Why Does The Horizontal Stabilizer Have a Fuel Tank

[@PauloSergioMDC]

AWESOME video again. I think a natural follow-on to this video will have to be how the A350's variable trailing edge accomplishes the same function, as that is the first Airbus widebody in a very long time without the THS tank.

[@AircraftScience]

That's a great suggestion!

[@jas0609]

It's mind-blowing that a jet can fly non-stop from Los Angeles to Dubai on a fuel tank of fuel. I think it's like 16 hr flight. Amazing.

[@AaronShenghao]

The planes done use gasoline. It uses aviation jet fuel, which is more energy dense.

[@tank-eleven]

rougly 80t worth of fuel for an A350 (in freedom units that's three-fifths as heavy as The Statue of Liberty)

[@cliberg]

@@tank-eleven What is a “freedom unit”?

[@joemay2640]

Cool, whoever came up with this is a genius

[@fabioribeiro2480]

These videos are actually very well made, I must say :)

[@CybershamanX]

I'd love to see 3D videos like this for vintage aircraft. Like my personal favorite the Boeing B-17 from World War 2. 😉😎

[@ARSLANIJAZ-k2o]

Keep it Up, your Videos is very informative

[@Djunturica]

Great video!

[@praveenshetty2066]

Nice work

[@pspremalal9769]

Desend speedbreak and tail crash also control must have sometimes.

[@suhailummer2697]

Waiting for more videos about A330.

[@sgroriccardo]

Sorry but if the fuel in the wing tanks get consumed the CG moves Forward, not afterward (because of the angle of the wings)

[@budyeddi5814]

Amazing

[@demal1010]

Is this the start of a new series on Airbus planes?

[@AircraftScience]

Yes, that's the plan.

[@RounakKushwaha]

Insane!

[@x-gamessimulator1067]

Nice

[@Kneedragon1962]

If you place the "tail plane" (horizontal stabiliser) ahead of the main lifting wing, the way the Wright Brothers did, the way many modern combat aircraft do, the way Bert Rutan did, then most of this is unnecessary. It is very clever, I have great regard for the people who worked this out, but the dynamics of tail dragger aircraft were worked out in about 1910 ~ 1914. At that time, with rotary radial engines and stick & string biplanes, there were several good reasons to go to tractor propeller at the front and small horizontal stab at the back, but most of those reasons stop being valid once you're talking about a jet aircraft more than 40 ft long, going more than 150 mph. The first working aeroplane, the Wright Brothers Flyer, worked this way.

[@zachansen8293]

why don't airliners use canards instead to not have this problem? Is it anything more than it would be harder to park them at airport gates?

[@tank-eleven]

do they still use them? I thought this system was a relic from the Concorde times and now they phased it out because of added maintenance costs compared to little gains

[@AaronShenghao]

Oh yes, 747-8, 777 all have extra tanks in tail and can be used to trim the aircraft if needed.

[@tank-eleven]

@@AaronShenghao I was not aware about the 777 tail tank, did you invent that or do you have any reliable sources? Also the 747-8 had many problems with its tail tank and I'm not even sure they are allowed to use it anymore. I always thought it was more of a European thing (and still barely (if not anymore)) used nowadays.

[@PauloSergioMDC]

​​@@AaronShenghaoThat's partially incorrect. The 777 has no horizontal stabilizer fuel tank, as it's not required for that aircraft. The 747-8 was designed with the horizontal stabilizer fuel tank, but developmental studies showed that a failure in one of the engine mounts would introduce severe flutter in the horizontal stabilizer, IIRC, so Boeing has never activated the tank on the Intercontinental, where it was most needed. The -8F does not require a horizontal stabilizer fuel tank, as structural payload weights negate this need. (I'll provide a link to a weights explainer below.) In any case, the Boeing horizontal stab fuel tank insertion is entirely different philosophically from that of Airbus. Lufthansa did ask for Boeing to adjust the fuel transfer logics on the 747-8i horizontal stab fuel tank to help improve efficiency because of the aircraft's heavier nose (read heavier premium product configuration, so CoG management), before the tank was blanked off. The 747-400 is the only Boeing that's successfully fielded the feature in commercial service, and for range purposes, not for center of gravity management, which for Airbus is historically derived from the Airbus heritage partners on Concorde. The 747-400 had the additional fuel for range. www.quora.com/Does-the-weight-of-passengers-affect-airplane-takeoff-and-landing-performance-e-g-range-rate-of-climb/answer/Paulo-Martins-179?ch=15&oid=1477743651931983&share=499f3f1f&srid=udzNYc&target_type=answer

[@suhailummer2697]

❤❤❤

[@privskorp.9865]

A330 ! Yesss

[@1776dsf]

first

[@redbynight]

AI voice is off putting

[@MeaHeaR]

Just Moré stuff to go Wrongg Endé-Łess Monnéý Pitts 😟😟😰😩😩😩😩😩😧😦😦😦😦😳😵😶😵😳😳