Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
DHL: Why Didn't It Explode?  
User currently offlineCaptjetblast From Argentina, joined Aug 2001, 281 posts, RR: 0
Posted (11 years 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2838 times:

FORTUNATELY it didn't, but I wonder how could it resist the missile hit!

I guess this kind of missile is designed to homing into the engine exhaust, should it home into the fuel tank, it would be another story.

10 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAvioniker From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 1109 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (11 years 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2791 times:

There are literally hundreds of instances where the fuel tanks have been ruptured (by missles or other flying debris) and didn't explode.

The very nature of jet fuel is that it burns at a constant rate and doesn't explode. Fuel that explodes is highly unstable, which would make for some really difficult storage problems, and would actually damage the interior components (burner cans, turbine blades, etc.) of the engine.

The best example I can think of quickly is the Concord that crashed outside of Paris a couple of years ago. The fuel was burning furiously but the crash was caused by loss of control due to engine loss and flight control problems.

Had the missle hit a wing spar or other structural component all bets would have been off. That was one very lucky crew. If the fire had burned long enough to damage critical structure it would have been an entirely different ending. There's three more very religious people getting caught up on their tithes.

If there's a fire, the thing to do is get on the ground as quickly as possible where it can be put out by the fire brigade.

Forget the movies you've seen (especially ones like Die Hard 3). Things like that just can't happen, sorry.



One may educate the ignorance from the unknowing but stupid is forever. Boswell; ca: 1533
User currently offlineBroke From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 1322 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (11 years 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2779 times:

You don't get explosions from liquid fuel, you get explosions from the fuel vapors being in the proper ratio with the oxygen in the air to provide for rapid ignition. Rapid ignition is probably a better term than explosion. The fuel tank that was hit may have been full of fuel so there were little or no vapors to ignite.
Having been in the middle of a rapid ignition of natural gas in the basement of a house, that is what I saw. The people upstairs felt the whole building shutter.
Being knee deep in flame for an instant will get you to change your skivies though.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy


User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (11 years 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2689 times:

One contributing factor is that the warhead on man portable SAM's such as the Stinger or SA-14 are small and the A300 is a big plane.

User currently offlinePilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3151 posts, RR: 11
Reply 4, posted (11 years 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2463 times:

To add to this, jet fuel has a very low flash point. If the fuel is cool enough you can drop a match into a bucket of Jet-A and it will not ignite the vapor. Kids, don't try this at home.  Smile

While this will more than likely get all the conspiracy theorists angry, one of the items that was listed as a possible cause with TWA 800 was the empty center tank. A short circuit or something like that could have caused a spark that ignited the fuel vapor in the tank which might be why it exploded.



DMI
User currently offlineCancidas From Poland, joined Jul 2003, 4112 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (11 years 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2454 times:

jet a doesn't put matches out, we tried. the effects weren't pretty. jp7 will though. Big grin


"...cannot the kingdom of salvation take me home."
User currently offlineBackfire From Germany, joined Oct 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (11 years 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2266 times:

Having talked to a few people on the ground where the incident took place, perhaps this might help: the missile is, I believe, a proximity weapon which fragments close to the target. The missile detonated near the wingtip, with shrapnel causing structural damage to the outer trailing edge - with a resulting loss of fuel and subsequent fire. To explode, a lot of fuel would have to be released in one go, and mixed with the appropriate volume of air - plus an ignition source. If the missile had detonated closer to the engine (presumably its source of guidance, although I've had no confirmation from the investigation team that it was a heat-seeking weapon) then the damage might have been a lot more severe.

User currently offlineMeister808 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 973 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (10 years 12 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1958 times:

You also have to keep in mind that if the tank that ruptured fuel in it was ruptured by a flying piece of metal, and the fuel doesn't ignite inside the tank, then there really is no immediate danger if the draining fuel does catch outside, say from getting close to the engine or something. All you have is a flame off of the back of the wing, and, at flight speeds, that flame won't be on fire until a number of feet off of the trailing edge of the wing, thus not posing any hazard at all. It is really a simple principle.. otherwise propane burners would be dangerous... if anyone has ever used a lab-style bunsen burner, you know that the metal doesn't even heat up, even though that is where the flame comes from.

-Meister



Twin Cessna 812 Victor, Minneapolis Center, we observe your operation in the immediate vicinity of extreme precipitation
User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 8, posted (10 years 12 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1940 times:

Because the Aviation God's where looking over that crew on that day


"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29813 posts, RR: 58
Reply 9, posted (10 years 12 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1920 times:

Jet fuel is explosive, not high explosive.

Meaning that you need compression to make it go boom.

So unless that fire was inside the tank where the expansion from the heat of the fire would have no place to go or it lit off the fumes, which is high explosive, it would just flame.


There was a great training film a number of years back where a firefighter in a bunker suit walks up to this container of fuel. He turns on a fan and has it blow across the surface of the exposed fuel. The then lights a match and drops it in the fuel, which puts the match out.

Point being, that fuel is hard to ignite if the fumes aren't there.

Needless to say, don't try that experiment at home.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (10 years 12 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1834 times:

Not only fuel involved also hydraulic fluids, which also can burn...


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic DHL: Why Didn't It Explode?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Didn't Wings Burn On AF 358 posted Sat Aug 6 2005 00:00:49 by Sidewinder
Tomahawk. Why does it have a bad safety record? posted Thu May 6 2004 16:37:04 by Bragi
Why Didn't GE Offer A Powerplant For The 757? posted Mon Feb 2 2004 05:07:51 by Thrust
Why Didn't The A300 Dominate Sales In The 70s? posted Tue Jul 8 2003 03:12:24 by IslandHopper
Why Is It A380? posted Mon Mar 26 2001 00:20:31 by Bio15
Why Is It........? posted Sat Oct 28 2000 20:33:21 by Englandair
Dewpoint: How Is It Calculated? posted Wed Nov 22 2006 04:24:49 by LTU932
Why 2 Engines More Efficient Than 3, Or 4? posted Thu Nov 16 2006 03:13:12 by MarkC
Why Airbus For Start-ups? posted Mon Nov 13 2006 18:27:42 by AirWillie6475
Why No Further A330 Stretch? posted Fri Nov 10 2006 03:50:51 by MarkC

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format