| Author |
Message |
|
qwe2008
|
 Posted: Sep 25, 2010 - 05:11 AM
|
 
|
|
Active Member
Joined: Aug 21, 2010 - 10:56 AM
Posts: 180
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
 Posted: May 19, 2013 - 12:41 PM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
Last edited by qwe2008 on Sep 25, 2010 - 07:59 AM; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
popcorn
|
|
Posted: Sep 25, 2010 - 06:23 AM
|
|
|
Elite 2K
Joined: Sep 24, 2008 - 09:55 AM
Posts: 2025
Status: Offline
|
| I got 3581.4 gallons internal capacity adding up all the internal fuel cells (transfer and feed). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
flyboy22
|
|
Posted: Sep 25, 2010 - 06:07 PM
|
|
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Aug 26, 2010 - 05:58 AM
Posts: 57
Location: USA
Status: Offline
|
| nope about 18k internal, 26k with two bags. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BDF
|
|
Posted: Sep 25, 2010 - 09:00 PM
|
|
|
Active Member
Joined: Nov 23, 2006 - 01:54 PM
Posts: 233
Status: Offline
|
| Yep, the official count is 18,448lbs internal. Not quite sure why the TechOrd shows something different unless one of the smaller tank groups has been intentionally deactivated somehow for some reason. It seems to odd to me too that an official pub was that far off. |
_________________
When it comes to fighting Raptors, "We die wholesale..."
|
|
|
|
|
|
djcross
|
|
Posted: Sep 26, 2010 - 04:18 AM
|
|
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Nov 10, 2005 - 01:28 AM
Posts: 55
Status: Offline
|
| Usable fuel + ullage volume + unusable fuel = tank internal volume |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JetTest
|
|
Posted: Sep 26, 2010 - 10:14 AM
|
|
|
Senior member
Joined: Jul 04, 2007 - 01:22 AM
Posts: 417
Status: Offline
|
| It looks like the last notes above are talking gallons vs pounds |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sprstdlyscottsmn
|
|
Posted: Sep 26, 2010 - 04:43 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K
Joined: Mar 10, 2006 - 01:24 AM
Posts: 1192
Status: Offline
|
| I think djcross has it, the other 1600lbs is unusable fuel that will be trapped in the system even if the engines are starved. |
_________________
James,
-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic (WTF?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
sferrin
|
|
Posted: Sep 26, 2010 - 07:25 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K
Joined: Jul 22, 2005 - 04:23 AM
Posts: 1613
Status: Offline
|
|
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
I think djcross has it, the other 1600lbs is unusable fuel that will be trapped in the system even if the engines are starved.
That's sounds like lousy design since you've effectively added 1600lbs of ballast. |
_________________
"There I was. . ."
|
|
|
|
|
|
shingen
|
|
Posted: Sep 27, 2010 - 03:33 AM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran
Joined: Jan 30, 2010 - 03:27 AM
Posts: 570
Location: California
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
lampshade111
|
|
Posted: Sep 27, 2010 - 04:59 AM
|
|
|
Active Member
Joined: Sep 22, 2008 - 03:17 AM
Posts: 191
Status: Offline
|
| I've heard numbers ranging from 18,000 to 21,000. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
flyboy22
|
|
Posted: Sep 27, 2010 - 02:34 PM
|
|
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Aug 26, 2010 - 05:58 AM
Posts: 57
Location: USA
Status: Offline
|
|
lampshade111 wrote:
I've heard numbers ranging from 18,000 to 21,000.
It's 18,000 pounds internal. It's all usable if all the fuel pumps are operating normally. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search
Register
Private Messages
Forum Guidelines
