Originally Posted by
Shaggy Sheep Driver
I, too, have my doubts about the 'fire before the metal strip' theories. Is there any hard evidence for it?
My point exactly. I believe the answer is "none". Keeping an open mind, I stand to be corrected, if need be.
Originally Posted by
Shaggy Sheep Driver
However, I do beleive that the other factors were 'holes in the cheese' and the metal strip was only the final one of those. I'd say 'no overfilled fuel tanks, no accident', as well, even with the tyre disintegration.
Yep, I do agree. What I do not remember is if the #5 tank was
overfilled? Or simply filled full as in standart/normal procedure at that phase of flight?
Will have to check... If any knowledgeable people comes around, don't hesitate to press that particular point
I notice §1.16.7.3 of the final report saying the #5 & #7 tanks were not used for the taxi, and were then "fully full" during T/O, and that "only" 21Kg of fuel from that #5 tank had been used at the moment of the said tank rupture.
In the same §, it it said the tank was at 94% full from the gate, and still at that value when the event occured. Interesting to note is the longitudinal acceleration effect, that led to the tank being considered as full
in the physical sense when it ruptured.
Originally Posted by
jcjeant
Did the fuel tanks were overfilled when the Washington event happens (big leak of fuel .. multiple important holes)
And why no fire ?
As said above, I can't comment (at the moment) the
overfilling or not of the tanks.
However, BEA said the two events were very different:
- Whashington '79, the tanks were punctured by several little/middle sized pieces, which led to (
comparatively to CDG) small leaks (*), which didn't ignited (and weren't able to, given their flow rate)
- Gonesse 2000, the #5 tank was ruptured because of an hydrodynamic effect inside the tank, leading to the ejection of a
large piece (320 x 320 mm) of the tank wall, and to a
massive leak (**), able to ignite (and stay ignited in the airflow).
(*) "Dégonflement puis déchapage du pneu n° 6, entraînant l’éclatement du pneu n° 5, la destruction de la roue n° 5 et des perforations de
petites dimensions des réservoirs 2, 5 et 6."
"La fuite de carburant résultant de toutes les perforations était de 4 kg/s."
Reference: Concorde accident final report, §1.16.4.2.1 "Evénement du 14 juin 1979 à Washington".
(**) estimated by 3 different means in §1.16.8.2: 60kg/s, 20-130kg/s, 60kg/s. Or more than an order of magnitude superior to the Washington leaks flow rate...