the uranium we naturally ingest in drinking water. Adults
ingest about 460mg of uranium each year in water and food (and have been
doing ever since humans have existed). <5% of ingested uranium is
absorbed by the body. About 65% of that is filtered through the kidneys
and excreted in urine within 24 hours, and 90% within a few days. On
average, there is about 90 ug (micrograms) of uranium in the adult human
body from normal intake of water and food.
The WHO, US, Canada and Australia set limits of 20 ug/l in drinking
water. To receive a radiation dose of 1mSv/g from drinking 2 litres of
water per day, the concentrations would need to be:
ug/l
Enriched recycled uranium 120
Enriched natural uranium 508
Recycled uranium 515
Pure natural uranium 1630
Depleted recycled uranium 1850
Depleted uranium 2820
The limit of tolerable daily intake is about 2ug/kg/day, which on
typical adult absorbtion equates to drinking water with about 102 ug/l
of uranium.
Summary:
Don't panic.
References:
Comparison of Health Risks Arising From the Radiological and Chemical
Toxicity of Uranium, EPA 402-R-96-011 A, September 1994.
Jacob et al, Machbarkeitsstudie zur Verkn?fung der Bewertung
radiologischer und chemisch-toxischer Wirkungen von Altlasten, 1997.
Toxicological Profile for Uranium, Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry, September 1999. Reviewed all published data in uranium
toxicity.
Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water
Quality,National Water Quality Management Strategy, v2 2000.
Depleted Uranium: Sources, Exposures and Health Effects. World Health
Organisation, April 2001.
Kurttio et al, Renal Effects of Uranium in Drinking Water, Environmental
Health, Perspectives, Vol. 110, No. 4, April 2002, pp 337-342.
Cheers
David
b--.--..-.--@no-spam (Ben Matthes) wrote in
<gb0lgvc8gvb4fvqoicjfbga2rsmvo08lrm@no-spam>:
>On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:22:52 -0000, ozzzpilot@no-spam (Trevor
>Fenn) a man of few words, wrote:
>
>
>>yes
>
>yes you have heard it before?
>
>Ben Matthes. Canberra, Australia.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----- Aircraft Manager, Canberra Aero Club.
>http://www.canberra-aeroclub.com.au/
Yes.
--
Trevor Fenn
There are too many zz's in my email address above.
Take two zz's and email me in the morning.
"Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just"
The Star Spangled Banner
Francis Scott Key
Well if you call the old classic 747's and the 707 a modern airliner then
yes you will find depleted uranium on them (747 classics had them on the
elevators but it has been replaced with tungsten later). All the newer
aircrafts 747-400, 767, 777 etc. have no more depleted uranium
"Ben Matthes" <b--.--..-.--@no-spam> wrote in message
news:gb0lgvc8gvb4fvqoicjfbga2rsmvo08lrm@no-spam
> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:22:52 -0000, ozzzpilot@no-spam (Trevor
> Fenn) a man of few words, wrote:
>
>
> >yes
>
> yes you have heard it before?
>
> Ben Matthes. Canberra, Australia.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> Aircraft Manager, Canberra Aero Club.
> http://www.canberra-aeroclub.com.au/
b--.--..-.--@no-spam (Ben Matthes) wrote in
<ckjngvgg4nrlserng45kmqe44m8m1cdh29@no-spam>:
>is that yes they use DU as well?
>
>
Affirm
--
Trevor Fenn
There are too many zz's in my email address above.
Take two zz's and email me in the morning.
"Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just"
The Star Spangled Banner
Francis Scott Key