Xref: utzoo sci.space.shuttle:2156 sci.space:8731
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!cbnews!wbt
From: wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
Subject: Re: Fuel based explosions [was: Re: USSR and the Moon ]
Message-ID: <2498@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 7 Dec 88 14:59:56 GMT
References: <880@cernvax.UUCP> <18263@ames.arc.nasa.gov> <18420@ames.arc.nasa.gov> <3055@sugar.uu.net> <368@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US>
Reply-To: wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 26

In article <368@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US> root@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US (Mark J. Bailey) writes:
>
>I saw a show on Nova (I think) about "Why Planes Burn", and they had a 
>detailed look at that test with the experimental fuel.  While the plane did
>burst into flames and burned like nobody's business, after it was out and they
>went to inspect it, many commented that it did not appear as damaged as plane
>wrecks normally appear.  In fact, the fire had failed to melt down the 
>fusalage (sp?).  It was believed and then tested that the new fuel mixture 
>did in fact burn at a lower temperature than normal fuel, and thus, the 
>fire did not penetrate the plane's body.  It is believed that this alone 

The last thing I heard being tried in aviation fuel was to add an agent to
modify the surface tension of the fuel, reducing its tendency to atomize
into small droplets when the tanks rupture.  Properly done, you could
keep the fuel in larger globules, which would reduce the efficiency of an
explosion.  

Sounds like it worked 8-)


------------------------------ valuable coupon -------------------------------
Bill Thacker						att!cbnews!wbt
	"C" combines the power of assembly language with the
	 flexibility of assembly language.
Disclaimer: Farg 'em if they can't take a joke !
------------------------------- clip and save --------------------------------