>> ^Auger8:

Wow just wow, greed wins again, seriously did he really have to make sure he could fit every last drop of gas in his tank. This is why topping off isn't a good idea. Those pumps stop at a certain point for a reason.
LOL and really what did he think would happen?


I think greed is the wrong term. It's not like squeezing those extra drops are free, you still pay for it. The reason topping off a gas tank is a bad idea is because gasoline expands and contracts with temperature. If you could fill your your tank up completely on a cold night and let it sit, when the temp warms up in the day the gas would expand and spill out. To prevent this, gas tanks have an expansion area in the top. When you remove the gas cap, there should be a little spring loaded thing that closes a valve to this bubble preventing you from completely filling the tank. When you put the gas cap back on, it presses the valve and re-opens the vent letting the gas expand into the bubble if needed. Some cars even have a sensor on that valve that will trigger a check engine light if you don't fully tighten your gas cap.

My car runs on diesel, but to save money on installing a different fuel tank for the diesel version it still has the same tank as the gasoline version (except it has a wider opening to fit diesel nozzles). Diesel doesn't expand like gasoline, so you can safely fill a diesel tank up to the rim. There's a little trick you can do on my car to remove the spring that leaves the vent open and fit an extra 2 gallons in the tank. People like riding with me on trips because I don't have to stop and fill up so often. Most of the places I regularly have to go I can make the round trip without a fuel stop.

"The roughly 15 feet of rocket above the intertank bulkhead, including the fuel tank, composite pressurization tank, computer, payload, four HD cameras, and recovery flyback system were compressed into about two feet. "
Ouch

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^EMPIRE:
oh for fuck sake... HOW??? how can you walk around and breathe at the same time with such an obviously useless brain?
Seriously, is this guy borderline retarded? And if he is who was the moron who let him work at a place with highly flammable liquids?

Imo, we live in a world where we're pretty much wrapped in cotton wool. Stub your toe? Make a claim.
We're an arrogant race.. we think everything is safe, and we think we're automatically the top of the food chain whilst forgetting the hard work that got us there
When you think about it you realise that behind all these laws and safety regulations and stuff, we're just animals surviving. We've developed some cool ways to do it in style, but that's still what we are.
If you got dumped on an earth with no sign of human technology, would you be fucked? I think 95% of us would be!


I just think there are stupid people in the world. There are what? Over 6 billion people in the world now? With those type of odds. Someone is going to hit the stupidity jackpot.. (IE, its a million to one shot that an idiot would look in to a fuel tank with a lighter. Boom we have a winner) and a lot of times it's not that they are stupid, Its just that they do not THINK or Even want to. (IE Lady falling on her face while walking and texting. On live TV) I worked Tech support for years. I've had arguments with people over just getting them to check the damn power plug and then have them be surprised when its really unplugged.

"Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe."
- H. G. Wells (1866-1946)

>> ^Barseps:

Not wanting to look like a chump here, but assuming this machine isn't either powered by fossil fuels or an independant power scource (i.e. battery).......... Didn't it ummmm cross anybody's mind to just UNPLUG the damn thing?
The white bit on the top of the concrete finishing machine is the fuel tank.


(Also, it bugs me just slightly that they call it a Zamboni at the beginning.)

I'm actually brazilian. What he says right before he hits is: "I'm gointo hit the wing. I'm goint to hit the wing, don't shoot."
>> ^Payback:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^Boise_Lib:
So he chose to ram the fuel tank in the wing.
One bump on the tail and that plane would not be going anywhere.

True nuff, but it is also the strongest part of the aircraft, meaning that truck would of been in worse shape than it already was. Then again, perhaps I don't give enough credit to the bulk of an SUV, I don't ram many planes...

As he hit the landing gear, one would assume that is what he was trying for, not the wing per se.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
So he chose to ram the fuel tank in the wing.
One bump on the tail and that plane would not be going anywhere.

True nuff, but it is also the strongest part of the aircraft, meaning that truck would of been in worse shape than it already was. Then again, perhaps I don't give enough credit to the bulk of an SUV, I don't ram many planes...


As he hit the landing gear, one would assume that is what he was trying for, not the wing per se.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

So he chose to ram the fuel tank in the wing.
One bump on the tail and that plane would not be going anywhere.


True nuff, but it is also the strongest part of the aircraft, meaning that truck would of been in worse shape than it already was. Then again, perhaps I don't give enough credit to the bulk of an SUV, I don't ram many planes...

So he chose to ram the fuel tank in the wing.

One bump on the tail and that plane would not be going anywhere.

>> ^rychan:

>> ^AntiClimax:
Veteran truck drivers will freak out the new guys by throwing lit cigarettes in their fuel tanks when they finish filling and more often than not a lit match will snuff out if you drop it in diesel.

Ugh, is that good for your truck? Clogged fuel lines?


It will get stopped by the filter before it could clog the line... and I have a feeling those filters get changed way more often than in a passenger car.

>> ^AntiClimax:
Veteran truck drivers will freak out the new guys by throwing lit cigarettes in their fuel tanks when they finish filling and more often than not a lit match will snuff out if you drop it in diesel.


Ugh, is that good for your truck? Clogged fuel lines?

>> ^AntiClimax:

Most jet fuel, even if it was exposed to that spark, wouldn't combust. It's very similar to diesel in that it's hard to ignite without being aerosolized and compressed. Not to say it can't happen, but without those factors the reaction is unlikely to sustain itself even if it did get ignited.
Veteran truck drivers will freak out the new guys by throwing lit cigarettes in their fuel tanks when they finish filling and more often than not a lit match will snuff out if you drop it in diesel.


Absolutely correct. That's one reason I believe TWA 800 was shot down--not a fuel tank explosion like the cover-up says.

Most jet fuel, even if it was exposed to that spark, wouldn't combust. It's very similar to diesel in that it's hard to ignite without being aerosolized and compressed. Not to say it can't happen, but without those factors the reaction is unlikely to sustain itself even if it did get ignited.

Veteran truck drivers will freak out the new guys by throwing lit cigarettes in their fuel tanks when they finish filling and more often than not a lit match will snuff out if you drop it in diesel.

Just another pack of *lies, and a video that proves absolutely fuckall.

The only thing I'd add to JoeDirt and QM is:

- Where the hell do they store all these chemicals on the airplane? The fuselage is already full of passengers and crew and seats nd gear. The wings are filled with fuel. The hull is filled with luggage, packages and also has a fuel tank. The tail is filled with fuel. Where the hell is all this chemical stored?

Common misconception is that when a flamethower is shot and punctured that it will explode. It doesn't explode, but it can cause a large fireball. Which often looks like an explosion....

Read this Discovery forum post on the Myth of exploding flamethowers.

http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9741919888/m/2291905779

The quoted person below can explain what I mean far better than I can.

Not to split hairs - oh heck, yes, let's do that.

The word explosion is what's wrong. Used here it's a pardonable exaggeration, but an inaccurate statement nonetheless.

I'm going to use a US WWII M2 series flamethrower for discussion purposes. In it's original form, it used hydrogen for its compressed gas element. Hydrogen can explode when exposed to air and flame. However, they quickly switched to nitrogen, which is generally inert. If a bullet hit the nitrogen tank, no explosion.

As for the fuel, it's a thickened gas, just like napalm. It doesn't explode in its liquid state, and it doesn't vaporize to any degree worth mentioing here, so no explosion there, either. It burns. Period.

The pressurized nitrogen tank provided the 'push' for the fuel to be projected. If the pressure valve was turned off, and the thickened fuel tank was hit by a bullet, no fire or explosion, for the same reason a gas tank doesn't burn when shot. It needs to be exposed to air before burning, and there is none inside the tank. With an unpressurized tank, you'll get a slow leak (it IS thickened fuel, remember) which may eventually find an ignition source. The result: a fire, not an explosion.

If a fuel tank is hit when the pressure valve is on, still no explosion for the very same reasons. However . . . the thickened fuel is under pressure and will spray all over and is VERY likely to find an ignition source very quickly in combat. You still don't get an explosion, but you do get a big, spectacularly horrible fireball.

For purposes of conveying the horror involved, it may be understandable to misuse the term explosion. But for the purpose here of understanding the mechanics, explosion is not the correct word.
-binthere from discovery forums.

"hydrogen-peroxide.....Large fuel tanks surrounding the pilot"

Oh, goodie