Posted on 04/17/2018 1:45:49 PM PDT by T-Bird45
I've always avoided setting in those sets near the engines.
Someone taped the Ground to Air conversation, and when the pilot declared her emergency to the traffic controller, that was her answer to how much fuel she had, as she was cleared for a straight in to the closest runway, 27L.
WRONG!
There is a heavy ballistic Kevlar band, at least on the RR engines, deliberately meant to stop a "blade out" incident, around the outside of the blade housing.
Rolls Royce had film of a blade out test, because the gear box was directly under the turbine rings. The test meant to try to get a handle on reducing the amount of damage to the box. It was interesting to watch everything go sideways, suddenly, even in slo-mo.
That's why I would run the crap out of them when testing, some guys would baby them. If they're gonna' fail, I'd rather it be in the test cell.
I am not an expert on civilian aviation (I used to be a navy jet engine mechanic) that is for sure, but I looked at a couple of websites to get some rough numbers. Wikipedia is fine for this kind of thing, IMO (NOT for ANYTHING political!) so you can see it at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737 to see the specs.
JP4 jet fuel weighs about 6.5 lbs per gallon (all of them weigh just about that as a rough estimate) and there are 1,100 gallons in each wing tank, so that is roughly 7,000 lbs of fuel in each wing.
The total internal fuel capacity of a 737 is around 45,000 lbs (in my day we always referred, and probably still do, to fuel capacity in lbs of fuel. By comparison, the plane I worked on carried something like 10,000 lbs of fuel internally IIRC (a single engine attack aircraft, the A7E Corsair)
LOL, by the way, don’t compare an A380 to a Boeing 737, about all they have in common is that they both have wings, carry passengers, and fly through the air! One is the largest commercial airliner ever made, and the other is one of the standard regular size workhorses, very small in comparison.
It appears each wing on a 737-700 can carry a little over four tons of fuel.
http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1359825
A b*tch is a b*tch.
Looks more like 10 tons of fuel on each wing of a 737.
It’s still not clear to me where the fuel tank is in the fuselage.
The A380 Airbus carries, get this, half a million pounds of fuel. That’s right.
None of this makes sense.
Thanks! Nice article.
OK. The ChiComs suck. I get it. I got that a long time ago. Now, if you can show a ChiCom connection these engines, go ahead and do it.
The source I cited claims a little more than 4 tons in each wing (3900 kg) and a little over 14 tons (13020 kg) in the fuselage tank.
The A380 is about ten times the size of a 737.
Step one will involve the maintenence crew showing what supplier the parts came from, and that supplier showing that each part came from the manufacturer.
The more difficult Step 2 will involve showing that there is exactly one of each serial numbered part (i.e., that there does not exist two or more parts with the same serial number, indicating that one is counterfeit).
http://simviation.com/rinfo737.htm
This site here says that the 737 holds 6,875 gallons or 26,025 liters of fuel max. cap.
That means each wing is weighted down by 23,000 pounds at takeoff, or about 10 tons.
(one gallon of jet fuel times 6.7 equals weight in pounds)
Crazy. So where is the spilled fuel from this new accident? The entire wing is a fuel tank. Gives rise to the air compressor turbine conspiracy theory.
Normally, I'm not a fan of our tort system, but I think here's a case where it can be useful. If a defective Chinese part was put through the system, then the lawsuit against the airline will result in a directive that NO Chinese parts may be purchased for US planes. Either that, or a performance bond must be taken out, backed by the Chinese government.
Dishonesty by Chinese executives might be greatly reduced, if forfeiture of a performance bond resulted in the Chinese government taking the executives, and their families, and having them shot.
For multiple reasons...no.
There are no bolts holding the fan or turbine blades on the rotors.
There are no exhaust pipes on aircraft combustion turbines. All the “exhaust” is expelled out of the back to create thrust.
Your source only gives total fuel, not fuel distribution.
Other sources show over half the fuel being in fuselage tanks.
I hear you, but exactly where is “out of the back”?
I.e. where is the place these jet engines make vapor trails from?
Where exactly are the fuselage tanks? That would be a 25,000 gallon fuselage tank, weighing 17,000 pounds or about 8 and half tons. The entire wing would necessarily be a fuel tank, because of the size of over four metric tons of jet fuel in each wing. So where exactly are the wing tanks? And why didn’t they ignite or leak in this last accident?
Trying to dispute the now growing popularity of the compressed air combine engine theory.
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.