[tuckerjt07]

You do realize those airplanes are for specialized heavy-lift contracts, right? And I don’t mean specialized bikes.

Get over it, you posted a common myth about air cargo.

I do. I also work with freight consolidators semi-regularly and you would be surprised at what ends up on what due to there being space for more cargo. If it's of the correct dimensions and weight it makes it cheaper for everyone. It's also interesting you chose only one of the two planes considering that UPS flies the 747-400.

Get over it, you ASSumed I was posting a common myth about air cargo when in fact I was referring to specific examples and made yourself look like the first part of the word in the process. Nice attempt to miscategorize though.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

 

[Jayem]

Haha. I didn’t “choose” anything. I merely pointed out you are grasping at straws to prove outliers. I have a pretty good idea of where those 124s go, so I know they aren’t delivering your bike to Bentonville, they are contracted for special jobs. All sorts of operators fly those 747s, Lufthansa, Yangtze River, Singapore, Atlas, Air China, Eva, the list goes on and on. The basic point is that bikes and cargo aren’t being subjected to temperature extremes as you have claimed, they’d get worse exposure just sitting outside at one of many cargo hubs. It just isn’t a “thing”.

 

[tuckerjt07]

Haha. I didn’t “choose” anything. I merely pointed out you are grasping at straws to prove outliers. I have a pretty good idea of where those 124s go, so I know they aren’t delivering your bike to Bentonville, they are contracted for special jobs. All sorts of operators fly those 747s, Lufthansa, Yangtze River, Singapore, Atlas, Air China, Eva, the list goes on and on. The basic point is that bikes and cargo aren’t being subjected to temperature extremes as you have claimed, they’d get worse exposure just sitting outside at one of many cargo hubs. It just isn’t a “thing”.

Well I mean it would be pretty hard for a 124 to deliver to Bentonville. Runway constraints being the biggest hurdle. Yep, I'm not the one making asinine, hyperbolic statements but I'm grasping at staws. That makes sense. Not even to mention your moving of the goalposts. You asked for examples, were provided two off the top of my head and then added a qualifier so you could hone in on the least likely one.

Now having lost the pressure argument you're back to the temperature bit that you already were proven incorrect on as well. Just give it up you were presented with a scenario where it actually occurred and they flew the plane without repair once the live animal was removed. Losing the heater in a cargo bay is not a danger to a plane. If there was not a live animal it never diverts and makes the news. So yes, it's entirely plausible for a bike to experience temperature extremes even when flying a passenger airliner for any number of scenarios.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

 

[downcountry]

Unless you are talking about a piper navajo and wing lockers, no. The cargo hold of an airliner/cargo aircraft has to be pressurized for structural integrity of the fuselage, and then the bleed air is naturally hot, mixed with cooler air, but kept above freezing. If not adequately pressurized, the in “some sections”, the fuselage would collapse like stomping on an empty soda can. Small cargo planes like a Cessna 208 wont give enough time to cold soak the cargo except in extreme situations.

This is generally untrue and not a concern (that cargo freezes on the plane). I kinda have to know this for work.

The cargo hold is pressurized to protect certain freight items, pressurized at earth level, from bursting due to the low pressure at altitude. A bag of chips , for example. Has NOTHING to do with structural integrity of the aircraft.
WWII bombers like the B-17 were not pressurized and flew at extreme altitudes.
The crew wore oxygen masks and electric heated suits to protect them.
And, the only way an aircraft would collapse like an empty soda can is if it happened to stay water tight on its journey to the bottom of the sea, where the high water pressure would, eventually, crush it.

 

[tuckerjt07]

The cargo hold is pressurized to protect certain freight items, pressurized at earth level, from bursting due to the low pressure at altitude. A bag of chips , for example. Has NOTHING to do with structural integrity of the aircraft.
WWII bombers like the B-17 were not pressurized and flew at extreme altitudes.
The crew wore oxygen masks and electric heated suits to protect them.
And, the only way an aircraft would collapse like an empty soda can is if it happened to stay water tight on its journey to the bottom of the sea, where the high water pressure would, eventually, crush it.

No, he's partially correct. Certain types of construction require the pressure to be the same in all chambers. That's why they are vented to other parts of the aircraft. Otherwise you would get a catastrophic failure in a depressurization event. That said what he claimed is far from the absolute statement he framed it as, as not every pressurized airliner is designed in that manner.

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

 

[Jayem]

The pressure vessel gives rigidity to the design, it is part of it, but apart from that, if the majority of the fuselage wasn't pressurized (like except for the nose-cone/tail-cone) you'd be introducing all kinds of stresses into there having certain parts pressurized and certain parts not. Rounded structures like cylinders, spheres, etc., are the best at holding pressure. You dramatically increase the strength requirement (and therefore weight) if you are only going to pressurize half of the fuselage.

Tonight I rode my carbon fiber rims, fork, handlebar and cranks and they didn't fail. Phew!

 

[plummet]

It is not a concern. 6 out 10 people you talk to are wrong.


https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/epoxy-adhesive

 

[toadmeister]

Unsubscribed. Sorry to the OP who had a good question but this thread went way downhill.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[plummet]

Also, if there was a low end that was concerning, manufactures would publish a minimum operating temperature range. I have never seen such a published range. So..... your bike will be covered under warranty if it fails at low temp.... which it won't.

 

[Cleared2land]

Unsubscribed. Sorry to the OP who had a good question but this thread went way downhill.

OP's question was appropriately answered and the thread went off on a tangent which is not uncommon in this forum or any other.

Besides, it has been entertaining to follow some of the overconfident statements that lack factual aircraft design and systems knowledge.

 

[DIRTJUNKIE]

So what was the answer?

 

[Jayem]

So what was the answer?

Flats.