Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cylinder blast would be a first [QANTAS]
The Australian ^ | July 28, 2008

Posted on 07/27/2008 7:03:09 PM PDT by steve86

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-26 last
To: oldplayer
Didn’t a regional jet have a similar problem over Florida? I recall an oxygen cylinder exploded

I think that was an oxygen generator cartridge, which is not the same thing. One or more caught fire, possibly because the cap over the "firing" pin was not installed, as it should have been for transport. When those things "go off" they chemically generate oxygen, but also get hot. The flight was ValueJet 592.

21 posted on 07/27/2008 10:32:06 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: steve86

I’ve never been on a 747.


22 posted on 07/27/2008 10:49:52 PM PDT by wastedyears (Show me your precious darlings, and I will crush them all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Retired Chemist

Also they are designed with relief/burst valves that fail at a lower pressure than the tank itself. Tanks are usually secured, so there is little chance that a valve could have been sheared off (which would turn an unsecured bottle into a jet powered missle.)

And most pressurized bottles these days (especially ones used in aviation) are filament wound Kevlar or Spectra (same materials used in bulletproof vests) not steal or aluminum.

A non-metallic tank explosive failure would split the tank, not shoot metal fragments out to cut through the aircraft’s skin, which would have been required to create such a large hole.

A tank rupture might over-pressurize the baggage compartment, causing some minor damage to the structure, but I doubt it would result in that kind of localized hole. I also suspect that there are relief/burst valves in various places of the baggage compartment, that would fail before the skin would. If all of these valves are intact and there isn’t evidence of a sheared tank valve launching the tank through the skin, then logic dictates that this was an explosive device.

In the absence of a fuel, Oxygen isn’t going to explode per se as it is an oxidizer and mixing with the air of the baggage compartment would just increase the Oxygen partial pressure.


23 posted on 07/27/2008 11:16:16 PM PDT by anymouse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: anymouse

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/darticlen.asp?xfile=data/theworld/2008/July/theworld_July1524.xml&section=theworld&col=


24 posted on 07/28/2008 8:00:18 AM PDT by Retired Chemist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Retired Chemist

Sounds like B.S. to me. I’m surprised they are using steel cylinders still.


25 posted on 07/29/2008 12:49:05 AM PDT by anymouse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: anymouse

Safety investigators say an exploding oxygen bottle was the cause of the hole in the plane.


26 posted on 08/28/2008 7:53:16 PM PDT by Retired Chemist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-26 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson