Edwards air show B-1 speed record attempt

"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

Why would you buy fuel by volume in a high reliability sysetm driven by
weight? (mass)

Because virtually all fuel dispensing systems in common use at airports measure
volume, not mass or weight.

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:Cwemb.19132$e01.35959@attbi_s02...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

Why would you buy fuel by volume in a high reliability sysetm driven by
weight? (mass)

Because virtually all fuel dispensing systems in common use at airports
measure
volume, not mass or weight.

Non-sequitur.

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:Ymemb.18772$Fm2.9572@attbi_s04...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

Aircraft buy fuel by weight,

Nope. The aircraft don't do any buying at all.

OK, some trash haulers have someone else service their airplane before they
fly.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

Why would you buy fuel by volume in a high reliability sysetm driven by
weight? (mass)

Because virtually all fuel dispensing systems in common use at airports
measure volume, not mass or weight.

Non-sequitur.

Typical BS response from someone who obviously cannot substantiate his original
premise.

In over 30 years of general and commercial aviation, I have NEVER purchased or
signed for fuel that was dispensed and valued on other than a volume (per gallon
or per liter) basis. That is why I, another pilot, or an airline company
"would... buy fuel by volume."

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:Nwhmb.19463$Tr4.40153@attbi_s03...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

Why would you buy fuel by volume in a high reliability sysetm driven
by
weight? (mass)

Because virtually all fuel dispensing systems in common use at
airports
measure volume, not mass or weight.

Non-sequitur.

Typical BS response from someone who obviously cannot substantiate his
original
premise.

In over 30 years of general and commercial aviation, I have NEVER
purchased or
signed for fuel that was dispensed and valued on other than a volume (per
gallon
or per liter) basis. That is why I, another pilot, or an airline company
"would... buy fuel by volume."

And you start with pounds as the basis and convert to have the fuel vended,
no matter what units of volume are used. Then the weight of the airplane is
checked to see if the fuel got onboard.

So, the FE begins with a takeoff weight, calculates the fuel to be ordered
and leaves the weight on the dash for the pilot to cross check.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

And you start with pounds as the basis and convert to have the fuel vended,
no matter what units of volume are used. Then the weight of the airplane is
checked to see if the fuel got onboard.

So, the FE begins with a takeoff weight, calculates the fuel to be ordered
and leaves the weight on the dash for the pilot to cross check.

Nope! It is apparent you don't know at all what you are talking about.

In "a high reliability sysetm" such as that in a 777 or 747-400, the fuel vendor
is simply told the "final fuel" figure in kilograms (or pounds, for those so
inclined). The fueler sets that figure on the aircraft fueling panel and starts
the pumps. The aircraft system shuts the inflow valves when it senses the
requested fuel in the tanks.

The pilot does NO conversion of weight to volume prior to fueling. The vendor
does NO conversion of weight to volume. The vendor produces a receipt that
shows delivered fuel in gallons and/or liters ONLY.

There is no FE in the loop in most current "high reliability [systems]." There
is NO calculation of "fuel to be ordered" -- there is only a calculation of
"final fuel" required.

After the fact, the receiver of the fuel may perform a verification procedure to
ensure the fuel delivered, as shown on the receipt, is accurate. That is the
only time any volume-to-weight conversion is done.

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:_Bimb.21153$HS4.74853@attbi_s01...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

And you start with pounds as the basis and convert to have the fuel
vended,
no matter what units of volume are used. Then the weight of the
airplane is
checked to see if the fuel got onboard.

So, the FE begins with a takeoff weight, calculates the fuel to be
ordered
and leaves the weight on the dash for the pilot to cross check.

Nope! It is apparent you don't know at all what you are talking about.

In "a high reliability sysetm" such as that in a 777 or 747-400, the fuel
vendor
is simply told the "final fuel" figure in kilograms

My goodness Weiss, you mean what I wrote in the first place is completely
correct. At least my explanation of the process leaves the glider 767
safety report as a possibility.

What an asshole you are, Weiss.

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:12:12 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Gene Nygaard" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 08:15:17 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Gene Nygaard" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:46:36 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:

snip
Why not "pounds", like an aircraft?

Because there are too many engineers too stupid to understand the
simple fact that those pounds are, by definition, units of mass
exactly equal to 0.45359237 kg.

I find it unlikely that there are many engineers that can not operate a
calculator.

Show me a calculator that will figure out *which* pounds are being
used, so that they get converted correctly.

Aircraft already have units of measure. Why use different units? Why is
anyone working in NASA Operations that does not know aircraft units?

What you write is a non-sequitur.

You also underestimate the effects of systematic miseducation. The
mere existence of a conversion factor from pounds to kilograms on a
calculator isn't going to undo the fact that some favorite teacher has
drummed into someone's head the notion that pounds are always units of
force and not units of mass, so you can't really convert between
pounds and kilograms. In fact, in today's screwed up world, there are
a number of textbooks which tell you just exactly that.

Why change from the units of aerospace to some other arbitrary set of units
in the first palce?

Because it is the interdisciplinary and International System of Units.
There is no reason to have to learn different units of measure for
each activity we engage in.

Such changes have taken place in the past, of course. But when the
air speed indicators of many aircraft were changed in the second half
of the twentieth century, they weren' t changed to metric. Instead,
they were just changed from one Fred Flintstone unit to another.

That's about as silly as if the United States were to change now from
inches of mercury to millimeters of mercury for altimeter settings.

In my 20 20 hindsight I can say for a fact that
attempting to apply si units to aerospace has come at the cost of confusion
and we are very fortunate to have avoided toumbstones.

In fact, the calculator is the end of any need to change to si
units, as si is a slide rule reality.

Any time you make a conversion, at least other than by factors that
are exact powers of 10, you lose something.

Perhaps, but not enough to matter from an engineering, of operational
standpoint.

Certainly enough to matter.

Often the "something" which you lose is the sense of how precise a
measurement is.

Any time there is a need to make conversions, it is an opportunity for
all sorts of other errors, including misentry of the numbers into the
calculator, transposition of digits in copying the result, or
whatever.

In that case, why stray from what already works and play silly SI games?

Because there is only one way to get rid of the need to do
conversions:

At the present time, however, the metrical system
is the only system known that has the ghost of a
chance of being adopted universally by the world.
-- Alexander Graham Bell,1906

Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/

"Gene Nygaard" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:12:12 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Gene Nygaard" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 08:15:17 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Gene Nygaard" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:46:36 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:

snip
Why not "pounds", like an aircraft?

Because there are too many engineers too stupid to understand the
simple fact that those pounds are, by definition, units of mass
exactly equal to 0.45359237 kg.

I find it unlikely that there are many engineers that can not operate
a
calculator.

Show me a calculator that will figure out *which* pounds are being
used, so that they get converted correctly.

Aircraft already have units of measure. Why use different units? Why is
anyone working in NASA Operations that does not know aircraft units?

What you write is a non-sequitur.

You also underestimate the effects of systematic miseducation. The
mere existence of a conversion factor from pounds to kilograms on a
calculator isn't going to undo the fact that some favorite teacher has
drummed into someone's head the notion that pounds are always units of
force and not units of mass, so you can't really convert between
pounds and kilograms. In fact, in today's screwed up world, there are
a number of textbooks which tell you just exactly that.

Why change from the units of aerospace to some other arbitrary set of
units
in the first palce?

Because it is the interdisciplinary and International System of Units.
There is no reason to have to learn different units of measure for
each activity we engage in.

When we engage in industry, we must use the language of that industry, as
well as the existing infrastructure. A big part of training to do
engineering is to apply a reference and measurement system applicable to the
problem. Aerospace is expressed in feet, pounds, clockwise and attempts to
use alternative SI units have resulted in problems.

Such changes have taken place in the past, of course. But when the
air speed indicators of many aircraft were changed in the second half
of the twentieth century, they weren' t changed to metric. Instead,
they were just changed from one Fred Flintstone unit to another.

How is the arbitrarily selected "metric system" inherently better than
another "system of measurement"?

That's about as silly as if the United States were to change now from
inches of mercury to millimeters of mercury for altimeter settings.

millibars.

In my 20 20 hindsight I can say for a fact that
attempting to apply si units to aerospace has come at the cost of
confusion
and we are very fortunate to have avoided toumbstones.

In fact, the calculator is the end of any need to change to si
units, as si is a slide rule reality.

Any time you make a conversion, at least other than by factors that
are exact powers of 10, you lose something.

Perhaps, but not enough to matter from an engineering, of operational
standpoint.

Certainly enough to matter.

Such added "signifigant digits" of accuracy are a false advantage.

Often the "something" which you lose is the sense of how precise a
measurement is.

What we lost is a spacecraft, to prople being silly about political
correctness.

Any time there is a need to make conversions, it is an opportunity for
all sorts of other errors, including misentry of the numbers into the
calculator, transposition of digits in copying the result, or
whatever.

In that case, why stray from what already works and play silly SI games?

Because there is only one way to get rid of the need to do
conversions:

Why?

I'd say it is insane to arrest a vendor for selling banannas by the pound.

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:55:34 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:_Bimb.21153$HS4.74853@attbi_s01...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

And you start with pounds as the basis and convert to have the fuel
vended,
no matter what units of volume are used. Then the weight of the
airplane is
checked to see if the fuel got onboard.

So, the FE begins with a takeoff weight, calculates the fuel to be
ordered
and leaves the weight on the dash for the pilot to cross check.

Nope! It is apparent you don't know at all what you are talking about.

In "a high reliability sysetm" such as that in a 777 or 747-400, the fuel
vendor
is simply told the "final fuel" figure in kilograms

My goodness Weiss, you mean what I wrote in the first place is completely
correct. At least my explanation of the process leaves the glider 767
safety report as a possibility.

You must be forgetting the first problem with the Gimli
glider--inoperative onboard fuel gauges.

Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/