Posts: 2936
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 3:19 am

Re: What exactly is the fuel-inerting system on 747's?

Thu Feb 28, 2019 10:18 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
That is way too much time to give airlines to retrofit fleets. Safety comes before profits. They should have been forced to slash schedules or fly with full fuel tanks until the entire fleet is outfitted. No one should have to worry if their flight is going to spontaneously explode.

They were given time because it takes time to develop the system and then install it on the entire effected feet. It was installed during the normal C check on most fleets. Quite a lot had to be done and it was done in stages. The first stage was wiring only to bring the risk down quickly. All wire bundle mounting points that touched the fuel tank exterior were isolated. Also the fuel pumps had to be inspected and many were replaced as were fuel shutoff valves. All of these being electric driven an being in contact with the tank. I personally did a lot of these wiring and component changes. On the second mod the NGS system was installed. All of these mods have been done for years now.
User avatar
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 2:16 pm

Re: What exactly is the fuel-inerting system on 747's?

Tue Mar 05, 2019 12:33 am

747Whale wrote:
Dalmd88 wrote:
OneSexyL1011 wrote:
All this because a 747 was shot down.

Yes, I refuse to believe the story of TWA800

Every time I worked on one of the AD related cards I would think, "This will prevent it from exploding when the missile hits." I also don't buy the TWA 800 fuel vapor story. Planes were flying around for decades with this pack/tank combo with zero incidents.

For me these AD's were a money maker so I can't complain.

Anyone who knows the fuel system on the 747 Classic knows that the official accounting of TWA 800 is ridiculous and not true. There wasn't a single peer in the Classic whether captain, f/o, FE, mechanic, or loadmaster who remotely entertained the official story as being true; we all knew better.

The CWT did not rupture internally due to arcing or an overheated fuel pump, particularly as the fuel pumps weren't on and the CWT wasn't in use on that flight. Given that wing tanks hold 230,000 lbs, more than needed for the crossing, CWT fuel was unneeded and for the bit remaining would have required only the scavenge pump anyway. Forget the fact that the CWT tests that attempted to cause an explosion in the mockup models were 100% unsuccessful; they couldn't create a fire or explosion, even flooding the tank with propane and using aircraft ignitors failed to cause the explosion; it took numerous tries and a combination of air injection and various flammable vapor, none of which is found in the 747 fuel system, to eventually cause an explosion, which did not cause the type of catastrophic rupture and failure predicted.

Three operating packs, however, forward of the CWT, produce an attractive heat signature, and the El Al 747 Classic that was about to takeoff turned back to the gate, TWA 800 taking off instead. Thousands saw the streak upward, radar recorded a rapid boat egress from the launch site, hundreds of witnesses were interviewed who saw the same thing, not nearly as easily discounted as attempted in the official explanation. The US had a lot to lose by admitting to a shootdown.

TWA 800 did not simply "blow up," and the CIA video was laughingly unbelievable and tenth rate cartoonish in its defiance of physics and the flight data.

The aircraft was shot down.
Thank you! I was working at JFK the night TWA800 went down. It was a beautiful summer evening and temperatures were warm, but unremarkable, especially when compared to some of the places 747 flights regularly operated in and out of. I also work with many people who worked around the 74 classics and none of us believe the official story either.

The correct story always seemed to be a missile. Whenever I get asked my opinion if a missile was possible, I always say "yes". When asked why then did all 4 engines show no missile damage, I always bring up the packs! The packs are in the correct place for the explosion we saw, a missile approaching from the rear, at an upward angle, striking the #1/#2 packs, the nose section breaking off, the explosive residue on the cabin seats, etc, etc.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought that then packs were a valid heat source for a missile to lock on to. I also agree that if it was the US Navy, we would have known. Too many witnesses for the story to keep quiet.

Now, a couple of guys in a boat out of Moriches with a launcher on board ... That's a different story completely.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: KFTG, Phosphorus and 30 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos