I have an aeronautical mathematical thought experiment for you guys to solve....

[harddriver]

I came across this on the net and found it interesting.

Let's start with a look at the most famous of jets, the Boeing 747. The Boeing website states that this model, with a gas tank capacity of 63,500 gallons.

JP-5/Jet A-1 is a complex mixture of hydrocarbons, containing alkanes, naphthenes, and aromatic hydrocarbons that weighs 6.8 pounds per U.S. gallon (0.81 kg/l) and has a high flash point (min. 60 °C or 140 °F).
Autoignition temperature: 210 °C (410 °F; 483 ...
Boiling point: 176 °C (349 °F; 449 K)
Flash point: 38 °C (100 °F; 311 K)
Melting point: −47 °C (−53 °F; 226 K)

The weight of an empty Boeing 747 Jumbo Jet without any passengers, freight or fuel is 412,300 lbs or 187,000 KGS. To put it in perspective, this is more than 4 times heavier than the empty weight of a Boeing 737-800 (which is 91,300 lb / 41,413 kg).

A standard Semi Truck Gasoline tank truck trailer has a capacity to carry 9000 to 9800 gallon capacity. Weight per gallon of automobile gasoline is slightly lighter at 6.3 pounds. So roughly 7 9000 gallon semi truck tank wagons would need to be offloaded to fully fuel a jetliner.


Jet fuel has a weight per gallon of 6.8 pounds per gallon. How much would a fully fueled 747 weigh?

[RockyStar]

Do we have to take the SAT's again to now buy food?

[harddriver]

Nah....

So the weight of just the airplane alone is 412,300 lbs. The weight of the fuel itself is 431,800 lbs (216 tons) ...more than the total weight of the the entire jet. I mentioned that to fully fuel a jet it would then take 7 fullsize semitruck tanker trailers to fill one plane full. I have spent alot of time in airports and the fuel trucks are not even full sized trailers unless they are pulling from underground tanks which is improbable. I have loaded and unloaded 7000-8000 gallon tanker wagons and takes quite some time to do so with modern pumps and high tech control systems.

The internet dude proposed that just due to volumetric constraints 7 semitruck tanker loads of JetA cannot fit into the wings of a even a 747 let alone be able to support the weight of 431,800 ibs being in the wings. He claims that the there might be another form of combustion being utilized when airborne, he then showed a supposed document from the USAF saying they have possibly found another combustion source other than JetA, it looked legit.

I dunno it could be right up there with the moon landing I guess...I find it interesting to ponder these conundrums from time to time.

[RockyStar]

Nah....

So the weight of just the airplane alone is 412,300 lbs. The weight of the fuel itself is 431,800 lbs (216 tons) ...more than the total weight of the the entire jet. I mentioned that to fully fuel a jet it would then take 7 fullsize semitruck tanker trailers to fill one plane full. I have spent alot of time in airports and the fuel trucks are not even full sized trailers unless they are pulling from underground tanks which is improbable. I have loaded and unloaded 7000-8000 gallon tanker wagons and takes quite some time to do so with modern pumps and high tech control systems.

The internet dude proposed that just due to volumetric constraints 7 semitruck tanker loads of JetA cannot fit into the wings of a even a 747 let alone be able to support the weight of 431,800 ibs being in the wings. He claims that the there might be another form of combustion being utilized when airborne, he then showed a supposed document from the USAF saying they have possibly found another combustion source other than JetA, it looked legit.

I dunno it could be right up there with the moon landing I guess...I find it interesting to ponder these conundrums from time to time.

Interesting indeed.

We know the moon landing is bullshit.