Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Transpac787
Topic Author
Posts: 1421
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:47 pm

772LR: Why No Stab Fuel Tanks?

Tue Sep 02, 2008 6:17 am

Hey all,

I don't know how I thought of it, but I was wondering.... why doesn't the 772LR have fuel tanks in the horizontal stab like the 747-400??

I know the 744 doesn't hold much back there, but enough to give it a good bit of a range increase over the 742 (in addition to a lot of other factors, of course).

Anyhow, in the quest to bridge SYD-LHR nonstop, why did Boeing not install stab tanks in addition to the aux center tanks to give the 772LR the longest possible range??
 
Blackbird
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: 772LR: Why No Stab Fuel Tanks?

Tue Sep 02, 2008 6:22 am

I guess it wasn't needed to achieve the desired range.

Blackbird
 
UAL747
Posts: 6725
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 1999 5:42 am

RE: 772LR: Why No Stab Fuel Tanks?

Tue Sep 02, 2008 7:04 am



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 1):
I guess it wasn't needed to achieve the desired range.

SYD-LHR?

UAL
"Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy. Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy.....Okay, fine, we'll just turn 190 and Visual Our Way
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20703
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: 772LR: Why No Stab Fuel Tanks?

Tue Sep 02, 2008 9:16 am

Maybe that would have pushed the take-off weight over the limit. In any case they probably can't fly with both full tanks and full payload anyway.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
FlyASAGuy2005
Posts: 3965
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:55 am

RE: 772LR: Why No Stab Fuel Tanks?

Tue Sep 02, 2008 9:26 am

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 3):

I don't think so either.

Either way, the LR has it's advantages over the ER. Two most obvious, it offers more lift and longer legs. Please correct me if I'm wrong but it's my understanding that Delta has no intentions on future orders of the ER for this reason. Does the same job plus more.

[Edited 2008-09-02 02:31:07]
What gets measured gets done.
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: 772LR: Why No Stab Fuel Tanks?

Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:00 am

So the 777 doesn't even have a trim tank in the horizontal stabiliser?
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
Tristarsteve
Posts: 3695
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:04 pm

RE: 772LR: Why No Stab Fuel Tanks?

Tue Sep 02, 2008 12:12 pm



Quoting A342 (Reply 5):
So the 777 doesn't even have a trim tank in the horizontal stabiliser?

Neither does the B744. The B744 Stab tank is used as soon as there is room in the centre tank, and flow is one way only. It is used to trim the aircraft for take off, and then emptied into the centre.
 
User avatar
jetmech
Posts: 2383
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:14 am

RE: 772LR: Why No Stab Fuel Tanks?

Tue Sep 02, 2008 12:57 pm



Quoting A342 (Reply 5):
So the 777 doesn't even have a trim tank in the horizontal stabiliser?

Airbus 330's and 340's can use the stab tank to actively trim the aircraft during flight, whereas Steve pointed out, the 744 cannot. The benefit of using a trim tank system is that it reduces the amount of stab trim required to achieve longitudinal balance. This reduces trim drag.

IIRC, the Airbus automatically pumps fuel to and from the trim tank ( whilst automatically adjusting stabiliser angle ? ) to achieve optimum longitudinal balance. This is a delicate balancing act, for as one moves fuel backward to the trim tank, the centre of gravity moves back towards the centre of lift.

This reduces the amount of stabiliser trim you need for longitudinal balance, which reduces trim drag, but it also reduces longitudinal stability at the same time. IIRC, the pilots can override this function, but only in a manner that moves fuel forward from the trim tank, which makes the aircraft more stable longitudinally, with the side effect of increasing trim drag

Regards, JetMech
JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair :shock: .
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: 772LR: Why No Stab Fuel Tanks?

Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:39 pm



Quoting JetMech (Reply 7):
Airbus 330's and 340's can use the stab tank to actively trim the aircraft during flight, whereas Steve pointed out, the 744 cannot. The benefit of using a trim tank system is that it reduces the amount of stab trim required to achieve longitudinal balance. This reduces trim drag.

Well, that's why I asked. I know about the Airbus system, but I wonder why Boeing hasn't implemented it on the 777.
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8573
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: 772LR: Why No Stab Fuel Tanks?

Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:05 am



Quoting Transpac787 (Thread starter):
why doesn't the 772LR have fuel tanks in the horizontal stab like the 747-400??

It didn't need it to meet the requirements. Also, horizontal stab tanks are a pain in the post TWA800 world.

Quoting A342 (Reply 5):
So the 777 doesn't even have a trim tank in the horizontal stabiliser?

No. No current Boeing airplane has a trim tank in the tail.

Quoting A342 (Reply 8):
I wonder why Boeing hasn't implemented it on the 777.

No current Boeing commercial airplane can transfer fuel between tanks in flight. That's an intentional design feature. As a result, no trim tank.

Tom.
 
thegeek
Posts: 1334
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:20 am

RE: 772LR: Why No Stab Fuel Tanks?

Wed Sep 03, 2008 10:22 am



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 9):
No current Boeing commercial airplane can transfer fuel between tanks in flight. That's an intentional design feature. As a result, no trim tank.

That's interesting. If that feature applied to Airbus planes, it would probably have prevented that Air Transat flight from running out of fuel.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20703
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: 772LR: Why No Stab Fuel Tanks?

Wed Sep 03, 2008 10:57 am



Quoting Thegeek (Reply 10):
That's interesting. If that feature applied to Airbus planes, it would probably have prevented that Air Transat flight from running out of fuel.

Sure. But aviation history is full of these little "what ifs", so I find them a bit meaningless. There were two quite big screwups that led to the situation. Additional layers of safety can always be added, but at a certain point you just have to trust the mechanics and pilots. Or in this case not.  Wink
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3928
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: 772LR: Why No Stab Fuel Tanks?

Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:18 pm



Quoting Thegeek (Reply 10):
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 9):
No current Boeing commercial airplane can transfer fuel between tanks in flight. That's an intentional design feature. As a result, no trim tank.

That's interesting. If that feature applied to Airbus planes, it would probably have prevented that Air Transat flight from running out of fuel.

Not really.

The Air Transat fuel leak was upstream of the engine fuel flow meter. Therefore the engine fuel flow looked normal even though fuel was leaking at a relatively high rate. The high leak rate caused a fuel imbalance between the wing tanks. The crew opened the crossfeed valve to correct the imbalance. This caused the A330 to run out of fuel as the leaking engine was able to exhaust the fuel in the opposite wing tank after depleting the fuel in its own wing tank.

It's necessary to have a crossfeed valve because after an IFSD, the operating engine may need to use the fuel in the opposite wing tank. Since all Boeing aircraft have crossfeed valves, they are equally vulnerable to an Air Transat type event if the crew makes the same mistake.

Besides, Tdscanuck's statement is not quite correct. As mentioned previously, the 744 transfers fuel from the h. tail tank to the wing center tank before it is sent to the engines. Like wise, 772LR aux. tank fuel is also pumped to the center wing tank before it is burned.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: 772LR: Why No Stab Fuel Tanks?

Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:54 pm



Quoting JetMech (Reply 7):
Airbus 330's and 340's can use the stab tank to actively trim the aircraft during flight

"Can" is the wrong word. The word is "must." That is ALL that fuel is used for, and it was in the main tanks until after takeoff so it does not extend the range or increase the plane's fuel capacity. During flight if the need is sensed, it will transfer fuel back there and hold it in the stab until it is no longer needed.

Quoting JetMech (Reply 7):
( whilst automatically adjusting stabiliser angle ? )

You may be sure it will adjust the stab trim. The CG change is the weight shifted, times the distance (wing to tail) it is moved, divided by the gross weight of the airplane. Lot of shift. Let's just for grins say we weigh 400K lbs right now and all 11000 lbs of fuel is transferred from wing to tail and let's say that distance is 90 feet, or 1080 inches. With those numbers, the CG would move rearward 29.7 inches - more than the entire range on many airplanes.

Quoting JetMech (Reply 7):
This reduces the amount of stabiliser trim you need for longitudinal balance

Which reduction comes at the expense of sealing the tailplane so that it becomes a fuel tank ("wet tail?") plus all the pumps, fuel lines and fuel line shroud, all of which must be kept outside the "fuselage" to remain compliant with FAR Part 25. One would also assume that the manufacturer must also demonstrate the survivability if fuel failed to pump in either direction when needed. It's all about compromises.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
Lemmy
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 8:40 am

RE: 772LR: Why No Stab Fuel Tanks?

Wed Sep 03, 2008 4:23 pm

Question: What happens if there's a malfunction and you're unable to transfer fuel from the trim tank or stab tanks back into the main tanks? I can imagine that having all of that weight way back there would make things pretty dicey once the fuel in the main tanks starts burning off.
I am a patient boy ...
 
User avatar
jetmech
Posts: 2383
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:14 am

RE: 772LR: Why No Stab Fuel Tanks?

Wed Sep 03, 2008 4:53 pm



Quoting SlamClick (Reply 13):
That is ALL that fuel is used for, and it was in the main tanks until after takeoff so it does not extend the range or increase the plane's fuel capacity.

When you refuel an A330 or A340, fuel is put into the stab ( trim ) tank straight away. I'm not too sure why you would put it into the stab tank, transfer it to the wing tanks before take off, and then transfer it back into the stab tank after take off  Confused .

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 13):
"Can" is the wrong word. The word is "must."

I'm pretty sure the stab ( trim ) tank is MELable. I distinctly remember deactivating the stab ( trim ) tank on an A343 many years ago. In agreement with your sentiments, it is actually quite a "secure" deactivation as such.

I remember that there was one or two valves that needed to be deactivated as part of the process. These were located on the bottom skin of the centre stab section. The electrical actuators to the valve/s had to be physically removed and replaced with a special dial with spring loaded detents.

This dial allowed one to manually turn and lock the valves in either the open or closed position. For this particular MEL, the valves were manually closed with the dials, which where then lock-wired in the closed position. Obviously, this was just a small part of the entire procedure.

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 13):
That is ALL that fuel is used for



Quoting SlamClick (Reply 13):
it does not extend the range or increase the plane's fuel capacity.

Fair enough. But I'm sure it is still usable fuel. I seem to vaguely remember that any remaining fuel in the stab ( trim ) tank is pumped forward to the wing tanks near the end of the flight. Thus, it is usable fuel, and not "dead weight" by any means.

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 13):
You may be sure it will adjust the stab trim.

Fair enough. I was almost certain about this point, but not 100% sure, so I left it as a possibility instead of stating it as a fact.

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 13):
It's all about compromises.

Of course, you won't get any objection from me on this point  Smile !

Quoting Lemmy (Reply 14):

I remember Philsquares commenting on this a while ago. IIRC, 744 pilots must closely monitor and ensue that the stab transfer takes place properly. If it doesn't I think they must land as soon as possible, as they will run out of sufficient stab trim as the wing tanks continue to empty.

IIRC, the 744 stab tank has two independent, parallel valves to reduce the chances of such an occurrence. I'm not sure what happens for the same scenario with an Airbus.

Regards, JetMech
JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair :shock: .
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8573
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: 772LR: Why No Stab Fuel Tanks?

Thu Sep 04, 2008 1:26 am



Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 12):
Besides, Tdscanuck's statement is not quite correct. As mentioned previously, the 744 transfers fuel from the h. tail tank to the wing center tank before it is sent to the engines. Like wise, 772LR aux. tank fuel is also pumped to the center wing tank before it is burned.

Good point. I forgot aux tanks. All Boeing aux tanks (that I'm aware of) dump into the center tank, thence to the engines. In flight, there's no way to move fuel *too* the aux tanks though.

I believe most 747's have their stab tanks deactivated now, but they worked similar to an aux tank.

For the stock Boeing twin arrangement (two wing tanks + a center) there's no tank-to-tank transfer, only tank-to-engine.

Quoting Lemmy (Reply 14):
What happens if there's a malfunction and you're unable to transfer fuel from the trim tank or stab tanks back into the main tanks? I can imagine that having all of that weight way back there would make things pretty dicey once the fuel in the main tanks starts burning off.

I imagine stab trim can take care of it, albeit at some drag cost.

Tom
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: 772LR: Why No Stab Fuel Tanks?

Thu Sep 04, 2008 3:07 am



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 16):
For the stock Boeing twin arrangement (two wing tanks + a center) there's no tank-to-tank transfer, only tank-to-engine.

OK, according to my memory, and:

http://www.smartcockpit.com/data/pdf.../boeing/B777/systems/B777-Fuel.pdf

I'm not sure that's quite correct.

First, fuel is transferred automatically from the center tank to the main tanks as fuel burns off (page 3 of the above).

Second, there's an explicit rebalancing procedure described on page 5 of the above PDF. Basically turn on the crossfeed, and turn the pumps on the low tank off (which would cause fuel to go through the crossfeed system and into the tank with the pump off.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8573
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: 772LR: Why No Stab Fuel Tanks?

Thu Sep 04, 2008 3:38 am



Quoting Rwessel (Reply 17):

First, fuel is transferred automatically from the center tank to the main tanks as fuel burns off (page 3 of the above).

That's the center tank scavenge system. It's completely "dumb" and outside flight crew control so I didn't really think of it as a transfer in the sense we're talking about but, yes, you're absolutely right that it moves fuel from one tank to another (specifically, from the center to the no.1 main). However, it isn't monitored and can't be turned on or off.

Quoting Rwessel (Reply 17):
Second, there's an explicit rebalancing procedure described on page 5 of the above PDF. Basically turn on the crossfeed, and turn the pumps on the low tank off (which would cause fuel to go through the crossfeed system and into the tank with the pump off.

That doesn't move fuel to the other tank. It causes both engines to burn off one tank. You just have to burn down the high tank until it balances with the low one again.

Tom.
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: 772LR: Why No Stab Fuel Tanks?

Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:40 am



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 18):
That doesn't move fuel to the other tank. It causes both engines to burn off one tank. You just have to burn down the high tank until it balances with the low one again.

Is there some sort of check valve that prevents fuel from flowing back into the tank that has its pump turned off? Or is it just that the pumps are the only connection to the crossfeed system, and they're one of the designs that don't normally allow reverse flows (although most gear-type pumps, which I’d not be surprised to find in this application, happily do).
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8573
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: 772LR: Why No Stab Fuel Tanks?

Thu Sep 04, 2008 5:25 am



Quoting Rwessel (Reply 19):
Is there some sort of check valve that prevents fuel from flowing back into the tank that has its pump turned off?

Yep. Each boost pump has a check valve on its outlet (as does the suction feed inlet).

Quoting Rwessel (Reply 19):
Or is it just that the pumps are the only connection to the crossfeed system, and they're one of the designs that don't normally allow reverse flows (although most gear-type pumps, which I’d not be surprised to find in this application, happily do).

The boost pumps are normal low-pressure high-flow centrifugal pumps...they reverse flow quite happily. Hence the check valves.

Tom.
 
User avatar
jetmech
Posts: 2383
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:14 am

RE: 772LR: Why No Stab Fuel Tanks?

Thu Sep 04, 2008 9:09 am

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 18):
That's the center tank scavenge system. It's completely "dumb"

I'm reasonably sure that the scavenge system is a jet pump of some sort. As you say, it is a "dumb" system in that a jet pump has no moving parts, and relies upon fluid flow from another system for motive power.

http://tgrankin.com/graphics/00000001/Jet_Pump_Operation_Graphic.jpg

http://tgrankin.com/graphics/00000001/Jet_Pump_Operation_Graphic.jpg

Quoting Rwessel (Reply 19):
and they're one of the designs that don't normally allow reverse flows (although most gear-type pumps, which I would not be surprised to find in this application, happily do).

As Tds notes, boost pumps are generally centrifugal impeller devices. The high pressure side of the engine driven fuel pump however, can be configured as a gear type arrangement. I'm pretty sure this is how the high pressure side of the RB-211 engine driven fuel pump is configured. It wouldn't surprise me if GE, P&W and CFM were similar.

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 13):

Page 12 of this link has more information with respect to the discussion.

http://www.smartcockpit.com/pdf/plane/airbus/A330/systems/0011/

Regards, JetMech

[Edited 2008-09-04 02:14:31]
JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair :shock: .
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8573
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: 772LR: Why No Stab Fuel Tanks?

Fri Sep 05, 2008 12:06 am



Quoting JetMech (Reply 21):
I'm reasonably sure that the scavenge system is a jet pump of some sort.

Yep. The only moving part is the check valve balls.

Quoting JetMech (Reply 21):
As you say, it is a "dumb" system in that a jet pump has no moving parts, and relies upon fluid flow from another system for motive power.

That's true, but I was calling it a "dumb" system because there's no control or indication system for it. The scavenge jet pump is powered any time the supply boost pump (usually no. 1 fwd) is running. There's a float valve on the outlet that lets the scavenge pump start moving fuel when the main tank gets below a certain level (~50%) and that's it. The flight crew (and everybody else) have no visibility of whether it's on or off, how we'll it's doing, or anything else. The only way you even know it's there is the (very) slow transfer of fuel from the center to the mains after you shut down the center boost pumps and burn down a bunch of the main tank fuel.

Tom.
 
thegeek
Posts: 1334
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:20 am

RE: 772LR: Why No Stab Fuel Tanks?

Fri Sep 05, 2008 10:38 am



Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 12):
Not really.

Good point.
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: 772LR: Why No Stab Fuel Tanks?

Fri Sep 05, 2008 9:39 pm



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 20):
Yep. Each boost pump has a check valve on its outlet (as does the suction feed inlet).



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 20):
The boost pumps are normal low-pressure high-flow centrifugal pumps...they reverse flow quite happily. Hence the check valves.

In case anyone is interested, the latest interim report on the BA 777 accident contains a nice discussion of the fuel system, as well as some informative diagrams.

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/G-YMMM%20Interim%20Report.pdf
 
User avatar
jetmech
Posts: 2383
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:14 am

RE: 772LR: Why No Stab Fuel Tanks?

Sat Sep 06, 2008 3:43 am



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 22):
Yep. The only moving part is the check valve balls.

I see. It's good to see such clever and simple solutions still have a place on modern commercial types. A bit like the inlet stand pipes for the jettison system.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 22):
That's true, but I was calling it a "dumb" system because there's no control or indication system for it. The scavenge jet pump is powered any time the supply boost pump (usually no. 1 fwd) is running.



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 22):
The flight crew (and everybody else) have no visibility of whether it's on or off, how we'll it's doing, or anything else.

Fair enough. The only way to turn off the scavenge jet pump is to turn off the boost pump, which is not something you would do.

Regards, JetMech
JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair :shock: .
 
tito
Posts: 122
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2001 1:39 pm

RE: 772LR: Why No Stab Fuel Tanks?

Sat Sep 06, 2008 7:33 am



Quoting JetMech (Reply 15):
IIRC, 744 pilots must closely monitor and ensue that the stab transfer takes place properly. If it doesn't I think they must land as soon as possible, as they will run out of sufficient stab trim as the wing tanks continue to empty.

If the stab fuel fails to transfer then the QRH procedure has you establish a "tank to engine" configuration and turn off the center tank pumps (rendering the center tank fuel unusable) leaving you with only the wing tanks less 15.9 tonnes each in main tanks 2 and 3 . Burning below 15.9 tonnes in 2 or 3 will result in the CG being out of limits.

Luckily transfer of stab fuel to the center tank begins early in the flight, so there should be sufficient usable fuel in the main tanks to return.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 9):
No current Boeing commercial airplane can transfer fuel between tanks in flight. That's an intentional design feature.

Not correct. On the 744 the stab tank fuel is transfered to the center tank. Reserve tanks 2 and 3 are transfered to the inboard main tanks. Fuel from main tanks 1 and 4 can be transferred to main tanks 2 and 3 either automatically during jettison or manually by a switch on the overhead panel.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8573
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: 772LR: Why No Stab Fuel Tanks?

Sat Sep 06, 2008 3:41 pm



Quoting Tito (Reply 26):
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 9):
No current Boeing commercial airplane can transfer fuel between tanks in flight. That's an intentional design feature.

Not correct. On the 744 the stab tank fuel is transfered to the center tank. Reserve tanks 2 and 3 are transfered to the inboard main tanks. Fuel from main tanks 1 and 4 can be transferred to main tanks 2 and 3 either automatically during jettison or manually by a switch on the overhead panel.

Yes, my original statement was inaccurate and way too overbroad. My normal job is with Boeing twins and I forgot a lot of what are (for me) corner cases like quads, stab tanks, and aux tanks. That's why I wrote:

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 16):
Good point. I forgot aux tanks. All Boeing aux tanks (that I'm aware of) dump into the center tank, thence to the engines. In flight, there's no way to move fuel *too* the aux tanks though.

I believe most 747's have their stab tanks deactivated now, but they worked similar to an aux tank.

For the stock Boeing twin arrangement (two wing tanks + a center) there's no tank-to-tank transfer, only tank-to-engine.

So, to be more accurate:

707: Complicated system with transfers all over (hence the flight engineer)
727: Three tank system with ability to go tank-to-engine and to transfer (flight engineer control)
737/757/767/777: Mains/center can only go tank-to-engine
747: ~10 tank system with tank-to-engine and tank-to-tank

In all cases, if you've got aux tanks, they can transfer into the center tank, but not directly to the engines (as far as I know). You've also got scavenge pumps in most cases, which take the dead volume in the center tank and move it to one or more main tanks late in the flight.

In reviewing all the fuel procedures, the constant philosophy on the Boeing's appears to be that fuel is always moving towards the engines...fuel moves from the aux/stab tanks towards the center, thence to the engines. Fuel in the reserves and center scavenge moves towards the mains, thence to the engines. I can't find any situation where fuel goes away from the engines (i.e. back to an aux tank, outboard to a reserve tank, or back to a stab tank).

This is the major difference between the overall Boeing, Airbus, and Douglas architectures. Douglas circulates fuel from center to the outside to keep things warmer, and Airbus moves fuel back and forth for CG control (Douglas might also do this, but I'm not as familiar with their architecture).

Tom.
 
User avatar
jetmech
Posts: 2383
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:14 am

RE: 772LR: Why No Stab Fuel Tanks?

Sat Sep 06, 2008 3:51 pm



Quoting Tito (Reply 26):
Burning below 15.9 tonnes in 2 or 3 will result in the CG being out of limits.

Thanks for the info! When you say the C of G is out of limits, does this mean the absolute extreme situation with the stabiliser in the full nose up position? During normal stab tank transfer operations, does the aircraft automatically adjust the stab trim as the fuel transfers?

Quoting Tito (Reply 26):
Luckily transfer of stab fuel to the center tank begins early in the flight, so there should be sufficient usable fuel in the main tanks to return.

I see. How long does it take for a full stab tank to transfer into the CWT? With respect to the issue of the C of G being out of limits, is there any partial stab tank fuel load quantity where you could safely conduct the remainder of the flight if the stab fuel transfer fails?

Regards, JetMech
JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair :shock: .
 
tito
Posts: 122
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2001 1:39 pm

RE: 772LR: Why No Stab Fuel Tanks?

Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:28 pm



Quoting JetMech (Reply 28):
Thanks for the info! When you say the C of G is out of limits, does this mean the absolute extreme situation with the stabiliser in the full nose up position? During normal stab tank transfer operations, does the aircraft automatically adjust the stab trim as the fuel transfers?
... How long does it take for a full stab tank to transfer into the CWT? With respect to the issue of the C of G being out of limits, is there any partial stab tank fuel load quantity where you could safely conduct the remainder of the flight if the stab fuel transfer fails?

Boeing simply states "C of G out of limits" without any specific numbers so yes, I would assume the worst case scenario of full stab tank with nothing transferring and resulting in reaching the trim limit when at the slowest speed.

I don't think there's any specific logic used by the autopilot to compensate for the fuel transfer, it just trims as necessary to maintain the required attitude.

The QRH procedure doesn't specify how much fuel can be left in the stab when transfer fails, so you assume the worst case scenario and adhere to the checklist regardless of quantity when the failure occurs.

The center tank holds about 52 tonnes and transfer begins when the tank gets down to about 36.5 tonnes. So thats a little more than an hour after takeoff (burning ~12-13 tonnes per hour). The tail holds about 10 tonnes. You'll be done transferring the tail a couple hours after takeoff, and with full wing tanks it'll take you nearly 7 hours to get down to 15.9 tonnes in mains 2 or 3. Plenty of time to go somewhere.
 
User avatar
jetmech
Posts: 2383
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:14 am

RE: 772LR: Why No Stab Fuel Tanks?

Sun Sep 07, 2008 6:11 am



Quoting Tito (Reply 29):
Boeing simply states "C of G out of limits" without any specific numbers

I guess you would never want to be in a situation to test the limit when Boeing says something is "out of limits"  Smile !

Quoting Tito (Reply 29):
The QRH procedure doesn't specify how much fuel can be left in the stab when transfer fails, so you assume the worst case scenario and adhere to the checklist regardless of quantity when the failure occurs.

I see, better to be safe than sorry.

Quoting Tito (Reply 29):
You'll be done transferring the tail a couple hours after takeoff, and with full wing tanks it'll take you nearly 7 hours to get down to 15.9 tonnes in mains 2 or 3. Plenty of time to go somewhere.

It's good to see that you have a fair amount of "breathing space" if you do have a stab transfer failure. I guess it was designed this way in the first place by Boeing.

Thanks again for all the info!

Regards, JetMech
JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair :shock: .

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos