Yes true. Fueled British Airways @LAS but flight 294 never needed that much fuel to make it back to LHR. So the tank in the tail was never used. In fact, the center tank was also kept empty. Fuel in the wings only.
Yep, This was only specific to the 400's. When these came out Boeing added these tanks enabling the aircraft to fly long range. The 747-8 also had these tanks, but they had flutter issues when filled over 15%, rendering them unusable and reducing the range that boeing initially predicted the -8 would have.
The A330 has a similar feature. Horizontal stabilizer is filled with 4.6 tons of fuel which is transferred to in cruise (to simplify) and used from here by the engines until top of descent..This to save fuel in CRZ, as the center of gravity is kept aft, so less deflection needed from the stabilizer so less drag in crz
This is the Dreamlifter or 747-LCF. The tail opens up and does not carry fuel, I have been in it and helped design and commission the tail support stands that open the tail.
These are modified B747-400's called Large Cargo Freighters, or LCF's. I flew the LCF during development before Atlas started to operate it. During testing, wing flutter began to develop above Mach. 84, so we were restricted to .83 or less. Boeing engineers then removed the winglets, and when we flew it afterwards, all the flutter was gone. No idea why. They're still the only -400's out there with no winglets.
@@criollitoificationOn Sept. 21, 1956, young U.S. Navy test pilot Tom Attridge took off in an F11F Tiger (BuNo 138620) from Long Island, New York, for a weapons test over the Atlantic. He climbed to 20,000 feet, started a Mach 1 dive, and fired two bursts of rounds from his 20mm cannons until the ammunition was expended at 13,000 feet. He continued his dive, and around 7,000 feet something powerful struck his windshield. Thinking it must have been a bird, he quickly realized he had a big problem on his hands-his plane was losing power. Pulling up, he throttled back to 230 mph and began a return to base. Unable to maintain altitude, he attempted to apply more power, but the power would not exceed 78%. The plane went down into a sea of trees approximately a mile shy of the runway, traveling 300 feet and catching fire. It was a total loss. Attridge suffered a broken leg and several broken vertebrae but thankfully survived. As he later learned, it was not a bird that took him down. As it turned out, the crash was caused by a far more surprising source: his own rounds The Navy considered the incident a one-in-a-million fluke and was certain it would never happen again. Attridge was less convinced, however. “At the speeds we’re flying today,” he later said, “it could be duplicated any time.” He was right. In 1973, another Grumman test pilot, this one flying an F-14 Tomcat out in California, was struck by his own missile. Luckily, it was a dummy missile, and the pilot was able to eject to safety. More recently, in 2019, a Royal Netherlands Air Force F-16 accidentally shot itself from its 20mm rotary cannon. The pilot was able to land safely, uninjured. Source: www.planeandpilotmag.com/news/pilot-talk/grumman-f11-tiger-shoot-itself-down/
@@criollitoificationit flew down while shooting, and because gravity didnt lower the bullets down out of the way (because the plane was also traveling down) the plane ended up flying through the bullets
The additional tank in the vertical tailpipe is already filled on the ground during the refuelling process depending on the total amount of fuel required (Ramp Fuel). If the Ramp Fuel exceeds a value of approx. 138 tonnes, the automatic refueling system distributes the kerosene between the Center Wing Tank and the Horizontal Stabilizer Tank in a ratio of 5. 2:1. If the amount of fuel in the Center Wing Tank falls below 12,000 US gallons (approx. 36,366 kg) during the cruise flight, the kerosene is automatically transferred from the HST to the Center Wing Tank.
I was reasearching fuel capacitance temperature loss for an argument and stumbled upon a 747 engineering drawing that showed the "tail tanks". It blew my mind 😮😅 Could carry nearly 19k lbs more fuel with them
Dude, that afterburner video you got is so sick. I went to your channel thinking you were JLazer(the kid who makes cool shit) and just changed his name…then….the fire breathing Eagle came up! 🦅 Very cool to see man.
Its a basic feature in MANY if not most bigger planes. To adjust the point of gravity for not only safety but also for fuel efficiency for longer flights
Just to put it into perspective… I’m an ERJ Captain. On most of our flights, we don’t even carry 5 tons of fuel *in total*. Lots of jets actually keep fuel back there. It’s often called a “trunk tank” on corporate jets. Nowhere near 10,000lbs of it, though!
Never seen this 47 design the Dreamlifter presently flying between Anchorage and Nogoya. Flies a few times a week between Charleston and Anchorage. Thanks for sharing
The ‘fact’ was almost correct - the tail tank can carry 10 tons, not just 5 - certainly on the -400’s anyway; though not all were fitted with this capability. A real fun fact - one of ours had been in maintenance, and the valves from the tail tank had been locked out. Unfortunately, they weren’t then ‘unlocked’ before the aircraft re-entered service. It performed several flights in this condition, but as the tail tank was rarely used, the problem didn’t manifest itself until much later. Returning to LHR from HKG, the tail tank was used (it was always filled right up if it were to be used, as there was then a known moment around the CofG from having a known quantity of fuel up there). Anyway, the aircraft departed HKG, and a couple of hours into the flight the problem first became apparent. The tail tank transfers into the centre tank once enough fuel has been burnt from the centre tank to allow the fuel to flow by gravity. Only this time, it didn’t! The valves were still locked closed and the fuel wouldn’t transfer. Various options were looked at, but either the Russian or Chinese authorities, I forget which, wouldn’t allow the aircraft to proceed to an alternate airfield - the aircraft couldn’t make it all the way home, and would need to land at some alternate - but suitable airfields with enough accomodation for a jumbo full of pax, and engineering input to sort the problem were in short supply en-route. So they decided to return to HKG. However, they couldn’t just dump fuel, as that would rapidly move the Cof G out of limits - they had to burn the fuel from the tanks in a specific order, to get the aircraft below Max Landing Weight, and keep the CofG within limits, before landing. So they flew up and down the coast of China for several hours, carefully transferring fuel around the operational tanks - did the whole meal service, and put the passengers to sleep. They didn’t tell them what was going on until the morning when, after nearly 10 hours in the air the passengers found themselves approaching HKG rather than LHR!
The first airliner to use that technology was the DC-11, which in order to save fuel had a smaller tail section. The smaller tail section meant that it couldn't take as big a bite out of the air to counteract the lift from the wings, so they added fuel tanks to get the center of mass where they wanted it.
Around 1500 gallons in the tail? Cool. Most likely all useable if gravity fed. I would be willing to bet thet freighter has it as well allowing for W&B variance. Thats a hell of a arm. The old Navy C9 also had fuel in the tail. Not sure how much. Thank you and be safe.
Could be true . TWA stopped operation in 2001 right? 330s were in the air starting mid 90s I think? If he was 40 years old in 2001 and a young 747 pilot could be in early 60s pushing a 330. Why question it?
I am from an exam and i can tell you there was a question on that about a plane carrying fuel in the tail and i actually thought there was a problem with the question 😂
A related fun fact about the stabilizer fuel: after takeoff and reaching cruise, it is used FIRST -- actually, drained into center ("belly" fuel tank). Why not leave it back there to create aft CG for decreased cruise fuel burn? Because it had limited means to pump forward to belly and you wouldn't get to the end of a VERY long flight to discover -- it isn't transfering, it's trapped in the stab, and not available. Ouch. So the 747-400 fuel management system burned it off first, when discovering trapped stab fuel would create no problems (because at that point, if you'd loaded the stabs, you had beau coup fuel to go anywhere ... except your final planned destination. But you were safe.
Pretty much all avgeeks know about that lmao, many aircraft has a trim tank, best way to squeeze in that extra range, especially with the a340-500, its wings were made winder and longer than the a340-300, its horizontal stabilisers were also increased in size and they made the wingbox longer for a bigger belly tanks. Now with a generally massive aircraft like the 747 you would need large a large wingspan, from the 747-100 to the 744 the fuselage was the same length, the only difference in the fuselage being the upper deck was extended on the -300 and 400, the -400 has bigger wings than the 747 classic and was the first 747 to feature a class cockpit on launch
It makes sense to carry fuel in the back of the aircraft. Think about what it does for CG, with a more aft CG, you get better cruise speeds, you need less tail down force, so the aircraft is more controllable, easier to flare/land.
Gross polluters✅ Tail strike wouldn’t be good 🔥 Tell your grandchildren you are sorry for polluting my precious skies! Your penalty is coming soon/ don’t think for a second There isn’t a price to pay 💰 When you are being sold oxygen Then you will innerstand Until then, hope your vacation travels was worth it! You wouldn’t pollute your house Why would you pollute the world 🌎 When your ready to make that change Go look in the mirror And make that change then🎟 Otherwise it’s negative timeline for you🕳. 🐑
The CG aft is useful in CRZ, but the Trim Tank in the horizontal stabilizer is emptied before Top of Descent. Has to otherwise the CG too far aft would be detrimental to the the flare
Yes just like the 777, some fuel is reserved for the APU (Auxiliary Power Unit) which is the tail, so just in case if it runs out of gas, the APU can power electrical systems and get the engines working for a short amount of time.
The Dream Lifter (400LCF) and the 400F does not have a trim tank in the tail. For the dream lifter it would be impractical since the whole tail swings open. That’s why it doesn’t even have an APU.
I delivered 'A' containers, M-1's IIRC to this outfit at LAX and remember one night they forgot to place the Pogo stick under the tail used for loading the first containers. 'A' container goes to the back, tail goes "boom" on the ground, messy. Anyway I got a good look at the inside of the flight deck when the crew doing the paperwork made themselves at home in the cockpit.
That's easy because if you move fuel . The tail has to hold down the plane less essentially making a plane lighter. You do give up a bit improvements however there's no free lunch. Is winter cruise speed it doesn't matter.
Must be an optional feature, according to customer. I flew the 747-400 for ten years and I can promise you that at our airline, our 744s did not have a fuel tank in any part of the tail assembly.
I sat in one of the very back rows from LA to London. The whole rear of the aircraft was noticeablly swinging from left to right for quite a while after take off. Maybe the reason was the weight of the fuel. Weird!
When it takes off at a 35 degree angle, what keeps the fuel from rushing into the tail and creating CG problems? (I know, just thought it was a good question)
I looked it up, the search said 3,300 US gallons. I crunched some numbers I have 2000 S10 pickup with a 19 gallon tank. That comes out to 173.6 tank fulls
This aircraft is a cargo plane and this explains why extra fuel is carried and is because of the amount of cargo it transports but it also slows the plan down .
Yes true. Fueled British Airways @LAS but flight 294 never needed that much fuel to make it back to LHR. So the tank in the tail was never used. In fact, the center tank was also kept empty. Fuel in the wings only.
So we worked for the same company what's the chance you were the first comment
@@its_whackI fly out of LAS. Nice to meet u guys. 🤪
Yep, This was only specific to the 400's. When these came out Boeing added these tanks enabling the aircraft to fly long range. The 747-8 also had these tanks, but they had flutter issues when filled over 15%, rendering them unusable and reducing the range that boeing initially predicted the -8 would have.
@@BombayPilotWalaas a mechanic for Lufthansa that operates the -800 I can tell you sir you are most definitely correct
MD-11 had tank also in the stabilizer. I've spent many hours in there, no fuel in at the time I was there.
The A330 has a similar feature. Horizontal stabilizer is filled with 4.6 tons of fuel which is transferred to in cruise (to simplify) and used from here by the engines until top of descent..This to save fuel in CRZ, as the center of gravity is kept aft, so less deflection needed from the stabilizer so less drag in crz
That is actually a legit interesting piece of info on RUclips. Wow.
@@dispatch911 I also have a YT channel on the A320, with real piece of info as well😅
@@JacquesZahar Say less :) Already there.
@JacquesZahar the A380 has it aswell
@@TheDistinctor4195 most probably. I’m only talking about the aircrafts I’m qualified for😅
This is called a "Trim Tank"...
Idk im thinking u searched this up or just knew it.
@@Kuzo32 ...As a former Lufthansa technician, I think I know this, but I was more specialized in Airbus...
It's nice to see the Super Guppy in the background. Had the privilege painting and polished it several years ago.
This is the Dreamlifter or 747-LCF. The tail opens up and does not carry fuel, I have been in it and helped design and commission the tail support stands that open the tail.
I don’t know about the dream lifter, but the fuel in the normal 747 isn’t carried in the tail, it’s in the horizontal stabilizer.
Many large aircrafts do that, carrying fuel in tail. Military planes however seemingly utilize that space for electronics/ecm jamming equipments
These are modified B747-400's called Large Cargo Freighters, or LCF's. I flew the LCF during development before Atlas started to operate it. During testing, wing flutter began to develop above Mach. 84, so we were restricted to .83 or less.
Boeing engineers then removed the winglets, and when we flew it afterwards, all the flutter was gone. No idea why. They're still the only -400's out there with no winglets.
Doesn’t surprise me the f-11 tiger (the fighter that shot itself down) had a fuel tank in the vertical stabilizer
@@criollitoificationOn Sept. 21, 1956, young U.S. Navy test pilot Tom Attridge took off in an F11F Tiger (BuNo 138620) from Long Island, New York, for a weapons test over the Atlantic. He climbed to 20,000 feet, started a Mach 1 dive, and fired two bursts of rounds from his 20mm cannons until the ammunition was expended at 13,000 feet. He continued his dive, and around 7,000 feet something powerful struck his windshield. Thinking it must have been a bird, he quickly realized he had a big problem on his hands-his plane was losing power.
Pulling up, he throttled back to 230 mph and began a return to base. Unable to maintain altitude, he attempted to apply more power, but the power would not exceed 78%. The plane went down into a sea of trees approximately a mile shy of the runway, traveling 300 feet and catching fire. It was a total loss. Attridge suffered a broken leg and several broken vertebrae but thankfully survived. As he later learned, it was not a bird that took him down. As it turned out, the crash was caused by a far more surprising source: his own rounds
The Navy considered the incident a one-in-a-million fluke and was certain it would never happen again. Attridge was less convinced, however. “At the speeds we’re flying today,” he later said, “it could be duplicated any time.” He was right. In 1973, another Grumman test pilot, this one flying an F-14 Tomcat out in California, was struck by his own missile. Luckily, it was a dummy missile, and the pilot was able to eject to safety. More recently, in 2019, a Royal Netherlands Air Force F-16 accidentally shot itself from its 20mm rotary cannon. The pilot was able to land safely, uninjured.
Source: www.planeandpilotmag.com/news/pilot-talk/grumman-f11-tiger-shoot-itself-down/
@@criollitoificationit flew so fast that it ran into its own bullets… (after a few seconds of course)
@@criollitoificationit flew down while shooting, and because gravity didnt lower the bullets down out of the way (because the plane was also traveling down) the plane ended up flying through the bullets
Horizontal Stabilizer fuel
@@Acrophobia2LOL. Not true.
Omg, I'm 54 I have loved aviation my whole life, and I have never heard of this. So cool to learn something new. Ty
Yep. So dud the A300 I believe. Not a very weird thing.
Dean has that soothing pilots' voice.
Bro he actually does
The additional tank in the vertical tailpipe is already filled on the ground during the refuelling process depending on the total amount of fuel required (Ramp Fuel). If the Ramp Fuel exceeds a value of approx. 138 tonnes, the automatic refueling system distributes the kerosene between the Center Wing Tank and the Horizontal Stabilizer Tank in a ratio of 5. 2:1. If the amount of fuel in the Center Wing Tank falls below 12,000 US gallons (approx. 36,366 kg) during the cruise flight, the kerosene is automatically transferred from the HST to the Center Wing Tank.
It’s in the horizontal stab. Not the vertical one.
I’m 99.99% sure u searched this up
I was reasearching fuel capacitance temperature loss for an argument and stumbled upon a 747 engineering drawing that showed the "tail tanks". It blew my mind 😮😅 Could carry nearly 19k lbs more fuel with them
Dude, that afterburner video you got is so sick. I went to your channel thinking you were JLazer(the kid who makes cool shit) and just changed his name…then….the fire breathing Eagle came up! 🦅 Very cool to see man.
@@theleagueofshadows100 Hey Thanks! ruclips.net/user/shortsxqIoCu4o9o8?si=uEuS-JC3U4wjin7Q
Yep. True. I flew the 747-400 and -8 for Lufthansa for 14 years. We regularly had fuel in the tail.
Its a basic feature in MANY if not most bigger planes.
To adjust the point of gravity for not only safety but also for fuel efficiency for longer flights
Just to put it into perspective…
I’m an ERJ Captain. On most of our flights, we don’t even carry 5 tons of fuel *in total*.
Lots of jets actually keep fuel back there. It’s often called a “trunk tank” on corporate jets.
Nowhere near 10,000lbs of it, though!
Never seen this 47 design the Dreamlifter presently flying between Anchorage and Nogoya. Flies a few times a week between Charleston and Anchorage. Thanks for sharing
Dean makes me feel special
The first 747 that UAL bought flew over our house before landing at SFO. At the time the engines had a very unique sound to them.
The ‘fact’ was almost correct - the tail tank can carry 10 tons, not just 5 - certainly on the -400’s anyway; though not all were fitted with this capability.
A real fun fact - one of ours had been in maintenance, and the valves from the tail tank had been locked out. Unfortunately, they weren’t then ‘unlocked’ before the aircraft re-entered service. It performed several flights in this condition, but as the tail tank was rarely used, the problem didn’t manifest itself until much later.
Returning to LHR from HKG, the tail tank was used (it was always filled right up if it were to be used, as there was then a known moment around the CofG from having a known quantity of fuel up there). Anyway, the aircraft departed HKG, and a couple of hours into the flight the problem first became apparent. The tail tank transfers into the centre tank once enough fuel has been burnt from the centre tank to allow the fuel to flow by gravity.
Only this time, it didn’t! The valves were still locked closed and the fuel wouldn’t transfer. Various options were looked at, but either the Russian or Chinese authorities, I forget which, wouldn’t allow the aircraft to proceed to an alternate airfield - the aircraft couldn’t make it all the way home, and would need to land at some alternate - but suitable airfields with enough accomodation for a jumbo full of pax, and engineering input to sort the problem were in short supply en-route.
So they decided to return to HKG. However, they couldn’t just dump fuel, as that would rapidly move the Cof G out of limits - they had to burn the fuel from the tanks in a specific order, to get the aircraft below Max Landing Weight, and keep the CofG within limits, before landing.
So they flew up and down the coast of China for several hours, carefully transferring fuel around the operational tanks - did the whole meal service, and put the passengers to sleep. They didn’t tell them what was going on until the morning when, after nearly 10 hours in the air the passengers found themselves approaching HKG rather than LHR!
The first airliner to use that technology was the DC-11, which in order to save fuel had a smaller tail section. The smaller tail section meant that it couldn't take as big a bite out of the air to counteract the lift from the wings, so they added fuel tanks to get the center of mass where they wanted it.
I’ve seen two of the dreamlifter 747s, let me say, seeing them take off is amazing.
Center of mass is one of the most important parts of aerodynamics. They load the tanks depending on passenger seating if a plane is not full as well.
Around 1500 gallons in the tail? Cool. Most likely all useable if gravity fed. I would be willing to bet thet freighter has it as well allowing for W&B variance. Thats a hell of a arm. The old Navy C9 also had fuel in the tail. Not sure how much. Thank you and be safe.
as did our MD-11s together with a CG optimizing computer for cruise condition.
Something I knew, I used to fly 747-200's for TWA, after they went bankrupt, I switched to Delta and now fly A330-900's
Highly doubt that, stick with space flight simulator, kiddo 😂
In roblox keep dreaming 😭😭😭
If you're a pilot, what is the air pressure for the front landing gear of the 747 as compared to the A,330?
"Ontos" is still remembered in Europe
Could be true . TWA stopped operation in 2001 right? 330s were in the air starting mid 90s I think? If he was 40 years old in 2001 and a young 747 pilot could be in early 60s pushing a 330. Why question it?
True, however the LCF doesn’t have any fuel in the horizontal stab, nor an APU.
Due to the swing tail, there’s no plumbing for fuel or bleed air!
The F4U Corsair in the start of the video is beautifull
I am from an exam and i can tell you there was a question on that about a plane carrying fuel in the tail and i actually thought there was a problem with the question 😂
A related fun fact about the stabilizer fuel: after takeoff and reaching cruise, it is used FIRST -- actually, drained into center ("belly" fuel tank). Why not leave it back there to create aft CG for decreased cruise fuel burn? Because it had limited means to pump forward to belly and you wouldn't get to the end of a VERY long flight to discover -- it isn't transfering, it's trapped in the stab, and not available. Ouch. So the 747-400 fuel management system burned it off first, when discovering trapped stab fuel would create no problems (because at that point, if you'd loaded the stabs, you had beau coup fuel to go anywhere ... except your final planned destination. But you were safe.
Pretty much all avgeeks know about that lmao, many aircraft has a trim tank, best way to squeeze in that extra range, especially with the a340-500, its wings were made winder and longer than the a340-300, its horizontal stabilisers were also increased in size and they made the wingbox longer for a bigger belly tanks. Now with a generally massive aircraft like the 747 you would need large a large wingspan, from the 747-100 to the 744 the fuselage was the same length, the only difference in the fuselage being the upper deck was extended on the -300 and 400, the -400 has bigger wings than the 747 classic and was the first 747 to feature a class cockpit on launch
Learn something new every day and this is one of them
It makes sense to carry fuel in the back of the aircraft. Think about what it does for CG, with a more aft CG, you get better cruise speeds, you need less tail down force, so the aircraft is more controllable, easier to flare/land.
Gross polluters✅
Tail strike wouldn’t be good 🔥
Tell your grandchildren you are sorry for polluting my precious skies! Your penalty is coming soon/ don’t think for a second
There isn’t a price to pay 💰
When you are being sold oxygen
Then you will innerstand
Until then, hope your vacation travels was worth it!
You wouldn’t pollute your house
Why would you pollute
the world 🌎
When your ready to make that change
Go look in the mirror
And make that change then🎟
Otherwise it’s negative timeline for you🕳. 🐑
The CG aft is useful in CRZ, but the Trim Tank in the horizontal stabilizer is emptied before Top of Descent. Has to otherwise the CG too far aft would be detrimental to the the flare
@@JacquesZaharright, but the 747, you have to use the stab fuel first, so it doesn’t help for cruise at all. Not a trim tank.
It's pretty common aviation community knowledge that large aircraft have a trim tank in the back to ensure proper center of gravity configuration
Yes just like the 777, some fuel is reserved for the APU (Auxiliary Power Unit) which is the tail, so just in case if it runs out of gas, the APU can power electrical systems and get the engines working for a short amount of time.
I'm pretty sure the Airbus A300/310 has rear trim tanks
Yessir
Yes, the A300/310 has trim tanks in the horizontal stab. It is used to optimize CG
Many aircraft have tail tanks, F-18S too, vent tanks.
That's a beautiful jet.
I did the Detroit to Narita Japan for years and I’m sure they had to fill that stabilizer then 14 to 16 hour flight.
Never knew that. Thanks
Hopefully that 99.999% of people don't include aircraft maintenance engineers and the manufacturers
I didnt know!
Thanks
When I drain my tank I make sure I point in right direction
The Dream Lifter (400LCF) and the 400F does not have a trim tank in the tail. For the dream lifter it would be impractical since the whole tail swings open. That’s why it doesn’t even have an APU.
The true size of the 747 is absolutely incredible
I delivered 'A' containers, M-1's IIRC to this outfit at LAX and remember one night they forgot to place the Pogo stick under the tail used for loading the first containers.
'A' container goes to the back, tail goes "boom" on the ground, messy.
Anyway I got a good look at the inside of the flight deck when the crew doing the paperwork made themselves at home in the cockpit.
I know about fule in the wings, but I didn't know about fule in the tail. It makes sense though, 747s need a lot of fule.
Yup, didn't know that!
I’m not 100% sure about this but I think it’s an airplane. True experts right there
It’s only some of the passenger 747’s that had a fuel tank in the horizontal stabilizer.
Never knew that … thanks
That is calles your trim tank. It is mostly used to shift the centre of gravity
Makes easy fuel access for the APU.
Not the space guppy in the background 😭
Thats no 747 thats thr dream lifter
Kind a looks like the beluga airplane
Fun fact..
This concept originated with the Boeing 717 (KC-135)
The KC-135 was the B707. Not the 717.
Every person that has been certified to fuel this plane should know that
Like the MD11
DC-8 had wingtip tanks that had to remain full
That's easy because if you move fuel . The tail has to hold down the plane less essentially making a plane lighter. You do give up a bit improvements however there's no free lunch. Is winter cruise speed it doesn't matter.
That is a dope fun fact
The A300F’s have them too
It always amazes me looking at how big those are how the hell they stAy in the air
Where is this looks awesome
I do not miss working at Boeing.
Now I know. Thanks. Cool fact
The LCF does not have tail fuel. Its APU was removed also.
He is very correct.
Eaa was so much fun
Must be an optional feature, according to customer. I flew the 747-400 for ten years and I can promise you that at our airline, our 744s did not have a fuel tank in any part of the tail assembly.
I sat in one of the very back rows from LA to London. The whole rear of the aircraft was noticeablly swinging from left to right for quite a while after take off. Maybe the reason was the weight of the fuel. Weird!
Wasn’t the fuel.
When it takes off at a 35 degree angle, what keeps the fuel from rushing into the tail and creating CG problems? (I know, just thought it was a good question)
It's not allowed to slosh around willy nilly. There are valves, pumps etc that need to be activated.
Not all of them, it’s an option rarely used as you can put nearly 180 tons in the wing tanks On the 747-8.
Osh kosh airshow 2023?
Wings and tail I was always told by my prospective pilot friend
S/O to air disasters for the 12 seasons of airplane education 😂
IS THAT THE BIG BRAIN PLANE????!?!?
Lots of aircraft carry fuel under the vertical stab.
I looked it up, the search said 3,300 US gallons. I crunched some numbers I have 2000 S10 pickup with a 19 gallon tank. That comes out to 173.6 tank fulls
i thought fuel was only in the tail until i knew there was other places for fuels..
If it has an aeroflex coating, then most likely it has an integral fuel cell.
99.9 seems excessive, I knew it and I do nothing with aviation. But maybe I’m the exception. Trim and ballast transferable tanks are pretty common
This aircraft is a cargo plane and this explains why extra fuel is carried and is because of the amount of cargo it transports but it also slows the plan down .
Except it carries less fuel.
How does the plane handle all this weight?. Wow
worked in them first remove dripshield open panels on frontbulkhead centrebox stabilizer
How wide where there the fuel lines???
Same as A330 series. There's a fuel tank on the tail
All that fuel might make a tail strike a bit spicy
Nope.
Yes if they were 747-400 mechanic or pilot , which there are many.
He best know a lot 😂 he’s flying a friggen passenger airplane !!!
Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe the Douglas DC-10 had a similar feature
I don’t know about DC…but KC-10’s did not have tail fuel. Fuel was in the wings and body.
I knew that it held fuel but I didn’t have a clue that it would hold up to 5 tons wow
Super guppy:👁️👄👁️
MD-11 also carries fuel in tail.
You have to be pretty deep into aviation and jet liners to know that. I've never heard or read it 😂
Am I the only one that saw that Aero-Spacelines B-337?
Are they just gonna ignore the super guppy in the Background at the start?
That’s Oshkosh 2023 I was there
It was to shift Centre of gravity to increase stability. Logical.
I think it's the opposite.