Is it a bomb, or an external fuel tank?

[kakagoegie 0]

I was watching Discovery Channel lately, and I saw something about the RAF Tornado Bomber.

My question is: What is that big thing hanging from the wing. It looks a bit big for a bomb, so it must be a fuel tank. But why does it have those wings on its tail than? So I was wondering if anyone could tell me if it is a fuel tank or a bomb, and if it is a fuel tank, why it has those wings on the tail.

Ow, and does anybody know what the thing is hanging at the end of the wing?

Tnx in advance

[da12thMonkey 1943]

Thay are indeed fuel tanks, they're called "Hindenburgers". The fins will just be there for aerodynamic reasons.

By the thing on the end of the wing, do you mean that grey pointy thing on the outermost pylon? It's part of the countermeasures system, I think that one's the chaff/flare dispenser.

[Supah 0]

The fins are there because these things are droptanks. You can drop them though thats hardly ever done in peacetime as their modestly expensive. The fins keep it aerodynamically stable, atleast that's the theory.

[kakagoegie 0]

Tnx guys, that was just what I wanted to know.

[brataccas 0]

My dad told me once (I live beside 2 RAF bases) a GR4 tornado had a fault, the big fuel tank snapped off the plane, no idea how it happaned and it landed on a road and a RAF guy saw it as it dropped right beside him, he must of shat himself good job it didint explode

[Jinef 2]

Why would it explode?

The fuel used in high temperature jet engines is really quite stable stuff. It's the high octane shit used in piston engines that sets off easily.

The fins on the fuel tank also reduce the drag to ensure more stability while flying with heavy loads.

Noone really cares how they fly after they are dropped.

[[aps]gnat 28]

The fuel used in high temperature jet engines is really quite stable stuff. It's the high octane shit used in piston engines that sets off easily.

The fins on the fuel tank also reduce the drag to ensure more stability while flying with heavy loads.

Noone really cares how they fly after they are dropped.

Are you guessing or is this for real ?

- Most jet fuel I've come across is just as flamable as normal fuels ...

- Dont see how fins can reduce drag except to keep the tank from oscilation on its mount.

- I suspect they care that the tank clears the plane when released without twisting or kicking .... fins would help that.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

Gnat @ Jan. 29 2006,02:20)]Are you guessing or is this for real ?

Hes for real.

Gnat @ Jan. 29 2006,02:20)]- Most jet fuel I've come across is just as flamable as normal fuels ...

Most Jet fuel (JP-X) has to be heated and pressurised before it can burn – it’s a safety feature.  Its a lot like diesel fuel in that respect.

Gnat @ Jan. 29 2006,02:20)]- Dont see how fins can reduce drag except to keep the tank from oscilation on its mount.

The fins reduce drag by channels the air flow along the leading edge of the fins and concentrating/reducing the size or the air vortex that’s created when something  passes through air.  These vortices are what cause drag, so the smaller they are the less drag you have.

Gnat @ Jan. 29 2006,02:20)]- I suspect they care that the tank clears the plane when released without twisting or kicking .... fins would help that.

You are right about that but there main purpose is drag reduction at high subsonic and supersonic speeds.

[shadow 6]

Gnat @ Jan. 29 2006,02:20)]Are you guessing or is this for real ?

Hes for real.

Gnat @ Jan. 29 2006,02:20)]- Most jet fuel I've come across is just as flamable as normal fuels ...

Most Jet fuel (JP-X) has to be heated and pressurised before it can burn – it’s a safety feature.  Its a lot like diesel fuel in that respect.

Yep, that is true.

The biggest difference between JP-fuel and Disel is that JP is very dry and Diesel is a very fat fuel-type (its more oil in it).

I served my year at Andřya Airbase where we have the P-3 Orions stationed (they use JP-6). If you pour some JP-6 on your index-finger and rub it with your thumb you can feel that your thumb is sticking to your index-finger because the fuel dry out your skin completely. If you do the same with diesel you can feel the oil in it making it slippery.

Other than that, JP-fuel types are a very stable fuel. The fumes don't explode, only the fuel burns. Normal car-gasoline fumes explode in addition to the gasoline itself burns very easily. Most of the jet-fuel that is in use today is Kerosene-based, just like Diesel.

The newer ground-APUs on Andřya runs on Diesel, but the old ones runs on JP-6 (JP-6 is cheaper for them). The reason they don't put jet-fuel in the new ones is because it wears out a Diesel-engine (The old APUs are to be replaced anyway).

Some interesting reading from Wikipedia:

Gasoline:

Flash point: < -45°C

Autoignition temperature: 246°C

Diesel:

Flash point: >62°C

Autoignition temperature: 210°C

Jet Fuel:

Flash Point: >50°C

Autoignition Temperature: 210°C

Quote[/b] ]Flashpoint is the name of a live album by the Rolling Stones. It is also a political term. It is also used as a short name for a video game Operation Flashpoint. It is also a name of a free and paid host, located at http://www.flashpoint.cc.

The flash point of a fuel is the lowest temperature at which it can form an ignitable mix with air.

[Garcia 0]

You from Norway then Shadow?

What I've seen, though I've seen it on TV( ), fuel don't ignite that easily as everybody thinks...at least it's not like Hollywood films where a car explodes everytime the car crashes, just to make the crash look more dramatic

[shadow 6]

You from Norway then Shadow?

Last I checked... ja

[[aps]gnat 28]

Thanks for the clarification Rock, Shadow.

Interesting you talk about the JP-6 drying out you skin, I worked with "Condensate" for many years, it was a raw crystal clear petroleum liquid usually pulled off gas wells, evaporated VERY easy and is HIGHLY flamable ..... yet what you describe is the opposite. Science is amazing isnt it.

hehe ... I remember at some fire training on the oil field, told the Trainer we'll use some of this condensate for the big fire fighting trays (once burning you had to put them out), we said, "Watch it, its real dangerous stuff" ... "No Worries" hes says .... I'm a Fire Fighting Trainer .... I know Flamable he mumbles.

He flicks a match at the trays and boom .... he wanders back to us with no eyebrows or fringe .... "Geez .... it is good stuff eh"

[Garcia 0]

You from Norway then Shadow?

Last I checked... ja  

oooh, that I didn't know

[Supah 0]

Noone really cares how they fly after they are dropped.

Yes who cares if the thing tumbles and hits your wing because its not aerodynamically stable, wont do a airplane wing any harm, after all jetfighters are built like T-34's

[Jinef 2]

Good point ....

Well who cares if they get their wings knocked off, fast jet drivers are a bunch of silly tossers anyway

However you may have noticed that on a lot of other planes (I was just looking at pictures of F-18s and EA-6Bs) that their external fuel tanks do not have fins .... maybe because they are not of the drop variety or maybe because the Brits are just smarter than everyone else

Anyway ... regarding this topic. Here is current discussion on IRC:

Quote[/b] ]

<Jinny-Poos> *chuckles* Why don't people just take my word for it :P

<Killswitch|> That's because in general, people "know" of jet fuels from Jerry Bruckheimer films

<Killswitch|> <pink> BABA-FECKING-BOOOOOM

<Jinny-Poos> can I quote you on that?

<Killswitch|> Go right ahead

<Jinny-Poos>

So the moral of the story is that I am old and wise.

Regards,

All Knowing Jinef

[BlackScorpion 0]

Noone really cares how they fly after they are dropped.

Yes who cares if the thing tumbles and hits your wing because its not aerodynamically stable, wont do a airplane wing any harm, after all jetfighters are built like T-34's

F-15s are built like that, there's a proof of it... one flew with over half of it's wing missing, the pilot knew that something was a bit wrong, but didn't know of the real issue until he head landed ( ) the thing - .

The story of the wingless F-15!

But back to the topic, well sorry, I don't have an opinion yet .

[Tovarish 0]

what a small piece of debris can do to an aircraft

hmmm, no hotlinking looks like, look for F18KillA4.wmv on that site.

[Jinef 2]

one flew with over half of it's wing missing, the pilot knew that something was a bit wrong, but didn't know of the real issue until he had landed the thing.

Just goes to show the USAF is hiring anyone nowadays ....

But seriously ... how could you not notice if a bit of your wing was missing ....

"Well shucks Big Bird ... I'm sure my left wing was longer this morning ....."

[BlackScorpion 0]

IAF, read the story...

Well, first of all, checking if the wing was still there wasn't propably the first thing on his mind, and by my knowledge, it's quite hard to see the wing. He just assumed it was damaged. Plus if there's no sign (warning lights, plane decending rapidly), how would you know it? Especially if you actually have (nearly) perfect control of the aircraft?

Hmmm, nice link Tovarish. Some quite nasty photos and movies there (i.e. burned/burning airliners) but some quite funny (no actual harm) ones, too. I think I have the movie on my PC, yeah, it's quite bad.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

The fuel tanks without fins are generally for subsonic use only - transonic and supersonic tanks all have fins.  There are some exceptions but thats usually for use on a specific aircraft where the fuselage shape shields the tank from the airflow at transonic speed so they dont need stabilising.

edit > This perhaps wasnt too clear, the reason the Hindenburgers need the fins more than most is that they actually move with the wing sweep and need to be stabilised during their movement.

[Supah 0]

Though looking at some footage of USAF phantoms dropping Napalm bombs in vietnam you do see a lot of "near misses" with the wings. Some scary footage from a safety point of view!

[[aps]gnat 28]

The are soooooo many versions of that same "lost a wing, but landed it anyway" story on the internet that its hard to tell which is real. They all have something that contradicts the other .....

Yep ... great link there Tovarish ! Thx

[Messiah 2]

one flew with over half of it's wing missing, the pilot knew that something was a bit wrong, but didn't know of the real issue until he had landed the thing.

Just goes to show the USAF is hiring anyone nowadays ....

But seriously ... how could you not notice if a bit of your wing was missing ....

"Well shucks Big Bird ... I'm sure my left wing was longer this morning ....."

after watching an interesting program on stealth technology the other night, apparently quite easy...

during testing of the stealth fighter, the chase plane had to radio the pilot of the stealth fighter to reccomend him to land because one of the rear tail fins had fallen off..

the reason the pilot didnt notice? Computerised Flight - normal aircraft used fly by wire technology - i.e. cables and pulleys to move things - modern aircraft use computers to sense where the pilots moved the various instruments.

If it wasnt for computers in the seatlth fighters, they would be impossible to fly. The computers keep the aircraft stable in flight, with no imput from the pilot. When the tail fell off, the computer systems just adapted to keep the aircraft stable.