that Tetraethyllead (as it's apparently technically called) is an octane booster, but the Wikipedia article also mentions that advances in the production of high octane unleaded fuel have pretty much..., that they must get their fix of lead before they go flying? It is also a fact that there are aircraft piston engines which do run perfectly fine on unleaded fuel, why is it that hardly any airport offers it? Even in cost-conscious and eco-friendly Europe, most airports offer only 100LL and Jet fuel.
What should one do when done sumping a small amount of fuel during a pre-flight? Should it be dumped on the ramp? Or is it considered necessary to find the container far away from the airplane? Is it considered safe to dump it right back into the plane if its uncontaminated?
This question has several parts that are interrelated, and I didn't want to split it up: Considering that several tons of fuel are consumed during a long haul flight which requires lift to be reduced as the flight progresses, do pilots do this by changing wing geometry, altitude, speed or all of the above? Is this done automatically or manually? What is the optimal strategy if you want to minimize fuel costs? Having chosen the optimal strategy, is the latest phase of the flight where the airplane weighs least necessarily the one that gets the best gas mileage, or is there a minimum
Is Jet-A used in turbojets or is it just used in turbofans, turboprops, and the SMA SR305-230 for Cessna?
I've been taught to always sump the plane's fuel system before going flying to check for water / contamination / proper fuel grade. However, I've yet to go flying in rain. What's the proper procedure to drain fuel during rain? If I took the fuel cap off to dump the fuel back into the plane, I'd be worried about rainwater getting in the tanks.
there's no such thing. If you need fuel you either taxi to the pump and fill up or call up the fuel provider (if you're lucky because they usually only serve private jets).
A 15 hour flight across the Pacific obviously requires more fuel than a 7.5-hour transatlantic flight. How significant is the hourly fuel consumption increase due to the additional fuel carried at the beginning of the longer flight? Another way of asking the question would be: How much more more fuel do you need to carry (in a typical heavy plane such as the B747-400) for a flight that is twice as long?
I need to replace two fuel senders in each wing of a Socata TB20, and a replacement is almost $500. I wanted to know whether a shop exists in the US that reconditions these? After some research, I'm still not sure if reconditioning resistive fuel senders is common practice at all. I only heard anecdotically about it
If you fly low, air is dense so you can get more thrust from your engines, but you get more drag. On the other hand if you fly higher you have less drag but the output of engine decreases as well. So...
Common solutions for aerobatic piston singles is to have either header tanks (for wing tanks, as I understand it) or flop tubes (for fuselage tanks). Do fuel systems in a fighter jet work on the same principles? Or are they somehow smarter to allow more erratic maneuvers?
What is the difference between technical consumption and fuel drain in a fuel calculation system? Both of them reduce the amount of block fuel of aircraft. I assume technical consumption is not equal with trip fuel usage?!
I've heard that in a lot of instances a jet that is making an emergency landing is required to dump excess fuel. In a lot of instances this would make a lot of sense. For example, if the gear cannot be lowered and the plane must land on it's belly. The last thing you want is a hundred tons of jet fuel involved. But, I have to assume there are also emergencies where a plane isn't required to dump it's fuel. I just am not sure what they would be? So, my question is: When are aircraft required to dump fuel before landing (or, at very least, when is it advisable to dump fuel before landing
I mean, on the one hand it seems kind of obvious, if you had a fuel tank that was mostly water then you would lack combustible materials for the engine, but I get the impression that having any water in the fuel tank at all is considered a really bad idea. Why is that? Is it all right to have a very small amount of water in the fuel tanks? Is there a defined percentage of liquid in the fuel tank that must be fuel in order to operate safely? (say 99.87% or something?) And does this differ from prop to turboprop to turbofan to jet?
Now that the new A320-Winglets have established themselves, I'm wondering if they have better fuel consumption than the B737-800? I was told that Boeing used to be marginally better. Is that still the case?
We know that most of the plane accidents and deaths result from the explosion of fuel tanks in the planes, like when two planes collide, or when the plane falls on the ground. With the advent of technology, i wonder whether it is possible to prevent the fuel explosion. Can this be done by evaporating the fuel in the planes just before the collision? Or use a solid architecture encapsulating the fuel tanks in the planes, such that the fuel is not set to fire? What research has been done in this field and if so what were the findings?
On aircraft which fly above 30000 feet, they often can get to temperatures below Jet-A's freezing point. For example, at 36000 feet, the standard temperature is -56.5°C (-69.7°F), well below Jet-A's freezing point of -40°C/F. What measures are put in place on aircraft to mitigate the risk of the fuel tanks freezing over and preventing the engines from operating?