Date: 16 May 2001 17:45:29 From: John Liebson <email@example.com> Organization: NMIX References: 1 2 3 4 5
View raw article or MIME structure
firstname.lastname@example.org (Gord Beaman) wrote: >But those tanks are comparatively very small John, their purpose >is for trimming out the aerodynamic drag of the aircraft's >'stability system' when it's not essential. It's only used in >stabilized cruise conditions, so for takeoff and landings these >tanks are always empty. The engines are not fed from them. True, but that does not detract from my original comment, which is that fuel can be present and sometimes _is_ present, a fact which contradicts the first statement that wing-mounted aircraft don't have fuel where tail-mounted ones do. The tail tanks are never completely empty, nor is the piping from them to the main tanks. A reminder (from someone, namely me, who happens to be a retired fire chief), empty tanks may be considerably more dangerous than full ones! Adding to that, there are also, on some aircraft, auxiliary fuel tanks that are mounted in the cargo areas, and those tanks are used on aircraft with wing-mounted engines. So, to conclude, the theory of the message that started this, namely that wing-mounted-engine airliners are inherently safer in regards to fuel than rear-mounted-engine airlines is, I submit, somewhat of a canard. (And, yes, the pun IS intentional ...).