man this one hurts

[Hagar]

I think it's done purely to lighten the aircraft Richie. This one would have been carrying the maximum amount of fuel as it had just taken off. Empty tanks are more of a fire risk than full ones.

[RichieB16]

I think it's done purely to lighten the aircraft Richie. This one would have been carrying the maximum amount of fuel as it had just taken off. Empty tanks are more of a fire risk than full ones.

Thanks Hagar.

[Meyekul]

The max takeoff weight for an airliner is higher than the max landing weight.  If he tried to land with full tanks, the landing gear might snap off.  The weight of the aircraft also adds to the length needed to stop safely.  If the plane weights too much, it might skid right off the end of the runway.  I'm sure the possibility of a crash landing was also on their mind when dumping the highly flamable jet fuel.

About the environmental hazard; what if the aircraft was designed to jettisoned the entire enclosed fuel tanks?  Not only would the environment be spared, but the tank could probably be recovered and the fuel saved.

[Nexus]

Most airliners can land overweight, however extra safety inspections are needed before they can be put into service again. That being said, it's not a guarantee that the aircraft wont sustain any damage, but they are very well capable of landing at weights above the Max landing weight. But I'm not sure how well an A340 can take a close to a  MTOW landing, probably not too good I guess  ???

The 737 does not have any fuel jettison valves, and it can land at close to MTOW without any problems, though the MTOW and MLW does not differ that much  ;D

The idea of jettison the entire tank is an interesting one, but it will be hard to do because of aerodynamical reasons. How can you lose huge wingtanks witout affecting the wings lifting ability. Also leaving a gaping hole in the wing would jeopardize the entire wingconstruction. But if it can be done, I think it's a marvelous idea.  :)

[chomp_rock]

What I'm trying to convey is that the environmental damage that this accident caused is probably a lot less worse than the damage done every day by the vast number of SUVs on the road. I'm an environmentalist so as expected I really hate SUVs, especially those that are very large and ineffiecient like the Hummer.

[Nexus]

What I'm trying to convey is that the environmental damage that this accident caused is probably a lot less wors than the damage done every day by the vast number of SUVs on the road. I'm an environmentalist so as expected I really hate SUVs, especially those that are very large and ineffiecient like the Hummer.

I agree...why does Americans insist to drive pickup trucks and large SUV's that burns more fuel than a 737 on takeoff? but in the US, Bigger is better eh?  

[jrpilot]

[quote]

I agree...why does Americans insist to drive pickup trucks and large SUV's that burns more fuel than a 737 on takeoff? but in the US, Bigger is better eh?

[Meyekul]

The idea of jettison the entire tank is an interesting one, but it will be hard to do because of aerodynamical reasons. How can you lose huge wingtanks witout affecting the wings lifting ability. Also leaving a gaping hole in the wing would jeopardize the entire wingconstruction. But if it can be done, I think it's a marvelous idea.  :)

I was thinking more of a "bomb bay" design where the fuselage would open, jettison the tank, then close and the plane can land using fuel from wing tanks.  Either way, probably will never happen