Typhoon lands in Aberdeen due to ‘technical issue’

Indeed. After 12yrs fixing Her Majesty’s aircraft as a propulsion and airframes technician I cannot recall any gross fuel leak caused by a structural failure of an aircraft element. Indeed never any gross fuel leak to cause an in flight problem.
Sure your get weep fuel leaks from fuel tanks access panels, but never so serious as to cause an in flight emergency. This is where the rubber seal leaks. Sometimes weep leaks occur through structural joints of the aircraft structure that makes up the fuel tanks – usually the PRC rubber sealant is replaced to cure the problem. Major gross leak, never from this cause.

Many internal fuel tanks are not directly part of the aircraft structure – the fuel tanks is a rubber flexible bag tank.

I worked on a range of aircraft much older than Typhoons. Engine fuel feed pipes – taking the fuel from the fuel tanks within the aircraft structure to the engine fuel system inlet – these are usually flexible pipes – so don’t crack. Securing bolts/clamps are wire locked together. A gross fuel leak from a badly fitted pipe is unlikely as post installation leak checks and independent inspections would take place as part of the maintenance task.
Sure there is always a risk of a rigid / stainless steel pipe routing around the engine case could in theory develop a fatigue crack – possible but highly unlikely – given the stress analysis that RR undertake.
Clearly something has gone wrong – but a structural failure is very unlikely to be the reason

My bet if there has been a leak, its most likely between a pylon/external fuel tank and the aircraft.

Afghanistan, Nimrod springs to mind?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/dec/04/afghanistan.military

A fuel pipe leak not a structural failure. Leaks can and do happen – but gross fuel leaks are extremely rare

Thanks mate. Really good technical explanation 👍

Nice picture of the Typhoon!

“The following picture was taken by Giovanni Maduli on Feb. 10, 2011. It shows a Eurofighter Typhoon of the local based 4° Stormo leaking some fuel from the tail tank (for those who might think the aircraft is dumping fuel, the answer is no, since the F-2000 is not equipped with fuel dumpers).”

https://theaviationist.com/2011/02/14/time-to-tighten-the-fuel-cap-typhoon-fuel-leak/

Its a fuel vent. All aircraft have them.

To further clarify – all aircraft have fuel vents. Fuel tanks have to vent when being refuelled to displace the air in the tanks. In reverse if an unpressurised fuel system inward venting to allow air into the tanks as fuel is used. If the tanks are pressurised, usually via an air take off from an engine(s) then there still has to be a pressure relief system for the fuel system. Pressure relief is then via a pressure relief valve, the final outlet positioned at an extremity of the aircraft to ensure the released fuel vapour/droplets are well away from the hot engine exhaust.
I never worked on Typhoons, so I don’t know any detail of the Typhoon fuel system but I have seen this photo before – with an explanation that the so called leak is a fuel vent. An entirely plausible explanation.

Mr Batemans comments are very generic in nature, about the broad technical issues that all aircraft have and associated maintenance and engineering support that aircraft require. Clearly all aircraft have fuel leaks, as I have explained in my other comments – the point is serious structural failures that you were trying to imply to cause gross fuel leaks/in flight emergencies are very very rare. A vanishing negligible risk.

So you have proved you can use Google. Do you have any aircraft engineering experience

Not quite sure what that has to do with my first comment, but I can use google!

And hence the reason for my first comment on this thread!

“Hardly surprising given the number of hours they rack up each year.

Keep the Tranche ones until the arrival of Tempest in my opinion. With roughly half the airframe hours still left in them and could be upgraded if and when required!”

“With all forms of aviation experiencing higher costs, ever keener competition and greater demand for across-the-board efficiency, minimising time on the ground has become an increasingly important aspect of any operation – military or civilian.

And with aircraft remaining in service longer, the combination of ageing fleets and growing cycle times puts inevitable pressure on maintenance regimes.

Leaking fuel systems represent a notorious major drain on both available time and budgets. As Matthais Block, market manager of Alcatel Vacuum Technology, puts it, “fuel leaks are a thorough nuisance since it’s incredibly difficult to estimate how long it will take to repair them.”

Unsurprisingly, it is an issue that is currently coming under renewed scrutiny.

Fuel leaks principally arise from stress, structural defects and degraded seals or sealants as aircraft age and, especially in those subject to particularly high-cycle deployment,”

I think I have provided enough evidence that shows this is a regular occurrence on military aircraft both here and abroad.

Rubbish. Your initial comment was implying that an aircraft structural failure was leading to fuel leaks.
A weep from a fuel tank access panel or via the internal sealant breaking down and letting fuel leak is not a structural failure.
A structural failure is when there is a crack or other type of deformation that leads to an aircraft being either not airworthy or in the worst case breaking up in flight.

Aircraft structure are classified as Primary, Secondary or Tertiary. Primary is what is means – the structural integrity is vital to the aircraft airworthiness. Secondary structure failure would be of major concern, but probably not an immediate airworthiness concern. Tertiary structure – of no concern regards flight safety.

Remind me again of your aircraft engineering experience and qualifications??

“Rubbish. Your initial comment was implying that an aircraft structural failure was leading to fuel leaks.”

“Hardly surprising given the number of hours they rack up each year.

Please explain how my comment inferred this as I’m completely baffled by your reply? Or, is this simply how you interpreted it?

I’ll let others decide as I’ve answered all of your points using Google!

Have an enjoyable afternoon.

P.S you’ll notice I have two individuals who follow me around like lapdogs on here who are always proven wrong time and again and will jump at the chance to leap on anyone comments that disagree with me, particularly in relation to the F-35B.

Soo sad but amusing at the same time. Do keep a lookout for them! 👀

And that kind of comment says everything you need know about what type of guy you are. And I’ll continue to call you out, because you are one of the biggest spreaders of misinformation and generally BS on this site. If you don’t like the replys, don’t comment in the first place.

Your baffled by my reply because you don’t understand. Any experienced aircraft engineer would fully understand my comments.

It’s all Nigel Collins does, shares weblinks, and that makes him think he knows what he’s talking about. Everyone else see it for what it is.

Noted. Clearly he know nothing about aircraft engineering

Clearly more informed than you appear to be, or should I say GOOGLE!

Still waiting for you to impart you proven aircraft engineering experience and qualifications. I guess its going to be a very long wait because you don’t have any.

Likewise, as you clearly haven’t a clue what you’re talking about from the responses to my posts that I’ve had to correct you on including misinterpretation.

Happy to show you both my service record / aerospace engineering qualifications. I take it you have none. You clearly don’t know the difference between a structural failure and a fuel system failure and the consequences of each.
Off you go to Mr Google, see what else you can drag up..

Very good but the article doesn’t define the exact type of fuel leak. Two issues with fuel leaks. Obviously fire being one main risk, where even a small leak would be a significant issue if it ignited,

The 2nd issue is a large unignited leak while airborne, which could be so serious as to cause an aircraft to run out of fuel. That would likely require a main fuel line to an engine leaking – less of a problem on a large multi engine aircraft – engine shut down, isolate the fuel supply. Carry on if possible or find some where else to land.
Large leak due to a structural failure – again depends how bad. If the structural failure is so bad the aircraft breaks up – then a fuel leak is the last of your problems.

Structural failure to cause a large leak, no fire. Land early/divert and have the fire trucks on call. Possibly transfer fuel from the leaking tank if there is space in another tank.

The most likely reason for structural failure – mid air collision – land/divert asap assuming the aircraft remain flyable. Bird strike – unlikely to cause a fuel leak – fuel pipes aren’t routed in vulnerable impact areas, unlikely to penetrate a structural fuel tank. Other structural over load causes with leak potential – heavy landing or pulling excess ‘G’ to over stress an aircraft.
The Concorde fire and crash was caused by a fuel fire – but only because of impact damage from debris on the runway. The aircraft structure didn’t fail as such.

Structural failure caused by age i.e. fatigue or corrosion leading to a gross fuel leak. Remote risk, so as to be barely credible.

“Very good but the article doesn’t define the exact type of fuel leak.”

Hence my comment above.

“What caused the fuel leak? wear and tear possibly?
No doubt we will find out at a later date.”

You are attempting to link a very generic article to a specific flight incident. A silly thing to do.

How about this one?

I found it using GOOGLE!

“The sensor operator used the aircraft’s main camera to sweep the aircraft, and discovered it was “severely leaking fuel from the fuselage,” the report states.”

https://www.airforcemag.com/mq9-africa-crash-june-2020-fuel-leak/

You’re a real pratt. I never said catastrophic fuel leaks don’t happen – just that they are very, very rare. So again a fuel system failure, not a failure of the aircraft structure.

No, “You’re a real pratt.” Show me where I mentioned in my original comment about “failure of the aircraft structure”

And thick, “With roughly half the airframe hours still left in them”

“Hardly surprising given the number of hours they rack up each year.

Keep the Tranche ones until the arrival of Tempest in my opinion.

With roughly half the airframe hours still left in them and could be upgraded if and when required!”

Super simple really and explained by Janes via Google.

I’m beginning to think you use another name on here due to your ignorance and plain stupidity.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/uk-to-retire-tranche-1-typhoons-with-more-than-half-of-airframe-hours-remaining

LIke misinterpreting what I said at the start of this thread, dumb.

Try to at least educate yourself in future prior to posting and misinterpreting others posts to fit your misguided agenda plus, misinforming others as to the regular occurrence of fuel leaks on aircraft and the downtime caused by it and ageing airframes.

On the plus side, you’ve found a like-minded friend.

Use GOOGLE!

https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-101sp.pdf

You never did get the hang of the comments section did you Nigel. Even manages to fall out with experienced aircraft engineers 😄. What a plonker.

Greatly appreciated, thank you!