Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Successful FAA Testing of Its Fuel Tank Safety System, to Prevent TWA 800 Type Explosions
PRNewswire ^ | 3 May 2007

Posted on 05/04/2007 10:51:10 AM PDT by Hal1950

ATLANTIC CITY, N.J., May 3 /PRNewswire/ -- Phyre Technologies, Inc., a San Diego based technology development company successfully demonstrated its GOBIGGS(tm) fuel tank safety system at the FAA's Atlantic City Technology Center. GOBIGGS(tm) (Green On-Board Inert Gas Generation System), is the first environmentally friendly system designed to protect aircraft from fuel tank explosions like TWA 800. This is the result of several years' development in the anticipation of a pending FAA ruling, requiring improved fuel tank safety systems on commercial passenger aircraft.

Over two weeks, various flight conditions were tested. This included ground operations, multiple rate accents, descents, and high altitude cruising in a variety of warm and cold fuel tank conditions. Throughout all phases of operations, the gases in the fuel tank were maintained outside of the flammability envelope, protecting the aircraft fuel tank from internal explosive conditions.

CEO Stuart Robertson stated, "We are immensely proud of the test results. The performance of the device exceeded even our expectations. The successes of the last two weeks, in conjunction with our recent agreements with Rolls-Royce North American Technology Inc, give us the ability to take the technology to the next level."

In addition, the technology is "green". Unlike existing fuel inerting technology that exhausts fuel vapor into the environment, Phyre's GOBIGGS(tm) system uses a state of the art catalyst design that converts the fuel vapor into an inert gas that is recycled back into the fuel tank.

Phyre Technologies, Inc. is a closely held San Diego company, specializing in de-oxygenation, thermal stability, and fire prevention technologies, for stationary, mobile, air, and maritime industries.


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: phyretechnologies; tinfoilalert; twa800
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 241-253 next last
To: UNGN

Thanks for your info, that sounds plausable but I think it depends on the plane. As an x AF jet mech I know that jet engines are amass with fail safes and when electronics are cut from the engines as would be the case in losing the cockpit, the engines fuel supply would stop immediately and a plane the size and wt of a 747 would immediately morf to brick status. It’s hard to immagine how airodymanics and or enursia at that point could continue to be a factor of flight. 1,500 ft (1/3 of a mile) and climbing against gravity without engine power, they’ll have to prove that one to me.


61 posted on 05/04/2007 1:46:13 PM PDT by drypowder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Tinian

Get one of the flight simulators such as MSFS or X-Plane. Take an 747 at the same speed that 800 was going, shut the engines off, give it full aft trim, and it will climb over 3000 feet, then stalls out and falls like a rock. These simulators are at least 90% accurate.


62 posted on 05/04/2007 1:46:28 PM PDT by U S Army EOD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

There was several hundred witnesses to the missle strike as well as FAA video tapes. The early reports even carried som eof this information. There is a website about this event supported and controlled by professional airline pilots.

Thjere are several ongoing lawsuits attempting to get the FAA to release the FAA video recording of the rader images just prior to the crash.

There is even a thread here somewhere.


63 posted on 05/04/2007 1:50:30 PM PDT by stockpirate (Al Qaeda is in the United States, they are in the House and Senate, Democrats all!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

Do a search here using TWA 800.


64 posted on 05/04/2007 1:51:54 PM PDT by stockpirate (Al Qaeda is in the United States, they are in the House and Senate, Democrats all!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Tinian
Actually it was either an FBI or FAA theory,

It was a video written and produced by the CIA.

65 posted on 05/04/2007 1:55:15 PM PDT by ElkGroveDan (When toilet paper is a luxury, you have achieved communism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: patton
Actually, it probably is.

Missile resistant maybe...

66 posted on 05/04/2007 1:56:47 PM PDT by null and void (The truth. It is a beautiful and terrible thing, and should therefore be treated with great caution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: toast
Has this failure mode ever occurred on an aircraft other than TWA 800? Have the same conditions ever been present elsewhere?

Nope. It has never, ever occurred on any aircraft, ever.

If it actually had, they would have grounded the fleet.

67 posted on 05/04/2007 1:59:48 PM PDT by null and void (The truth. It is a beautiful and terrible thing, and should therefore be treated with great caution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist
One was in Thailand, other was in the Philippines. Easy to google up. Being overseas neither got much publicity in the US.

Odd that both countries have a møøslimb problem...

68 posted on 05/04/2007 2:03:07 PM PDT by null and void (The truth. It is a beautiful and terrible thing, and should therefore be treated with great caution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: U S Army EOD
I think the NTSB report has been read by a lot of people and has not quelled too many doubts about the Flt 800 official story.

Maybe because it is not necessarily the incident but the cover-up that leaves many with distrust.

Same doubts exist on the Oklahoma/Murrah bombing, the Branch Davidians, the Ron Brown autopsy, the sense of cover-up feeds the conspiracy stench.

69 posted on 05/04/2007 2:19:24 PM PDT by iopscusa (El Vaquero. (SC Lowcountry Cowboy))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: iopscusa

There are also a number of people that think the Earth is flat. Read the report and pay particualr attention to the experiments. They did a great job of recreating the incidents. The only thing about it was the sequence of events that led up to the explosion. There was a long chain of events that had just one not happened there would have been no explosion. It was a classic example of bad luck. The main culprit was the short in the wiring bundle outside of the fuel tank. That is what killed them.


70 posted on 05/04/2007 2:25:39 PM PDT by U S Army EOD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: toast
There have been several instances of just this type of explosion occurring in military aircraft, especially large cargo aircraft. Some occurred on the ground, where the accident investigation determined the cause of the explosion. The most common cause of the explosion was either arcing from bad wiring or static electricity. Other occurred in the air, harder to prove but the accident investigation showed that a explosion in an empty fuel tank could have occurred. An example of this occurred when General Joseph W. Stilwell Jr., was flying to South Viet-Nam when his C-135 (Boeing 707) disappeared in flight. The investigation looked at an explosion in an empty fuel tank as the most likely cause of the crash. So yes, these explosions do happen.
71 posted on 05/04/2007 2:29:18 PM PDT by ops33 (Retired USAF Senior Master Sergeant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

ping


72 posted on 05/04/2007 2:39:47 PM PDT by raygun (The title of Chuck Noris' first movie "Meng Long Guojiang" translates to "My long Trouser-Snake")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
I am one of those that believe the witnesses before the government reports, but this is something I can not over look:

Flight 800 pilot one minute before the explosion: “look at that crazy fuel flow indicator there on number four.”
This was at 20:29:15 explosion seems to have taken place at 20:30:35

73 posted on 05/04/2007 2:44:09 PM PDT by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric cartman voice* ?I love you guys?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: U S Army EOD

74 posted on 05/04/2007 4:24:15 PM PDT by null and void (The truth. It is a beautiful and terrible thing, and should therefore be treated with great caution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: null and void; ElkGroveDan
>Has this failure mode ever occurred on an aircraft other than TWA 800? Have the same conditions ever been present elsewhere?

>>Nope. It has never, ever occurred on any aircraft, ever.

>>If it actually had, they would have grounded the fleet.

You're right. I remember the government and MSM going nuts trying to find anything remotely similar, and there were no previous incidents of any 747 center tank fuel probes malfunctions that could've caused such an explosion.

To ElkGroveDan:

I'll take your word on the CIA's production of the video.

Bottom line: the "zoom climb" theory is unbelievable.

75 posted on 05/04/2007 4:44:52 PM PDT by Tinian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Tinian
So the missile could've been something larger than a MANPAD, launched from a ship. That would answer your questions about altitude and amount of damage.

Not really. A larger missile requires a larger vessel and a complete weapons system. What are you suggesting? An SA-2 on a merchant? That would be a big trick for taking down a single airliner. Why come all the way across the Atlantic to do that when jet routes criss cross the globe? And why the government cover up? As such a missile would be easy to determine? As to your question about where the damage occurred, I've read that Soviet heat seeking missiles are programmed to turn 90 degrees towards the heat source if they overtake it and detonate on impact/proximity, giving them a second chance.

No. Some of them are designed to lead the heat source just before impact. A fuselage hit on an airliner would not occur unless the APU were running, and there is no APU near the area of the damage. MANPADS actually don't work too well against airliners. In all likelihood a 747 would simply lose one engine to such a missile.

A 3,000 ft. zoom climb, wings level, with no pilot, no autopilot, jammed hydraulics, streaming burning fuel from a gaping, assymetrical opening...

At 550 mph that 3000 foot "zoom climb" takes all of 7 seconds. I don't find that strange. A damaged aircraft can do many things. I once watched an E-2C with a cockpit fire (burned through the control cables) porpoise wildly, wings level until it impacted the water.

76 posted on 05/04/2007 5:37:28 PM PDT by SampleMan (Islamic tolerance is practiced by killing you last.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: stockpirate
There was several hundred witnesses to the missle strike as well as FAA video tapes.

I'm sure there are a few dozen more every year. But coincidentally there are also hundreds of UFO abductee witnesses. The FAA radar tapes have always puzzled me, as FAA control radar simply isn't capable of detecting a missile. The RCS is much too small. Without the interrogator working, its almost impossible to see a small aircraft with that radar.

Alas, people often see what they want to see, and remember what they want to remember.

77 posted on 05/04/2007 5:42:22 PM PDT by SampleMan (Islamic tolerance is practiced by killing you last.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: null and void

Hmmmm, I thought so, now I have proof.


78 posted on 05/04/2007 5:49:50 PM PDT by U S Army EOD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan; Tinian
At 550 mph that 3000 foot "zoom climb" takes all of 7 seconds. I don't find that strange. A damaged aircraft can do many things. I once watched an E-2C with a cockpit fire (burned through the control cables) porpoise wildly, wings level until it impacted the water.

It also takes all of 7 seconds more to fall back to the initiating altitude of 13,800 feet before falling from there into the ocean... that means that we have to account for that time (14 seconds) in the time line from the initiating event to splash down.

We know exactly when the initiating event occurred and we know within an approximate 4.8 second window (the sweep interval of the radar sweeps) when the plane splashed in to the ocean. The wreckage of the falling plane returned a passive radar blip for just 8 sweeps after the event (a total of 38.4 seconds from first sweep to eighth sweep)... and then disappeared as it fell into the ocean. TWA 800 splashed into the ocean between 38 and 43 seconds after initiating event. There is simply no time to add in 7 seconds of Zoom climb and 7 seconds of fall, a total of 14 seconds (actually the math says 16 seconds) to the record.

We also know the exact locations of the aircraft at the radar sweeps (triangulation of two radars) but not the altitude. From these position markers we can calculate the speed of the aircraft at any point in the trajectory. A Zoom Climb exchanges forward velocity for upward velocity.... which would mean that the plane would appear to slow down in its easterly vector. The calculated speeds between sweeps show the plane DID NOT SLOW DOWN during the first two sweeps when the Zoom Climb was supposed to have taken place.

Since the engines revert to idle when signal from the cockpit is lost (per Boeing), the only source of energy to power the Zoom Climb would be to convert the forward momentum into upward momentum. To achieve the 3200 feet of the CIA's Zoom climb 100% of the forward momentum would have had to have been converted into an upward vector... any less and the plane could not have reached that altitude. In fact, that's the theoretical maximum climb that the available forward momentum could have provided. I think that's how the CIA came up with that altitude because they certainly could not have derived it from the radar record. When the plane reached its peak altitude (all energy is converted) the forward momentum and hence velocity would be ZERO... and the plane would fall straight down into the ocean from that peak... it didn't.

Instead the trajectory between the 13,800 foot altitude of the initiating event and the place where we KNOW the plane splashed in, matches almost exactly the theoretical ideal ballistic fall.

This is why the later NTSB version of the Zoom Climb changed the total gain in altitude to only about 1500 feet... that smaller climb left about 75% of the forward momentum to try to explain why the plane did not fall close to the peak altitude point. The math still doesn't work. It would have splashed in a two to three thousand feet closer to the initiating point than it really did.

79 posted on 05/04/2007 9:40:19 PM PDT by Swordmaker (Remember, the proper pronunciation of IE is "AAAAIIIIIEEEEEEE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan; Tinian
Here is the TWA-800 timeline I created several years ago on FR. In my last post I was working from a faulty memory... the actual radar sweep time is 4.65 seconds.


These facts were well known... I created a timeline of the event back in September of 2002 that accounted for all of the known facts at that time. I reproduce it for you here. You attention is particularly pointed to the entry listed in red...


Since I made a typo in the original, here is a corrected version of the Swordmaker timeline:

---------------------

Let's see if we can construct Asmodeus' oft demanded timeline that our math seems to indicate occurred rather than his wacked out theory.

20:31:00 - Plane flying normally, altitude 13,400 ft., climbing at 33 ft/sec.

20:31:04 - Possible ground-to-air missile launch. Rate of climb accelerates to Mach 2.1.

20:31:07 - Mike Wire notices flare like object rising over house and arcing to left. in the next 8 seconds many more people notice streak, firework, etc.

20:31:10 - Major Fred Meyer sees "meteor like" object flash acorss his field of view.

20:31:12 - ~13,800 ft. - 0 sec. Last transponder return, everything normal, Aircraft climbing at 33 ft./second.

20:31:13 - ~13,840 ft. - ~1 sec. Missile strikes TWA800 on left side at approximately seat row 16-17 transects the passenger cabin spewing partially burned solid rocket fuel (and leaving a red residue on seats in this area), taking out passengers and seats in rows 17-18 and exits aircraft through right side. VDR ends in loud, strange sound. Bright white Ordnance type explosion occurs just after missile exits thin walled cabin. Blast places massive overpressure on nose of aircraft and opens wide gap in side of aircraft. Parts of missile continue on momentum at speed approaching MACH 2 at a vector 190 degrees from north, ejecta from aircraft including seats, passengers, luggage to eventually land in "crosswind blast debris" field. The blast imparts a slightly more eastward vector for the ejecta which combined with the ejecta's already present eastward momentum results in the ejecta coming to rest about 175 degrees from the point of ejection.

20:31:14 - ~13,880 ft. - ~2 sec. 400+ MPH winds acting on the gaping holes in aircraft fuselage causes the "unzip" of the aluminum skin of the nose. Windforce bends the nose up and breaks the "keel" of the fuselage. Signals to control surfaces and engines cease when wires are broken and engines revert to idle. Drag is no longer being counteracted by the thrust of the engines. The plane slows drastically.

20:31:15 - ~13, 900 ft - ~3 sec. Drag pulls the nose up and away from the rest of the fuselage and breaks loose on the right first and falls away to the left where it is still partially attached, twisting the aircraft toward the left and starts to fall pulling the left wing down, changing the vector of lift imparting a strong leftward force on the aircraft. Unbalanced drag toward the left is enormous. This accounts for the sudden leftward change in aircraft vector.

20:31:16:49 - ~13,890 ft - 4.49 sec. First post IE radar return. - The nose swings under and to the right and breaks completely loose and continues on a momentum driven ballistic fall slightly to the right (about 3 degrees) of the original aircraft vector. The noseless aircraft losing both the balance necessary for proper flight AND the thrust of the engines overcoming drag, pitches rapidly up and stalls. it may climb a very small amount during the pitch up before stall.

20:31:17 - ~13,860 ft. - ~5 sec. Gravity's inexorable pull starts the plane on its final trajectory. Drag is slowing the forward velocity and the uncontrolled aircraft is on either a ballistic fall or a somewhat aerodynamic fall.

20:31:21:13 - ~13,500 ft. - 9.13 sec. Second post IE radar return. - Uncontrolled plane pitches and yaws, lift occasionally pulls the plane in different vectors... this time a strong rightward vector. Drag continues to rip and rend the airframe just in front of the wing.

20:31:25:72 - ~12,300 ft. - 13.72 sec. Third post IE radar return. - More gyrations... now vectored back to the right.

20:31:30:37 - ~10,900 ft. - 18.37 sec. Fourth post IE radar return. - Falling steeply now. Much of the forward momentum is gone due to drag. Structural damage is weakening the Center Wing Tank's integrity and wings are no longer as strongly attached to the remaining fuselage.

20:31:32:?? - ~10,050 ft. - ~20 sec. Terminal velocity achieved of ~450 ft./second.

20:31:34:97 - ~9,100 ft. - 22.97 sec. Fifth post IE radar return. Stress is taking its toll on the wingroots. The Center Wing Tank structural members are buckling under the whipping of the plane rolling and pitching. Fuel is now leaking into the area around the Wing roots from the full wing tanks.

20:31:36:?? - ~8,500 ft. - ~24 sec. The aircraft takes a VERY sharp turn to the right (South) and one of the wing's fails, breaking away from the fuselage. The aircraft with only one wing starts to spin rapidly, spewing jet fuel and agitating it into the atmosphere, mixing it with air.

20:31:39:64 - ~7,000 ft. - 27.64 sec. Sixth post IE radar return. - Center Wing Tank explodes from spark caused by MECHANICAL breaking of metal. Volatile air-fuel mix surrounding aircraft ignited into Massive Fireball, Hot fireball begins to RISE, while burning plane falls through bottom of Fireball still spewing liquid fuel which ignites on exit from wingtanks.

8:31:43 - Elmer's "Streak of light" crippled plane appears.

20:31:44:29 - ~4,900 ft. - 32.29 sec. Seventh post IE radar return. - Still falling at 450 ft. per second.

20:31:47 - ~3,680 ft - End of streak - Elmer Asmodeus's mythical "Eyewitness Myth" Explosion of Massive Fireball at 5500-7500 feet.

20:31:48:94 - ~2,800 ft. - 36.94 sec. Eighth post IE radar return. - Shortly after the Flight TWA800 falls below the radar horizon and no further radar returns are received.

20:31:55 - ~43 sec. splashdown.

Total Elapsed time from Initiating Event (the missile strike?) = ~43 seconds. Plus or minus 2 seconds.


80 posted on 05/04/2007 9:56:13 PM PDT by Swordmaker (Remember, the proper pronunciation of IE is "AAAAIIIIIEEEEEEE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 241-253 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson