The auxiliary power unit is in the very tail of the aircraft, and I doubt they run cooling lines up to the wings to cool it.
Uh, DiogenesLamp? That's NOT a Boeing 747-100. The FOUR engines on a Boeing 747-100 are under the wing, not on the tail.
Posted on 06/13/2016 8:53:08 AM PDT by Lockbox
As I hoped would happen, American Thinker’s series on TWA Flight 800 has prompted individuals with first hand knowledge to come forward. “Mark Johnson” is one. An air traffic controller (ATC), he worked the night of July 17, 1996 -- the night TWA Flight 800 was destroyed -- at the New York Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) located in Westbury, New York.
Johnson has provided me with his real name, and I have confirmed that he was in a position to know what he says he knows. He requested that I use an alias because he has children who depend on him. The federal government, he believes, “will seek revenge, retribution and/or any other remedy they feel like. I would be fearful my pension would be at risk.” I have heard this sentiment voiced by many people involved in this incident.
Although Johnson was not responsible for tracking TWA Flight 800, he spoke directly with the ATC who did. In fact, he asked him “plenty of questions to prepare myself for the ‘suits’ who were beginning to arrive.” Along with several other ATCs, he viewed the radar tape of the incident. According to Johnson, “A primary radar return (ASR-9) indicated vertical movement intersecting TWA 800.”
An advanced radar system, the Northrop Grumman ASR-9 is able to detect a “target” in severe clutter even when the target has no transponder. The absence of a transponder is what distinguishes a “primary radar return” from a “secondary” one. In others words, the radar picked up a small, unidentified, ascending object intersecting TWA 800 in the second before the 747 “disappeared from radar.”
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Uh, Hulka? I think you better research those accidents a little more. Every one of those was not an explosion of the AIRCRAFT'S OWN FUEL TANK which is used to fly the aircraft. These aircraft were all StratoTankers and the fuel tanks that caught fire and burned was the fuel tank in the CARGO HOLD which transfers fuel to a plane in the air, or transfers fuel to a remote air field. This was not the same thing at all.
Uh, DiogenesLamp? That's NOT a Boeing 747-100. The FOUR engines on a Boeing 747-100 are under the wing, not on the tail.
Philippine Airlines deliberately ran high voltage power lines through that center wing tank to install Philippine Airlines LOGO illumination lights to make their planes prettier. OOPS. Boeing does not run wiring through fuel tanks. It a stupid thing to do but Philippines Airlines mechanics did it so they could put spotlights on their logo. Not too bright.
Uh, DiogenesLamp? 80 Joules is only ~0.0225 Watt Hours. You can easily produce a lot more energy than that with a AAA battery which have over 5000 joules of energy stored in an Alkaline AAA cell. All it has to do is produce a tiny spark.
The point is contrary to allegations that there is no way a fuel tank explosion can take place, there are multiple examples where it did happen. And I am on business travel and on an iPhone, so not looking up stuff right now (waiting for a table) I think there was at least one example where the center tank did explode.
The tankers share about 75% of systems, too include the center tanks.
Cheers table ready
At least you seem to be accepting that high voltage on an aircraft can ignite flammable vapors in a fuel tank. That’s progress.
What testimony? All the NTSB had was the 302 reports of FBI agents recollections of what witnesses told them. Hearsay.
Mike Wire did NOT change his testimony, nor did Fred Meyer. The changed testimony claim comes from supposed re-interviews with the FBI. The FBI did NOT go back and re-interview any of them as claimed and they will swear to that fact today. There are video tapes of them attesting to the fact they were NEVER re-interviewed and never changed their stories to match the NTSB or CIA claims.
Rebuttal to the CIA video that was played for the NTSB hearing.
Frankly, Moorman, you've demonstrated time and time again you don't know anything. You will just say anything to counter any cogent argument to support your viewpoint, true or not. You will make factoids up if thats what you need such as your claims about "older 747s being freighters" instead of passenger planes. You are pathetic.
Please post these older directives you claim were more important to get out there. Mere expense has never stopped the NTSB before. I told you the only ones I am aware of were for things that Boeing had been already doing in its air craft even before the 747 was designed, such as not allowing any electrical wiring in fuel tanks, contrary to those who have been claiming that electrical wires have been routed through fuel tanks, a really stupid idea when there are much easier and safer routes to take wires. . . like around them? It's not as if Boeing is trying to save a few bucks on wire to cut costs by routing them the shortest distance by going straight through the fuel tanks, you know.
No, not unless you can show me how that high voltage got into a tank that has no wiring to bring it in there. Boeing did not design that tank with wiring in it, contrary to what you seem to believe.
You make no progress at all.
Frankly, Moorman, you’ve demonstrated time and time again you don’t know anything.
...
If you’re going to do personal attacks, then get lost.
You never back up anything you post, Moonman. You make wild ass assertions such as those you just posted about all older 747s must be cargo carriers with out any proof of your assertion. You pulled that little facturd out of your ass. Admit it. You needed to counter that argument so you made it up. So what are we to think? I've come to conclusions that you don't know anything except what the government has spoon fed you and you'll make up the rest as you go along. you've shot down your credibility. You've done this on multiple threads. . . and you keep repeating the same things over and over again, despite lots of evidence to the contrary.
I've seen you denigrating and personally attacking people on here who don't agree with you and your orthodox line. You keep referring us to the government line. I think that makes you a stooge.
Abuse reported.
The image is intended to show auxiliary power unit in the tail of an aircraft, not necessarily to show a 747-100. When you are looking for photographs, you have to take what you can find. I picked that photo because it included the arrow pointing at the auxiliary power unit.
The point remains, the auxiliary power unit is in the tail, and does not exhaust under the wings, and therefore would not have raised the temperature of the fuel from it's operation.
A Joule is a "watt-second", which equates to 1 watt for a duration of one second. "80 joules" is equivalent to 80 amps for a duration of one second.
Again, this is hot enough to ignite paper, let alone jet fuel.
You can easily produce a lot more energy than that with a AAA battery which have over 5000 joules of energy stored in an Alkaline AAA cell.
Yes, 5,000 is more than 80, but 80 is the amount that testing revealed would be necessary to attain an ignition of Jet fuel at a temperature of 96 degrees. (if I remember correctly)
This is not an amount of energy that you could accidentally get into the fuel tank. From what I have read, the fuel sensors are capacitive, which means they cannot conduct a current flow, and so there isn't even a means by which the energy can be delivered to create an 80 joule load.
There, I can agree with you. . . but many an explosion has been generated by far less than 80 joules. Static electricity with almost negligible amperage can do it.
However, I cannot agree with your statement that 80 joules always equals 80 amps for a duration of one second. A Joule is not an ampere. A joule is one Watt/second, and a Watt is a Amps x volts. The only way you would be correct is if your watts were delivered at 1 Volt! 1 Volt X 80 Amps = 80 watts = 80 joules. But a one volt electrical pressure even at 80 amps is not likely to create a spark. I gather that other systems on the 747 run at 112V would only have 1.4 amps at 80 joules. That might produce a spark. But Boeing doesn't run electrical wiring through fuel tanks.
The auxiliary power unit was in the tail on the aircraft for which you had a photograph. It is NOT in the tail of a Boeing 747-100, 300, or 400. One thing is not like another. Just because you found an aircraft with an auxiliary power unit in the tail of one aircraft does not mean it is is in the tail of all aircraft. In the case of the 747, it is under the wing.
I am aware of all that. I make my living by designing and maintaining electronic circuits. The quantity of energy can also be represented by 1 amp at 80 volts for one second. It is a consequence of the products of the current, voltage, and time. Any combination will do.
It is for the sake of simplicity that I postulate a short circuit condition in which a voltage drop of 1 volt would allow 80 amps to flow.
The energy is still hot enough to ignite paper, let alone Jet Fuel.
That is not what the internet says, but the internet repeats all sorts of wrong things, so if you have a better source for this information, trot it out.
In the case of the 747, it is under the wing.
As soon as you show a source that confirms this, I'll concede the point. I still haven't found one that does.
Here's a video of a 747-400 APU being started up, and it certainly looks like it is in the Tail, same as all the other examples I have found.
I repeat. What does the rear end of a plane not a 747 or even a photo of the rear end of a 747 have to do with the under wing Air-Conditioner system on a 747 have to do with the AIR-CONDTIONER PACK over-heating the Center Wing Tank? Least of all an air-craft's Auxiliary Power Unit heating a Center Wing Tank? No one has been arguing that it did! You are confabulating something that was never in the discussion.
My point was that your original post confabulated this comment by Moonman62:
"The fuel was heated by the air conditioning packs and calculated to be flammable at the time and altitude of the accident."
Sure, why not? If you are making stuff up, you can make up air-conditioning systems heating the wings.
(Photo of a ground based air-conditioner system cooling vent running to a 747 on the tarmac)
It looks like they use a ground system to cool the aircraft when it's waiting.
(Photo of a 747's air-conditioner package under the Center Wing Tank)
The onboard air conditioning system exhausts under the belly.
To which you posted the photo of a Auxiliary Power Unit in the tail of an aircraft that was NOT a 747 claiming that something in the tail couldn't heat the fuel tanks . . . a totally non-responsive rebuttal to Moonman62's very correct and on topic point. Moonman62 was right, and you were completely off the deep end
But the disastrous fires that destroyed these aircraft occurred not in any thing that was shared. . . they occurred in the tanks being carried to handle the fuel being shipped as CARGO, not the fuel to fly the plane.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.