A320 Center Tank Fuel
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A320 Center Tank Fuel
Hi guys,
I am new on the A320. Am wondering why is it prohibited to use the center tank fuel on take off? (FCOM 3, 3.01.28, page 2, operating limitations)
I know the center tank pumps will automatically be off (if under auto mode) when slats are extended & 2 mins of engines running, but I am trying to understand the logic behind this.
Thank you.
I am new on the A320. Am wondering why is it prohibited to use the center tank fuel on take off? (FCOM 3, 3.01.28, page 2, operating limitations)
I know the center tank pumps will automatically be off (if under auto mode) when slats are extended & 2 mins of engines running, but I am trying to understand the logic behind this.
Thank you.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: -
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand that in the event of total electrical failure, gravity feed is only provided by the wing tanks. So we don't want to starve the engines on takeoff or go around. But I'm not sure if this is THE REASON why we don't use the center tanks on those critical phases.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi there - I believe the simple answer is that the manufacturer does not want one single source of fuel supplying the two engines at such a critical time of the flight (takeoff). Most manufacturers prefer a dedicated tank to engine arrangement.
OP
OP
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Central Europe
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Recirc
And what about the fuel recirculation system for IDG cooling...? If the wing tanks are full, they cannot stow the fuel which comes back from the heat exchanger... Just my thoughts...
Last edited by FLX/MCT; 25th Jun 2008 at 06:07.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: oxford
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gravity feeding from the center tank is not possible (no by-pass valve fitted on the centre tank pumps). So if there is a failure in the climb out on centre feeding there is no alternate route
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
matiasbalacco - yes, suction feed is only available from the wing tanks, so in the event of total electric failure, you will not have the wing tank fuel pumps running , ie fuel will only be suction fed from wing tanks. It makes no difference whether the fuel is coming from center tank or wing tank before it fails. So I don't think this is the reason.
Office Pest - It's not single source. The wing tank fuel pumps are running at the same time with the center tank fuel pumps, only at lower pressure. If center tank pumps fail, wing tank pumps automatically take over to supply fuel to the engines.
ASFKAP - Not sure about this. But it doesn't seems to be a valid reason.
FLX/MCT - Fuel recirculation for IDG cooling will be automatically stopped on take off and climb (FCOM1, 1.70.40, page 6 -CFM eng. only). So this is not the reason.
alwaysontime - Not true. Look at the reply to Office Pest.
Office Pest - It's not single source. The wing tank fuel pumps are running at the same time with the center tank fuel pumps, only at lower pressure. If center tank pumps fail, wing tank pumps automatically take over to supply fuel to the engines.
ASFKAP - Not sure about this. But it doesn't seems to be a valid reason.
FLX/MCT - Fuel recirculation for IDG cooling will be automatically stopped on take off and climb (FCOM1, 1.70.40, page 6 -CFM eng. only). So this is not the reason.
alwaysontime - Not true. Look at the reply to Office Pest.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe it got something to do with the center tank electric fuel pumps as this limitation does not apply to A321 which uses the "newer" jet pumps instead of electric pumps.
Anyone?
Anyone?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sixandthreeland
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dang, I thought for sure this would have been tackled well and quickly enough.... but I guess age and experience do have their uses.
CERTIFICATION
You can't get the aircraft type certified using the centertank fuel in that way, that's a generic regulatory NO NO.
CERTIFICATION
You can't get the aircraft type certified using the centertank fuel in that way, that's a generic regulatory NO NO.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jaxon
CERTIFICATION
You can't get the aircraft type certified using the centertank fuel in that way, that's a generic regulatory NO NO.
You can't get the aircraft type certified using the centertank fuel in that way, that's a generic regulatory NO NO.
The B757 uses centre tank fuel on take-off and is certified worldwide.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi there - I believe the simple answer is that the manufacturer does not want one single source of fuel supplying the two engines at such a critical time of the flight (takeoff). Most manufacturers prefer a dedicated tank to engine arrangement.
OP
OP
CERTIFICATION
You can't get the aircraft type certified using the centertank fuel in that way, that's a generic regulatory NO NO.
You can't get the aircraft type certified using the centertank fuel in that way, that's a generic regulatory NO NO.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aikon the point I was (obviously not very well) trying to make is that Airbus thinks it is safer to have a dedicated tank to engine arrangement as that would mean a totally seperate source of fuel for each engine. Obviously the centre tank IS one single source of fuel. I am well aware of the logic regarding the fuel pumps and the sequence valves in the fuel system thanks.
Best Regards
OP
Best Regards
OP
Only half a speed-brake
Or perhaps a better differences training. 
A321 is not equipped with any CTR tank PUMPs as such, only TRANSFER VALVES. Under ceratin logic they open to enable fuel transfer from the CTR TK to the WING TK. The energy to do so is provided by means of WING TK fuel flow through converging / diverging nozzle (aka jet pump), which by means of suction uplifts CTR TK fuel into stream of and these two combined are then reintroduced into the WING TK.
Picture worth a thousand words is to be found at FCOM 1.28.10 p3.
FD (the un-real)
A321 is not equipped with any CTR tank PUMPs as such, only TRANSFER VALVES. Under ceratin logic they open to enable fuel transfer from the CTR TK to the WING TK. The energy to do so is provided by means of WING TK fuel flow through converging / diverging nozzle (aka jet pump), which by means of suction uplifts CTR TK fuel into stream of and these two combined are then reintroduced into the WING TK.
Picture worth a thousand words is to be found at FCOM 1.28.10 p3.
FD (the un-real)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FD - I think what IFLY-Indigo meant was if the reason is to reduce the chances of simultaneous failures in case of fuel contamination, then this logic does not valid in A321 cos the fuel will go into both wing tanks, contaminate the fuel in both wing tanks and then subsequently causing simultaneous engines failure.
Beau_Peep
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: India
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thats what i meant...
thanks AIKON .. exactly thats what i meant..
by the way flightdetent, I don't know the system differences of A321 at all cause I don't fly it.. I fly A320 only..
by the way flightdetent, I don't know the system differences of A321 at all cause I don't fly it.. I fly A320 only..
Only half a speed-brake
I seem to have come across a little too harsh, apologies IfIg.
The problem being solved by feeding segregation is not the one of fuel contamination.
If you uplift fuel contaminated beyond what is acceptable for the engine to run, you wouldn't start up or alternatively, you have mud in all your tanks and are doomed anyway.
What is avoided is CTR TK contamination in most critical phase of flight. If your CTR TK is carrying problems, (water, other contaminants, low level) you do not want these to be propagated simultaneously into the engines during takeoff. Solved on A320. Yet, sooner or later the CTR TK fuel is introduced into the system anyhow, just not for takeoff.
On the 321 in order to have fuel in CTR, the wing tanks must also full to begin with. Given the pipe connection, the same result is achieved as for A320 without a need to separate the CTR tank. Because only small stream of CTR TK fuel is uplifted at the jet pump into a stream of WING TK fuel, which is then together reintroduced into the approx. 6 tonnes that are now carried at the fuel WING TK and being pumped up to the engines. So the rate of WING TK fuel decay due to CTR TK fuel problem is very small.
True, after some time the mixture in WING TK will reach highes content of CTR TK fuel, approx 50:50 but this will come only after 3 t are consumed by the engine so that 3 t form CTR TK found their way to each onside WING TK. About 2 hours into a flight, I woud suppose, you are running on the richest CTR TK fuel mixture at cruise level.
Compare this to the A320, when after slat retraction (3 minutes, 5000 ft AGL) you are running on 100% CTR TK.
Now, thinking about the take-off part, my guess is that the rate of decay due to CTR TK fuel put up into WING TK is geniously negligable. In fact, is by desing no grater than the fuel flow. Even at TKOF THR FF (which I strongly doubt jet pumps are able to compensate by uplifting CTR TK fuel into WING TK) of let's say 4000 kg/h per engine, in all five minutes only 300 kgs of CTR TK fuel will be transferred in the 6 tonnes originally carried.
FD.
The problem being solved by feeding segregation is not the one of fuel contamination.
If you uplift fuel contaminated beyond what is acceptable for the engine to run, you wouldn't start up or alternatively, you have mud in all your tanks and are doomed anyway.
What is avoided is CTR TK contamination in most critical phase of flight. If your CTR TK is carrying problems, (water, other contaminants, low level) you do not want these to be propagated simultaneously into the engines during takeoff. Solved on A320. Yet, sooner or later the CTR TK fuel is introduced into the system anyhow, just not for takeoff.
On the 321 in order to have fuel in CTR, the wing tanks must also full to begin with. Given the pipe connection, the same result is achieved as for A320 without a need to separate the CTR tank. Because only small stream of CTR TK fuel is uplifted at the jet pump into a stream of WING TK fuel, which is then together reintroduced into the approx. 6 tonnes that are now carried at the fuel WING TK and being pumped up to the engines. So the rate of WING TK fuel decay due to CTR TK fuel problem is very small.
True, after some time the mixture in WING TK will reach highes content of CTR TK fuel, approx 50:50 but this will come only after 3 t are consumed by the engine so that 3 t form CTR TK found their way to each onside WING TK. About 2 hours into a flight, I woud suppose, you are running on the richest CTR TK fuel mixture at cruise level.
Compare this to the A320, when after slat retraction (3 minutes, 5000 ft AGL) you are running on 100% CTR TK.
Now, thinking about the take-off part, my guess is that the rate of decay due to CTR TK fuel put up into WING TK is geniously negligable. In fact, is by desing no grater than the fuel flow. Even at TKOF THR FF (which I strongly doubt jet pumps are able to compensate by uplifting CTR TK fuel into WING TK) of let's say 4000 kg/h per engine, in all five minutes only 300 kgs of CTR TK fuel will be transferred in the 6 tonnes originally carried.
FD.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Flight Detent for your detail explanation. This seems to make good sense.
However, if we are looking from a Boeing aircraft point of view, then this does not apply. Boeing aircrafts 737/757/767/777 all have center tank with center tank pumps that pump fuel directly to engines, but none is required to switch off the center tank pumps on take off. If contamination problem is so serious, I am sure Boeing would had think of it, isn't it?
Flight Detent, please don't take this the wrong way. I am in no way to dispute your explanation as I myself do not know the answer. What we want is a "healthy" discussion and hopefully can come up with the correct answer.
Anyone has any more input? Thanks.
However, if we are looking from a Boeing aircraft point of view, then this does not apply. Boeing aircrafts 737/757/767/777 all have center tank with center tank pumps that pump fuel directly to engines, but none is required to switch off the center tank pumps on take off. If contamination problem is so serious, I am sure Boeing would had think of it, isn't it?
Flight Detent, please don't take this the wrong way. I am in no way to dispute your explanation as I myself do not know the answer. What we want is a "healthy" discussion and hopefully can come up with the correct answer.
Anyone has any more input? Thanks.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Italy
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
re from captain87
Hi all,
CTR tank cannot be used for takeoff simply because fuel coming from WING TKS is partially used to cool IDG's down, then it flows back to the wing tank having the cycle repeated. If we were to use CTR TK during takeoff (inhibited by CONF 1 slats/flaps selection), having both the wing tanks full, the fuel flowing back from IDG's would find no place to be "restored" into the respective wing tank ... So Airbus logic in this phase, automatically inhibits CTR TK and allows WNG TKS to automatically run in order to let place for IDG's fuel.
This automatic process planned by Airbus engineers does not allow us to use CTR TK because it would be automatically excluded again !
That's what I think,
captain87
CTR tank cannot be used for takeoff simply because fuel coming from WING TKS is partially used to cool IDG's down, then it flows back to the wing tank having the cycle repeated. If we were to use CTR TK during takeoff (inhibited by CONF 1 slats/flaps selection), having both the wing tanks full, the fuel flowing back from IDG's would find no place to be "restored" into the respective wing tank ... So Airbus logic in this phase, automatically inhibits CTR TK and allows WNG TKS to automatically run in order to let place for IDG's fuel.
This automatic process planned by Airbus engineers does not allow us to use CTR TK because it would be automatically excluded again !
That's what I think,captain87