“Commercial aircraft do not have nitrogen inerting systems installed. They’re too costly and heavy to be practical from what I understand.”
Astonishing! I put many in chemical and petrochemical plants. One of such tanks had more vapor space and pumping in/out capacity than the largest commercial aircraft fuel tanks’ capacity many times over..
In a commercial aircraft it takes one 1500 psi nitrogen cylinder and one spare, very small piping with small pressure reducing valves and pressure transmitters/switches/gages. Connect to several tank nozzles, set the fuel tank pressure to +2” WC, and you’re done. All you need is to replace a cylinder when empty, switched to the spare and you’ll get a panel alarm.
“The AC units are below the center tank, which would prevent a direct heat exchange of the airflow against the bottom of the aircraft and the center tank.”
That will not stop the 400 mph cool/cold air from cooling the fuel tank in no time.
If we have chafed wires and mixed voltages and static electricity in contact with flammables with no inert atmosphere, more explosions will not be unexpected.
Perhaps you should build them for Boeing. I believe they paid a $12 million fine to the FAA for not meeting the deadline to install such a system about five or so years ago.
That will not stop the 400 mph cool/cold air from cooling the fuel tank in no time.
Odd that it doesn't cool the plastic inside windows on the plane that quickly. And there's not even whole bunch of machinery between the actual window and that little plastic inside window.
If we have chafed wires and mixed voltages and static electricity in contact with flammables with no inert atmosphere, more explosions will not be unexpected.
The NTSB predicted one every 4.5 years if no actions taken. There was another less than five years after flight 800.
Also, that static electricity theory was one that neither my father (the 747 expert) nor me bought into.