Do all aircraft carry depleted uranium as counterweights?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
15
$begingroup$
I was told that most aircraft had depleted uranium on board as counterweights. I have not seen one myself. Do all current modern aircraft have depleted uranium on board?
aircraft-design weight-and-balance
edited Feb 4 at 17:40
ymb1
65.9k6210350
asked Feb 4 at 14:46
Miyo HazukiMiyo Hazuki
17718
$endgroup$
|
show 1 more comment
15
$begingroup$
I was told that most aircraft had depleted uranium on board as counterweights. I have not seen one myself. Do all current modern aircraft have depleted uranium on board?
aircraft-design weight-and-balance
edited Feb 4 at 17:40
ymb1
65.9k6210350
asked Feb 4 at 14:46
Miyo HazukiMiyo Hazuki
17718
$endgroup$
10
$begingroup$
Related: What is the reasoning behind using depleted uranium as counterweights in the 747?, most of the counterweights were replaced with tungsten, so no, most aircraft don't use DU weights.
$endgroup$
– Ron Beyer
Feb 4 at 14:53
1
$begingroup$
You don’t need anything that exotic; Steel or tungsten will work just fine for that role
$endgroup$
– Carlo Felicione
Feb 4 at 18:35
2
$begingroup$
Counterweight to what? I've never noticed any in my 1973 Cessna single engine 4 seater.
$endgroup$
– CrossRoads
Feb 4 at 18:55
2
$begingroup$
@CrossRoads - Why are “counterweights” used in aircraft production?
$endgroup$
– ymb1
Feb 4 at 19:23
$begingroup$
I suspect small aircraft just use a big chunk of shaped lead, and not depleted uranium. That would be a nightmare for A/Ps out in the field if any trimming was needed for example. My parts manual does not appear to say what the parts are made out of.
$endgroup$
– CrossRoads
Feb 4 at 19:45
|
show 1 more comment
15
15
15
3
$begingroup$
I was told that most aircraft had depleted uranium on board as counterweights. I have not seen one myself. Do all current modern aircraft have depleted uranium on board?
aircraft-design weight-and-balance
edited Feb 4 at 17:40
ymb1
65.9k6210350
asked Feb 4 at 14:46
Miyo HazukiMiyo Hazuki
17718
$endgroup$
I was told that most aircraft had depleted uranium on board as counterweights. I have not seen one myself. Do all current modern aircraft have depleted uranium on board?
aircraft-design weight-and-balance
aircraft-design weight-and-balance
edited Feb 4 at 17:40
ymb1
65.9k6210350
asked Feb 4 at 14:46
Miyo HazukiMiyo Hazuki
17718
edited Feb 4 at 17:40
ymb1
65.9k6210350
asked Feb 4 at 14:46
Miyo HazukiMiyo Hazuki
17718
edited Feb 4 at 17:40
ymb1
65.9k6210350
edited Feb 4 at 17:40
ymb1
65.9k6210350
edited Feb 4 at 17:40
ymb1
65.9k6210350
65.9k6210350
asked Feb 4 at 14:46
Miyo HazukiMiyo Hazuki
17718
asked Feb 4 at 14:46
Miyo HazukiMiyo Hazuki
17718
asked Feb 4 at 14:46
Miyo HazukiMiyo Hazuki
17718
17718
10
$begingroup$
Related: What is the reasoning behind using depleted uranium as counterweights in the 747?, most of the counterweights were replaced with tungsten, so no, most aircraft don't use DU weights.
$endgroup$
– Ron Beyer
Feb 4 at 14:53
1
$begingroup$
You don’t need anything that exotic; Steel or tungsten will work just fine for that role
$endgroup$
– Carlo Felicione
Feb 4 at 18:35
2
$begingroup$
Counterweight to what? I've never noticed any in my 1973 Cessna single engine 4 seater.
$endgroup$
– CrossRoads
Feb 4 at 18:55
2
$begingroup$
@CrossRoads - Why are “counterweights” used in aircraft production?
$endgroup$
– ymb1
Feb 4 at 19:23
$begingroup$
I suspect small aircraft just use a big chunk of shaped lead, and not depleted uranium. That would be a nightmare for A/Ps out in the field if any trimming was needed for example. My parts manual does not appear to say what the parts are made out of.
$endgroup$
– CrossRoads
Feb 4 at 19:45
|
show 1 more comment
10
$begingroup$
Related: What is the reasoning behind using depleted uranium as counterweights in the 747?, most of the counterweights were replaced with tungsten, so no, most aircraft don't use DU weights.
$endgroup$
– Ron Beyer
Feb 4 at 14:53
1
$begingroup$
You don’t need anything that exotic; Steel or tungsten will work just fine for that role
$endgroup$
– Carlo Felicione
Feb 4 at 18:35
2
$begingroup$
Counterweight to what? I've never noticed any in my 1973 Cessna single engine 4 seater.
$endgroup$
– CrossRoads
Feb 4 at 18:55
2
$begingroup$
@CrossRoads - Why are “counterweights” used in aircraft production?
$endgroup$
– ymb1
Feb 4 at 19:23
$begingroup$
I suspect small aircraft just use a big chunk of shaped lead, and not depleted uranium. That would be a nightmare for A/Ps out in the field if any trimming was needed for example. My parts manual does not appear to say what the parts are made out of.
$endgroup$
– CrossRoads
Feb 4 at 19:45
10
10
$begingroup$
Related: What is the reasoning behind using depleted uranium as counterweights in the 747?, most of the counterweights were replaced with tungsten, so no, most aircraft don't use DU weights.
$endgroup$
– Ron Beyer
Feb 4 at 14:53
$begingroup$
Related: What is the reasoning behind using depleted uranium as counterweights in the 747?, most of the counterweights were replaced with tungsten, so no, most aircraft don't use DU weights.
$endgroup$
– Ron Beyer
Feb 4 at 14:53
1
1
$begingroup$
You don’t need anything that exotic; Steel or tungsten will work just fine for that role
$endgroup$
– Carlo Felicione
Feb 4 at 18:35
$begingroup$
You don’t need anything that exotic; Steel or tungsten will work just fine for that role
$endgroup$
– Carlo Felicione
Feb 4 at 18:35
2
2
$begingroup$
Counterweight to what? I've never noticed any in my 1973 Cessna single engine 4 seater.
$endgroup$
– CrossRoads
Feb 4 at 18:55
$begingroup$
Counterweight to what? I've never noticed any in my 1973 Cessna single engine 4 seater.
$endgroup$
– CrossRoads
Feb 4 at 18:55
2
2
$begingroup$
@CrossRoads - Why are “counterweights” used in aircraft production?
$endgroup$
– ymb1
Feb 4 at 19:23
$begingroup$
@CrossRoads - Why are “counterweights” used in aircraft production?
$endgroup$
– ymb1
Feb 4 at 19:23
$begingroup$
I suspect small aircraft just use a big chunk of shaped lead, and not depleted uranium. That would be a nightmare for A/Ps out in the field if any trimming was needed for example. My parts manual does not appear to say what the parts are made out of.
$endgroup$
– CrossRoads
Feb 4 at 19:45
$begingroup$
I suspect small aircraft just use a big chunk of shaped lead, and not depleted uranium. That would be a nightmare for A/Ps out in the field if any trimming was needed for example. My parts manual does not appear to say what the parts are made out of.
$endgroup$
– CrossRoads
Feb 4 at 19:45
|
show 1 more comment
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
42
$begingroup$
From my research, it looks like about 0.1% of all aircraft carry depleted uranium counterweights.
The Systematic Radiological Assessment of Exemptions for Source and Byproduct Materials (NUREG-1717), on page 3–260, gives a table showing that 430 domestic United States aircraft were delivered with depleted uranium counterweights, and says that "A reasonable estimate is that 50% of these aircraft still contain DU counterweights." So there are about 200 aircraft in the United States which contain depleted uranium counterweights.
Meanwhile, the FAA's "Air Traffic by the Numbers" publication says that there are over 200,000 aircraft in the United States currently.
So no, very few aircraft use depleted uranium counterweights.
answered Feb 4 at 16:37
Tanner SwettTanner Swett
2,36611030
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
… but those with DU are the very heavy and big beasts, so per mass the fraction is quite a bit higher. Still, it's insignificant.
$endgroup$
– Peter Kämpf
Feb 4 at 22:40
1
$begingroup$
Is this "all aircraft" in the US, or the world?
$endgroup$
– isanae
Feb 4 at 23:58
2
$begingroup$
@isanae Well, the 0.1% figure is for aircraft in the US, and it seems reasonable to guess that the number is similar for the rest of the world. In particular, the number is certainly not 100%.
$endgroup$
– Tanner Swett
Feb 5 at 4:39
add a comment |
9
$begingroup$
That material is dangerous and expensive. It is used only in special situations where the design requirements are stringent and heavily constrained.
For example, the C-5A cargo plane used depleted uranium (DU) to counterweight its main control surfaces.
edited Feb 5 at 18:01
Peter Mortensen
30527
answered Feb 4 at 19:29
niels nielsenniels nielsen
2,4041515
$endgroup$
10
$begingroup$
It's not really expensive, at least at acquisition time. "Tungsten markets for $25 to $45 per pound depending on the form of the metal" "Depleted uranium costs $5 per pound from old stockpiles" and lead is $1 per pound. DU likes to burn so I hope one would use it in oxide form. Being a very heavy metal doing nasty things to biological systems (Uranium Babies are horrendous) and somewhat radioactive, use gloves when handling. Do not inhale. Dispose at specialized municipal waste recycling centers.
$endgroup$
– David Tonhofer
Feb 4 at 20:57
2
$begingroup$
@DavidTonhofer, thanks for this, the maintenance techs on the C-5 were "on the clock" when working in proximity to the DU counterweights and had to cycle out after a certain number of hours which I cannot remember...
$endgroup$
– niels nielsen
Feb 4 at 23:48
3
$begingroup$
It's not super radioactive, not that I'd want to handle it all that much. I'd rather have to worry about a block of DU than, say, a radon build up or dust from uranium ore processing. I've read that the heavy metal toxicity of uranium will kill you long before the radiation exposure, chemical toxicity estimates put it on a similar LD50 to DDT and MDMA, not all that lethal but still not something to mess with lightly.
$endgroup$
– Kaithar
Feb 5 at 3:27
4
$begingroup$
Indeed. Consider also this C-5A fact: its main landing gear bogies are cast from beryllium, to save weight. this metal is so severely notch-sensitive for fatigue failure that there are NO radii in the structure less than 12" and the entire assembly is coated with a THICK layer of paint. Why? Because the oxides of beryllium, when inhaled, cause berylosis, a deadly disease. For this reason, maintenance techs on the C-5 are on the clock anytime they are in the main wheel wells, to minimize beryllium exposure via scratches in the paint...
$endgroup$
– niels nielsen
Feb 5 at 3:40
1
$begingroup$
@DavidTonhofer - Formula 1 cars used depleted uranium for ballast until sometime around 2001. It was disallowed not because of the toxicity, but because of cost. By the time teams got the depleted uranium, it cost about 7500 (US dollars) per kilogram. A team supporting 3 cars at around 22 kg of ballast per car would end up spending close to 500,000 (US dollars).
$endgroup$
– rcgldr
Feb 5 at 15:29
|
show 2 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "528"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f59811%2fdo-all-aircraft-carry-depleted-uranium-as-counterweights%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
42
$begingroup$
From my research, it looks like about 0.1% of all aircraft carry depleted uranium counterweights.
The Systematic Radiological Assessment of Exemptions for Source and Byproduct Materials (NUREG-1717), on page 3–260, gives a table showing that 430 domestic United States aircraft were delivered with depleted uranium counterweights, and says that "A reasonable estimate is that 50% of these aircraft still contain DU counterweights." So there are about 200 aircraft in the United States which contain depleted uranium counterweights.
Meanwhile, the FAA's "Air Traffic by the Numbers" publication says that there are over 200,000 aircraft in the United States currently.
So no, very few aircraft use depleted uranium counterweights.
answered Feb 4 at 16:37
Tanner SwettTanner Swett
2,36611030
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
… but those with DU are the very heavy and big beasts, so per mass the fraction is quite a bit higher. Still, it's insignificant.
$endgroup$
– Peter Kämpf
Feb 4 at 22:40
1
$begingroup$
Is this "all aircraft" in the US, or the world?
$endgroup$
– isanae
Feb 4 at 23:58
2
$begingroup$
@isanae Well, the 0.1% figure is for aircraft in the US, and it seems reasonable to guess that the number is similar for the rest of the world. In particular, the number is certainly not 100%.
$endgroup$
– Tanner Swett
Feb 5 at 4:39
add a comment |
42
$begingroup$
From my research, it looks like about 0.1% of all aircraft carry depleted uranium counterweights.
The Systematic Radiological Assessment of Exemptions for Source and Byproduct Materials (NUREG-1717), on page 3–260, gives a table showing that 430 domestic United States aircraft were delivered with depleted uranium counterweights, and says that "A reasonable estimate is that 50% of these aircraft still contain DU counterweights." So there are about 200 aircraft in the United States which contain depleted uranium counterweights.
Meanwhile, the FAA's "Air Traffic by the Numbers" publication says that there are over 200,000 aircraft in the United States currently.
So no, very few aircraft use depleted uranium counterweights.
answered Feb 4 at 16:37
Tanner SwettTanner Swett
2,36611030
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
… but those with DU are the very heavy and big beasts, so per mass the fraction is quite a bit higher. Still, it's insignificant.
$endgroup$
– Peter Kämpf
Feb 4 at 22:40
1
$begingroup$
Is this "all aircraft" in the US, or the world?
$endgroup$
– isanae
Feb 4 at 23:58
2
$begingroup$
@isanae Well, the 0.1% figure is for aircraft in the US, and it seems reasonable to guess that the number is similar for the rest of the world. In particular, the number is certainly not 100%.
$endgroup$
– Tanner Swett
Feb 5 at 4:39
add a comment |
42
42
42
$begingroup$
From my research, it looks like about 0.1% of all aircraft carry depleted uranium counterweights.
The Systematic Radiological Assessment of Exemptions for Source and Byproduct Materials (NUREG-1717), on page 3–260, gives a table showing that 430 domestic United States aircraft were delivered with depleted uranium counterweights, and says that "A reasonable estimate is that 50% of these aircraft still contain DU counterweights." So there are about 200 aircraft in the United States which contain depleted uranium counterweights.
Meanwhile, the FAA's "Air Traffic by the Numbers" publication says that there are over 200,000 aircraft in the United States currently.
So no, very few aircraft use depleted uranium counterweights.
answered Feb 4 at 16:37
Tanner SwettTanner Swett
2,36611030
$endgroup$
From my research, it looks like about 0.1% of all aircraft carry depleted uranium counterweights.
The Systematic Radiological Assessment of Exemptions for Source and Byproduct Materials (NUREG-1717), on page 3–260, gives a table showing that 430 domestic United States aircraft were delivered with depleted uranium counterweights, and says that "A reasonable estimate is that 50% of these aircraft still contain DU counterweights." So there are about 200 aircraft in the United States which contain depleted uranium counterweights.
Meanwhile, the FAA's "Air Traffic by the Numbers" publication says that there are over 200,000 aircraft in the United States currently.
So no, very few aircraft use depleted uranium counterweights.
answered Feb 4 at 16:37
Tanner SwettTanner Swett
2,36611030
answered Feb 4 at 16:37
Tanner SwettTanner Swett
2,36611030
answered Feb 4 at 16:37
Tanner SwettTanner Swett
2,36611030
answered Feb 4 at 16:37
Tanner SwettTanner Swett
2,36611030
2,36611030
5
$begingroup$
… but those with DU are the very heavy and big beasts, so per mass the fraction is quite a bit higher. Still, it's insignificant.
$endgroup$
– Peter Kämpf
Feb 4 at 22:40
1
$begingroup$
Is this "all aircraft" in the US, or the world?
$endgroup$
– isanae
Feb 4 at 23:58
2
$begingroup$
@isanae Well, the 0.1% figure is for aircraft in the US, and it seems reasonable to guess that the number is similar for the rest of the world. In particular, the number is certainly not 100%.
$endgroup$
– Tanner Swett
Feb 5 at 4:39
add a comment |
5
$begingroup$
… but those with DU are the very heavy and big beasts, so per mass the fraction is quite a bit higher. Still, it's insignificant.
$endgroup$
– Peter Kämpf
Feb 4 at 22:40
1
$begingroup$
Is this "all aircraft" in the US, or the world?
$endgroup$
– isanae
Feb 4 at 23:58
2
$begingroup$
@isanae Well, the 0.1% figure is for aircraft in the US, and it seems reasonable to guess that the number is similar for the rest of the world. In particular, the number is certainly not 100%.
$endgroup$
– Tanner Swett
Feb 5 at 4:39
5
5
$begingroup$
… but those with DU are the very heavy and big beasts, so per mass the fraction is quite a bit higher. Still, it's insignificant.
$endgroup$
– Peter Kämpf
Feb 4 at 22:40
$begingroup$
… but those with DU are the very heavy and big beasts, so per mass the fraction is quite a bit higher. Still, it's insignificant.
$endgroup$
– Peter Kämpf
Feb 4 at 22:40
1
1
$begingroup$
Is this "all aircraft" in the US, or the world?
$endgroup$
– isanae
Feb 4 at 23:58
$begingroup$
Is this "all aircraft" in the US, or the world?
$endgroup$
– isanae
Feb 4 at 23:58
2
2
$begingroup$
@isanae Well, the 0.1% figure is for aircraft in the US, and it seems reasonable to guess that the number is similar for the rest of the world. In particular, the number is certainly not 100%.
$endgroup$
– Tanner Swett
Feb 5 at 4:39
$begingroup$
@isanae Well, the 0.1% figure is for aircraft in the US, and it seems reasonable to guess that the number is similar for the rest of the world. In particular, the number is certainly not 100%.
$endgroup$
– Tanner Swett
Feb 5 at 4:39
add a comment |
9
$begingroup$
That material is dangerous and expensive. It is used only in special situations where the design requirements are stringent and heavily constrained.
For example, the C-5A cargo plane used depleted uranium (DU) to counterweight its main control surfaces.
edited Feb 5 at 18:01
Peter Mortensen
30527
answered Feb 4 at 19:29
niels nielsenniels nielsen
2,4041515
$endgroup$
10
$begingroup$
It's not really expensive, at least at acquisition time. "Tungsten markets for $25 to $45 per pound depending on the form of the metal" "Depleted uranium costs $5 per pound from old stockpiles" and lead is $1 per pound. DU likes to burn so I hope one would use it in oxide form. Being a very heavy metal doing nasty things to biological systems (Uranium Babies are horrendous) and somewhat radioactive, use gloves when handling. Do not inhale. Dispose at specialized municipal waste recycling centers.
$endgroup$
– David Tonhofer
Feb 4 at 20:57
2
$begingroup$
@DavidTonhofer, thanks for this, the maintenance techs on the C-5 were "on the clock" when working in proximity to the DU counterweights and had to cycle out after a certain number of hours which I cannot remember...
$endgroup$
– niels nielsen
Feb 4 at 23:48
3
$begingroup$
It's not super radioactive, not that I'd want to handle it all that much. I'd rather have to worry about a block of DU than, say, a radon build up or dust from uranium ore processing. I've read that the heavy metal toxicity of uranium will kill you long before the radiation exposure, chemical toxicity estimates put it on a similar LD50 to DDT and MDMA, not all that lethal but still not something to mess with lightly.
$endgroup$
– Kaithar
Feb 5 at 3:27
4
$begingroup$
Indeed. Consider also this C-5A fact: its main landing gear bogies are cast from beryllium, to save weight. this metal is so severely notch-sensitive for fatigue failure that there are NO radii in the structure less than 12" and the entire assembly is coated with a THICK layer of paint. Why? Because the oxides of beryllium, when inhaled, cause berylosis, a deadly disease. For this reason, maintenance techs on the C-5 are on the clock anytime they are in the main wheel wells, to minimize beryllium exposure via scratches in the paint...
$endgroup$
– niels nielsen
Feb 5 at 3:40
1
$begingroup$
@DavidTonhofer - Formula 1 cars used depleted uranium for ballast until sometime around 2001. It was disallowed not because of the toxicity, but because of cost. By the time teams got the depleted uranium, it cost about 7500 (US dollars) per kilogram. A team supporting 3 cars at around 22 kg of ballast per car would end up spending close to 500,000 (US dollars).
$endgroup$
– rcgldr
Feb 5 at 15:29
|
show 2 more comments
9
$begingroup$
That material is dangerous and expensive. It is used only in special situations where the design requirements are stringent and heavily constrained.
For example, the C-5A cargo plane used depleted uranium (DU) to counterweight its main control surfaces.
edited Feb 5 at 18:01
Peter Mortensen
30527
answered Feb 4 at 19:29
niels nielsenniels nielsen
2,4041515
$endgroup$
10
$begingroup$
It's not really expensive, at least at acquisition time. "Tungsten markets for $25 to $45 per pound depending on the form of the metal" "Depleted uranium costs $5 per pound from old stockpiles" and lead is $1 per pound. DU likes to burn so I hope one would use it in oxide form. Being a very heavy metal doing nasty things to biological systems (Uranium Babies are horrendous) and somewhat radioactive, use gloves when handling. Do not inhale. Dispose at specialized municipal waste recycling centers.
$endgroup$
– David Tonhofer
Feb 4 at 20:57
2
$begingroup$
@DavidTonhofer, thanks for this, the maintenance techs on the C-5 were "on the clock" when working in proximity to the DU counterweights and had to cycle out after a certain number of hours which I cannot remember...
$endgroup$
– niels nielsen
Feb 4 at 23:48
3
$begingroup$
It's not super radioactive, not that I'd want to handle it all that much. I'd rather have to worry about a block of DU than, say, a radon build up or dust from uranium ore processing. I've read that the heavy metal toxicity of uranium will kill you long before the radiation exposure, chemical toxicity estimates put it on a similar LD50 to DDT and MDMA, not all that lethal but still not something to mess with lightly.
$endgroup$
– Kaithar
Feb 5 at 3:27
4
$begingroup$
Indeed. Consider also this C-5A fact: its main landing gear bogies are cast from beryllium, to save weight. this metal is so severely notch-sensitive for fatigue failure that there are NO radii in the structure less than 12" and the entire assembly is coated with a THICK layer of paint. Why? Because the oxides of beryllium, when inhaled, cause berylosis, a deadly disease. For this reason, maintenance techs on the C-5 are on the clock anytime they are in the main wheel wells, to minimize beryllium exposure via scratches in the paint...
$endgroup$
– niels nielsen
Feb 5 at 3:40
1
$begingroup$
@DavidTonhofer - Formula 1 cars used depleted uranium for ballast until sometime around 2001. It was disallowed not because of the toxicity, but because of cost. By the time teams got the depleted uranium, it cost about 7500 (US dollars) per kilogram. A team supporting 3 cars at around 22 kg of ballast per car would end up spending close to 500,000 (US dollars).
$endgroup$
– rcgldr
Feb 5 at 15:29
|
show 2 more comments
9
9
9
$begingroup$
That material is dangerous and expensive. It is used only in special situations where the design requirements are stringent and heavily constrained.
For example, the C-5A cargo plane used depleted uranium (DU) to counterweight its main control surfaces.
edited Feb 5 at 18:01
Peter Mortensen
30527
answered Feb 4 at 19:29
niels nielsenniels nielsen
2,4041515
$endgroup$
That material is dangerous and expensive. It is used only in special situations where the design requirements are stringent and heavily constrained.
For example, the C-5A cargo plane used depleted uranium (DU) to counterweight its main control surfaces.
edited Feb 5 at 18:01
Peter Mortensen
30527
answered Feb 4 at 19:29
niels nielsenniels nielsen
2,4041515
edited Feb 5 at 18:01
Peter Mortensen
30527
edited Feb 5 at 18:01
Peter Mortensen
30527
edited Feb 5 at 18:01
Peter Mortensen
30527
30527
answered Feb 4 at 19:29
niels nielsenniels nielsen
2,4041515
answered Feb 4 at 19:29
niels nielsenniels nielsen
2,4041515
answered Feb 4 at 19:29
niels nielsenniels nielsen
2,4041515
2,4041515
10
$begingroup$
It's not really expensive, at least at acquisition time. "Tungsten markets for $25 to $45 per pound depending on the form of the metal" "Depleted uranium costs $5 per pound from old stockpiles" and lead is $1 per pound. DU likes to burn so I hope one would use it in oxide form. Being a very heavy metal doing nasty things to biological systems (Uranium Babies are horrendous) and somewhat radioactive, use gloves when handling. Do not inhale. Dispose at specialized municipal waste recycling centers.
$endgroup$
– David Tonhofer
Feb 4 at 20:57
2
$begingroup$
@DavidTonhofer, thanks for this, the maintenance techs on the C-5 were "on the clock" when working in proximity to the DU counterweights and had to cycle out after a certain number of hours which I cannot remember...
$endgroup$
– niels nielsen
Feb 4 at 23:48
3
$begingroup$
It's not super radioactive, not that I'd want to handle it all that much. I'd rather have to worry about a block of DU than, say, a radon build up or dust from uranium ore processing. I've read that the heavy metal toxicity of uranium will kill you long before the radiation exposure, chemical toxicity estimates put it on a similar LD50 to DDT and MDMA, not all that lethal but still not something to mess with lightly.
$endgroup$
– Kaithar
Feb 5 at 3:27
4
$begingroup$
Indeed. Consider also this C-5A fact: its main landing gear bogies are cast from beryllium, to save weight. this metal is so severely notch-sensitive for fatigue failure that there are NO radii in the structure less than 12" and the entire assembly is coated with a THICK layer of paint. Why? Because the oxides of beryllium, when inhaled, cause berylosis, a deadly disease. For this reason, maintenance techs on the C-5 are on the clock anytime they are in the main wheel wells, to minimize beryllium exposure via scratches in the paint...
$endgroup$
– niels nielsen
Feb 5 at 3:40
1
$begingroup$
@DavidTonhofer - Formula 1 cars used depleted uranium for ballast until sometime around 2001. It was disallowed not because of the toxicity, but because of cost. By the time teams got the depleted uranium, it cost about 7500 (US dollars) per kilogram. A team supporting 3 cars at around 22 kg of ballast per car would end up spending close to 500,000 (US dollars).
$endgroup$
– rcgldr
Feb 5 at 15:29
|
show 2 more comments
10
$begingroup$
It's not really expensive, at least at acquisition time. "Tungsten markets for $25 to $45 per pound depending on the form of the metal" "Depleted uranium costs $5 per pound from old stockpiles" and lead is $1 per pound. DU likes to burn so I hope one would use it in oxide form. Being a very heavy metal doing nasty things to biological systems (Uranium Babies are horrendous) and somewhat radioactive, use gloves when handling. Do not inhale. Dispose at specialized municipal waste recycling centers.
$endgroup$
– David Tonhofer
Feb 4 at 20:57
2
$begingroup$
@DavidTonhofer, thanks for this, the maintenance techs on the C-5 were "on the clock" when working in proximity to the DU counterweights and had to cycle out after a certain number of hours which I cannot remember...
$endgroup$
– niels nielsen
Feb 4 at 23:48
3
$begingroup$
It's not super radioactive, not that I'd want to handle it all that much. I'd rather have to worry about a block of DU than, say, a radon build up or dust from uranium ore processing. I've read that the heavy metal toxicity of uranium will kill you long before the radiation exposure, chemical toxicity estimates put it on a similar LD50 to DDT and MDMA, not all that lethal but still not something to mess with lightly.
$endgroup$
– Kaithar
Feb 5 at 3:27
4
$begingroup$
Indeed. Consider also this C-5A fact: its main landing gear bogies are cast from beryllium, to save weight. this metal is so severely notch-sensitive for fatigue failure that there are NO radii in the structure less than 12" and the entire assembly is coated with a THICK layer of paint. Why? Because the oxides of beryllium, when inhaled, cause berylosis, a deadly disease. For this reason, maintenance techs on the C-5 are on the clock anytime they are in the main wheel wells, to minimize beryllium exposure via scratches in the paint...
$endgroup$
– niels nielsen
Feb 5 at 3:40
1
$begingroup$
@DavidTonhofer - Formula 1 cars used depleted uranium for ballast until sometime around 2001. It was disallowed not because of the toxicity, but because of cost. By the time teams got the depleted uranium, it cost about 7500 (US dollars) per kilogram. A team supporting 3 cars at around 22 kg of ballast per car would end up spending close to 500,000 (US dollars).
$endgroup$
– rcgldr
Feb 5 at 15:29
10
10
$begingroup$
It's not really expensive, at least at acquisition time. "Tungsten markets for $25 to $45 per pound depending on the form of the metal" "Depleted uranium costs $5 per pound from old stockpiles" and lead is $1 per pound. DU likes to burn so I hope one would use it in oxide form. Being a very heavy metal doing nasty things to biological systems (Uranium Babies are horrendous) and somewhat radioactive, use gloves when handling. Do not inhale. Dispose at specialized municipal waste recycling centers.
$endgroup$
– David Tonhofer
Feb 4 at 20:57
$begingroup$
It's not really expensive, at least at acquisition time. "Tungsten markets for $25 to $45 per pound depending on the form of the metal" "Depleted uranium costs $5 per pound from old stockpiles" and lead is $1 per pound. DU likes to burn so I hope one would use it in oxide form. Being a very heavy metal doing nasty things to biological systems (Uranium Babies are horrendous) and somewhat radioactive, use gloves when handling. Do not inhale. Dispose at specialized municipal waste recycling centers.
$endgroup$
– David Tonhofer
Feb 4 at 20:57
2
2
$begingroup$
@DavidTonhofer, thanks for this, the maintenance techs on the C-5 were "on the clock" when working in proximity to the DU counterweights and had to cycle out after a certain number of hours which I cannot remember...
$endgroup$
– niels nielsen
Feb 4 at 23:48
$begingroup$
@DavidTonhofer, thanks for this, the maintenance techs on the C-5 were "on the clock" when working in proximity to the DU counterweights and had to cycle out after a certain number of hours which I cannot remember...
$endgroup$
– niels nielsen
Feb 4 at 23:48
3
3
$begingroup$
It's not super radioactive, not that I'd want to handle it all that much. I'd rather have to worry about a block of DU than, say, a radon build up or dust from uranium ore processing. I've read that the heavy metal toxicity of uranium will kill you long before the radiation exposure, chemical toxicity estimates put it on a similar LD50 to DDT and MDMA, not all that lethal but still not something to mess with lightly.
$endgroup$
– Kaithar
Feb 5 at 3:27
$begingroup$
It's not super radioactive, not that I'd want to handle it all that much. I'd rather have to worry about a block of DU than, say, a radon build up or dust from uranium ore processing. I've read that the heavy metal toxicity of uranium will kill you long before the radiation exposure, chemical toxicity estimates put it on a similar LD50 to DDT and MDMA, not all that lethal but still not something to mess with lightly.
$endgroup$
– Kaithar
Feb 5 at 3:27
4
4
$begingroup$
Indeed. Consider also this C-5A fact: its main landing gear bogies are cast from beryllium, to save weight. this metal is so severely notch-sensitive for fatigue failure that there are NO radii in the structure less than 12" and the entire assembly is coated with a THICK layer of paint. Why? Because the oxides of beryllium, when inhaled, cause berylosis, a deadly disease. For this reason, maintenance techs on the C-5 are on the clock anytime they are in the main wheel wells, to minimize beryllium exposure via scratches in the paint...
$endgroup$
– niels nielsen
Feb 5 at 3:40
$begingroup$
Indeed. Consider also this C-5A fact: its main landing gear bogies are cast from beryllium, to save weight. this metal is so severely notch-sensitive for fatigue failure that there are NO radii in the structure less than 12" and the entire assembly is coated with a THICK layer of paint. Why? Because the oxides of beryllium, when inhaled, cause berylosis, a deadly disease. For this reason, maintenance techs on the C-5 are on the clock anytime they are in the main wheel wells, to minimize beryllium exposure via scratches in the paint...
$endgroup$
– niels nielsen
Feb 5 at 3:40
1
1
$begingroup$
@DavidTonhofer - Formula 1 cars used depleted uranium for ballast until sometime around 2001. It was disallowed not because of the toxicity, but because of cost. By the time teams got the depleted uranium, it cost about 7500 (US dollars) per kilogram. A team supporting 3 cars at around 22 kg of ballast per car would end up spending close to 500,000 (US dollars).
$endgroup$
– rcgldr
Feb 5 at 15:29
$begingroup$
@DavidTonhofer - Formula 1 cars used depleted uranium for ballast until sometime around 2001. It was disallowed not because of the toxicity, but because of cost. By the time teams got the depleted uranium, it cost about 7500 (US dollars) per kilogram. A team supporting 3 cars at around 22 kg of ballast per car would end up spending close to 500,000 (US dollars).
$endgroup$
– rcgldr
Feb 5 at 15:29
|
show 2 more comments
draft saved
draft discarded
Thanks for contributing an answer to Aviation Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f59811%2fdo-all-aircraft-carry-depleted-uranium-as-counterweights%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
10
$begingroup$
Related: What is the reasoning behind using depleted uranium as counterweights in the 747?, most of the counterweights were replaced with tungsten, so no, most aircraft don't use DU weights.
$endgroup$
– Ron Beyer
Feb 4 at 14:53
1
$begingroup$
You don’t need anything that exotic; Steel or tungsten will work just fine for that role
$endgroup$
– Carlo Felicione
Feb 4 at 18:35
2
$begingroup$
Counterweight to what? I've never noticed any in my 1973 Cessna single engine 4 seater.
$endgroup$
– CrossRoads
Feb 4 at 18:55
2
$begingroup$
@CrossRoads - Why are “counterweights” used in aircraft production?
$endgroup$
– ymb1
Feb 4 at 19:23
$begingroup$
I suspect small aircraft just use a big chunk of shaped lead, and not depleted uranium. That would be a nightmare for A/Ps out in the field if any trimming was needed for example. My parts manual does not appear to say what the parts are made out of.
$endgroup$
– CrossRoads
Feb 4 at 19:45