Posted on 10/28/2005 7:23:11 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
Actually... lots of the smaller jets don't have the ability to dump fuel. As I understand it, that's usually a feature on the heavies.
The smaller jets can still land safely (weight-wise) with a full fuel load, right after take-off if they have to. But the big heavy jets can carry more fuel weight on takeoff than they can safely land with. So... they need to have the ability to quickly dump the fuel weight if they have to return to land right away after take-off.
I stand ready to be corrected by any pilot-freepers if I'm mistaken about this, but I think that's why there's a difference between them.
By the way, I think the 777-200LR in QANTAS configuration will probably be something akin to what Singapore Airlines did with the A340-500, namely a roomy Business class and roomier "premium" Economy class seating only. This will mean about 220-230 passengers maximum per plane, with around 36" seating pitch in Economy class and 48-50" seating pitch in Business class with seats that fold flat into beds.
Well... sure... jettisoning external tanks is one thing.
But the charge was that the A320 was somehow unique in that it was not set up to dump fuel from its main tanks. While I love Boeing over Airbus as much as the next guy... I'm not sure it is a fair rap. I'm not sure that it is true that other smaller jets like the 737 are set up to dump fuel either.
Somebody explained it as being more a matter of weight than about fire in a crash. There are maximum safe takeoff weights, and maximum safe landing weights. The heavy jets like the 747 can take off with weights that are far in excess of what they are rated to land with. The difference being fuel. They can carry enormous amounts of fuel that they have to dump if they need to turn around and land right after takeoff.
The smaller jets, like the 737 or the A320, have safe landing weights that can still include a full load of fuel, and therefore they don't need to dump it in order to be within weight limits for landing.
Then the question is why last month in LA with the Airbus with the nosegear problem did they feel the needed to burn off fuel before landing... either you need to get rid of fuel weight for safety reason or you don't and if you have to get down fast you don't have time to burn it off (say if you lose an engine)...yes I know that it been stated that there is no need to be able to dump fuel weight for safety reason before landing but that does no seem to be consistent with what happen, they burn the fuel off before landing... so what gives?
Again... I'm not a pilot... just making a logical guess...
In LA the airbus with the bad nose wheel had something to gain by being as light as possible when they landed. The lighter they were the slower his landing airspeed could be, the longer he'd be able to run down the runway on the main gear, and the slower he'd be going when the nosewheel touched down.
So... he went ahead and circled around and burned off some fuel to lighten the plane. It was an option they had, and they did it.
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.