The climate change movement: July 28, 1995 to August 14, 2020 RIP

[Piotrsko]

Afaik, also transfer fore and aft if equipped with those tanks, but airbus only has wing tanks. they can go rearward by transferring out towards the wing ends. Nose up is required for positive incidence, flying wings are only more efficient because they have fewer parts attached to the fuselage, (rudder and elevator intersection drag) they still need positive incidence.

[redpoint5]

Everything I learned on the subject in this video. Relevant part at 8 minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59A8-rKRs-0

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by Piotrsko

Should be some aircraft actually taking off over max and tail heavy, but it would be hard to prove.

I was taught planning loading of transport aircraft at Ft. Eustis, VA. That's why I was especially saddened by the time a tank cut loose from it's moorings enroute out of Bagram airport.

Not reposting the video, but it's out there.

[Piotrsko]

You were a cargomaster? If so I bow before your obviously superior skillset.

I liked the comment from ATC on the C17 with people crammed everywhere onboard during the Afgan exit fracas: "You have 600 people on board? Nice job on takeoff"

I was trying to estimate the gross of that load, but ended up thinking it was just plain overweight. Maybe not since it will do 170,000 lbs so about 300 lbs per person allowable.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Piotrsko

We got 3 to 6 ft of what we call Sierra Cement on the upper parts of the local Sierras. pretty much an equivelant to solid ice and it hasnt been warm enough during the day to affect it significantly as the lakes and rivers have reduced flows again.

Btw: 100,000 gallons of jet fuel exceeds the weight carrying capacity of a 747 and commercial aircraft fuel is bought in pounds not gallons, at least when I was thinking of becoming a piss pumper at the airport couple of years back.

It was kind of a SWAG.
When President Clinton was in office, he would fly to California in Air Force One for a haircut, and visit his daughter Chelsea while there.
A journalist commented at the time that, the round trip from D.C. would consume, on the order of 50,000-gallons of jet fuel.
If true, then 100,000 for a round trip to Scotland seemed reasonable.
Tele-conferencing would seem a more 'convincing' behavior for anyone who actually understood where carbon dioxide comes from.
GOOGLE gives 10-to-11 metric tonnes / hour for a 747, at cruise altitude, trim, and velocity. And a maximum takeoff fuel capacity of 238,604- liters, or, 63,032-gallons, for 7,790- nautical miles range. The Jet-Stream velocity and direction would have to be figured in.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Always and everywhere, like pilots speaking English? I thought there was an aircraft lost when they confused kilograms and pounds.

In the US military, the fuel is dispensed in 'gallons.'
Aircraft can only hold a known quantity of fuel, even allowing for auxiliary fuel storage.
Aside from an allowance for the fuels thermal expansion coefficient, a 'full tank' of fuel would equate directly to 'pounds.'
I was a 'Fuel Specialist' in the USAF. In the single 4-year stint that I did, I never experienced, or ever heard of an aircraft refueling which did not involve a complete 'filling' of the aircraft. Wings, tip-tanks, belly tanks, drop-tanks.
Water vapor can condense and freeze inside an aircraft fuel tank, despite fuel system icing inhibitor ( 'fizzy' ) being an integral part of the fuel.
In addition, there are bacteria which thrive inside aircraft fuel cells, capable of downing an aircraft.
One of the first things you learn in tech school is to, 'drain the sumps.'
Same for crew chiefs.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Measured in weight because monitoring volume is more difficult? Expansion and contraction problems?

Yes, thermal expansion / contraction.
Imagine leaving Dallas / Ft Worth on a 110-degree day, and ascending within minutes to 41,000-feet ,where it's minus-68-degrees.
Even with what seems like an insignificant coefficient of thermal expansion, it's a matter of life and death to 'know' how much fuel you have. Mass won't lie. Volume may.
A reason why internal combustion engines are rated at 'pounds per horsepower-hour' , not gallons.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by Piotrsko

You were a cargomaster? If so I bow before your obviously superior skillset.

Transportation officer. I never loaded a plane in anger.

I was assigned to a Civil Affairs company, so I also learned about running train switchyards and telephone interchanges at Ft. Lewis, WA.

[Piotrsko]

If aerohead was a refueler, did he train at Chanute?

Combat and SAC are setup to be fully fueled all the time. Kick the tires, lite the fires, andGO! Transport and commercial not so much since it leaves more capacity for cargo.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Piotrsko

If aerohead was a refueler, did he train at Chanute?

Combat and SAC are setup to be fully fueled all the time. Kick the tires, lite the fires, andGO! Transport and commercial not so much since it leaves more capacity for cargo.

yeppers! Then off to South-Side Juice-Jockeys, 366th Fighter Wing, DaNang AB, Vietnam, Base-X Thailand, and the rest at Eddy's Airplane Patch, Mojave, CA..