Posted on 06/26/2007 8:24:12 AM PDT by Hal1950
UK filtration and advanced materials group Porvair is among a number of companies working to prevent accidents like the one that killed 230 passengers aboard TWA flight 800 in a fireball off Long Island.
The Boeing 747 en route to Paris from New York exploded 12 minutes after takeoff from JFK International airport on 17 July, 1996. The cause was the subject of intense debate for years, but investigators concluded vapours ignited in a fuel tank.
Nearly eleven years later, Boeing has given initial approval ('qualification') for one of Porvair’s filter designs to prevent similar explosions in aircraft fuel tanks, the company said on Tuesday.
‘We had expected production of this unit to start immediately after qualification, but delays with other suppliers to this project have postponed this until later in the year,’ Porvair (PRV) said in a statement.
Porvair’s filter is part of a more complex unit for airplane fuel tanks that's being assembled from parts contributed by a number of manufacturers, Porvair group finance director Chris Tyler said in an interview.
The aerospace fuel tank inerting filter, as it’s called, is designed to inject nitrogen into an aircraft’s fuel tank in order to create a ‘fire blanket’ that eliminates the risk of an explosion, he said.
Porvair in February signed a supply agreement with Parker Hannifin for a filter similar to that being designed for the Boeing fleet’s fuel tanks to be used in the fuel tanks of Airbus aircraft.
(Excerpt) Read more at citywire.co.uk ...
You're right and I'm wrong and at 275 knots, the plane was still outside of the operational range of a MANPADS.
I'm in no way an aviation safety expert and have no way of evaluating the official report blaming the center fuel tank. In fact, as you may have noticed from me getting the airspeed completely wrong, I know very little about Flight 800. I do, on the other hand, know a bit about MANPADS, having worked with them in civilian and military capacities.
What makes you so cock-sure it was a MANPADS?
As far as MANPADS go, 8 miles into the Atlantic is more than "just off."
Given your ignorance of the facts about exactly where TWA800 was at the time of the explosion, I would seriously question any knowledge you may possess about the operational capabilities of any MANPAD.
I don't see how the two are related. I've worked with MANPADS professionally and am aware of their capabilities. I've never researched Flight 800.
Several Boeing 737s have suffered catastrophic accidental center fuel tank explosions as well.
I'm not. Whatever caused Flight 800 to go down, it was almost certainly not a MANPADS.
Only one DC-10 has had an engine fall off in flight. So was AA 191 hit by a missile over O'Hare?
Is there some set number of mechanical failure modes below which it's impossible for something to be an accident? I'm curious as to what that number is.
According to one of Cashill's super-secret sources several weeks ago (or, more lilely, a voice in his head) it was a Tomahawk missile.
Amazes me how guys can continually embarass themselves in print like that and still have an audience.
Who said the MANPADS was fired from 8 miles away?
Many, including the DHS, State Dept. and Northrup-Grummann disagree with you about the threat and operational capabilities of MANPADS. (The MANPADS Menace: Combating the Threat to Global Aviation from Man-Portable Air Defense Systems)
MANPADS can strike aircraft flying at altitudes up to approximately 15,000 feet (4572 meters) at a range of up to 3 miles (4.82 kilometers).
...
See 'Zone of Susceptibility' on page 4. (MANPAD Protection for Commercial Aircraft)
Yeah but it has a 35 lb warhead. That would have to be a really good hit on a fuel tank.
A large bomb onboard would be more effective.
Actually, there have been many incidents of fuel vapors exploding in aircraft fuel tanks both airborne and on the ground. The KC 135 and B 52 have had several and it is one of the reasons the Air Force uses nitrogen to purge empty tanks.
But there probably is a statistical level below which it is simply impractical to spend money for phantom "fixes" to unproven problems -- whether or not flight 800 was destroyed due to an accident.
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.