steve@eos.UUCP (Steve Philipson) (12/01/88)
In article <2735@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> doug@loihi.hig.hawaii.edu (Doug Myhre) writes: >In article <79302@sun.uucp>, fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: [desription of a fuel/air bomb deleted] >>If the rocket first suffered a small explosion that ruptured its tanks, >>then the resulting fuel/oxidizer cloud gets ignited...it might have >>the described effect. >I would think that the initial explosion would ignite the fuel before >it's had a chance to spread out that fine. >It does remind me of the experiment that the Air Force (I think) did >where they deliberately crashed a plane to test a new jet fuel mixture. >The mixture supposable wouldn't ignite as easily when a place crashed and >the fuel was spread out in a fine spray. From the news footage, it didn't >look as if it worked very well. The test you are refering to was an FAA test including a JPL developed experimental anti-misting fuel. The crash and contact with towers designed to rip open the wing tanks spread the fuel as intended. The fuel initially worked as the first flash fire went out very quickly. A few seconds later the fuel re-ignited and engulfed the aircraft in flame. The test yielded much valuable data, but was seen by the media as a gross failure. The break-up of an aircratf or rocket structure need not provide an immediate ignition source for the dispersed fuel to ignite/explode. The shock wave produced from an explosion in one section of the craft could cause structural failure elsewhere without an ignition event. Fuel would thus be dispersed and mixed with oxidant (air, if nothing else), which would allow a later, much larger explosion. Explosions of this type occured during early NASA rocket development tests. Some of that footage is available for viewing in the movie "The Right Stuff". -- Steve (the certified flying fanatic) steve@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
nanook@novavax.UUCP (Keith Dickinson) (12/01/88)
in article <2025@eos.UUCP>, steve@eos.UUCP (Steve Philipson) says: > > The test you are refering to was an FAA test including a JPL developed > experimental anti-misting fuel. The crash and contact with towers designed > to rip open the wing tanks spread the fuel as intended. The fuel > initially worked as the first flash fire went out very quickly. A few > seconds later the fuel re-ignited and engulfed the aircraft in flame. > The test yielded much valuable data, but was seen by the media as a > gross failure. > > > Steve > (the certified flying fanatic) > steve@aurora.arc.nasa.gov A note about the test (totaly in-appropriate for this area). The fuel when it DID burn, burned quite cooler than if it didn't have the anti-misting addative. The hull of the aircraft staid relatively intact where as it would have normaly melted quite quickly had it been regular jet fuel. (just a little trivia from Public TV) Keith Dickinson ----- _ /| | Fidonet : 369/2 [(305) 421-8593] Brave Mew World South \'o.O' | Internet : nanook@muadib.FIDONET.ORG =(___)= | UUCP : (novavax,hoptoad!ankh)!muadib!nanook | nanook@novavax U | USNail : 433 SE 13th CT. J-202, Deerfield Beach, Fl. 33441 Ack! | Disclamer: This message was created by a faulty AI program. Don't blame me...I voted for Bill'n'Opus in '88
peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/05/88)
In article <2735@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> doug@loihi.hig.hawaii.edu (Doug Myhre) writes: > It does remind me of the experiment that the Air Force (I think) did > where they deliberately crashed a plane to test a new jet fuel mixture. > The mixture supposable wouldn't ignite as easily when a place crashed and > the fuel was spread out in a fine spray. From the news footage, it didn't > look as if it worked very well. The problem is that they landed the plane slightly crooked and the knives that were supposed to rip open the fuel tanks ripped open one of the engines. The mixture was not designed to deal with the much higher temperatures and exposed super-hot metal parts in the engine, so the initial flames went out but when the leaking fuel reached the engine it was re-ignited. -- Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net Have you hugged U your wolf today? Disclaimer: My typos are my own damn busines#!rne
root@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US (Mark J. Bailey) (12/05/88)
I saw a show on Nova (I think) about "Why Planes Burn", and they had a
detailed look at that test with the experimental fuel. While the plane did
burst into flames and burned like nobody's business, after it was out and they
went to inspect it, many commented that it did not appear as damaged as plane
wrecks normally appear. In fact, the fire had failed to melt down the
fusalage (sp?). It was believed and then tested that the new fuel mixture
did in fact burn at a lower temperature than normal fuel, and thus, the
fire did not penetrate the plane's body. It is believed that this alone
may have resulted in much fewer casualties. The had cameras inside the
aircraft the whole time, and minus smoke, the people were not particularly
burned (that is the DUMMY people :-) severely.
I grant you that this is not exactly what they were looking for, but any
step in that direction is the way to go. It is sort of like the cure for
cancer...no miracles, just slow, but valuable, progress.
Mark.
--
Mark J. Bailey "Y'all com bak naw, ya hear!"
USMAIL: 511 Memorial Blvd., Murfreesboro, TN 37129 ___________________________
VOICE: +1 615 893 4450 / +1 615 893 0098 | JobSoft
UUCP: ...!{ames,mit-eddie}!killer!mjbtn!mjb | Design & Development Co.
DOMAIN: mjb@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US | Murfreesboro, TN USAwbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) (12/07/88)
In article <368@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US> root@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US (Mark J. Bailey) writes: > >I saw a show on Nova (I think) about "Why Planes Burn", and they had a >detailed look at that test with the experimental fuel. While the plane did >burst into flames and burned like nobody's business, after it was out and they >went to inspect it, many commented that it did not appear as damaged as plane >wrecks normally appear. In fact, the fire had failed to melt down the >fusalage (sp?). It was believed and then tested that the new fuel mixture >did in fact burn at a lower temperature than normal fuel, and thus, the >fire did not penetrate the plane's body. It is believed that this alone The last thing I heard being tried in aviation fuel was to add an agent to modify the surface tension of the fuel, reducing its tendency to atomize into small droplets when the tanks rupture. Properly done, you could keep the fuel in larger globules, which would reduce the efficiency of an explosion. Sounds like it worked 8-) ------------------------------ valuable coupon ------------------------------- Bill Thacker att!cbnews!wbt "C" combines the power of assembly language with the flexibility of assembly language. Disclaimer: Farg 'em if they can't take a joke ! ------------------------------- clip and save --------------------------------
slr@skep2.ATT.COM (Shelley.L.Rosenbaum.[ho95c]) (12/08/88)
In article <368@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US> root@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US (Mark J. Bailey) writes: > >I saw a show on Nova (I think) about "Why Planes Burn", [...] >It was believed and then tested that the new fuel mixture >did in fact burn at a lower temperature than normal fuel, and thus, the >fire did not penetrate the plane's body. It is believed that this alone >may have resulted in much fewer casualties. The had cameras inside the >aircraft the whole time, and minus smoke, the people were not particularly >burned (that is the DUMMY people :-) severely. Actually, this doesn't help a whole lot. For years, firefighters and NASA have been urging the airlines to have "hoods" available for each passenger to allow them to escape through the smoke. In the 5000-6000 deaths each year in the U.S. due to fire, almost none are due to burns; nearly all are from smoke inhalation. So the fact that the fire did not burn through the fuselage didn't help a whole lot. BTW, isn't this a more appropriate discussion for rec.aviation? -- Shelley L. Rosenbaum, Air Traffic Control Systems, AT&T Bell Laboratories {allegra, att, arpa}!ho95c!slr slr@ho95c.att.arpa (201) 949-3615 "I've got my two-tones through the floorboards already!"