Getting a 787 back in the air after a diversion

Re:Getting a 787 back in the air after a diversion by grogenaut on Saturday January 04, 2020 @02:59AM (#21953586)

hey at least they decided not to use hypergolic fuel in the sr-71 tho having a jet that was on fire all the time would be pretty bad ass looking. Titanium would probbably handle it and it'd eventually warm up the skin and close the gaps.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Getting a 787 back in the air after a diversion by dredmorbius on Saturday January 04, 2020 @03:20AM (#21953657)

Whilst the SR-71 didn't run on hypergolic fuel (because reasons -- including leaky tanks and supersonic skin-heating, so JP-7, which specifically has a high flash point was used for fuel), the ignition system for the aircraft, including its afterburner ignition system, used hypergolic fuel (triethylborane) to initiate combustion, with a limited number of ignition cycles aboard each mission.

Afterburner light-ups were limited by the availability of TEB aboard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triethylborane

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Getting a 787 back in the air after a diversion by grogenaut on Saturday January 04, 2020 @04:51PM (#21957832)

I remember thinking from one of the books on the sr71 equating restarts to setting off a stick of Dynamite in the tailpipe... But I was younger then and didn't know about these fuels. Thanks for the details

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Getting a 787 back in the air after a diversion by m4rtink on Saturday January 04, 2020 @03:24PM (#21957229)

IIRC, there are some issues with Red Fuming Nitric Acid & titanium, possibly resulting in sudden explosions under some circumstances.

Hydrazine + nitrous oxide could be fine though, but better check first before use. ;-)

[ Parent | on HN ]