A friend of mine recently flew from DFW to CDG. His flight was delayed 2,5 hours on departure. I tracked the flight and the aircraft used (AA B772 N766AN) and noticed that it was schedule to land in DFW from NRT at 4:25pm for a 5:15pm departure to CDG:

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n766an

It seems way to short to turn around an aircraft after an 11-hour flight. I know refuelling can take quite some time with wide bodies and it must have certainly played a role in the late departure.

So I came to wonder how long it takes to fully refuel an aircraft like a 772? I'll be curious to know for other current aircraft as well.

Fuelling is not the problem. You can always refuel an aircraft in the time it takes to offload pax/clean cabin/recater/load pax. The critical path with a quick turnround is always the cabin.

Probably looking at around 35 minutes to refill from empty to the required level at 2.4 tonnes per minute, however they would still have the fuel onboard from the inbound sector so closer to 30 minutes.

Tristarsteve wrote:

Fuelling is not the problem. You can always refuel an aircraft in the time it takes to offload pax/clean cabin/recater/load pax. The critical path with a quick turnround is always the cabin.

I imagine but I was interested to know if on such a short turnaround the refueling of a wide body had an impact.

zeke wrote:

Probably looking at around 35 minutes to refill from empty to the required level at 2.4 tonnes per minute, however they would still have the fuel onboard from the inbound sector so closer to 30 minutes.

Thanks for the info. Are both sides refueled at the same time to gain time? How many nozzles are used?

ro1960 wrote:

Tristarsteve wrote:

Fuelling is not the problem. You can always refuel an aircraft in the time it takes to offload pax/clean cabin/recater/load pax. The critical path with a quick turnround is always the cabin.

I imagine but I was interested to know if on such a short turnaround the refueling of a wide body had an impact.

I think the only real "impact" is on operational procedure, but the procedure would probably not need to be changed.

Typically fueling starts well before we get the final zero fuel weight, with a standby figure a few tons lower than the preliminary required fuel quantity. That way when we get the final zero fuel weight and work out the final fuel figure, all that is needed is a top up for the last few tonnes.

For a short turn, just give the fueler the standby figure as early as possible.

In some cases, for example at airports where fueling with pax onboard is not permitted, fueling will begin before the crew even arrives.

You also need to factor in the fact that a large percentage of people that work at airports are in no hurry to do much of anything.

wpnstroop wrote:

You also need to factor in the fact that a large percentage of people that work at airports are in no hurry to do much of anything.

That hasn't been my experience in most of the most places I fly to. There tends to be quite a "get things done" attitude in the air.

Thanks for the info. Are both sides refueled at the same time to gain time? How many nozzles are used?

Not often. You need to be filling over around 90 tonnes of fuel before using two fuel vehicles becomes worthwhile.
One hydrant dispenser with two hoses is quite adequate for most refueling operations.
The only time that two vehicles becomes necessary is maybe a B744 transit. I used to refuel B744 at ARN for Malaysian which were on transit, JFK-ARN-KUL. If they were running late we had 75 min transit time, and departure fuel load of 130 tonnes, and then we found that using fueling vehicles on both sides helped. Doing the same transit with a B777, which needed much less fuel, a single vehicle was adequate.

wpnstroop wrote:

You also need to factor in the fact that a large percentage of people that work at airports are in no hurry to do much of anything.

What do you call a large percentage? Do you have a source for that? Or is it just a baseless judgment on a certain kind of aviation workers?

wpnstroop wrote:

You also need to factor in the fact that a large percentage of people that work at airports are in no hurry to do much of anything.

Really. In any mix of professions there will always be a mix of all types of people all with different capabilities and motivations. Your comment is a slap in the face to the majority of people that are dedicated and motivated to being a valued asset to their employer.

Quit feeding the troll and get back on topic. You hope the single-point wasn't MEL'd. Filling by gravity takes even longer.

exFWAOONW wrote:

Quit feeding the troll and get back on topic. You hope the single-point wasn't MEL'd. Filling by gravity takes even longer.

That could be a long miserable afternoon of sitting on top of the wing especially if weather was terrible. In 30 some odd years, I've never gravity fueled a heavy. The 787 did away with drip sticks and over wing fuel caps.

Woodreau wrote:

ro1960 wrote:

zeke wrote:

Probably looking at around 35 minutes to refill from empty to the required level at 2.4 tonnes per minute, however they would still have the fuel onboard from the inbound sector so closer to 30 minutes.

Thanks for the info. Are both sides refueled at the same time to gain time? How many nozzles are used?

It's most likely a single point fueling. The fuel is distributed by the fuel computer into the appropriate tanks.


As an off-topic fueling topic - my ship could accept two-dual STREAM fueling rigs from the replenishment tanker. So through 4 simultaneous fueling connections, it takes about 14 hours to take on 1.5 million gallons of fuel. 1.1 million for the ship and 400k JP-5 for the jets and helos.

Which ship was that WD ?

stratclub wrote:

exFWAOONW wrote:

Quit feeding the troll and get back on topic. You hope the single-point wasn't MEL'd. Filling by gravity takes even longer.

That could be a long miserable afternoon of sitting on top of the wing especially if weather was terrible. In 30 some odd years, I've never gravity fueled a heavy. The 787 did away with drip sticks and over wing fuel caps.

Where do other heavies have the gravity-feed caps? Are they out near the tips due to the dihedral?

I base it on personal observations from the last 29 years of my life spent on commercial airports as a mechanic for major airlines. Feel pretty qualified to make that statement regarding airport personnel and their demeanors.

LH707330 wrote:

stratclub wrote:

exFWAOONW wrote:

Quit feeding the troll and get back on topic. You hope the single-point wasn't MEL'd. Filling by gravity takes even longer.

That could be a long miserable afternoon of sitting on top of the wing especially if weather was terrible. In 30 some odd years, I've never gravity fueled a heavy. The 787 did away with drip sticks and over wing fuel caps.

Where do other heavies have the gravity-feed caps? Are they out near the tips due to the dihedral?

Ah, no. The 747 has over wing fuel caps near the wing root. With the aircraft fueled to VTO (Volumetric Top Off), if you removed the over wing fuel caps, most likely fuel would come pouring out.

When SAA had to fly around the bulge of Africa we would fuel the 747-200's to max which was s about 162000 kg's and it would take about 2 hours. The dispenser would have two hoses connected and often one of the other dispensing trucks with a bit of spare time would hook up on the r/h wing for maybe 30 minutes. We would often just finish before doors closed.