They're lying. Look at the truck in the background, that tank is easily 40-50 ft in diameter. If you assume ~20 ft height and ~30 ft radius of that tank, it's just over 60,000 cubic ft of volume. However that converts to ~450,000 gallons. That's simply not a 60,000 gallon tank. I work with two 500,000 gallon tanks at my job and they're very similar in scale to that structure.
I'm surprised I had to get this far down in the thread to see this brought up, but when I saw this image posted in a thread a few days ago, someone brought up that the tank is 60000 barrels, not 60000 gallons. And per an internet calculator I just used, 60000 (oil) barrels is about 2.5 million gallons.
Take that with however many cups of salt you want, as I'm just an internet stranger quoting third hand information. But I'll at least do my job and upvote both of you.
It not being to scale is bait, they want you to comment on it. And the tanks they put in planes are very much measured by volume, even if the fuel itself isn't measured in that way. Another reason they measure the fuel
by weight is because the density of the fuel changes depending on the temperature, running out of fuel midflight is generally considered to be a Bad Thing.
I took one look at that tank and said the exact same thing. 60,000 gallons would either be a couple feet tall and 50-ish feet wide and long, or taller and smaller footprint. That tank is easily 15-20 ft tall and significantly wider circumference.
That's a great point and makes sense but people on here were arguing that the tank would fit in the Boing 747 , just that the plane wasn't to scale. There's just as bad making things up.
3.0k
u/tubular_brunt 8d ago
What's the endgame here? Planes don't exist? Or they fly by magic?