This is just a quick question: Why does the 707 have Seven different fuel tanks with a giant fuel system panel while more modern planes such as the 767 have suck a small fuel panel with only 3 tanks? Is it necessary for it to be engineered that way or have fuel systems just become more efficient?

Thanks,
boeing247

The 747 had 7 tanks too.  ;)

The answer could be that those planes had a flight engineer and of course you need to give the F/E something to do.  ;D

A few of the early 767's we had at TWA had a F/E position. That was soon eliminated and the F/E turned into the "eater." That is what the second pilot's position was called even on the bid sheet since all they did was eat!  :o  The real position's name was relief pilot.

Try the Concorde, 13 tanks! Sitting in front of the 707's FE panel, you'll miss the other half.  ;D

Seems to depend on the shape of the plane itself, the room for fitting in tanks and systems and the balance you want (or have) to achieve in certain stages of the flight.
For example, all nowadays long range planes use a trim tank in their horizontal stabilizer to avoid a stabilizer trim being out of the optimal airflow range as long as they can. So they correct their cruise trim by pumping fuel in or out of this tank, not by moving the stabilizer then.

Since the fuel on modern planes does have some more "duties" than just feeding the engines, the setup of a fuel system does affect many things, including the cooling of certain parts and systems.
Your modern panel does most of the job there and degrades that poor FE back to the mentioned eater or renders him completely out of the plane.
Lets see when they start to remove the second pilot then. I think Ryanair tried some approach there, but this could well have been another one of their promotional rounds of course.

Imagine Lou as Captain and HAL-9000 as his Co.  :D (listening to that 2001 theme now)
"HAL, are we still on course?" "Yes, Lou, and that's a nice shirt you are wearing there."

Huh, I guess it has to do with aircraft size, rather than the age of the aircraft.

That eater nickname reminded me of something... did you ever hear that news story from the 80s (not sure when it was, I just read about it in a book) where the flight attendant on a commercial jetliner did not have enough crew meals, so the captain did not get one? He was flying across the US, so he stopped at a small airport in the Rockies, ate dinner there, then flew the rest of the trip? Naturally, several disproving FAA employees were waiting for him at his destination.  :P

If that story is true, this Captain really knew about his value.
Lou, was that you?

Duh, the Captain always gets his crew meal! It's the poor F/O or F/E that would go without.  :P

I do know a few pilots that refused to leave until the crew meals were on board. That might sound like some overblown Captain, but there were times when because of weather or late flights that food could be considered a safety item. For example, the crew has been on the plane for many hours without food, and the next leg is a long flight and there is no time to stop and eat because the flight is late on you need to get it back on time.

No food, no battle.  8-)

HAL-9000 doesn't need any food though.  :P

CoolP wrote on Apr 14^th, 2011 at 3:02am:

HAL-9000 doesn't need any food though.  :P

I do not want HAL-9000 fly my aircraft, he will either eject me from it, or have something smash and kill me! ;D

Look what HAL did!  :P

HAL bad, very bad!

He always was so darn friendly, that's the thing which drove me mad when seeing the movie for the first time.
"Would you like to play some chess while I set up the self destruction?"
And, one has to be fair, he always set up the systems correctly, he just got rid of all the humans on board. Minor software flaw. ;D

Did those guys any better though?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hh_shsRfXqk
starts at 00:26