Simviation Forum - man this one hurts

Reply #15 - Aug 5^th, 2004 at 4:08pm

Hagar Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159

I think it's done purely to lighten the aircraft Richie. This one would have been carrying the maximum amount of fuel as it had just taken off. Empty tanks are more of a fire risk than full ones.

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #16 - Aug 5^th, 2004 at 4:11pm

RichieB16 Offline
Colonel
January 27, 1967
Oregon

Gender:
Posts: 4408

Quote:

I think it's done purely to lighten the aircraft Richie. This one would have been carrying the maximum amount of fuel as it had just taken off. Empty tanks are more of a fire risk than full ones.

Thanks Hagar. That makes sense, since an empty tank would have more fumes (which is the most dangerous-at least with car gas, I assume aircraft fuel is the same situation). I thought it had to do with weight reduction since they seem to do it when the aircraft isn't damaged as well.

&&Check Out My 1969 & 1996 Camaro's&&

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #17 - Aug 6^th, 2004 at 8:03am

Meyekul Offline
Colonel
Kentucky

Gender:
Posts: 210

The max takeoff weight for an airliner is higher than the max landing weight. If he tried to land with full tanks, the landing gear might snap off. The weight of the aircraft also adds to the length needed to stop safely. If the plane weights too much, it might skid right off the end of the runway. I'm sure the possibility of a crash landing was also on their mind when dumping the highly flamable jet fuel.

About the environmental hazard; what if the aircraft was designed to jettisoned the entire enclosed fuel tanks? Not only would the environment be spared, but the tank could probably be recovered and the fuel saved.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #18 - Aug 6^th, 2004 at 8:20am

Nexus Offline
Colonel
The greater of two evils...

Gender:
Posts: 3282

Most airliners can land overweight, however extra safety inspections are needed before they can be put into service again. That being said, it's not a guarantee that the aircraft wont sustain any damage, but they are very well capable of landing at weights above the Max landing weight. But I'm not sure how well an A340 can take a close to a MTOW landing, probably not too good I guess ???

The 737 does not have any fuel jettison valves, and it can land at close to MTOW without any problems, though the MTOW and MLW does not differ that much Grin

The idea of jettison the entire tank is an interesting one, but it will be hard to do because of aerodynamical reasons. How can you lose huge wingtanks witout affecting the wings lifting ability. Also leaving a gaping hole in the wing would jeopardize the entire wingconstruction. But if it can be done, I think it's a marvelous idea.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #19 - Aug 6^th, 2004 at 8:48am

chomp_rock Offline
Colonel
I must confess, I was
born at a very early
age.

Gender:
Posts: 2718

What I'm trying to convey is that the environmental damage that this accident caused is probably a lot less worse than the damage done every day by the vast number of SUVs on the road. I'm an environmentalist so as expected I really hate SUVs, especially those that are very large and ineffiecient like the Hummer.

« Last Edit: Aug 6^th, 2004 at 11:12am by chomp_rock »

AMD Athlon 64 3700+&&GeForce FX5200 256Mb&&1GB DDR400 DC&&Seagate 500Gb SATA-300 HDD&&Windows XP Professional X64 Edition&&&&That's right, I'm now using an AMD! I decided to give them another try and they kicked the pants off of my P4 3.4!

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #20 - Aug 6^th, 2004 at 9:10am

Nexus Offline
Colonel
The greater of two evils...

Gender:
Posts: 3282

Quote:

What I'm trying to convey is that the environmental damage that this accident caused is probably a lot less wors than the damage done every day by the vast number of SUVs on the road. I'm an environmentalist so as expected I really hate SUVs, especially those that are very large and ineffiecient like the Hummer.

I agree...why does Americans insist to drive pickup trucks and large SUV's that burns more fuel than a 737 on takeoff? but in the US, Bigger is better eh? Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #21 - Aug 6^th, 2004 at 11:09am

jrpilot Offline
Colonel

Gender:
Posts: 2255

Quote:

I agree...why does Americans insist to drive pickup trucks and large SUV's that burns more fuel than a 737 on takeoff? but in the US, Bigger is better eh? Grin

Over here you get many Americans wanting the biggest ALWAYS...and not in that way Shocked

.....and with that you get way more accidents..and when snow comes...in the parts it does people cry becasue they don't want to use there $50,000 USD vechile to go over fresh packed 2 inches of snow...omg and when it comes to flying forget it, all though we ae picking up the slack from 9/11 there are still people who are affraid to fly I can see this to a point..but me I have no problem...the thing is it has been a few years now...and to think of it I really don't know of many terrorist attacks...aviation wise...in the US and throughout Europe...hmmm....I may have went just a tad of topic but....

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #22 - Aug 6^th, 2004 at 4:14pm

Meyekul Offline
Colonel
Kentucky

Gender:
Posts: 210

Quote:

The idea of jettison the entire tank is an interesting one, but it will be hard to do because of aerodynamical reasons. How can you lose huge wingtanks witout affecting the wings lifting ability. Also leaving a gaping hole in the wing would jeopardize the entire wingconstruction. But if it can be done, I think it's a marvelous idea.

I was thinking more of a "bomb bay" design where the fuselage would open, jettison the tank, then close and the plane can land using fuel from wing tanks. Either way, probably will never happen

Back to top

IP Logged

	Search the archive: