9/11 Debate

[LP]

[member=153]LP[/member] ... it's evenly distributed given the weight / strength /width of the the pivot points to the fuselage tapering to the wing tips .. and the bladders holding the fuel.

Governed by the jet engine placements underwing.

But the closest point of failure (very generally) is at the fuselage connection or the engine failure regardless of their distance between fuselage and tip. 

Thanks [member=827]capcom[/member]

So that makes sense, from that I presume weight is generally/basically roughly evenly distributed either side of the engine mount position.

For my own reference, when fuel is consumed, does it come out of all bladders proportionally, or are they drained in a specific sequence? I presume this has to be controlled, so that in banking manoeuvres you do not get drastic changes in plane behaviour subject to fuel load.

I must admit, when I thought about it I was surprised just how much of a modern plane MTOW goes in fuel, they are basically flying fuel tanks with some room here and there for a bit of something else.

Cynics, sceptics and conspiracists make a big deal about the wings being mostly fluid, but anyone who has jumped off the high diving board knows exactly how hard liquid can be when you hit it, imagine doing that at 550MPH! Can you imagine throwing a full 30,000 litre water tank at a house or building at 550 MPH? (FYI; Human free fall terminal velocity is only about 120 MPH at the most, high dives are roughly half that!) :o