Will switching from Synthetic to Dyno oil harm my engine?

"Huw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Andy Champ" > wrote in message
> ...
>> K`Tetch wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Secondly, as ANYONE with any knowledge knows, a large project has many
>>> cogs. a large technical project has many engineers working on it, one
>>> person who works on all areas, is, as the saying goes "jack of all
>>> trades, and master of none'. When there were the concorde crashes, did
>>> people point to the guy whos job was to inspect the apssenger safety
>>> restraints and go "ha, obviously you're incompetant". Did they go to
>>> the avionics comapny and say "well, you're peddling a load of ****,
>>> aren't you" no. Responsible for safety they may have been, but for a
>>> different area of large and complex entity. As it happens, my job was
>>> more to do with the inspection and detection gear inside the reactors
>>> themselves, and ensurin emergency safety proceedures could be carried
>>> out. Since it hasn't melted down, seems i did my job ok.
>> <snip again>
>>
>> As a fan, I can't let that pass.
>>
>> ISTR ONE Concorde crash, caused by another aircraft shedding debris onto
>> the runway (and incidentally, exposing Concorde as vulnerable to tyre
>> problems). I do NOT recall any others. It was economics that killed the
>> bird, not safety - there are loads of aircraft flying with far worse
>> records, and I think that probably includes all helicopters.
>>
>
> There were previous incidence that made the Authorities and operators well
> aware of the potential risk in this area. Indeed there were several
> modifications over the years to address this point which were obviously
> not ultimately effective.
>
> Huw
>
Maybe the Concorde changed from dino oil to synthetic, and it harmed the
engines....

Mike

"Michael Pardee" > wrote in message
...
> "Huw" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Andy Champ" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> K`Tetch wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> Secondly, as ANYONE with any knowledge knows, a large project has many
>>>> cogs. a large technical project has many engineers working on it, one
>>>> person who works on all areas, is, as the saying goes "jack of all
>>>> trades, and master of none'. When there were the concorde crashes, did
>>>> people point to the guy whos job was to inspect the apssenger safety
>>>> restraints and go "ha, obviously you're incompetant". Did they go to
>>>> the avionics comapny and say "well, you're peddling a load of ****,
>>>> aren't you" no. Responsible for safety they may have been, but for a
>>>> different area of large and complex entity. As it happens, my job was
>>>> more to do with the inspection and detection gear inside the reactors
>>>> themselves, and ensurin emergency safety proceedures could be carried
>>>> out. Since it hasn't melted down, seems i did my job ok.
>>> <snip again>
>>>
>>> As a fan, I can't let that pass.
>>>
>>> ISTR ONE Concorde crash, caused by another aircraft shedding debris onto
>>> the runway (and incidentally, exposing Concorde as vulnerable to tyre
>>> problems). I do NOT recall any others. It was economics that killed
>>> the bird, not safety - there are loads of aircraft flying with far worse
>>> records, and I think that probably includes all helicopters.
>>>
>>
>> There were previous incidence that made the Authorities and operators
>> well aware of the potential risk in this area. Indeed there were several
>> modifications over the years to address this point which were obviously
>> not ultimately effective.
>>
>> Huw
>>
> Maybe the Concorde changed from dino oil to synthetic, and it harmed the
> engines....
>
> Mike
>

They did change the tyre specification and they did introduce a protection
for the wing tanks that I know of.

Huw