I am sceptical about the value of fuel tank inertion, several reasons:
- Keeping the (expelled) oxygen out requires that the wall of the fuel tank remains gas-tight... As pictures show, engine parts can blow a hole through the wall of the fuel tank. Also, pretty often in (rejected) take off and landing incidents the fuel tanks get ruptured enough for inertion to be ineffective.
- Jet fuel isn't that flamable. It should be heated to about 50°C to be able to form an flamable (explosive) fuel-air mixture. Hotter at altitude. Keeping the fuel cool (but not BA38 freezing) would be enough to prevent a fire hazard.
I fly with FTI. Unfortunately, I have lost friends due to a lack of it.
Ypu dont have to worry once the projectile has made a hole, at that point fti has done its job. The problem comes when you get a very hot piece of metal passing through a ullage space full of kerosene and air mix. You dont have to hit the vapour point of kerosene for this to form either.
The problem isnt the vapor point of fuel, its the effect of it sloshing in the ullage space and generating a vapour that way.
If a large hot piece of metal did go through the tank, I think we have to be thankful that the tank was full. If it was half full, I guarantee this could have ben a whole load worse.
Another more prevalent issue (I raised around page 6, together with FTI) was Hydrodynamic ram, which can destroy a tank from the inside. It will be interesting to see whether any structural damage has been done as a result of the ballistic shock as the metal fragments passed through the tank.
I also wonder how long it would have taken to discount terrorism in light of recent developments if the aircraft had been a loss. Sure would have given the conspiracists something to whine about.
