From: email@example.com (Ed Hahn) Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va. Date: 09 Apr 95 22:37:12 References: 1
View raw article or MIME structure
In article <airliners.1995.362@ohare.Chicago.COM> firstname.lastname@example.org (Jonathan Thornburg) writes: <fuel additive stuff deleted> > The additive and the equipment involved were fairly cheap (I recall > ~$50K per aircraft, and less than 1% increase in the fuel cost), A 1% increase in fuel costs will translate to significant (i.e. millions) of bucks to the average airline per year. $50K/ aircraft turns into $5 million for a fleet of 100 aircraft. Not to mention that stuff like this rarely makes the transition to routine use within estimates of cost, due to testing, certification requirements, etc. > light (I think ~50 kg per aircraft), and worked well in tests. Alas, > when the FAA staged a test crash of a remote-controlled B720, the > crash turned out to be a lot more violent than they planned, and the > aircraft exploded in a fireball despite the additive. (I remember > a photo of the test crash in the article I read.) This was actually caused by a ground structure, which was intended to rip open the wing tanks, going through an engine instead. Once the aircraft hit the desert floor, it yawed a bit off to one side, which put the obstacle through an engine instead of between two of them. Ripping open a engine that is operating is going to cause a fireball because of the fuel contacting the hot spot. Despite this, I understand that the fire retardant still had a positive effect. > Can anyone give more details on this scheme? What ever happened to > it? Is it still being worked on? Why isn't it in use today? No answers on this one.