Sign in or 
Location: PedroAsani's Survival Plan - Part 2: Bugging Out
Discussion: No need for an expensive plane
Category:
Discussion Forum /
General Discussion
Share this
ahzombies |
No need for an expensive plane
Apr 5 2010, 11:06 PM EDT
Instead of getting a really expensive plane, u should look for one that can be fitted with additional external fuel tanks. I'm not a plane expert but I think getting the extra fuel tanks would be cheaper than buying a plane with a gigantic internal tank. Do you find this valuable?
Keyword tags:
Bugging Out
|
AlexHigginbotham |
1. RE: No need for an expensive plane
Apr 6 2010, 1:57 AM EDT
You are right, you are not a plane expert.
4
out of
4 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
|
ahzombies |
2. RE: No need for an expensive plane
Apr 6 2010, 7:26 PM EDT
"You are right, you are not a plane expert."guessing im wrong?:( Do you find this valuable? |
|
AlexHigginbotham |
3. RE: No need for an expensive plane
Apr 7 2010, 12:15 AM EDT
Not many airplanes can be equipped with external fuel tanks, mostly only military aircraft. A lot of the time, the inside of the wing is a big fuel tank.When adding external fuel tanks, yaw has to be trimmed accordingly to compensate for drag on one side or the other, or both sides had to create equal drag by adding a tank to both side. Aircraft fuel tanks are pressurized to prevent the engine from starving itself of fuel while banking and whatnot. With more than 1 tank, a FFP (fuel flow perportioner) has to be installed. FFPs are run by hydraulic motors, which will steal some power from your flight controls. Considering a jet turbine is one of the most efficient fuel burning engines on the planet, overloading with fuel isn't a huge deal. There are also things that need to be refilled on a lot of aircraft besides fuel, like water. The harrier has a big water tank in it to assist engine cooling while hovering. Even if we strapped 4 fuel drop tanks to one, it would still be at 4,000lbs (about half) fuel before it would have to land for water. Post Zday i would only consider taking to the skies for special circumstances, not for basic travel or recon. PS. I don't even think commercial airliners have the option of additional fuel storage. Considering they are designed for a specific mission and pretty much never divert from that mission during standard use. Do you find this valuable? |
PedroAsani |
4. RE: No need for an expensive plane
Apr 7 2010, 6:01 AM EDT
Taking the Cessna 182 as an example. That can normally carry 52.8 gallons (528 lbs) of fuel, and has a range of 1,000 miles.I need 2,100 miles of range, so I need 2.1x the fuel to make it in three trips. UK > Azores > Bermuda > Aruba. 528 x 2.1 = 1,108.8. So the extra tank would need to be 580.8 lbs. But that would reduce the useful capacity to 559.2 lbs. So now I can only take 2 or 3 people, plus BOBs. Prop planes are cheaper than jets, but they don't have the range or capacity. Quite honestly the problem is being in the UK rather than the US. If I were based there, I wouldn't need to cross the Atlantic to get to my BOL. However, geographically the UK is better situated for me to Bug In during an outbreak. Do you find this valuable? |
|
ahzombies |
5. RE: No need for an expensive plane
Apr 7 2010, 10:47 PM EDT
god i feel like a nub....
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
AlexHigginbotham |
6. RE: No need for an expensive plane
Apr 7 2010, 11:44 PM EDT
| Post edited: Apr 7 2010, 11:47 PM EDT
"god i feel like a nub...."Don't feel to bad. I am a jet mechanic working on a degree in aeronautical engineering and he is working on his pilots license. (correct me if I am wrong) Pedro, don't overestimate military aircraft. These numbers are off the top of my head so they may be a couple hundred pounds off. Our internal tank holds 7,500 full We can carry a max of 2 full external tanks, 800 galons each, equaling 11,200lbs Will the full load of 18,700 lbs of fuel, a pan atlantic flight for us requires 2 in air refuels. (We cant take off with that much fuel, I think max weight aside from base weight of the aircraft is around 16k) A lot of this comes down to the Harrier being a aerodynamic nightmare, and the extra thrust generated makes up for a lack of gliding ability. With our fuel load, a F-16 could probably circumnavigate the world. Do you find this valuable? |
|
PedroAsani |
7. RE: No need for an expensive plane
Apr 8 2010, 5:25 AM EDT
That's why I looked at the simple numbers, rather than try and modify a smaller plane. I figure anything that can make the journey in one shot with a full load is the best way to go.Right now hiring or stealing a plane capable of the one shot journey is the most likely, since I don't have ninety-five grand lying around. That's why the pilot's license is part of my plan. Post-Z I can always try and Scav a plane from an airport. Whilst I dislike the idea of relying on finding something (see my other rants) it is the only way I can afford to do it right now. Do you find this valuable? |
ww3sabiture |
8. RE: No need for an expensive plane
Jun 25 2010, 8:39 PM EDT
ever think about building a kit plane?
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
PedroAsani |
9. RE: No need for an expensive plane
Jun 25 2010, 9:14 PM EDT
Can a kit plane cover 2,500 miles?
Do you find this valuable?
|
USNtwidget |
10. RE: No need for an expensive plane
Jun 25 2010, 10:12 PM EDT
Zepplins for the win, dont ask me how, itd just be cool
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
ww3sabiture |
11. RE: No need for an expensive plane
Jun 25 2010, 10:29 PM EDT
"Can a kit plane cover 2,500 miles?"i dont know never looked at the range of one. Do you find this valuable? |
|
AlexHigginbotham |
12. RE: No need for an expensive plane
Jun 25 2010, 10:35 PM EDT
Ultra lights, if thats what you are refering too, are just weed eaters with wings attached. They can carry 1 person, have no storage space, have very limited fuel, and cannot under any circumstance fly in inclement weather.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
ww3sabiture |
13. RE: No need for an expensive plane
Jun 25 2010, 10:37 PM EDT
no im refering to biplanes and such
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
AlexHigginbotham |
14. RE: No need for an expensive plane
Jun 25 2010, 10:46 PM EDT
Judging by how close air bases had to be to their targets in WWI, I would say 300-500 miles.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
ww3sabiture |
15. RE: No need for an expensive plane
Jun 25 2010, 11:19 PM EDT
that sucks. better off geting a newer plane then
Do you find this valuable?
|
