Why can't the French dump fuel?

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
In the case of the A320, or the 737, they can both land with a full load
of fuel.

Then why did Jet Blue fly around for 3 hours burning fuel before
landing back in LAX? It seems like if there is a real reason to want to
burn off fuel there would be a real way to get rid of the fuel. I can
dump fuel even in my Mooney.

The crew is paid by the hour?

"Robert M. Gary" wrote

Then why did Jet Blue fly around for 3 hours burning fuel before
landing back in LAX? It seems like if there is a real reason to want to
burn off fuel there would be a real way to get rid of the fuel. I can
dump fuel even in my Mooney.

The plane would be able to land at the weight that it was at, but that would
have been two negative things. One, it would have meant extra weight on the
already overstressed nose gear. Two, it would have meant a faster landing
speed, and faster speed that the nose would have been let down.
--
Jim in NC

Robert M. Gary wrote:
In the case of the A320, or the 737, they can both land with a full
load of fuel.

Then why did Jet Blue fly around for 3 hours burning fuel before
landing back in LAX? It seems like if there is a real reason to want
to burn off fuel there would be a real way to get rid of the fuel. I
can dump fuel even in my Mooney.

-Robert

They burned off the fuel to reduce weight. Less weight means a lower
approach and touchdown speed. Less weight means less mass to slow down
once they're on the ground. I would imagine they turned their autobrakes
off since, without nosewheel steering, they would need to use differential
braking for steering purposes. Minimum weight would allow them to not have
to land right at the beginning of the runway and not have to use excessive
braking to stop the aircraft within the runway length. This way they could
concentrate on a smooth touchdown and slow lowering of the nose gear.

I made an emergency landing on 25R at LAX in a 737-200 which had lost all
hydraulic power and the electrical emergency flap extension failed also. So
we had to make a manual reversion no-flap landing with emergency gear
extension. We had no nose wheel steering and used differential braking for
steering. We had to be careful with it since we only had accumulator power
for brakes and thrust reversers. We got it stopped about half way down the
runway and then were towed to our gate.

--

Darrell R. Schmidt
B-58 Hustler History: http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
-

Robert M. Gary wrote:

Does anyone have any insight into why the A320 isn't able to dump fuel.

Because it has no need to.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

If you put a fuel dump system in an airplane that doesn't need it, and it
does an inadvertent dump, who is liable for the subsequent water landing?

Seth
N8100R

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:tbl_e.21584$Fh4.12558@trndny03...
Robert M. Gary wrote:

Does anyone have any insight into why the A320 isn't able to dump fuel.

Because it has no need to.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

"Seth Masia" wrote:

If you put a fuel dump system in an airplane that doesn't need it, and
it does an inadvertent dump, who is liable for the subsequent water
landing?

Most dump equipment will not jettison all the fuel. They typically will
leave a minimum amount to ensure the scenario you are painting will not
happen.

That's what happened to the Lynard Skynard band. They took off with one
bad engine (some fly by night 135 operator). Once that engine failed
they tried to xfer fuel to the other tank to run the one remaining
engine. However, what they really did was dump all the fuel overboard.
As I recall, they landed in a field, killing the singer and one or two
of the spouses on board.

-Robert

It's labeled "Dump" down to a 3000# minimum on NWA 320's. See above.
Enviro in this case perhaps.

Have a great one!

Bush

On 27 Sep 2005 13:29:55 -0700, "Robert M. Gary"
wrote:

Does anyone have any insight into why the A320 isn't able to dump fuel.
What factors would go into such a design compromise?
-Robert

On 27-Sep-05 13:29, Robert M. Gary wrote:
Does anyone have any insight into why the A320 isn't able to dump fuel.
What factors would go into such a design compromise?
-Robert


It almost sounds as if you would be believing that Airbus is French. :-)

It is not. It is rather a product of an international consortium
(British, German, French, Italian) in which French does not have
the largest financial stake anyway...

The making of an Airbus is literally like the caricature about
the bureaucracy in the "United Europe." It is a maze of parts and
subcomponent tourism (Super Goopies and Belugas are being used.)
For example wings for the A320 are being made in Bremen, Germany.
Many wing components come from Britain, after which they ship the
wings to Toulouse, France in a Goopy. etc etc. You name it, every
Airbus model has its own subdivision of manufacturing sites and
different logistics.

Thomas

ThomasH wrote:

The making of an Airbus is literally like the caricature about
the bureaucracy in the "United Europe." It is a maze of parts and
subcomponent tourism (Super Goopies and Belugas are being used.)
For example wings for the A320 are being made in Bremen, Germany.
Many wing components come from Britain, after which they ship the
wings to Toulouse, France in a Goopy. etc etc.

and who makes the nose gear specifically? :-)

--Sylvain