We know that most of the plane accidents and deaths result from the explosion of fuel tanks in the planes, like when two planes collide, or when the plane falls on the ground.
With the advent of technology, i wonder whether it is possible to prevent the fuel explosion.
Can this be done by evaporating the fuel in the planes just before the collision? Or use a solid architecture encapsulating the fuel tanks in the planes, such that the fuel is not set to fire?
What research has been done in this field and if so what were the findings?
Evaporating/misting is the primary cause of the fireball and adding to that just makes the fireball larger and takes a lot of energy that just isn't available.
NASA tried to study anti misting measures with their controlled impact demonstration once using an additive that made the fuel more syrup-like so it wouldn't spray as much; they essentially made napalm.
A solid structure to contain fuel may sound promising but that would add a lot of weight and is not bulletproof (designing a oblong shape that will survive an 800 km/h impact into concrete is far from trivial).
One option would be to cut the engine+all power and force cool it down using the extinguishing system so there isn't an ignition source to catch the fuel on fire but again isn't fool proof and if there is no collision the plane will be dead in the air.
"We know that most of the plane accidents and deaths result from the explosion of fuel tanks in the planes"
This is a fallacy. Most deaths don't happen because of explosions, but because of impact damage, fire, and inhalation of toxic fumes (in no particular order).
Next to that, many people tend to get killed because they are crushed by fellow passengers during evacuations. And some die on the ground being run over by emergency vehicles or from environmental conditions (heat, cold, wildlife).
Ratchet Freak correctly points out why your "solutions" won't work (in fact one of them will make the problems worse). And yes, research is being done and has been done. Modern jet fuel has a much higher flame point and vapour pressure than does regular gasoline as a result. Fuel tanks are fitted with baffles and sometimes coolers to keep the fuel liquid so it doesn't explode easily. This is in part a result of what happened to TWA800, one of the very few accidents to be caused by a fuel tank explosion (and there the explosion was itself only possible due to a combination of rare circumstances and chance events, made worse by maintenance problems with the aircraft).
The image of aircraft (and cars, trains, ships, buildings, anything really) blowing up in a wall of flame at the least trouble is one created and perpetuated by Hollywood and has no reflection in reality whatsoever.
We know that most of the plane accidents and deaths result from the explosion of fuel tanks in the planes, like when two planes collide, or when the plane falls on the ground. With the advent of technology, i wonder whether it is possible to prevent the fuel explosion. Can this be done by evaporating the fuel in the planes just before the collision? Or use a solid architecture encapsulating the fuel tanks in the planes, such that the fuel is not set to fire? What research has been done in this field and if so what were the findings?
Watching the first episode of Dangerous Flights, a ferry pilot has aftermarket fuel tanks fitted inside the cabin of an old Merlin IIB: What are the regulatory requirements to be able to do this? / How can you get permission to fit extra tanks inside a plane? Is there anything that needs to be specially considered when designing the tanks and valves etc? Is this commonplace when ferry flying long-haul?
I've been taught to always sump the plane's fuel system before going flying to check for water / contamination / proper fuel grade. However, I've yet to go flying in rain. What's the proper procedure to drain fuel during rain? If I took the fuel cap off to dump the fuel back into the plane, I'd be worried about rainwater getting in the tanks.
anymore. There was a passenger in the back seat, fuel tanks only half full so the CG was more aft than usual, but well within limits Ever since that flight I've wondered: What could cause...When I took delivery of a new Cessna 182T last year, I did a test flight for certification purposes. During the test flight we had to perform a power off stall but that didn't go as planned as it was simply impossible to stall. What happened is this: when the airspeed dropped well below the power off stall speed we simply started to sink slowly with a nose-high attitude at about 35 KIAS
Ok, so this may be more of an english lanugage question, and I can confirm from context that when the fuel shutoff valve is ON fuel does indeed flow to the engine, but wouldn't that just make more sense to call that valve the fuel valve? If the component that shuts fuel off is on, operational, in use, functioning, etc., shouln't fuel be shut off, as the name implies? I realize this could be seen as a quibble, but confusion causes accidents and IMO this is wildly confusing. EDIT Looking at the Cessna 152 checklist today I noticed this interesting quirk. On the regular checklist side (pre
I know that the F-16 (F-16I and Block 50/52/60 models) have conformal fuel tanks standard now on top of the wing/fuselage area. The Silent Eagle model of the F-15E proposed by Boeing for South Korea, and other F-15E customers had them added. The F-18E (Superhornet) has demoed a set recently. But on older aircraft, how common were conformal fuel tanks? Or have they always been drop tanks before?
Is it possible to rent a float plane with a private pilot's license? Flying floats is one of the main attractions for me to learn to fly. However, after some searching on the internet I can only find wheeled aircraft that are available for rent in my area. Am I missing something? Are there flying clubs or partnerships that have float planes available? I would love to fly floats but owning a seaplane is not in the cards for me at this point in my life.
Common solutions for aerobatic piston singles is to have either header tanks (for wing tanks, as I understand it) or flop tubes (for fuselage tanks). Do fuel systems in a fighter jet work on the same principles? Or are they somehow smarter to allow more erratic maneuvers?
be distributed around the plane (tail section, along fuselage, etc.). These FDR floaties would be about the size of a seat cushion, but they'd be wrapped in a water soluble cover. When a plane crashes into the water, if the plane breaks up, then several of the cushions would float to the surface. When the cover dissolves, several folded arms open up making it much bigger exposing a orange-nylon.... This is just so we can find plane crashes in the sea when we don't know precisely where they went down (and to get basic data when the black boxes are too deep to get to immediately). Malaysian flight
as well land. But what about in a light, single engine plane (think Cessna 172 or Piper Cherokee)? Engine failures in small aircraft, for example, seem to be more common, so you have more... out? It seems like a somewhat practical solution, yet I have never heard of anyone doing it. Why do pilots often try to find a road to land on or a lake to ditch in when trouble strikes instead...There was another question that asked why commercial flights don't have parachutes. The almost ubiquitous response was that the parachutes would be useless because: Most accidents with commercial