Q: Buddy store internal fuel?

I was just wondering if any buddy stores carried internal
fuel,or if all the internal space was taken up by the
drogue, hose and reel, pump, etc. I have conflicting
sources, so hopefully those here with personal experience
can give me the straight skinny. If you can mention the
particular model(s) you're familiar with (if you remember)
and its capacity (if any), that would help.

TIA,

Guy

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
I was just wondering if any buddy stores carried internal
fuel,or if all the internal space was taken up by the
drogue, hose and reel, pump, etc. I have conflicting
sources, so hopefully those here with personal experience
can give me the straight skinny. If you can mention the
particular model(s) you're familiar with (if you remember)
and its capacity (if any), that would help.

TIA,

Guy

The Douglas D-704 has internal fuel storage- I don't recall the capacity.
What I do recall is how much of a b*tch it is to change the internal
components (such as a float switch).

"MikeR" wrote in
:


"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
I was just wondering if any buddy stores carried internal
fuel,or if all the internal space was taken up by the
drogue, hose and reel, pump, etc. I have conflicting
sources, so hopefully those here with personal experience
can give me the straight skinny. If you can mention the
particular model(s) you're familiar with (if you remember)
and its capacity (if any), that would help.

TIA,

Guy

The Douglas D-704 has internal fuel storage- I don't recall the
capacity. What I do recall is how much of a b*tch it is to change the
internal components (such as a float switch).

Can't find any good data on the D-704, but the newer Sargent Fletchers
hold 300 gallons of internal fuel.

Dave in San Diego

Here is the link to the current one's producer web page:
http://www.sargentfletcher.com/ars_charact.htm

If you type "buddy refueling store" to search this ng, you can find
another quite a lovely thread about that.

Dave is right: 300 gallons. It sounds great, bearing in mind the fact
that a standard F/A-18C external fuel tank is ONLY 330 gallons.

Now, when F/A-18E/F carry four 480-gall. tanks plus one ARS, it is
called a "five-wet" configuration. Reportedly, they can transfer up to
12,000 lb of fuel, being better than Viking in speed and self-defence
capability, though (as all Hornets) still suffering from a short loiter
time.

Best regards,

Jacek Zemlo

Peter Stickney wrote:
In article ,
Guy Alcala writes:

I was just wondering if any buddy stores carried internal
fuel,or if all the internal space was taken up by the
drogue, hose and reel, pump, etc. I have conflicting
sources, so hopefully those here with personal experience
can give me the straight skinny. If you can mention the
particular model(s) you're familiar with (if you remember)
and its capacity (if any), that would help.


Guy,
According to the Station Loading charts in my F-4J NATOPS, the D-704
has an Empty Weight of 733#, and a Full Weight of 2773#. Sounds like
there's a shade over 2,000# of fuel in it.
For JP-5 that would work out to 300 U.S. Gallons.


Gotta add this since ya mentioned the F-4J...When in VF-151, we had one
bird with wing tanks and Fox 'have ya seen my moovie' Farrell strapped a
D-704 on the centerline and had one Phantom tank from another. Then did
a fly by on the Midway-maru.

In article ,
Guy Alcala writes:
I was just wondering if any buddy stores carried internal
fuel,or if all the internal space was taken up by the
drogue, hose and reel, pump, etc. I have conflicting
sources, so hopefully those here with personal experience
can give me the straight skinny. If you can mention the
particular model(s) you're familiar with (if you remember)
and its capacity (if any), that would help.

Guy,
According to the Station Loading charts in my F-4J NATOPS, the D-704
has an Empty Weight of 733#, and a Full Weight of 2773#. Sounds like
there's a shade over 2,000# of fuel in it.
For JP-5 that would work out to 300 U.S. Gallons.

--
Pete Stickney

Without data, all you have are opinions

Peter's calculations are a reminder that it is the weight that counts, not
the gallonage. And more specifically, how many BTUs/pound you can get from
your fuel choice (more = better, usually). This is why the world has never
seen a commercially-viable coal-fueled aircraft, old Aeroflot jokes
notwithstanding.

ISTR that 2,000 lbs. of JP-5 was the correct capacity for either the D-704
or the Sargeant Fletcher but it's been many years now...

--
Mike Kanze

"One phrase that no Member of Congress should ever use lightly is 'political
hack.' The ironic possibilities are too rich."

- Wall Street Journal (3/7/05)




"Peter Stickney" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Guy Alcala writes:
I was just wondering if any buddy stores carried internal
fuel,or if all the internal space was taken up by the
drogue, hose and reel, pump, etc. I have conflicting
sources, so hopefully those here with personal experience
can give me the straight skinny. If you can mention the
particular model(s) you're familiar with (if you remember)
and its capacity (if any), that would help.

Guy,
According to the Station Loading charts in my F-4J NATOPS, the D-704
has an Empty Weight of 733#, and a Full Weight of 2773#. Sounds like
there's a shade over 2,000# of fuel in it.
For JP-5 that would work out to 300 U.S. Gallons.

--
Pete Stickney

Without data, all you have are opinions

You mentioned Aeroflot: Now I am living quite near to Warsaw Airport.
Getting used to the metalic and rattling sound of GE engines. But still
what makes me stand stil and look to the sky are the take-offs of these
noisy Russian Tu-154Ms, with this beautiful loud whistle and smoke
trail in the air;-)

Best regards,

Jacek Zemlo

In article ,
"Mike Kanze" writes:
Peter's calculations are a reminder that it is the weight that counts, not
the gallonage. And more specifically, how many BTUs/pound you can get from
your fuel choice (more = better, usually). This is why the world has never
seen a commercially-viable coal-fueled aircraft, old Aeroflot jokes
notwithstanding.

Just so. All hydrocarbon fuels have about the same energy content -
something around 18,000 BTU/lb. Since the jet's fuel controller is
figuring stuff out by the amount of heat produced, it just stuffs the
fuel in until it's hot enough.
Early on, the Navy ran their jets on AVGAS. The carriers already had
bunkerage for that, and they didn't need to add a new supply chain -
that meant modifying not only the carrier's internals, but also the
tankers and replenishment ships that fed them. There were a few
problems though. AVGAS has a desity of 'bout 6.0 lbs/U.S. Gallon.
JP-4 (Jet-B) is about 6.5 lbs/gal, and JP-5 (JET-A) is about 6.7 -
that means that an AVGAS powered jet is going to have 90% of the range
of the same airplane burning Kerosine. Casoline's a much more serious
fire/explosion hazard. The high lead content of 115/145 AVGAS also
played hell with the burners and turbine section.
Biting the bullet, and switching to JP-5 was a big win. Especially
since you could run the ship's boilers on JP-5 as well, giving you a
lot more bunkerage, and a single supply line.

There were a number of tricks played in the early days of jets to
increase the density of fuel - a favorite, used in the jet
cross-country attempts in the early 1950s (Bendix races, * such) was
to put cans of Dry Ice into the fuel tankers used to refuel the jets
at their intermeddiate stops. The chilled fuel was more dense, and
you'd squeeze just enough extra Cubic BTUs into the tanks that it
would essentially make up for the fuel used for takeoff.


--
Pete Stickney

Without data, all you have are opinions

Peter,

Thanks for the additional perspective.

I recall seeing a photo long ago of a P2V-1 (?) being fueled for a very long
range flight. The fuel lines from the bowser to the aircraft were all packed
in dry ice for the same reason.

--
Mike Kanze

"One phrase that no Member of Congress should ever use lightly is 'political
hack.' The ironic possibilities are too rich."

- Wall Street Journal (3/7/05)




"Peter Stickney" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Mike Kanze" writes:
Peter's calculations are a reminder that it is the weight that counts,
not
the gallonage. And more specifically, how many BTUs/pound you can get
from
your fuel choice (more = better, usually). This is why the world has
never
seen a commercially-viable coal-fueled aircraft, old Aeroflot jokes
notwithstanding.

Just so. All hydrocarbon fuels have about the same energy content -
something around 18,000 BTU/lb. Since the jet's fuel controller is
figuring stuff out by the amount of heat produced, it just stuffs the
fuel in until it's hot enough.
Early on, the Navy ran their jets on AVGAS. The carriers already had
bunkerage for that, and they didn't need to add a new supply chain -
that meant modifying not only the carrier's internals, but also the
tankers and replenishment ships that fed them. There were a few
problems though. AVGAS has a desity of 'bout 6.0 lbs/U.S. Gallon.
JP-4 (Jet-B) is about 6.5 lbs/gal, and JP-5 (JET-A) is about 6.7 -
that means that an AVGAS powered jet is going to have 90% of the range
of the same airplane burning Kerosine. Casoline's a much more serious
fire/explosion hazard. The high lead content of 115/145 AVGAS also
played hell with the burners and turbine section.
Biting the bullet, and switching to JP-5 was a big win. Especially
since you could run the ship's boilers on JP-5 as well, giving you a
lot more bunkerage, and a single supply line.

There were a number of tricks played in the early days of jets to
increase the density of fuel - a favorite, used in the jet
cross-country attempts in the early 1950s (Bendix races, * such) was
to put cans of Dry Ice into the fuel tankers used to refuel the jets
at their intermeddiate stops. The chilled fuel was more dense, and
you'd squeeze just enough extra Cubic BTUs into the tanks that it
would essentially make up for the fuel used for takeoff.


--
Pete Stickney

Without data, all you have are opinions