If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Q: Buddy store internal fuel?
I was just wondering if any buddy stores carried internal
fuel,or if all the internal space was taken up by the drogue, hose and reel, pump, etc. I have conflicting sources, so hopefully those here with personal experience can give me the straight skinny. If you can mention the particular model(s) you're familiar with (if you remember) and its capacity (if any), that would help. TIA, Guy |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Guy Alcala" wrote in message . .. I was just wondering if any buddy stores carried internal fuel,or if all the internal space was taken up by the drogue, hose and reel, pump, etc. I have conflicting sources, so hopefully those here with personal experience can give me the straight skinny. If you can mention the particular model(s) you're familiar with (if you remember) and its capacity (if any), that would help. TIA, Guy The Douglas D-704 has internal fuel storage- I don't recall the capacity. What I do recall is how much of a b*tch it is to change the internal components (such as a float switch). |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"MikeR" wrote in
: "Guy Alcala" wrote in message . .. I was just wondering if any buddy stores carried internal fuel,or if all the internal space was taken up by the drogue, hose and reel, pump, etc. I have conflicting sources, so hopefully those here with personal experience can give me the straight skinny. If you can mention the particular model(s) you're familiar with (if you remember) and its capacity (if any), that would help. TIA, Guy The Douglas D-704 has internal fuel storage- I don't recall the capacity. What I do recall is how much of a b*tch it is to change the internal components (such as a float switch). Can't find any good data on the D-704, but the newer Sargent Fletchers hold 300 gallons of internal fuel. Dave in San Diego |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Here is the link to the current one's producer web page:
http://www.sargentfletcher.com/ars_charact.htm If you type "buddy refueling store" to search this ng, you can find another quite a lovely thread about that. Dave is right: 300 gallons. It sounds great, bearing in mind the fact that a standard F/A-18C external fuel tank is ONLY 330 gallons. Now, when F/A-18E/F carry four 480-gall. tanks plus one ARS, it is called a "five-wet" configuration. Reportedly, they can transfer up to 12,000 lb of fuel, being better than Viking in speed and self-defence capability, though (as all Hornets) still suffering from a short loiter time. Best regards, Jacek Zemlo |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Peter Stickney wrote:
In article , Guy Alcala writes: I was just wondering if any buddy stores carried internal fuel,or if all the internal space was taken up by the drogue, hose and reel, pump, etc. I have conflicting sources, so hopefully those here with personal experience can give me the straight skinny. If you can mention the particular model(s) you're familiar with (if you remember) and its capacity (if any), that would help. Guy, According to the Station Loading charts in my F-4J NATOPS, the D-704 has an Empty Weight of 733#, and a Full Weight of 2773#. Sounds like there's a shade over 2,000# of fuel in it. For JP-5 that would work out to 300 U.S. Gallons. Gotta add this since ya mentioned the F-4J...When in VF-151, we had one bird with wing tanks and Fox 'have ya seen my moovie' Farrell strapped a D-704 on the centerline and had one Phantom tank from another. Then did a fly by on the Midway-maru. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Guy Alcala writes: I was just wondering if any buddy stores carried internal fuel,or if all the internal space was taken up by the drogue, hose and reel, pump, etc. I have conflicting sources, so hopefully those here with personal experience can give me the straight skinny. If you can mention the particular model(s) you're familiar with (if you remember) and its capacity (if any), that would help. Guy, According to the Station Loading charts in my F-4J NATOPS, the D-704 has an Empty Weight of 733#, and a Full Weight of 2773#. Sounds like there's a shade over 2,000# of fuel in it. For JP-5 that would work out to 300 U.S. Gallons. -- Pete Stickney Without data, all you have are opinions |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Peter's calculations are a reminder that it is the weight that counts, not
the gallonage. And more specifically, how many BTUs/pound you can get from your fuel choice (more = better, usually). This is why the world has never seen a commercially-viable coal-fueled aircraft, old Aeroflot jokes notwithstanding. ISTR that 2,000 lbs. of JP-5 was the correct capacity for either the D-704 or the Sargeant Fletcher but it's been many years now... -- Mike Kanze "One phrase that no Member of Congress should ever use lightly is 'political hack.' The ironic possibilities are too rich." - Wall Street Journal (3/7/05) "Peter Stickney" wrote in message ... In article , Guy Alcala writes: I was just wondering if any buddy stores carried internal fuel,or if all the internal space was taken up by the drogue, hose and reel, pump, etc. I have conflicting sources, so hopefully those here with personal experience can give me the straight skinny. If you can mention the particular model(s) you're familiar with (if you remember) and its capacity (if any), that would help. Guy, According to the Station Loading charts in my F-4J NATOPS, the D-704 has an Empty Weight of 733#, and a Full Weight of 2773#. Sounds like there's a shade over 2,000# of fuel in it. For JP-5 that would work out to 300 U.S. Gallons. -- Pete Stickney Without data, all you have are opinions |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
You mentioned Aeroflot: Now I am living quite near to Warsaw Airport.
Getting used to the metalic and rattling sound of GE engines. But still what makes me stand stil and look to the sky are the take-offs of these noisy Russian Tu-154Ms, with this beautiful loud whistle and smoke trail in the air;-) Best regards, Jacek Zemlo |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Mike Kanze" writes: Peter's calculations are a reminder that it is the weight that counts, not the gallonage. And more specifically, how many BTUs/pound you can get from your fuel choice (more = better, usually). This is why the world has never seen a commercially-viable coal-fueled aircraft, old Aeroflot jokes notwithstanding. Just so. All hydrocarbon fuels have about the same energy content - something around 18,000 BTU/lb. Since the jet's fuel controller is figuring stuff out by the amount of heat produced, it just stuffs the fuel in until it's hot enough. Early on, the Navy ran their jets on AVGAS. The carriers already had bunkerage for that, and they didn't need to add a new supply chain - that meant modifying not only the carrier's internals, but also the tankers and replenishment ships that fed them. There were a few problems though. AVGAS has a desity of 'bout 6.0 lbs/U.S. Gallon. JP-4 (Jet-B) is about 6.5 lbs/gal, and JP-5 (JET-A) is about 6.7 - that means that an AVGAS powered jet is going to have 90% of the range of the same airplane burning Kerosine. Casoline's a much more serious fire/explosion hazard. The high lead content of 115/145 AVGAS also played hell with the burners and turbine section. Biting the bullet, and switching to JP-5 was a big win. Especially since you could run the ship's boilers on JP-5 as well, giving you a lot more bunkerage, and a single supply line. There were a number of tricks played in the early days of jets to increase the density of fuel - a favorite, used in the jet cross-country attempts in the early 1950s (Bendix races, * such) was to put cans of Dry Ice into the fuel tankers used to refuel the jets at their intermeddiate stops. The chilled fuel was more dense, and you'd squeeze just enough extra Cubic BTUs into the tanks that it would essentially make up for the fuel used for takeoff. -- Pete Stickney Without data, all you have are opinions |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Peter,
Thanks for the additional perspective. I recall seeing a photo long ago of a P2V-1 (?) being fueled for a very long range flight. The fuel lines from the bowser to the aircraft were all packed in dry ice for the same reason. -- Mike Kanze "One phrase that no Member of Congress should ever use lightly is 'political hack.' The ironic possibilities are too rich." - Wall Street Journal (3/7/05) "Peter Stickney" wrote in message ... In article , "Mike Kanze" writes: Peter's calculations are a reminder that it is the weight that counts, not the gallonage. And more specifically, how many BTUs/pound you can get from your fuel choice (more = better, usually). This is why the world has never seen a commercially-viable coal-fueled aircraft, old Aeroflot jokes notwithstanding. Just so. All hydrocarbon fuels have about the same energy content - something around 18,000 BTU/lb. Since the jet's fuel controller is figuring stuff out by the amount of heat produced, it just stuffs the fuel in until it's hot enough. Early on, the Navy ran their jets on AVGAS. The carriers already had bunkerage for that, and they didn't need to add a new supply chain - that meant modifying not only the carrier's internals, but also the tankers and replenishment ships that fed them. There were a few problems though. AVGAS has a desity of 'bout 6.0 lbs/U.S. Gallon. JP-4 (Jet-B) is about 6.5 lbs/gal, and JP-5 (JET-A) is about 6.7 - that means that an AVGAS powered jet is going to have 90% of the range of the same airplane burning Kerosine. Casoline's a much more serious fire/explosion hazard. The high lead content of 115/145 AVGAS also played hell with the burners and turbine section. Biting the bullet, and switching to JP-5 was a big win. Especially since you could run the ship's boilers on JP-5 as well, giving you a lot more bunkerage, and a single supply line. There were a number of tricks played in the early days of jets to increase the density of fuel - a favorite, used in the jet cross-country attempts in the early 1950s (Bendix races, * such) was to put cans of Dry Ice into the fuel tankers used to refuel the jets at their intermeddiate stops. The chilled fuel was more dense, and you'd squeeze just enough extra Cubic BTUs into the tanks that it would essentially make up for the fuel used for takeoff. -- Pete Stickney Without data, all you have are opinions |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Funky place to store your fuel? | BllFs6 | Home Built | 5 | August 23rd 04 01:27 AM |
Is Your Airplane Susceptible To Mis Fu eling? A Simple Test For Fuel Contamination. | Nathan Young | Piloting | 4 | June 14th 04 06:13 PM |
faith in the fuel delivery infrastructure | Chris Hoffmann | Piloting | 12 | April 3rd 04 01:55 AM |
Yo! Fuel Tank! | Veeduber | Home Built | 15 | October 25th 03 02:57 AM |
Long-range Spitfires and daylight Bomber Command raids (was: #1 Jet of World War II) | The Revolution Will Not Be Televised | Military Aviation | 20 | August 27th 03 09:14 AM |