Fuel / KG
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: PPrune nominee 2011!
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel / KG
Really stupid question... In piston aircraft what is the approx value that a liter of aviation fuel weighs in kilo's?
Trying to do some calculations, but I'm not making sence
Trying to do some calculations, but I'm not making sence
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Biloela
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
0.72kg/lt in the ERSA. I have seen some weight and balance test questions in the past give a particular weight they wanted you to use, e.g. convert fuel kgs to litres(SG 0.69).
Cheers MM
Cheers MM
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The cloud
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
0.7 if it's hot or doing it in your head
0.72 if it's cold or if doing a Casa exam
have had sg's as low as 0.67 when doing the transfer calculations...
0.78 is closer to jeta1 perhaps why it was in your head...
0.72 if it's cold or if doing a Casa exam
have had sg's as low as 0.67 when doing the transfer calculations...
0.78 is closer to jeta1 perhaps why it was in your head...
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: ˙ǝqɐq ǝɯ ʇ,uıɐ ʇɐɥʇ 'sɔıʇɐqoɹǝɐ ɹoɟ uʍop ǝpısdn ǝɯɐu ɹıǝɥʇ ʇnd ǝɯos
Age: 45
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last time I checked the MSDS for AVGAS coming out of the Kwinana refinery was at 0.70 kg/L @ 15°C. I can't find refinery specific info but:
According to BP Aust MSDS for AVGAS you're looking at 0.70 kg/L @ 15°C.
And for those of you playing at home Jet A1 (with fizzy) is 0.80 kg/L @ 15°C (ibid).
FRQ CB
According to BP Aust MSDS for AVGAS you're looking at 0.70 kg/L @ 15°C.
And for those of you playing at home Jet A1 (with fizzy) is 0.80 kg/L @ 15°C (ibid).
FRQ CB
Well, I've only EVER used 7.2 lbs / Gallon.....
But then I AM a 'dinosaur'......(Works in the Tiger...)
Still alive though....
Cheers
But then I AM a 'dinosaur'......(Works in the Tiger...)
Still alive though....
Cheers
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: wheelyubarrabackcreek
Age: 55
Posts: 36
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SG of Avgas
I used a SG of .72 (legacy of training/CASA exams), during a CASA audit the FOI (good bloke) indicated an SG of .69 is appropriate in the tropics.
In a C310 with full mains this increased the payload by 12kg.
In a C310 with full mains this increased the payload by 12kg.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a C310 with full mains this increased the payload by 12kg
Doesn't fuel get burned in the engine by volume? So if the fuel expands when it's hot and weighs less per litre, your endurance on full tanks goes down.
In your case it would be the equivalent of a whole 16 litres in ISA, which I doubt makes a significant difference, but still...
Check Attitude
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Typical values for AvGas specific gravity vs temperature are as follows.
Temp ◦C, S.G.
10 , .712
15 , .707
20 , .701
25 , .695
30 , .69
35 , .684
40 , .678
Due to manufacturing tolerances, additives and time of year, there will always be variations from the typical values.
Talk to your local refueller, not only does he have an actual S.G. for each batch of avgas, he also has a whiz wheel for computing the S.G.
Under ISA conditions (15 degrees C) the typical value is .707
The figure of .72 has a safety fudge factor and is not indicative of the S.G. as supplied by the fuel supplier.
Baswell is correct regarding volume, at higher temperatures the volume of fuel is less.
TAA / QANTAS used to take advantage of this fact to enable extra fuel to be loaded.
For a Sydney - Perth flight, originating from Melbourne, the technique was to cruise as high as possible MEL - SYD,
then refuel as soon as possible after landing SYD while the wings / fuel tanks were still chilled.
Racing cars use a similar method, refuelling from chilled containers to get more fuel (volume) into the fuel tank.
As for exams, unless specified, stick to .72, whether its right or wrong, its what is expected.
and finally, a repeat of earlier, for the actual S.G. ask the refueller what was the S.G. when he did his daily dips and tests.
Temp ◦C, S.G.
10 , .712
15 , .707
20 , .701
25 , .695
30 , .69
35 , .684
40 , .678
Due to manufacturing tolerances, additives and time of year, there will always be variations from the typical values.
Talk to your local refueller, not only does he have an actual S.G. for each batch of avgas, he also has a whiz wheel for computing the S.G.
Under ISA conditions (15 degrees C) the typical value is .707
The figure of .72 has a safety fudge factor and is not indicative of the S.G. as supplied by the fuel supplier.
Baswell is correct regarding volume, at higher temperatures the volume of fuel is less.
TAA / QANTAS used to take advantage of this fact to enable extra fuel to be loaded.
For a Sydney - Perth flight, originating from Melbourne, the technique was to cruise as high as possible MEL - SYD,
then refuel as soon as possible after landing SYD while the wings / fuel tanks were still chilled.
Racing cars use a similar method, refuelling from chilled containers to get more fuel (volume) into the fuel tank.
As for exams, unless specified, stick to .72, whether its right or wrong, its what is expected.
and finally, a repeat of earlier, for the actual S.G. ask the refueller what was the S.G. when he did his daily dips and tests.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: ex everywhere
Age: 72
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mainframe,
You quote Baswell as correct that fuel volume is less when temperatures are high.
I thought it was the other way around. Ex DXB in the A300-600R we used to
" hide " a couple of tonnes in the tail tank to get the volume of gas aboard when it came out of the ground hot.
Just wonderin'
You quote Baswell as correct that fuel volume is less when temperatures are high.
I thought it was the other way around. Ex DXB in the A300-600R we used to
" hide " a couple of tonnes in the tail tank to get the volume of gas aboard when it came out of the ground hot.
Just wonderin'
I know I've forgotten most of the stuff that I learnt in high school physics. Something about things expanding when they heat up (until they change state). There was also something about the calorific content of fuel. Of course, the container may have limits of mass and volume but it is the energy in the fuel which is partially converted into work done by the powerplant .... I need more red wine.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tpad/mainframe.
Bit of confusion I think:
What I meant: when hot, the weight of the same volume of fuel is less. But at cruise, the fuel cools down again, so the volume shrinks. And you can put the extra tonnes you put in the tail back into the mains because there is room again? (not to mention fuel burnt making space, of course)
That why you heavy drivers put fuel in by the tonne instead of litres.
Also: if the fuel didn't significantly cool, e.g. you go power line inspecting in a chopper on a 40 degree day, you actually have less endurance in the tanks then you would if you did the same job on a 10 degree day? Just because the fuel expands, doesn't magically give it more energy...
Bit of confusion I think:
Baswell is correct regarding volume, at higher temperatures the volume of fuel is less.
That why you heavy drivers put fuel in by the tonne instead of litres.
Also: if the fuel didn't significantly cool, e.g. you go power line inspecting in a chopper on a 40 degree day, you actually have less endurance in the tanks then you would if you did the same job on a 10 degree day? Just because the fuel expands, doesn't magically give it more energy...
Check Attitude
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tpad, djpil and Baswell,
apologies, the weight, not volume, is less with temp increase, so calorific value suffers.
I used to gain in intelligence after a few Crownies, or so it seemed.
Not the first on pprune to respond after imbibing ?
apologies, the weight, not volume, is less with temp increase, so calorific value suffers.
I used to gain in intelligence after a few Crownies, or so it seemed.
Not the first on pprune to respond after imbibing ?
Last edited by Mainframe; 1st May 2011 at 23:19. Reason: typo
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re 'at higher temperatures the volume of fuel is less'
I think Mainframe may have had one Crownie above gross. Perhaps he had it hot in order to get more volume for the same weight. I think he meant that at higher temperatures the weight is less for a given volume of fuel.
Re fuel, my experience with an IO520 Continental has been that when I operate in cold places with cold fuel I require a higher fuel flow for my usual power settings. I'm probably getting more power but I need it to push through the cold dense air. In hot climates I can run further lean of peak (probably due to better atomization of the the hot fuel in the hot intake air) . My indicated airspeed is down slightly but my TAS is just as good if not better than it is when flying in cold air. I may have been dudded in the amount of energy I purchased (high volume low weight) but it balances out by the more efficient use of the hot fuel in hot air.
Cheers RA
PS We used to use the principle of better atomization in hot air in a Comanche I flew long ago. In cruise we used to operate partial carby heat which gave us smoother operation and better economy.
I think Mainframe may have had one Crownie above gross. Perhaps he had it hot in order to get more volume for the same weight. I think he meant that at higher temperatures the weight is less for a given volume of fuel.
Re fuel, my experience with an IO520 Continental has been that when I operate in cold places with cold fuel I require a higher fuel flow for my usual power settings. I'm probably getting more power but I need it to push through the cold dense air. In hot climates I can run further lean of peak (probably due to better atomization of the the hot fuel in the hot intake air) . My indicated airspeed is down slightly but my TAS is just as good if not better than it is when flying in cold air. I may have been dudded in the amount of energy I purchased (high volume low weight) but it balances out by the more efficient use of the hot fuel in hot air.
Cheers RA
PS We used to use the principle of better atomization in hot air in a Comanche I flew long ago. In cruise we used to operate partial carby heat which gave us smoother operation and better economy.