Where is Fuel Stored? 

Fuel is stored in the balls

Wet wings doesn't mean fuel tanks in the wings it means that the wing skins make up the tank. A Cessna for instance has wing tanks but it's not a wet wing sice the fuel is stored in bladders.

Maaaaan, I forgot how silly Shake weights are. Great vid!

The SR-71 didn’t hit the tanker right after launch because of leakage but because of the takeoff weight, mainly. Cheers!

You know what would be great.. A Not What You Think and Real Engineering collab

There is also the matter of forces. If you put fuel into wings, you put weight into place where lift is, significantly lowering forces on connections between wings and fuselage and thus expanding life of machine, also allowing to use weaker joints there. Probably this is bigger reason to use fuel from fuselage first, or don't even put it there at all.

They are SR71 Blackbird was refueled after takeoff because of weight limitations. Fuel loss on the ground because of loose fitting panels is measured in drips per minute, so not a significant factor to the point where the fuel tanks are going to need to get topped off right after takeoff. When he asked a question why do you think aircraft burn fuel in their Center tanks before the wing tanks I thought of fire risk, burn the cabin fuel first and also because of the weight in the wings will help with the flutter issue and stability. The fuel pump failure thing isn't really a top consideration

The use of bladders is mostly in military aircraft because those tend to get shot at. The bladder's material is designed to be self-sealing against holes caused by bullets and small debris, whereas just the metal of the wing would not self-close.

Oil ships: Don’t smoke! It will ignite the oil! Military: *“we dont do that here”*

It would be fuel-ish to store the fuel unsafely.

Between channels like this and reading random Wikipedia articles when bored, it's amazing how much interesting trivia you can pick up.

7:25 Storing fuel in the wings does NOT "increase the rigidity of the structure" - fuel contributes no structural rigidity (stiffness) at all, just mass. So the wings are just as rigid when their tanks are empty, but their inertia and natural frequency of vibration have increased. Wing fuel storage allows the wing structure to be built much lighter (thus the airplane has better performance and efficiency) than it would have to be if the same fuel was all stored only in the fuselage. Spreading the fuel weight out over the entire tip-to-tip wingspan results in a distributed load, which is inherently less stressful than putting it all in the middle as a single point load, during flight. Wing lift is generated all along the span too.

Load shift was part of it. but it mainly was a heavy armored vehicle that hit the Jack screw in the back which is what controls the horizontal stabilizers that caused the plane to be uncontrollable. Simulations were done by the NTSB, and it showed that even if all the vehicles move to the back the plane would have still been controllable it was a broken Jack screw, and the fact was bent backwards that caused the crash.

A "wet wing" is a wing tank where the wing is the fuel tank rather than having bladders to store the fuel inside the wing, a lot of aircraft have wing tanks and among them is the P-51 Mustang, Bf 109, Fw 190, Spitfire and other Warbirds which all use bladders known as self sealing fuel tanks.

"You heard it right ...if you don't have hearing loss" Holy shit that's an S tier joke

@ 3:35 it's not just the weight shift (balance) that caused the accident: a military vehicle got loose and damaged the horizontal stabilizer so the crew could no longer controle the plane pitch.

You know its a good day when not what you think uploads a 8 minute video

That crew that was killed due to unbalancing my unit actually had to replace those guys parts of my company were actually at The fob where it happened they had to help clean up.

That was a well organized video. Nicely put all throughout. I loved how many different point you made about the why it is.

Great video, I feel like a major part has not been explained well enough, while on the ground the gear might hold the fueselage in the air that is the wings. By shifting some weight from the fueselage to the wings the wings carry the load more directly meaning the root of the wing experiences less stress, simply because the weight is now directly carried by the wings. I think that’s also part of why the middle tank gets drained first. It simply is an extra tank to hold a bit more fuel. And if it’s empty is isn’t really providing much weight. All in all this is an amazing vid with information I truly dint know about

3:42 imagine being in that car and just seeing a plane crash next to you

6:11 shake dumbbells is the only thing that can make my arms the same size

Another quality video, keep up the good work! The puns here and there add magic to these videos.

Another Not What you think video. I really enjoy your longer videos, there is so much information at once than in the shorts. I would really love to see more such long videos. Nevertheless, keep on doing! Thank you.

As someone that maintained fuel systems on a c-130, I can confirm the hearing loss. I can still hear everything, but it becomes harder to interrupt the sound. One example is at a sports game, I can hear someone talking but if I'm not focused on them I can't understand what they're saying. Of course the VA denied all my disability claims because I can pass the hearing test with tones at different frequencies.

There is a key factor here that is missing, and that is range. Fuel tanks in the wings have been a common theme in aviation since the 1930s, provided that the plane has the structural means and performance incentive to mount them. That said, having only centerline tanks up to that point has been cause for very short range aircraft that could make only small inter-airport hops across the continental United States. However, with the introduction of wing tanks in planes such as the famous DC (Douglas Commercial) series of aircraft, they were able to go from small hops to direct-route flights. It wasn't going to get you from New York to London on a single tank in the early days, but the upstart airlines like PANAM and BOAC could make longer trips, stop at fewer airports, and save on aviation fuel. This became a critical logistical point for the Allied Forces in World War II, when planes like the venerable B-17 could fly from airfields in Great Britain, bomb a factory, military port or rail depot in Nazi Germany, then fly back home without needing to stop for fuel. Then small fighters like the P-51D could make that trip as well, though with the addition of wing-mounted "drop tanks" to extend the range of the fighters. Eventually, we had it with the Boeing B-29 Superfortress, which could take off from islands in the pacific, bomb Imperial Japan or North Korea (depending on which war you're looking at), then return home without refueling. As radial and inline piston engines (and later turbojet engines) became more fuel efficient, less fuel would be spent getting from point A to point B. And by keeping internal fuel stores in the wings, they further extended an aircraft's operating range to the point where we could finally fly intercontinental with aircraft like the Tu-95 and its commercial cousin, the Tu-114. Also, a small complaint, but wing tanks do not envelop the entire wing structure. In almost all aircraft that have wing tanks, there are sections of wing that are set aside for fuel, while the rest of the wing is filled with hydraulic lines, cables and wires for the control surfaces, lights and other wing-mounted hardware.

I knew about the "Not what you think shorts" but this is also very good videos, I learned a lot about planes thank you ^^ Knowledge is power

“You heard it right......if you don’t have hearing loss” *Oh snap* Edit: “......ok I never thought someone could make such an interesting video on basically fuel tanks....”

fuel in the fuselage still comes in handy in fighters e.g the fw190 which has an incredible role rate for that very reason.

The Soviet BMP-1 is another engineering marvel with the fuel tank being built into the rear door and entrance to the troop compartment.

It's also structurally efficient. The weight of the fuel is directly above the upwards force of lift. You don't have to structurally transfer that upwards force to the fuselage. So the aircraft can be lighter.

3:41 That was at Bagram Air Base, I was there when it crashed. Literally just walked out the showers that morning. Crazy day. Few days later another plane crashed at Manas Air Base, very similar circumstances.

Well, the SR-71 Blackbird was fueltight - at least the first few flights. The fuel dripping was caused because the sealent between the joints of the panels was not up to the task of dealing with movement and high temperatures. But the JP-7 was so inflammable that you even couldn't ignite it with a torch - startup and afterburners needed a shot of TEB (Triethylboran)... 😉

It’s so cool seeing the Tacoma Narrows Bridge getting recognition. It was 5 minutes from my childhood home!!

I was a Engine and fuel system mechanic (6216) for C130Js in the marine corps and we did a ton of aerial refueling if anyone has questions about aviation fueling please ask!

Interesting Ill try to make the next video about this issue, Nice done

Funny that you included a lot of footage of tankers, which have wet wings but store the bulk of their extra fuel in the fuselage.

Man I lost it at 'if anyone is looking for a wingman, this is your guys":)

In the event of a missed approach at the final moment or a hard landing fuel in the wings is preferable to the fuselage because it's easier on the wing spars.

The Boeing 747 crash at Bagram AB wasn’t exactly caused by a shift in cargo weight. When the cargo shifted aft, it contacted the controls for the elevator . This froze the elevator in the last commanded position which was during initial takeoff. That angle was too steep for the 747 to maintain which led to the aircraft stalling. Data collected from the box on board showed the pilots fighting to push the nose down but the elevator was not responsive. Had the cargo shifted and the controls not been lost, the aircraft most likely would have been able to trim out the shift in weight.

Thanks for exposing all I suffered to gain in the university

I learned more than I expected, good video!

As a career Air Force Crew Chief, there are so many discrepancies in this video, that I don’t know where to begin. But let me start with the big ones. Fuel is stored primarily in the wings, so the rest of the plane can be used for cargo or people. On passenger aircraft, the area under the passenger compartment. Is where all the luggage and cargo is stored. All fuel tanks have baffles, to minimize fuel movement in the tank, but also double as part of the aircraft structure.

I don’t know why, but those shakeweight scenes really threw me off for a second

@1:48, KC10 86-0032. Crewed that jet for 4 years in the 90’s at Travis AFB.

How can u be so informative yet funny lol. My teachers have a lesson to learn form you😂😂

Fascinating stuff - there were so many more reasons than I thought there were, holy sh!t...

I greatly appreciate all the KC-10 clips used. KC-10 often don't get enough attention when compared to KC-135s or KC-46s, even though they are better.

Regarding Balance of an aircraft: I forgot when it was. But in the USSR basically the entire leadership of the USSR pacific fleet was wiped out thanks to the same reason. The admirality flew from the pacific bases to Leningrad for a conference. Because some consumer goods were rare, they snacked up everything they could. Including two big paper rolls (for toiletpaper, which was a surprisingly rare commodity). With all that shit loaded into the flight home the pilot already said "That's too heavy, we will crash with that stuff in the aircraft". But Soviets being Soviets, especially the admirals that outranked the pilot, told him to shut up. They crashed seconds after take off.

No! That's a common misconception about the Blackbird needing refuelling straight after takeoff, they could take off with a full fuel load but if they lost an engine they were in serious trouble, as they were under-powered below Mach 1. So they took off with reduced fuel load to save weight and refuelled in the air after take off. The fuel leaking on the ground was nothing that a few drip pans couldn't sort.

Kudos for not showing the actual explosion, and the lil disclaimer beforehand, much appreciated by at least one of your more sensitive viewers ❤

Wing tanks also reduces wing loading. The reduction can be quite significant depending on the weight the weight of the aircraft vs the weight of the fuel. In the same way, wing mounted engines reduce wing loading, allowing for marginally weaker wings to be viable, allowing for some fuel savings

so many cool things that go into designing a plane wow

Me getting a handwritten letter* My wife showing up looking at me curiously* Me: wait, it's not what you think

Great video. Informative and funny too!! Thank you!

Thank you for these videos ☺️ especially this one, quite informative & the little bits of funny comedic pieces added is awesome 👍 'but it is not what you think'😂👌🤣

Loved the video, as an enthusiast I thought you hit most of the points. Most people would never consider the issue and you made it interesting. Yet I can’t get over “not what you think” part. Gonna assume you’ve talked to literally a million folks out there, how do assume any of them are thinking? Some are absolutely, just how do you know? I want your secret….

I love that this channel is getting more recognition. It's one of the best channels in RU-vid

The definition goes to show why I should have stayed in school. Read it 6 times and each time it went over my head.

Loved the shoutout too scrappy. Back to work!

Ah making me want to become an aeronautical engineer, love the science of flying

Very informative! Thanks

I've been waiting for this

They baffle fire fighting tanker trucks and other tanker trucks too. Even with baffles if you slam the brakes it can still drive you forward . I have been in a fire tanker truck and had to hit the brakes at an intersection and the water literally drove the tank into the back of the cab and each rebound knocked us about 4 feet forward about 3 or 4 times. Baffled bladders helps to control it

Mike Patey and Scrappy taxiing around without wings, nice!

My father flew an F4 phantom. He was sitting on 3,000 gallons of JP-4. The plane was a flying fuel tank with massive jet engines. The aircraft lights on fire eject both seats or the backseater (attempt to bring the aircraft back). Might have some incorrect details.

There were 7 souls on flight NA 102 when it crashed at Bagram, not 6. It didn’t crash because of the weight shift, one of the MRAPs inside crushed the rear bulkhead and disabled the tail controls. Without her rudder and elevators, the crew was helpless and couldn’t steer the aircraft. They might have been able to push the nose down if they had flaps, but with the stick dead there was no hope. 😞

Hi Mr not what you think!I I enjoy your videos and short videos too 😃👍

My philosophy is simple, i see new video, i click.

Another good reason to put fuel in the wings: As it's emptied, it becomes empty flotation space, creating lift. Fuel tanks in the fuselage are still static drag. Hence the imperative to pur as much as possible of the enclosed volume into lifting body, possibly blended into the wing.

Seeing Malaysia Airlines 4:09 hits me hard remembering the mh370🥲

Beautiful

3:42 that crash has been burned into my memory for a long time, but so had no idea it was because of this.

I'm still amazed by the fact the hollow space in the wings is enough for jet aircraft to travel thousands of kilometers before needing to refuel.

When you look at the B-1B bomber, anything that is not cockpit or weapons bay is a pretty much a fuel tank. Of course they had small tanks they could install in the weapons bay to carry even more.

thats actually good to know and not what i thought lol, nice one

5:16 "If anyone is looking for a wingman, this is your guy!" 😂😂😂

When I was playing KSP 2 the other day I had a fair amount of Flutter during flight which was very interesting.

This videos so funny 🤣 NWYT gets the word placement just right. Wing man ha.

Small correction. The 747 carrying thr armored trucks could have flown with the truck sliding backwards after the straps broke, but the truck also went through the bulkhead and smashed both hydraulic systems, a blackbox, and mechanical controls for the rear of the plane, rendering it impossible to control

Very informative . ❤️

In fact the Tacoma bridge was destroyed under only 15 mph winds dew to it being the natural frequency of the bridge. I forgot most of the technical works but it’s quite interesting

Never knew the A380 had trim tanks in the horizontal stabilizer, very interesting

Magnificent engineering.

Also, in the rare case of crashes, wings tend to shear off, taking their flammable fuel with them away from the fuselage.

You could put a funnel system built into the aircraft where bladders go. Then have any fuel leakage get put in a container to be reused.

i luv this man

3:16 you know that it's gonna be serious and tragic when the tone changes and the music come into a silent stop

JP8 isn't just aircraft fuel, most if not all US military ground vehicles use it too.

3:40 the accident was not caused by the loss of ballance but by the the poorly secured payload destroying and jamming one of the primary control element of the tail.

If you know anything about the 747 crash in Afghanistan carrying the MRAPS you’d know that the load balance isn’t what caused the aircraft to be uncontrollable. They ran simulations that proved they could recover. However the rear MRAP sheared the jack screw for the horizontal stabiliser clean from its mounts and thus the horizontal stabiliser just pitched them into the ground.

"Or is it?" Oh no! Legendary boss word

I have the hearing issues from JP-8 exposure, amongst many other issues it causes. They forgot to tell us it could eventually lead to us being trapped in our own head as a vegetable, unable to have any communication with anybody.

You make really good videos 👍😎

Jet powered aircraft usually have a booster pump situated in or close to the fuel tank to ensure a positive supply (although if the engines are below the wing the fuel will gravity feed without the pump, under certain conditions). The booster pump delivers fuel at about 25 psi - that would mean a drop height of about 18m needed to achieve. When the fuel reached the engine it goes to a low pressure pump which increases the pressure to approximately 400 psi. after this stage it is introduced to the high pressure pump which increases the pressure to 1500 psi or thereabouts - in other words, more than 1000m of height difference needed. This is needed to ensure that the fuel has sufficient pressure to be atomized correctly upon entry to the combustion chamber. Please explain to me, how this works on the height difference you mention on the video to have proper 'gravity feeding' (at around 6:00) as this is simply not possible.

actually for prop planes during WWIi they kept their fuel in the wings but also in a compartment near the engine and behind the pilot for certain aircraft so before 1950 this was a practice jets only got fuel in the wings because of newer designs and stronger materials

My first intrusive thought was just "The fuel is stored in the balls."

6:25 this is interesting - aero elastic flutter

Wow we’re getting treated this week!

3:30. Not due to weight shift. Investigation concluded the weight shift still with in C.G limit. The shifted armour vehicles damaged and jammed the elevator mechanism into the UP position thus pull the aircraft up and stall it.