|
Rob, that was not a test, it was a stunt designed to sell an
unproven additive.
Imagine that you and I invent an anti-misting additive, and
we want to make a TV commercial to sell our additive and get rich, by crashing a
plane load of dummies without burning them up. Here is how we do it, separate the fuel from the dummies.
1… Rip the fuel tanks open while the plane is still in the
air. The high speed air flow will literally blow most of the fuel out of the
tanks.
2… Dump the fuel into a thick gravel bed so that 98% of it
will percolate down where it cannot burn. The surface film will flash off
quickly.
3… Gently land on a thick gravel bed gear up, the plane will
slide a long distance dumping residual fuel, separating it from the plane.
4…When the plane stops any dripping fuel will disappear into
the gravel limiting fire to a small area under each drip.
The only way to damage the dummies would be to fill the
tanks with nitro glycerin or blow the landing. I wonder if the pilot knew it
was a stunt and blew the landing on purpose.
I wouldn’t mind if Exxon paid for it, but it was our tax
dollars being used to fool us. What’s new?
Regards, Bill Hannahan
--- On Mon, 1/3/11, rwolf99@aol.com <rwolf99@aol.com> wrote:
From: rwolf99@aol.com <rwolf99@aol.com>
Subject: [LML] Fuel Dumping
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Monday, January 3, 2011, 6:35 AM- Rob Wolf
p.s. the NASA test in the early 1980's involved a remotely-piloted Convair 720 with an anti-misting additive in the fuel. As I recall, the remotely piloted airplane did not hit the intended point on laning and thus the objects intended to puncture the tanks, well, ithey pretty much ripped the wings apart, releasing the fuel all at once. This was a test failure and the explosion-inhibiting anti-mist additive was not adequately tested. Needless to say, they did not repeat the test.
|