If the fuel tank didn't rupture, then you'd get even more buoyancy from having the tanks empty (or at least full of air). If it did rupture then you won't get any buoyancy from the jet fuel either.
That's assuming the fuel cell is rigid, which I believe to be the case. On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 12:25:41AM -0500, Ken Waller wrote: > I was just reading an account that stated they felt that since jet fuel > is lighter than water, some buoyancy was gained from the onboard fuel > load. > > Kenneth Waller > http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Franklin" > <jehosep...@mindspring.com> > Subject: Re: OT - No More Plane > > >> John Francis wrote: >> >>> Yeah - that impressed me, too. The darn thing floated four miles >>> downstream, and was snagged and tied up safely before it got to sink! >> >> The Airbus craft apparently have a "close all external vents" emergency >> button in the cockpit, according to what I'm hearing at the moment. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
