Zero Fuel Weight

[skyfarmer]

Cessna 310.

Load up the aircraft in fuselage and nose up to max ZFW. Fuel can then be uploaded in Tips, aux and wing locker tanks if fitted.

If you did not have wing locker fuel tanks, but had the wing lockers as baggage compartments instead, it would be possible to load up the wing lockers with baggage up to the weight of fuel that they would have contained.

This makes sense structurally, as the airframe will only see the weight, not what is in the lockers.....but would a CAA/FAA inspector see it in the same light, or would the baggage in the wing lockers have to be included in the ZFW?

[bushbolox]

But what if you land with baggage weight in the lockers instead of empty locker tanks as fuel there should have been burnt first. Surely that would exceed the zfw. Zfw will be mod specific i would have thought. Probably lower for the no locker tank config

[TopBunk]

Skyfarmer

Are the bags fuel? No, in which case (no pun intended!) they have to accounted for in the ZFW. Simple as that really.

I understand what you are saying, but surely the fuel distribution and the burn sequence is also relevant, which therefore could adversely affect the CofG for landing.

[skyfarmer]

Topbunk... understand what you are saying, but that is a paperwork reason as opposed to a actual structural reason. I am wondering if there is any documents out there going in to this?

Wether the weight in the wing lockers is fuel or baggage, the wing root bending moment will still be the same, so physically it will not make any difference.

Possibly different ZFW with the wing locker tank mod, do not know.

I do not feel that fuel distruibution, c of g will be an issue, as there is no limits to landing with full fuel tanks, as long as you are below max landing weight, which is only 45kg below take off weight.

Burning off fuel in wing and aux tanks does move the cof g forward, so having baggage in the lockers and not fuel would actually improve matters