Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest hfghfghfgh

airliner fuel tanks heating

Recommended Posts

Does airliners have fuel tanks heating?I know that PMDG manuals mentioned that b747 has temp probe in each tank and that EICAS warning message is created if fuel temp gets below -37

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Hi hfghfghfgh That's a very interesting topic actually. There is far more to it than FSX simulates. This site: www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/140073/1/#26 (can't hyperlink due forum restrictions), may have a more tech information than you want but take what you need. I'm sure you'll find it interesting. If you want to learn more on this topic then do a few more searches on the tech ops forums. There is huge wealth of real world info there. CheersTerry

Share this post


Link to post

Many times hydraulic lines and/or pumps are placed very close to the fuel tanks, heating the fuel.I can think of one particular aircraft that had some growing pains because of lack of heated fuel. What I affectionally call the "Mitsubishi Hawker Beechjet Jet" had a few incidents/accidents because of dual flame outs-- caused none other than by frozen/nearly frozen fuel lines. These aircraft require fuel additives (ie Prist) to lower the freezing point.Especially on larger aircraft, fuel is typically (not always) heated in the tanks. I'm no expert (as you can tell) but this is an interesting topic! Get your hands on a copy of an air carrier's operating hand book. It will put these sytems into English so a pilot can understand. :( The 727s have an interesting and simple way of fuel tank heating. Some others are a little more complicated.

Share this post


Link to post
This is done via fuel to engine oil heat exchanger, but is the fuel in tanks heated?
I don't think so. The fuel is of course naturally heated because of jet's high speed and air-friction (roughly by about 20C) . It is further (naturally) heated when it is close to entering the engine by a heat exchanger from the generators. But I never heard that the main body of the fuel be somehow artificially heated - it would require way too much energy. You only really have to worry about fuel temperature when flying on those extreme Polar routes and pilots do use special procedures before/during such flights.

Share this post


Link to post
I don't think so. The fuel is of course naturally heated because of jet's high speed and air-friction (roughly by about 20C) . It is further (naturally) heated when it is close to entering the engine by a heat exchanger from the generators. But I never heard that the main body of the fuel be somehow artificially heated - it would require way too much energy. You only really have to worry about fuel temperature when flying on those extreme Polar routes and pilots do use special procedures before/during such flights.
Based on my knowledge there is no such think as natural heated fuel. You are right that friction increases kinetic energy of molecules, but this will only increase temp of wings leading edges and certainly not to 20

Share this post


Link to post
Read exactly what I said .. I said BY 20 C, I never said TO 20 C, a big difference. For nitpickers I also said roughly about, so maybe it is closer to 15, I don't recall. And I stand by what I said - friction is constant and it creates a constant heat flow from the skin of the wing/underbelly (NOT ONLY its leading edge as you imply - basis physics of friction) to the fuel. So yes, in fact the friction acts as a natural fuel heater increasing its temperature by _____ (fill in the blanks) degrees. If this heating did not take place no jet could fly at higher flight levels where air temperature is routinely below jet fuel freezing point.Ouchh.. this is really, really BAD, BAD physics but lets not go there ... :(
You are not reading my post in a context. Of course air molecules hit or touch or kiss wings surface or however you wana call it, but they don't hit the upper and lower surface at the 90

Share this post


Link to post

Leaving aside the fuel heating issue:

air stream must increase at the upper side because it has to make a longer distance than at the lower side. This increase in speed reduces the pressure. The other factor of lift is inpact lift - this is created whenever angle of attack is greater than 0. This lift force is generated because air molecules are directed downwards and thus by physics law of action and reaction "push" the plane up. Inpact lift is greatly boost when flaps are in down position. Hope we agree on that.
Those are two common myths on the mechanics of lift generation, and they are wrong.Air molecules do not "have to" speed up because the upper surface of the wing is longer than the lower surface.Infact, a cambered (curved) thin airfoil will produce lift at zero AoA even if upper and lower surfaces have the same length.Regarding what you call "impact lift", the air is indeed deflected downward every time lift is produced, but the mechanism (in un-stalled, subsonic conditions) is different from what your description would seem to suggest. In other words, it's not that air molecules hit the lower side of the airfoil like bullets and get deflected downward, the mechanics are much more complicated and involve the upper surface of the wing as well.Marco

Share this post


Link to post
how come "clean" air stream on wings creates such a high differences BY 20?
Because it does. You are underestimating friction forces my friend. You think that unless it hits at 90 deg it ain't much. SR-71's skin heats up to over 300 C while flying at Mach 3 at 85000 ft, all at 'zero degree angle'. SR-71 pilots have to wear special cooling vests otherwise they would cook inside their aircraft - all because of friction. You are also confusing friction with air compression effects that also generate heat). So if at Mach 3 you get delta T of +300 C how come a mere 20 C is such a big deal for you at Mach 0.85?. What is so difficult to comprehend here? Again, by your own admission fuel can freeze at around -40 C yet passenger aircraft fly every day when outside temperature is -55C. So what is your explanation for that? There are no fuel heaters that would do the job so what kind of magic is involved here?(Not sure what purpose serves your tirade about lift generation - we are talking about friction/heating and not lift generation).

Share this post


Link to post
Because it does. You are underestimating friction forces my friend. You think that unless it hits at 90 deg it ain't much. SR-71's skin heats up to over 300 C while flying at Mach 3 at 85000 ft, all at 'zero degree angle'. SR-71 pilots have to wear special cooling vests otherwise they would cook inside their aircraft - all because of friction. You are also confusing friction with air compression effects that also generate heat). So if at Mach 3 you get delta T of +300 C how come a mere 20 C is such a big deal for you at Mach 0.85?. What is so difficult to comprehend here? Again, by your own admission fuel can freeze at around -40 C yet passenger aircraft fly every day when outside temperature is -55C. So what is your explanation for that? There are no fuel heaters that would do the job so what kind of magic is involved here?(Not sure what purpose serves your tirade about lift generation - we are talking about friction/heating and not lift generation).
I'm thinking -55

Share this post


Link to post
Because it does. You are underestimating friction forces my friend. You think that unless it hits at 90 deg it ain't much. SR-71's skin heats up to over 300 C while flying at Mach 3 at 85000 ft, all at 'zero degree angle'. SR-71 pilots have to wear special cooling vests otherwise they would cook inside their aircraft - all because of friction. You are also confusing friction with air compression effects that also generate heat). So if at Mach 3 you get delta T of +300 C how come a mere 20 C is such a big deal for you at Mach 0.85?. What is so difficult to comprehend here? Again, by your own admission fuel can freeze at around -40 C yet passenger aircraft fly every day when outside temperature is -55C. So what is your explanation for that? There are no fuel heaters that would do the job so what kind of magic is involved here?(Not sure what purpose serves your tirade about lift generation - we are talking about friction/heating and not lift generation).
Most of the heating occurs because of adiabatic compression of the air - not becuase of skin friction. Adiabatic compression is what cause a bicycle pump to get hot.

Share this post


Link to post

Murmur:I really don't know why I allways read about inpact lift and airshape generated lift if these two things are a myth. I agree airflow mechanic are very complex, can't really be calculated since model simunaltions give better results, but still I think lift is generated from these two main things. Inpact lift or downforce lift is allso generated on F1 car rear and front spoiler by same principle. But I see I'll have to visit technical library to search for some reading - since I don't know much about. michal:OK I believe what you claim since I see you are an expert. So heat isn't generated sollely from friction but also from air commpression? Does bellow equation describe this?Just a word about simulated PMDG B747. In upper EICAS at the right bottom corrner you have also data about fuel temperature - probably average from all the tanks. The reading is nearlly same as TAT reading an it changes in matter of seconds - is this PMDG error or what?

Share this post


Link to post
Most of the heating occurs because of adiabatic compression of the air - not becuase of skin friction. Adiabatic compression is what cause a bicycle pump to get hot.
Could be. In SR-71 for example skin heating alone accounts for 600 F, of course in the nose of the aircraft when you have additional significant compression effects it gets up to 800 F. The end effect is that you get temperature increases throughout the fuselage of the aircraft - in some places more and in other places less and all are result of some combination of friction and compression effects.

Share this post


Link to post
The reading is nearlly same as TAT reading an it changes in matter of seconds - is this PMDG error or what?
Don't expect they spent a lot of time on simulating fuel temperature or that they claim a lot of precision in this area.But since they had many real life 747 pilots advising them - they probably did just enough with the info they had.

Share this post


Link to post

I can definatly remember watching an airbus documentry from Justplanes, where the pilot tranfers fuel between external tanks to to tanks closer to center of the plane, he did so cause as he said, fuel in the more outward tanks is warmer than fuel in the inner tanks. Cause fuel in wing tanks is warmer due to friction, compared to center tanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Don't expect they spent a lot of time on simulating fuel temperature or that they claim a lot of precision in this area.But since they had many real life 747 pilots advising them - they probably did just enough with the info they had.
Just this in response and then I will leave this topic since all that it was to say was said (and explained) - mostly by you.There is a physical law about energy conservation or something - meaning energy can't be destroyed it can only take different form.Regular car engine has 30% of heat efficiency, about 30% is transfer via radiator and the rest via exhaust. The first 30% when driving on flat surface is also transfered mostly to air by heating it and some het is generated by tyre friction also heating tyres and road surface. Some of the heat must also be generated into car's body (maybe up to one degree C if really speeding - 130mph)So jet engine also uses fuel kinetic energy, burning it into heat as this heat produces high pressure neccesary to form thrust. Jet exhaust power flow (airmass x EGT) is much lower than heat generated in jet combustion chamber and since plane doesn't have a radiator or tyres this difference is as seems generated into heat due to air friction/compression. However I think that most of this heat is transfered back to air due to isothermal heat transfer since aluminium has high thermal conductivity. LITTLE OF TOPIC BUT STILLPMDG 747 is highly detaileed add on aircraft but still it has many insufficiencys. Compare to its price they could do better. However I read that mostly all the natural behavior in MS FS 9/X is described with tables rather that with physical equation. Particularly is this seen when airplane under high speed stalls when you exced angle off attack and airflow cross wings is broken. At this point you just lose lift and altitude. This is however normal but if you have F16 flying at 500 kias at low altitude and suddenly strongly applly elevator upplane should gain altitude not lose it since there is too much inpact lift. Same thing happens when try to autorotate with helli. If you applly to much collective blades simply stop and you begin to rotate round your own vertical axle.

Share this post


Link to post
LITTLE OF TOPIC BUT STILLPMDG 747 is highly detaileed add on aircraft but still it has many insufficiencys. Compare to its price they could do better. However I read that mostly all the natural behavior in MS FS 9/X is described with tables rather that with physical equation. Particularly is this seen when airplane under high speed stalls when you exced angle off attack and airflow cross wings is broken. At this point you just lose lift and altitude. This is however normal but if you have F16 flying at 500 kias at low altitude and suddenly strongly applly elevator upplane should gain altitude not lose it since there is too much inpact lift. Same thing happens when try to autorotate with helli. If you applly to much collective blades simply stop and you begin to rotate round your own vertical axle.
It is not well written and argued thought but perhaps it is better to leave it alone .. :(

Share this post


Link to post

If you go to some of the aviation sites and dig up the threads and reports on the BA 777 that lost both engines due to supposed fuel blockage/icing, there is quite a bit of theory and system design analysis concerning cold fuel tanks. Mainly 777 related of course, but also of general applicabilty as well.scott s..

Share this post


Link to post
Does airliners have fuel tanks heating?I know that PMDG manuals mentioned that b747 has temp probe in each tank and that EICAS warning message is created if fuel temp gets below -37

Share this post


Link to post
Does anyone remember a certain 747 ( I forget the type and airline ) off the north east coast of U.S.A that exploded in mid-air? I believe the FAA determined that it was caused by faulty heater wiring in one of the center fuel tanks that ignited fuel fumes in a partially filled or empty tank. Based on that, it would seem the tanks had heaters, at least in the case of this particular 747. DISCLAIMER: I freely admit that I do not know anything about fuel heating other than what I have referred to above!Regards,Mel[/quoteThe MD-80 has a fuel heating switch on it (One for each engine), When turned on will go through a heating cycle then turn itself off, just like a car rear defroster would. Off is the normal position.

Share this post


Link to post
Does anyone remember a certain 747 ( I forget the type and airline ) off the north east coast of U.S.A that exploded in mid-air? I believe the FAA determined that it was caused by faulty heater wiring in one of the center fuel tanks that ignited fuel fumes in a partially filled or empty tank. Based on that, it would seem the tanks had heaters, at least in the case of this particular 747. DISCLAIMER: I freely admit that I do not know anything about fuel heating other than what I have referred to above!Regards,Mel
That was TWA 800. It was caused by faulty wiring to the center tank fuel pumps.

Share this post


Link to post
Does anyone remember a certain 747 ( I forget the type and airline ) off the north east coast of U.S.A that exploded in mid-air? I believe the FAA determined that it was caused by faulty heater wiring in one of the center fuel tanks that ignited fuel fumes in a partially filled or empty tank. Based on that, it would seem the tanks had heaters, at least in the case of this particular 747. DISCLAIMER: I freely admit that I do not know anything about fuel heating other than what I have referred to above!Regards,Mel
If you are refering to the 737-131 on TWA Flight 800 on 17 July 1996 where the centre wing tank (CWT) exploded, the NTSB concluded that: The source of ignition energy for the explosion could not be determined with certainty, but, of the sources evaluated by the investigation, the most likely was a short circuit outside of the CWT that allowed excessive voltage to enter it through electrical wiring associated with the fuel quantity indication system.During its investigation, the NTSB considered a wide range of possible causes. These did not include a fuel heating system because the aircraft wasn't fitted with such a system.http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAR0003.pdf

Share this post


Link to post