Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!glacier!kestrel!king
From: king@kestrel.ARPA (Dick King)
Newsgroups: net.aviation
Subject: Re: Airport Fog
Message-ID: <5688@kestrel.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 11-Mar-86 11:54:20 EST
Article-I.D.: kestrel.5688
Posted: Tue Mar 11 11:54:20 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 14-Mar-86 04:42:15 EST
Organization: Kestrel Institute, Palo Alto, CA
Lines: 21


   From: LShilkoff.ES@XEROX.COM
   Newsgroups: net.aviation
   Date: 4 Mar 86 18:46:00 GMT
   Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU

   I can see one negative on the proposal in that running a turbojet engine
   at high RPM's for an extended period of time on the ground could have a
   detrimental effect on the life of the engine. Typically, an engine is
   not run on the ground at high levels for but a minute or two since
   take-off occurs shortly thereafter. The ground is a very dirty area for
   a turbo jet engine and the particles drawn into the engine could
   drastically reduce it's life. Perhaps something other than an aircraft
   can be used.

   Larry

Why not use engines that are at the end of their useful life?  There
must be a time when an engine still works but is deemed too old (or
unreliable for some other reason) to fly!

-dick