They stripped everything off the airplane they could. Seats, interiors, galleys, everything. They put in just enough fuel to hop over the trees to Heathrow. He said they did it, but barely.
The interesting thing is that „the end of the runway“ is actually a major river.
And a Vuelling flight almost made the same mistake two years ago (but today it would be less critical as they have extended the runway to accommodate A380s some time ago).
How did you find it?
The WWII Liberty Ships utilised a triple-expansion steam engine, fired by bunker fuel. Both the expended steam and the boilers were used to fluidise the fuel to flowable tempertures -- the steam circulating either through or around the feed tanks, and the fuel line itself passing through the boiler and flame trench before final injection.
There are two remaining Liberty Ships in the US -- the John W. Brown in Baltimore, and the Jeremiah O'Brien in San Francisco.
Pay a visit and one of the engine-room crew can tell you the details.
The generaly kluginess and hackiness of the design instantly brought to mind what many software projects I've worked on might look like if physically instantiated. Though the Liberty Ship design is by far the more robust and useful than most.
And yes, some airplane engines use gas but the majority of them runs something that in constituency is closer to regular diesel than to gas.
Kersone is #1 diesel!
AV gas is another matter entirely but I'm not aware of any jet that would use it, though that might be a fun thing, and given that turbines can run on almost anything combustible it will probably work to some extent but I don't think it will be a happy ending unless the engine is really designed for it.
Btw, this is an interesting start-up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESdHyNtHpqs not cold weather but I'd hate to fly that in any conditions.
Still, I imagine that was a "light fire, move away" procedure!
Sure, small ones with piston engines. Sure. Most anything running a turbine uses Jet-A which is closer to kerosene / diesel than gasoline.
If you're leaking fuel you've got bigger problems than how to safely heat up the engine.
(There were some, late in the war, but only just. Otherwise, all aircraft were piston-driven, running avgas, a/k/a petrol / gasoline.)
Afterburner light-ups were limited by the availability of TEB aboard.
Hydrazine + nitrous oxide could be fine though, but better check first before use. ;-)
The engine sump was incredibly heavy; when inquiring as to why, I was told the idea was that you could light a (small!) fire under it to make it easier to get the engine cranking in severe cold.
That's Soviet engineering for you!
The engine and gear oil would freeze solid. Required fires under differentials, oil pans, etc. just to get the oil liquid again.
How cold should it be before you use it? Ask the internet:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/globe-drive/culture/comm...
Most cars do start though. It’s really a maintenance issue, where it’s bad for your car to start it at -30 (as the linked article says). In my experience, a newer car in decent shape will start consistently.
Block heaters are a must in that environment.
In addition to less engine wear, it also works wonders for fuel consumption and makes the car comfortably warm in a couple of minutes.
Electric cars have the standard advice to leave them plugged in overnight in cold areas.
I had to use a block heater (and battery heater) a number of times. But once I moved to a late 80’s car, I almost never had to use the block heater.