Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!ncar!dinl!holroyd
From: holroyd@dinl.uucp (kevin w. holroyd)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: shuttle landing sites
Message-ID: <786@dinl.mmc.UUCP>
Date: 11 Nov 88 21:38:57 GMT
References: <1185@client2.dciem.dnd.ca>
Reply-To: holroyd@dinl.UUCP (kevin w. holroyd)
Organization: Martin Marietta I&CS, Denver CO.
Lines: 29

In article <1185@client2.dciem.dnd.ca> bgm@client2.dciem.dnd.ca (Bruce Matthews) writes:
>In article <3330011@hpindda.HP.COM> mears@hpindda.HP.COM (David B. Mears) writes:

		stuff deleted


>>I would hazard a guess that dumping the fuel has nothing to do with the
>>weight of the aircraft, but is done for fire safety reasons.  I think
>>this is pretty standard in commercial aviation (though I could be
>>mistaken).
>
>Not correct.  The maximum landing weight of most wide body airliners is a
>good deal lower than the maximum take-off weight.  The fuel dump is
>required to bring the aircraft weight down to the max landing weight.  The
>limiting factor is the landing gear.  Landing a 747 at close to max
>take-off weight would run a serious risk of landing gear collapse.  The
>resulting fire would then be another problem.
>
>BGM

They also dump the fuel if the landing gear doesn't come down.  Obviously
at this point overloading the landing gear no longer is a factor.  It is
to reduce the risk of fire, that they dump fuel.  In addition, the plane
must be at or below max landing weight.


Kevin W. Holroyd
CFI Aspen Flying Club
Denver CO.