To: eastforker
“And after all that investigation, how many 747s were grounded to correct that possible short in the fuel tank? Answer: absolutely none.”
Not only that, but if they really thought it was a spark in the fuel tank, it would be very easy to rectify by just flooding the tank with nitrogen as the fuel was pumped out. That could be done with off the shelf components... A scuba regulator and a tank of nitrogen.
35 posted on
04/16/2015 7:57:47 AM PDT by
babygene
To: babygene
Not only that, but if they really thought it was a spark in the fuel tank, it would be very easy to rectify by just flooding the tank with nitrogen as the fuel was pumped out. That could be done with off the shelf components... A scuba regulator and a tank of nitrogen.
A spark in a fuel tank will, in most cases, NOT explode. In order for an explosion, you need a very specific ratio of fuel vapor to air, and a spark. Regular gasoline is only flammable between 4% and 7.6% in air. (Not sure on the different aviation fuels, but likely similar.) And with the evaporation controls, it's hard for an actual tank to get that low. The only way most fuel tanks nowadays could even have a chance of exploding is if they have a leak allowing more air to enter and lower that ratio. A small leak may get the ratio outside the tank to that point faster, but I doubt you'd get enough of an explosion to do that much damage.
Also, given the plane had just left the airport, their tanks were almost definitely full, meaning you would have extremely little room in the tank for fuel vapor/air, so even if it was the right ratio you would never get enough of an explosion to disintegrate the plane. (Near-empty tank could be different though.) And, liquid fuel CANNOT EXPLODE. It will burn, yes, but NOT explode.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson