Falcon BMS Forum
    • Register
    • Login
    • Search
    • Categories
    • Unread
    • Recent
    • Unsolved
    • Popular
    • Website
    • Wiki
    • Discord

    F-16 Fuel Quantities (was Power generation & "environmentalism")

    General Discussion
    8
    32
    657
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • l3crusader
      l3crusader last edited by

      @SnowSky:

      If you are in your F16 with 2000 pounds of fuel and the next tanker is 30 minutes away when using 4000pph.

      Wrong example šŸ˜› With 2000 lbs of fuel, you should be bingo and heading for home plate, not looking around for a tanker :mrgreen:

      But still, replace tanker by airbase and you have a point. Oh, and add 1000 lbs (give or take), since this is the minimum fuel value you are allowed to have at landing.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • Blu3wolf
        Blu3wolf last edited by

        @l3crusader:

        Wrong example šŸ˜› With 2000 lbs of fuel, you should be bingo and heading for home plate, not looking around for a tanker :mrgreen:

        But still, replace tanker by airbase and you have a point. Oh, and add 1000 lbs (give or take), since this is the minimum fuel value you are allowed to have at landing.

        Can be higher. Kunsan F-16s need 2400 lbs fuel on landing - so that they can divert to Osan if needed, and hold there if needed. Emergency fuel at 1000 lbs, priority fuel at 1200 lbs. Add holding fuel to that, then add travel to divert field to that.

        Once you do that, you stop questioning why RL pilots would carry wing bags all the time…!

        EDIT: numbers dont seem to back me up here. 1200 lbs normal recovery, 1000 minimum recovery, and 800 emergency is in the AFI11-F16v38FWSUPP. Trying to find the doc which had the higher numbers…

        l3crusader Migbuster 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • l3crusader
          l3crusader @Blu3wolf last edited by

          @Blu3wolf:

          Once you do that, you stop questioning why RL pilots would carry wing bags all the time…!

          Definitely. Something to think of for the future : doing random flameouts when fuel is below the minimum. This way V-pilots would understand the need for fuel tanks šŸ˜›

          Dee-Jay 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • Migbuster
            Migbuster @Blu3wolf last edited by

            @Blu3wolf:

            Can be higher. Kunsan F-16s need 2400 lbs fuel on landing - so that they can divert to Osan if needed, and hold there if needed. Emergency fuel at 1000 lbs, priority fuel at 1200 lbs. Add holding fuel to that, then add travel to divert field to that.

            Once you do that, you stop questioning why RL pilots would carry wing bags all the time…!

            EDIT: numbers dont seem to back me up here. 1200 lbs normal recovery, 1000 minimum recovery, and 800 emergency is in the AFI11-F16v38FWSUPP. Trying to find the doc which had the higher numbers…

            Peacetime manual limits historically haven’t meant jack in actual conflicts - even in 2003 there is an account of an F-16 hitting the tanker at 800 lbs. Historically there plenty of accounts of tankers flying into the combat zone to save jets - or jets diverting - or even an F-4 pushing another F-4 in mid air when it was low on fuel after a fuel leak šŸ™‚ . I’m sure flying over ISIS manual limits can be observed flying the whole thing on Alt hold - but flying over a high threat environment like Nam hitting the tanker on fumes after dealing with unforseen events seemed more like the standard procedure.

            Blu3wolf 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • Dee-Jay
              Dee-Jay @l3crusader last edited by

              @l3crusader:

              Definitely. Something to think of for the future : doing random flameouts when fuel is below the minimum. This way V-pilots would understand the need for fuel tanks šŸ˜›

              ASUSTeK ROG MAXIMUS X HERO / Intel Core i5-8600K (4.6 GHz) / NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti FE 12GB / 32GB DDR4 Ballistix Elite 3200 MHz / Samsung SSD 970 EVO Plus 2TB / Be Quiet! Straight Power 11 1000W Platinum / Windows 10 Home 64-bit / HOTAS Cougar FSSB R1 (Warthog grip) / SIMPED / MFD Cougar / ViperGear ICP / SimShaker JetPad / Track IR 5 / Curved LED 27'' Monitor 1080p Samsung C27F396 / HP Reverb G2 VR Headset.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • Blu3wolf
                Blu3wolf @Migbuster last edited by

                @Migbuster:

                Peacetime manual limits historically haven’t meant jack in actual conflicts - even in 2003 there is an account of an F-16 hitting the tanker at 800 lbs. Historically there plenty of accounts of tankers flying into the combat zone to save jets - or jets diverting - or even an F-4 pushing another F-4 in mid air when it was low on fuel after a fuel leak šŸ™‚ . I’m sure flying over ISIS manual limits can be observed flying the whole thing on Alt hold - but flying over a high threat environment like Nam hitting the tanker on fumes after dealing with unforseen events seemed more like the standard procedure.

                Peacetime limits are the result of the need to weigh the requirement for training against the requirement to keep aircrew safe.

                In war, limits are broken. The consequences are often light if they are there at all, because the necessity may outweigh the reasoning that held true in peacetime conditions.

                I see you are also a fan of Dos Gringo’s tale of how they flew the whole mission on alt hold…! XD

                DROPPIN’ JDAM!

                l3crusader Migbuster Acetonewarthog 3 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • l3crusader
                  l3crusader @Blu3wolf last edited by

                  The thing is, Migbuster, in your example of the F-16 hitting the tanker, at 800 lbs the guy was definitely at risk of flameout - so it was really close. In BMS, at the moment, with 800 lbs, I can do 50 NM or more and land without too much sweat šŸ˜‰

                  Migbuster Blu3wolf 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • Migbuster
                    Migbuster @Blu3wolf last edited by

                    @Blu3wolf:

                    I see you are also a fan of Dos Gringo’s tale of how they flew the whole mission on alt hold…! XD

                    DROPPIN’ JDAM!

                    One of the best lines - cracked me up! šŸ†’

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • Migbuster
                      Migbuster @l3crusader last edited by

                      @l3crusader:

                      The thing is, Migbuster, in your example of the F-16 hitting the tanker, at 800 lbs the guy was definitely at risk of flameout - so it was really close. In BMS, at the moment, with 800 lbs, I can do 50 NM or more and land without too much sweat šŸ˜‰

                      Me to - I throttle back to zero and glide all the way back šŸ˜›

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • Blu3wolf
                        Blu3wolf @l3crusader last edited by

                        @l3crusader:

                        The thing is, Migbuster, in your example of the F-16 hitting the tanker, at 800 lbs the guy was definitely at risk of flameout - so it was really close. In BMS, at the moment, with 800 lbs, I can do 50 NM or more and land without too much sweat šŸ˜‰

                        800 lbs I would wager would still be okay. Under 700 and trying to do negative Gs I would expect a flameout. I kinda thought the -1 would cover how low you can get on fuel, but the only references to it were a line stating that usable fuel is equal to totalizer displayed fuel unless due to a fault, and another saying that the DED bingo page fuel should correlate to within 100 pounds of the totalizer fuel.

                        Which would support the position that you should be able to get to 100 on the totalizer without worrying under normal flight conditions.

                        l3crusader 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • l3crusader
                          l3crusader @Blu3wolf last edited by

                          DED data and totalizer are different mesures of the fuel state. IIRC, totalizer sums up values of each fuel gauges, while DED data is what in france is called ā€œdetotaliseurā€, ie : total fuel at ramp minus fuel consumed, fuel consumed being measured near the engine. The -1 just says both should be more or less equal within a margin - normal.

                          But you have fuel the feeding system cannot get to in the tanks, and this is why you can still have a flameout while fuel on board is still a few hundreds lbs. This is the whole purpose of emergency and minimum fuel.

                          As for the mention of useable fuel…… this would imply that everything in the tanks can be pumped to the engine. IMO, that is not the case.

                          Blu3wolf 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • Blu3wolf
                            Blu3wolf @l3crusader last edited by

                            @l3crusader:

                            DED data and totalizer are different mesures of the fuel state. IIRC, totalizer sums up values of each fuel gauges, while DED data is what in france is called ā€œdetotaliseurā€, ie : total fuel at ramp minus fuel consumed, fuel consumed being measured near the engine. The -1 just says both should be more or less equal within a margin - normal.

                            But you have fuel the feeding system cannot get to in the tanks, and this is why you can still have a flameout while fuel on board is still a few hundreds lbs. This is the whole purpose of emergency and minimum fuel.

                            As for the mention of useable fuel…… this would imply that everything in the tanks can be pumped to the engine. IMO, that is not the case.

                            The aircraft basic weight includes UNUSABLE fuel. There is aircraft fuel which is not counted in the totalizer and is unusable. The totaliser only counts usable fuel. Additional fuel is in the fuel lines at flameout, but cannot be used by the engine and is not included in the totalizer value.

                            l3crusader 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • l3crusader
                              l3crusader @Blu3wolf last edited by

                              @Blu3wolf:

                              The aircraft basic weight includes UNUSABLE fuel. There is aircraft fuel which is not counted in the totalizer and is unusable. The totaliser only counts usable fuel. Additional fuel is in the fuel lines at flameout, but cannot be used by the engine and is not included in the totalizer value.

                              This is what I’m reading too, fuels tanks are the same. So indeed, you might be right ! Need to check more what the risk are of going below minimum fuel.

                              l3crusader 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • l3crusader
                                l3crusader @l3crusader last edited by

                                From F-16 operation procedures :

                                3.22.4. Minimum/Emergency Fuel. Declare the following when it becomes apparent that an aircraft
                                will enter initial or start an instrument final approach at the base of intended landing or alternate, if
                                required, with:
                                3.22.4.1. Minimum Fuel:
                                3.22.4.1.1. All F-16 Blocks 10 through 32 - 800 pounds or less.
                                3.22.4.1.2. All F-16 Blocks 40 and higher - 1,000 pounds or less.
                                3.22.4.2. Emergency Fuel:
                                3.22.4.2.1. All F-16 Blocks 10 through 32 - 600 pounds or less.
                                3.22.4.2.2. All F-16 Blocks 40 and higher - 800 pounds or less.

                                Definition of minimum fuel and emergency fuel :
                                http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/info/all_infos/media/2008/info08004.pdf

                                Basically :
                                emergency fuel : from where you are, you need to proceed directly to the airbase if you want to land with final reserve fuel.
                                minimum fuel : emergency + some margin : if any delay occurs, you will be in emergency fuel.

                                From this we can deduce the final reserve fuel, under which we can safely assume there IS a risk of flameout.

                                So all that’s left to do is take a clean F-16 Block 40 or 50, for ex, run it dry up to 1000-1500 lbs more or less (so that you get more or less the total weight you would have in an emergency), go into a 15 NM final (noting precisely your fuel beginning your approach), land, see what is your fuel at touchdown so you can deduce fuel spent on the approach.

                                Substract fuel spent on approach to emergency fuel, and you have Final reserve fuel, fuel under which you do have risks of flameout. I need to make the test, but I’m pretty sure that will come to around 500-600 lbs for a Block 40 or up, and 300-400 for Block 32 or less. Not neglectable…

                                Oh, and BTW : :tjacked: šŸ˜›

                                Blu3wolf 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • Blu3wolf
                                  Blu3wolf @l3crusader last edited by

                                  under positive G’s and with the fuel pumps working the dash reads a lot like you get a flameout from fuel starvation around 0 on the totalizer. Elsewise it is not usable fuel.

                                  That said the fuel flow section does comment that with the fuel pumps off, and less than full reservoirs, any negative G maneuvering can cause air to get to the siphons that run the FFP which can cause fuel starvation to the engine even with usable fuel in the reservoirs.

                                  RE the threadjacking - my demands are as follows: the thread returns to friendly discussion and no people saying they want to build power plants next to peoples homes!

                                  If my demands are not met, then you will never see the thread (in its original condition) again!

                                  l3crusader 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • l3crusader
                                    l3crusader @Blu3wolf last edited by

                                    @Blu3wolf:

                                    under positive G’s and with the fuel pumps working the dash reads a lot like you get a flameout from fuel starvation around 0 on the totalizer. Elsewise it is not usable fuel.

                                    That said the fuel flow section does comment that with the fuel pumps off, and less than full reservoirs, any negative G maneuvering can cause air to get to the siphons that run the FFP which can cause fuel starvation to the engine even with usable fuel in the reservoirs.

                                    RE the threadjacking - my demands are as follows: the thread returns to friendly discussion and no people saying they want to build power plants next to peoples homes!

                                    If my demands are not met, then you will never see the thread (in its original condition) again!

                                    +1 for the threadjacking šŸ˜›

                                    I know for the pumps nad negative Gs, dont worry šŸ˜‰ But its not what I’m talking about.

                                    I actually just ran the test : on a circuit just like defined on the Dash-1 (so downwind, base, final) or on a long final, you burn 300 lbs. So with an emergency fuel at 800 on the beginning (like for a Block 40/50), you land with 500 lbs. So 500 lbs margin.

                                    500 lbs is around 10 min of flight in economic cruise…. so not a critical emergency to me šŸ˜› These minimum fuels in F-16 OPERATION PROCEDURE can only mean, for me, that you do run the risk of a flameout below 500 lbs.

                                    And that can be explained by a number of things besides unuseable fuel : gauge errors, vaporized fuel, fuel expanding with temperature, etc…

                                    Blu3wolf 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • Blu3wolf
                                      Blu3wolf @l3crusader last edited by

                                      @l3crusader:

                                      +1 for the threadjacking šŸ˜›

                                      I know for the pumps nad negative Gs, dont worry šŸ˜‰ But its not what I’m talking about.

                                      I actually just ran the test : on a circuit just like defined on the Dash-1 (so downwind, base, final) or on a long final, you burn 300 lbs. So with an emergency fuel at 800 on the beginning (like for a Block 40/50), you land with 500 lbs. So 500 lbs margin.

                                      500 lbs is around 10 min of flight in economic cruise…. so not a critical emergency to me šŸ˜› These minimum fuels in F-16 OPERATION PROCEDURE can only mean, for me, that you do run the risk of a flameout below 500 lbs.

                                      And that can be explained by a number of things besides unuseable fuel : gauge errors, vaporized fuel, fuel expanding with temperature, etc…

                                      Or that they want you to land with a fixed reserve of 500 pounds. Lets face it, beaurocrats would never let it work like that. It would be called flameout fuel then, not emergency fuel.

                                      TobiasA l3crusader 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • TobiasA
                                        TobiasA @Blu3wolf last edited by

                                        The reservoir is 480lbs iirc. Following simple physics, random flameouts may occur when one of the fuel pumps feeding out of that tank runs dry. Would like to see that modelled, it would lead to more fuel discipline among the virtual pilots.

                                        I get nervous everywhere around 1000lbs šŸ™‚

                                        Blu3wolf 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • l3crusader
                                          l3crusader @Blu3wolf last edited by

                                          @Blu3wolf:

                                          Or that they want you to land with a fixed reserve of 500 pounds. Lets face it, beaurocrats would never let it work like that. It would be called flameout fuel then, not emergency fuel.

                                          Emergency fuel has a fixed definition - I believe its FAA or something. Definition being : minimum fuel needed to get straight to the next runway and land with the Final Fuel Reserve.

                                          In the F-16, I would make sense that the final fuel reserve is the reservoir feeding the tank indeed : the slightest G you get (in any direction), the fuel goes around everywhere and you risk to have a pump stall. Especially with negative Gs, as you said earlier Blu3wolf.

                                          Blu3wolf 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • Blu3wolf
                                            Blu3wolf @TobiasA last edited by

                                            @TobiasA:

                                            The reservoir is 480lbs iirc. Following simple physics, random flameouts may occur when one of the fuel pumps feeding out of that tank runs dry. Would like to see that modelled, it would lead to more fuel discipline among the virtual pilots.

                                            I get nervous everywhere around 1000lbs šŸ™‚

                                            both reservoirs are 480 lbs +/-30.

                                            Normally fuel pumps are not the primary supply method to the reservoirs, they are a supplement to the siphoning action from the reservoirs. This method does depend on the reservoirs being full though.

                                            Fuel pumps feed equally from both reservoirs to the FFP and from there to the engine.

                                            It does seem to suggest in the emergency section that you can get flameouts if the reservoirs are not full and you select high fuel flow rates over 6000pph.

                                            TobiasA 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                            • First post
                                              Last post

                                            102
                                            Online

                                            9.9k
                                            Users

                                            20.6k
                                            Topics

                                            343.1k
                                            Posts

                                            Benchmark Sims - All rights reserved ©