Why Don't Airliners Use Non-Flammable Fuel?? U.S. Military Does!
 

On Sunday, December 1, 2002 2:15:56 PM UTC-5, Sagoo wrote:
Why aren't airports bombproof? Why can't buildings withstand airplanes
flying into them at 300kph?

"Ron Bennett" wrote in message
news:A746E49954A767B6.FAD44FBA4CF1F483.40C33159972 ...
For the life of me I can't understand why airlines are required to spend
billions on fixing all sorts of little things and yet the extreme
flammability of the jet fuel they use continues to be overlooked.

Why don't airlines use non-flammable fuel like the U.S. military does
for some of their fighter jets. Especially now after this most recent
incident of a Isreal bound jet being fired upon with missles...

With regular jet fuel, any little thing going wrong can easily result in
a massive fire and subsequent explosion...while with non-flammable fuel
(there's likely a more specific term for it), a jet has a real and
fighting chance of surviving, even if fuel tanks are severely breached.

As of now, jets remain flying bombs...I used to say that to my family
before we flew...turns out 911 prove it to be more true than I realized..

So to reiterate...why don't airliners use non-flammable fuel??

Ron Bennett


actually, if you're talking about the twin towers, they could. it was the fuel IGNITING AND BURNING THE MAIN SUPPORTS OF THE BUILDING (again: IGNITING) that made the towers collapse. in fact, the designers actually made them so that they COULD withstand a commercial aircraft flying into them. and as for your question, ron, the US military does, but it's something called an inerting system. the problem with these is that they are very large and cost lots of money, so they wouldn't be very practical. but NASA is in fact experimenting with non flammable jet fuels that could be used in the future.