Liberty XL2 anyone?

The jury may still be out, but I bet this is counterintuitive.

Perhaps someone from the NTSB should be asked, but I think that if you
puncture a cabin stored fuel tank, you are already dead. On the other hand,
you can bend a wing in a Piper or Cessna, and end up burning.

Especially a high wing plane that brings the fuel through the A pillar. The
A pillar should be saving your life, not covering you in fuel.



"Brian Sponcil" wrote in message
...
This may be irrational and unfounded but I didn't much care for the fact
that the pilot is literally sitting on the gas tank. A post crash fire is
bad enough, but to have one start directly on your butt/back seems all the
less survivable.

Just my $.02


-Brian
N33431


"TTA Cherokee Driver" wrote in message
...
When I first heard about this plane I thought it would be cool idea -- a
new, two-person touring plane that will cost about $150K with good
avionics. But the more I learn about it, strictly from reading magazine
articles, the more I wonder. For example:

5. nonadjustable seats. I know the rudder pedals are adjustable, but
that doesn't help short or tall pilots with headroom or visbility. and
not everyone likes the same seatback angle.

Indeed. The fuselage IS made out of carbon fiber so you wonder just how
hard you'd have to hit to break it. Nonetheless, it's not a design choice
that makes me overly comfortable. Of course neither is the piper stabilator
but that's another story....

"Dude" wrote in message
...
The jury may still be out, but I bet this is counterintuitive.

Perhaps someone from the NTSB should be asked, but I think that if you
puncture a cabin stored fuel tank, you are already dead. On the other
hand,
you can bend a wing in a Piper or Cessna, and end up burning.

Especially a high wing plane that brings the fuel through the A pillar.
The
A pillar should be saving your life, not covering you in fuel.

Brian Sponcil wrote:

This may be irrational and unfounded but I didn't much care for the fact
that the pilot is literally sitting on the gas tank. A post crash fire is
bad enough, but to have one start directly on your butt/back seems all the
less survivable.

I had the same thought when I read the article this weekend. Even if
the tank is "protected" by the tube frame and fuselage covering, I
wouldn't want to be sitting on it. There is a reason that Detroit no
longer puts the fuel tank inside the cab of pickup trucks as was once
common practice.


Matt

Ah, I don't know about trucks, but you might want to look where the fuel
tank is on your car. Ever since the Pinto, they have been moving them
closer to the cabin.

Yes, its safer there, and that makes it safer for the passengers.




"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Brian Sponcil wrote:

This may be irrational and unfounded but I didn't much care for the fact
that the pilot is literally sitting on the gas tank. A post crash fire
is
bad enough, but to have one start directly on your butt/back seems all
the
less survivable.

I had the same thought when I read the article this weekend. Even if
the tank is "protected" by the tube frame and fuselage covering, I
wouldn't want to be sitting on it. There is a reason that Detroit no
longer puts the fuel tank inside the cab of pickup trucks as was once
common practice.


Matt

Dude wrote:

Ah, I don't know about trucks, but you might want to look where the fuel
tank is on your car. Ever since the Pinto, they have been moving them
closer to the cabin.

My truck has the tank under the bed and between the frame rails.


Yes, its safer there, and that makes it safer for the passengers.

As I recall, the pinto and others had the tank behind the rear axle
where it was susceptible to a rear-end collision. Airplanes don't hit
tail first very often and don't get rear-ended all that often either.

There certainly is a trade-off between having the tanks protected better
but nearer the pax and having them separated from the pax, but
potentially more vulnerable. Personally, I prefer to have them in the
wings as far from the fuselage as practical with leak resistant fuel
cells (like race cars) and breakaway fittings where the wing is most
likely to separate from the fuselage should it hit something.


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:

As I recall, the pinto and others had the tank behind the rear axle
where it was susceptible to a rear-end collision.

Every Ford auto from the Model-A through at least the 70s had the gas tank in that
location. Most other cars did too. The problem with the Pinto is that the rear axle
housing was designed in such a way that it could easily puncture the tank in a
rear-end. And Ford was aware of this. And Ford deliberately decided to do nothing
about it because it would cost a few dollars more per car to build a safe housing.
And someone leaked the memos about that.

Airplanes don't hit
tail first very often and don't get rear-ended all that often either.

And airplanes *really* hate having several hundred pounds of weight located around
the tail.

George Patterson
In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony assault.
In Tennessee, it's evangelism.

Having worked in a burn center, I also get nervous when fuel and my
skin are in close proximity. Diamond has approached the issue in a
different way than Liberty. My DA40 has metal tanks in the wings,
located between the two carbon fiber spars. The remainder of the fuel
system is external to the cabin. The fuel selector valve is connected
to the handle via long shaft, and resides, along with the boost pump,
in its own compartment.

To my knowlege, no Diamond aircraft has ever suffered a post-crash
fire.

You should try flying a Cri-cri. The fuel tank is under your knees...
you bend your legs over it to get to the rudder pedals if I remember
correctly.

Paul

"Brian Sponcil" wrote in message
...

Indeed. The fuselage IS made out of carbon fiber so you wonder just how
hard you'd have to hit to break it. Nonetheless, it's not a design choice
that makes me overly comfortable. Of course neither is the piper
stabilator
but that's another story....

"Dude" wrote in message
...
The jury may still be out, but I bet this is counterintuitive.

Perhaps someone from the NTSB should be asked, but I think that if you
puncture a cabin stored fuel tank, you are already dead. On the other
hand,
you can bend a wing in a Piper or Cessna, and end up burning.

Especially a high wing plane that brings the fuel through the A pillar.
The
A pillar should be saving your life, not covering you in fuel.

As I recall, the pinto and others had the tank behind the rear axle
where it was susceptible to a rear-end collision. Airplanes don't hit
tail first very often and don't get rear-ended all that often either.


Ahh, but if you look at crash photos you will see that the wings and tail
often break off. It you put in really serious fuel lines with break aways
you may avoid this causing a fire, but the tank itself is still out there.

What if you put the tank behind the seat, but not under it? Is that better
to you? after all, you said you are not likely to get rear ended.

You can come up with any solution you want to feel safe, and then tell us
the aircraft you found that fits the bill. In the end, I don't think having
it in the compartment is such a bad idea. And I am quite sure that few if
any planes will meet your standards.

"Paul Sengupta" wrote in message
...
You should try flying a Cri-cri. The fuel tank is under your knees...
you bend your legs over it to get to the rudder pedals if I remember
correctly.

Paul

If you're worried about crash safety, you won't be flying a Cri-cri
anyway... Neat airplane, but from a survivability standpoint, the light
structure (an understatment) and relatively high stall speed add up in a bad
way.

KB