Alleged jet fuel capacities/efficiencies

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest

Re: Alleged jet fuel capacities/efficiencies

Postby Penelope on Fri Mar 09, 2018 8:16 pm

Re: In Plane Sight.
Post by Altair on March 1st, 2018, 12:05 am

In any case, if the fuel is in plastic containers... why on earth does the girl in the video get into a wing for sealing the joints with a spray? Even more, how would they fit the containers into the wing once it is already mounted?

The fuel in the wings is confined to sections of the wings that are lined with plastic, possibly CFRP, a carbon reinforced plastic, as it could then serve as further strength-reinforcement. When the top is put on the wing all four plastic surfaces of each tank are joined.

You can see the interior of the tanks, the partitions that lessen shifting of fuel when the plane banks, etc here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giEMzfmQoqs
Penelope
Member
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:48 am

Re: Alleged jet fuel capacities/efficiencies

Postby scud on Fri Mar 09, 2018 8:29 pm

Hi Penelope, thanks for the response and yeah, I largely agree with your workings.

I’m certainly not in agreement with the makers of the videos linked; in that...‘Well, I’m suspicious of the claimed fuel capacity therefore these planes don’t carry fuel at all and must run on compressed air instead’.
I think I have a reasonable understanding of the said workings of the gas turbine engine and don’t have a problem with it.

But, I guess this subject kind of peaked my interest as it were, as I was lucky enough to fly on the A380 shortly after it came into service. I remember googling it way back because it was just such an astonishing machine and indeed the colossal fuel capacity figures were the one thing that I liked to repeat to my long suffering wife..

‘Hey. Did you know (pointing to one of those massive 30,000 liter garage forecourt re-fueler trucks) that the A380 can carry almost eleven of those?’

‘No!’

‘Yep, sure do’.


Anyway, putting on my ‘clues hat’ (which often gets left behind in the daily routine) the videos did at least make me question what I’d always taken as read, especially the weight of all this liquid, its movement as the plane banks and tilts and my own personal question as to why the engines sound no more labored at the beginning of cruise altitude as they do at the end.
Then there is the lack of info’ available. There are seemingly no ‘tanks’ as such, literally just the voids between the spars of the wing and the skin of the aircraft which as Altair points out seems ‘a stretch’ for a number of reasons.

Of course, we are both ‘guesstimating’ the volume of any given wing because there isn’t sufficient info available to make an accurate calculation. But I have an idea! Assuming that scale models of aircraft are indeed ‘scale’ to the real thing I thought I might try a water displacement test, whereby we submerse a wing of say, a model Airbus A380 1:50 into a jar of water, note the displaced volume then scale it back up to what we’re told...dunno, probably a worthless exercise but might be interesting nonetheless.
scud
Member
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 5:56 pm

Re: Alleged jet fuel capacities/efficiencies

Postby scud on Fri Mar 09, 2018 8:35 pm

I forgot to add a thanks to admin for changing the title to something that actually describes the subject!

A super weekend to everyone.
scud
Member
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 5:56 pm

Re: Alleged jet fuel capacities/efficiencies

Postby Penelope on Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:00 pm

Yes, Altair, my interest was quite piqued too, about your question regarding whether we could actually substantiate this river of fuel.

Re: Alleged jet fuel capacities/efficiencies
Post by scud » March 9th, 2018, 12:29 pm

Then there is the lack of info’ available. There are seemingly no ‘tanks’ as such, literally just the voids between the spars of the wing and the skin of the aircraft which as Altair points out seems ‘a stretch’ for a number of reasons.

You mean that it would be difficult to join plastic surfaces and make them fluid-tight? That part didn't bother me. Take a look at the link above that shows a guy crawling around within the plastic or plasticized tank, if you haven't seen one like it already.

I envy your trip on the 380. I should like to just walk through and then around it (preferably on a stepladder). Fantastic machine. No wonder people don't believe its faculties as advertised.

You might consider visiting an air museum. Some of them have retired, larger DC planes.

I think the reduction in noise was originally from adding a fan, which has now had its blades modified in shape for less wind turbulence. Pity we've not been able to fine-tune our political system with such success. I come to engineering questions looking for something clean, as even science has become corrupt.
Penelope
Member
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:48 am

Re: Alleged jet fuel capacities/efficiencies

Postby Penelope on Sat Mar 10, 2018 4:56 am

Sorry, Scud. Mention to address that last post to you.

To address the likelihood of engine-noise reflecting laboring with a heavier fuel-burden:

Say that the A380 is at its max takeoff weight of 575 Tons. Less its empty wt of 276 Tons, its passengers cargo & fuel is about 300 Tons total load. If it's airborn for 5 hours x 14 Tons fuel/hr, the total load is reduced from 300 to 230 tons. Will the engine "notice" this reduction?
Not really, because it is also lifting the empty-plane weight throughout.

So at takeoff the engines were lifting 575 Tons and after 5 hours are still lifting 505 Tons, a difference of only about 12% weight. Of course there might be a difference in engine noise w a 10-hr flight. What a spectacular flying object!
Penelope
Member
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:48 am

Re: Alleged jet fuel capacities/efficiencies

Postby scud on Tue Mar 27, 2018 4:54 pm

I think this is the most convincing vid I've seen so far on this subject..

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7dvikX7ZkQ
Do I agree with his conclusions? Well, I'd say it's kind of difficult not to.

I do like this chaps work (though his channels are routinely wiped by YT censors).
Here's another recent one (that agrees with the fundamental SC premise of media fakery concerning 9/11) whilst also making a link with the 'jet fuel' question..

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCnzlwNpR2E
scud
Member
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 5:56 pm

Re: Alleged jet fuel capacities/efficiencies

Postby Penelope on Wed Mar 28, 2018 2:01 am

Hi, Scud. Odd that the video maker didn't discover that the wings are compartmented so that the fuel doesn't just slosh dangerously while the plane banks. Any of the videos that show people walking & crawling around in the tanks show the partitions. He seems actually to think that the fuel is free to run from wingtip to wingtip, as if the tanks aren't even separate.

He also mentions that he thinks the fueled wings should change shape. They do when the outer tanks are filled-- which is why they almost never are. The outer tanks are usually empty on take-off, reducing the fuel load to 219,640 kg total for the wings, after subtracting the trim tank and outer wing tank from the total.

However, the wings actually support more than the weight of their fuel and the engines. Together with the tailplane (which has a "wing" area as large as the 320 if I remember correctly) the wings must also support the entire cabin with its payload. That is, I believe all the lift is concentrated on the wings and the tailplane wings, no?

I know the empty wingtips can bend up as much as 4 meters in turbulence. They don't bend as much in normal climb-out and cruise, but nevertheless fuel from the trimtank is gradually pumped into the wingtip tanks. It's helpful on takeoff to have more weight back there, but better in flight to have the fuel closer to the center of gravity.

Actually, the 380 has a lower proportion of fuel than other big planes; in most the fuel is 50% of weight, but it's only 44% in the 380.

The video maker's main point is that the wings can support the main cabin, its payload, and the fuel in the trim tank, but cannot also support the 240 tons of fuel in the wings-- which is about 38% of the total weight.

So he feels he can look at the wings and say, "they and the tailplane can support 62% of what we are being told they are supporting, but not the additional 38% of filling the wing tanks." And he can tell this without considering anything structural about the wings, without looking at the factory films, without considering how they're made, without even familiarizing himself enough with the tanks to know that there are partitions?!

Frankly, I smell a rat. There is a push on to discredit anyone who is questioning the way things are, or revealing wrongdoing or fakery. I have watched several formerly valuable sites become victims of flat earth, etc.

Interesting question, Scud, but I'd need something a whole lot more credible than this.
Penelope
Member
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:48 am

Re: Alleged jet fuel capacities/efficiencies

Postby Flabbergasted on Wed Mar 28, 2018 2:11 pm

Penelope wrote:Frankly, I smell a rat.

As interesting as it may be, I agree that the combination of the easily proved/disproved "jet fuel hoax" and the "911 CGI picture show" is disquietingly reminiscent of the FE DBA strategy.
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 753
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Previous

Return to THE LIVING ROOM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests