Running dry?

[Greg Copeland]

In September 2004 issue of AOPA Flight Training, Mark Cook has an article,
"No Fueln' Around". Under the "Selector boy" side article, he mentions
that he runs some of his tanks dry in his Bellanca Viking. In at least
one of John Deakin's articles
(http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182044-1.html), he not only recommends
running tanks dry but puts forth a powerful argument that it's a
responsible fuel management strategy. Furthermore, Deakin also offers
that he has never found an NTSB accident report related to a failed engine
start when running a tank dry and switching to the next. Both guys
recommend setting a timer a couple of minutes before the tank should run
dry; which acts of both early warning and as validation of your
anticipated fuel consumption.

Is this common? How many run their tank(s) dry as part of their fuel
management strategy? If you don't run dry, why not? Aside from the heat
beat skipping which is sure to follow the first couple of times, what's
the down side to this strategy?

Lastly, I did cross post this message as I feel it's of value to both
student and general pilot population alike.

Cheers,

Greg

[Peter R.]

Greg Copeland > wrote:

> Is this common? How many run their tank(s) dry as part of their fuel
> management strategy? If you don't run dry, why not? Aside from the heat
> beat skipping which is sure to follow the first couple of times, what's
> the down side to this strategy?

I would like to do this just one time for each of the two main tanks in the
Bonanza V35 I fly if for no other reason than to validate the actual
duration and total gallons. However, I have yet to take the time or have
the courage to do so.

As far as disadvantages, I am concerned about what might happen with the
sediment in these aging fuel bladders as the fuel empties. But, I have
read articles that dispel this myth so perhaps this is a non-issue.



--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Greg Copeland]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:58:18 -0400, Peter R. wrote:

> Greg Copeland > wrote:
>
>> Is this common? How many run their tank(s) dry as part of their fuel
>> management strategy? If you don't run dry, why not? Aside from the
>> hea[r]t beat skipping which is sure to follow the first couple of
>> times, what's the down side to this strategy?
>
> I would like to do this just one time for each of the two main tanks in
> the Bonanza V35 I fly if for no other reason than to validate the actual
> duration and total gallons. However, I have yet to take the time or
> have the courage to do so.
>
> As far as disadvantages, I am concerned about what might happen with the
> sediment in these aging fuel bladders as the fuel empties. But, I
> have read articles that dispel this myth so perhaps this is a non-issue.

Deakin's article specifically mentions this. I recommend you read the
article. He argues this is nothing to worry about and even
indirectly offers this is a reason to run your tanks dry.

Greg

[Greg Copeland]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:58:18 -0400, Peter R. wrote:

> Greg Copeland > wrote:
>
> As far as disadvantages, I am concerned about what might happen with the
> sediment in these aging fuel bladders as the fuel empties. But, I have
> read articles that dispel this myth so perhaps this is a non-issue.

Opps. I misread that. I read that has "have not"...obviously you have.
Ignore my suggestion to read the article. ;)

Greg

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Greg Copeland wrote:
> (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182044-1.html), he not only recommends
> running tanks dry but puts forth a powerful argument that it's a
> responsible fuel management strategy. Furthermore, Deakin also offers
> that he has never found an NTSB accident report related to a failed engine
> start when running a tank dry and switching to the next.


WE had one of our Lances crash at RDU one foggy morning that I believe was due
to the pilot running one tank dry while on the ILS inbound from the outer
marker. He hit the tops of the trees, spun around and down one and landed flat
in a densely wooded area to the north of the field. The resulting fire
destroyed the aircraft pretty completely. Fortunately, the pilot walked away
from it with just a superficial cut on his forehead.

He may have tried to restart but just didn't have enough time before he sank
into the trees. Clean, a Lance will come down at 1100 FPM; it's gonna be
considerably faster with the gear hanging out like it would after intercepting
the glideslope.

http://www8.landings.com/cgi-bin/nph-nntsb_connect?pass=12345&file=nntsb_198911.dat&pos=71003

I've got some pictures of this wreck; you wouldn't believe it was possible for
anyone to survive. Here's one of them:

http://home.carolina.rr.com/jayhanig/crash4.jpg

Now, to get back to the first question: how often does one run a tank dry
intentionally? If I was in a Cherokee Six with four tanks and had passengers,
hopefully never. The downside of this is that if you left just a couple of
estimated gallons in each tank, you have lost a significant amount of useful
fuel.

If I were trying to stretch a flight and even then only if I were alone, I might
consider running one dry. But I have to tell you: running a tank dry in a
Cherokee results in te longest 30 seconds of your life. I ran a C-210 tank dry
once and almost the second I hit the boost after switching the fuel selector I
got a restart. Not so in the Cherokee... it takes a while. A loooong while.
Kind of scarey.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Peter R.]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote:

> WE had one of our Lances crash at RDU one foggy morning that I believe was due
> to the pilot running one tank dry while on the ILS inbound from the outer
> marker.
<snip>

I would certainly hope that if one desired to *deliberately* run a tank
dry, that pilot would not choose the approach phase to do so.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Peter R. wrote:
> I would certainly hope that if one desired to *deliberately* run a tank
> dry, that pilot would not choose the approach phase to do so.


Well, it runs dry when it's empty. I wouldn't have picked that particular
moment myself. In this case, I believe the pilot was an idiot. He used to joke
about how far he would fly without refueling. I didn't see that he had a future
in aviation. The boss canned him after the Lance went down.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Greg Copeland]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 14:19:04 +0000, Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

> WE had one of our Lances crash at RDU one foggy morning that I believe
> was due to the pilot running one tank dry while on the ILS inbound from
> the outer marker. He hit the tops of the trees, spun around and down
> one and landed flat in a densely wooded area to the north of the field.
> The resulting fire destroyed the aircraft pretty completely.
> Fortunately, the pilot walked away from it with just a superficial cut
> on his forehead.
>
>

Let me be clear here, I am not talking about accidentally running a tank
dry. In fact, if done as Deakin and Cook prescribe, it probably would of
prevented the accident you mention.

> He may have tried to restart but just didn't have enough time before he
> sank into the trees. Clean, a Lance will come down at 1100 FPM; it's
> gonna be considerably faster with the gear hanging out like it would
> after intercepting the glideslope.
>
> http://www8.landings.com/cgi-bin/nph-nntsb_connect?pass=12345&file=nntsb_198911.dat&pos=71003

Again, this sounds like an accident caused by poor planning. This is not
what I'm talking about. Poor fuel management is poor fuel management.
Let's not confuse the two.

> Now, to get back to the first question: how often does one run a tank
> dry intentionally? If I was in a Cherokee Six with four tanks and had
> passengers, hopefully never. The downside of this is that if you left
> just a couple of estimated gallons in each tank, you have lost a
> significant amount of useful fuel.

Deakin specifically addresses the issue with passengers on board. In his
opinion, proper passenger briefing, a timer, and calm behavior on part of
the pilot is key.


> If I were trying to stretch a flight and even then only if I were alone,
> I might consider running one dry. But I have to tell you: running a
> tank dry in a Cherokee results in te longest 30 seconds of your life. I
> ran a C-210 tank dry once and almost the second I hit the boost after
> switching the fuel selector I got a restart. Not so in the Cherokee...
> it takes a while. A loooong while. Kind of scarey.

If you have not done so, please read his article and see what you think. I
must say, my impression of your position is one of fear not one of reason.
Am I wrong?

I must admit, I certainly would not expect something like a 30-second
delay. I would expect something more in line of a couple of seconds at
most. Perhaps it was a could of seconds but felt like 30? ;)

Greg

[Doug]

Who needs the added risk and worry of running a tank dry? There is
always a small chance that an engine will not start if you allow it to
actually be fuel starved. I don't recommend doing engine outs by
pulling the mixture knob either. But people do it and usually get away
with it. I wouldn't recommend it. Airlines ops don't allow it, for good
reasons. You simply don't want the added risk, stress and decision
making. I want to keep my engine running!

[Dudley Henriques]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
.com...
> Peter R. wrote:
>> I would certainly hope that if one desired to *deliberately* run a tank
>> dry, that pilot would not choose the approach phase to do so.
>
>
> Well, it runs dry when it's empty. I wouldn't have picked that particular
> moment myself. In this case, I believe the pilot was an idiot. He used
> to joke about how far he would fly without refueling. I didn't see that
> he had a future in aviation. The boss canned him after the Lance went
> down.

Actually, the boss should have canned him when he started joking about how
far he could fly without refueling. If I had a pilot working for me doing
this, even joking, I'd have him in my office in five seconds to either
straighten him out or get rid of him. This kind of talk, even around the
flight office, can have a very bad effect on a commercial operation, and no
pilot who ever worked for me would have survived with me long enough to run
dry on the localizer.
Dudley Henriques

[Thomas Borchert]

Greg,

> How many run their tank(s) dry as part of their fuel
> management strategy?

I do it if necessary, which is on long legs.

> what's
> the down side to this strategy?
>

Scaring passengers. You can only do it with passengers that have the
appropriate mindset towards flying and are well briefed.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Doug,

> There is
> always a small chance that an engine will not start if you allow it to
> actually be fuel starved.
>

When you do it right, the engine will not stop, so it won't need to
start again. It will stumble. Briefly. At most.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jose]

I don't run tanks dry (but I only have two). I will use a little from
each tank to ensure that I can, and to keep gas from going overboard (if
the tanks are too full this can happen). Then I will switch tanks to
keep the plane balanced, usually every hour or every half hour or so.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Honeck]

> (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182044-1.html), he not only recommends
> running tanks dry but puts forth a powerful argument that it's a
> responsible fuel management strategy.

That is possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read in these newsgroups.

I have run a tank dry precisely once, early in my flying days, while flying
a rental Cherokee 180 that was burning gas a LOT faster than the 140s I was
used to flying. It got my attention REAL fast, and I've done my level best
to avoid doing it ever since. (There's something about the engine burbling
and the prop slowing down that I just don't like, for some reason...)

IMHO, proper fuel management means never even coming *close* to running a
tank dry, let alone doing it intentionally.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Greg Copeland]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 15:42:31 +0000, Jay Honeck wrote:

>> (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182044-1.html), he not only recommends
>> running tanks dry but puts forth a powerful argument that it's a
>> responsible fuel management strategy.
>
> That is possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read in these newsgroups.

Did you read the article(s) or shoot the messenger?


> IMHO, proper fuel management means never even coming *close* to running a
> tank dry, let alone doing it intentionally.

Well, that is the other side of the coin, isn't it? ;)


Greg

[Jay Honeck]

>> That is possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read in these newsgroups.
>
> Did you read the article(s) or shoot the messenger?

Don't construe my denigration of the idea as being an attack on the
intelligence of the poster. He was, after all, merely quoting an article.

I've posted lots of things here that I disagreed with wholeheartedly, just
to add some spice and learn something in the process.

To illustrate how stupid I think this idea truly is, if today had been April
1st, I would have 100% assumed that the post was an April Fool's Day joke.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dan Malcolm]

<I must admit, I certainly would not expect something like a 30-second
delay.>
I have run the left and right outboard tanks on a Cherokee Six dry, and
because I had a fuel totalizer I knew within a few minutes when the tank
would be dry. Engine restart just required the electric Aux fuel pump,
lower the nose slightly and restart occured in less than 5 seconds. The
first time though, it was a long five seconds. BTW I did this with a much
more experienced ATP/CFI/CFII with me. One of the reasons to empty the
outboard tanks, it that they have more affect on roll than the inboard
tanks, which are not run dry.

Dan

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 14:19:04 +0000, Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
>
>> WE had one of our Lances crash at RDU one foggy morning that I believe
>> was due to the pilot running one tank dry while on the ILS inbound from
>> the outer marker. He hit the tops of the trees, spun around and down
>> one and landed flat in a densely wooded area to the north of the field.
>> The resulting fire destroyed the aircraft pretty completely.
>> Fortunately, the pilot walked away from it with just a superficial cut
>> on his forehead.
>>
>>
>
> Let me be clear here, I am not talking about accidentally running a tank
> dry. In fact, if done as Deakin and Cook prescribe, it probably would of
> prevented the accident you mention.
>
>> He may have tried to restart but just didn't have enough time before he
>> sank into the trees. Clean, a Lance will come down at 1100 FPM; it's
>> gonna be considerably faster with the gear hanging out like it would
>> after intercepting the glideslope.
>>
>> http://www8.landings.com/cgi-bin/nph-nntsb_connect?pass=12345&file=nntsb_198911.dat&pos=71003
>
> Again, this sounds like an accident caused by poor planning. This is not
> what I'm talking about. Poor fuel management is poor fuel management.
> Let's not confuse the two.
>
>> Now, to get back to the first question: how often does one run a tank
>> dry intentionally? If I was in a Cherokee Six with four tanks and had
>> passengers, hopefully never. The downside of this is that if you left
>> just a couple of estimated gallons in each tank, you have lost a
>> significant amount of useful fuel.
>
> Deakin specifically addresses the issue with passengers on board. In his
> opinion, proper passenger briefing, a timer, and calm behavior on part of
> the pilot is key.
>
>
>> If I were trying to stretch a flight and even then only if I were alone,
>> I might consider running one dry. But I have to tell you: running a
>> tank dry in a Cherokee results in te longest 30 seconds of your life. I
>> ran a C-210 tank dry once and almost the second I hit the boost after
>> switching the fuel selector I got a restart. Not so in the Cherokee...
>> it takes a while. A loooong while. Kind of scarey.
>
> If you have not done so, please read his article and see what you think. I
> must say, my impression of your position is one of fear not one of reason.
> Am I wrong?
>
> I must admit, I certainly would not expect something like a 30-second
> delay. I would expect something more in line of a couple of seconds at
> most. Perhaps it was a could of seconds but felt like 30? ;)
>
> Greg
>
>

[Paul kgyy]

I never do it, but should probably make it an occasional test to check
gauge indication.

I came close to running out once many years ago, and it made a
permanent impression on my flying mindset - never, ever, take a chance
on fuel. As a result, I never run tanks anywhere near empty.

[James Ricks]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:07:14 -0500, Greg Copeland > wrote:

>>
>> I would like to do this just one time for each of the two main tanks in
>> the Bonanza V35 I fly if for no other reason than to validate the actual
>> duration and total gallons. However, I have yet to take the time or
>> have the courage to do so.

I'd like to know exactly how much fuel is useable, too, but think I'd probably
run a tank low, pump out the remaining gas, then either high idle or taxi
around until it sputtered, switch over, then fill the empty tank. Seems waaay
too much hassle to not just believe the manufacturer. If you choose to do this
when flying, please don't have either me or your insurance agent as a
passenger.

>>
>> As far as disadvantages, I am concerned about what might happen with the
>> sediment in these aging fuel bladders as the fuel empties. But, I
>> have read articles that dispel this myth so perhaps this is a non-issue.

In my day job, I operate a 2005 vehicle, and see the gunk that comes out of
fuel filters regularly. I can hardly imagine what could lurk in the +/- 30
year old tanks on aircraft we trust to keep us out of the trees.

Enjoy your experiment

Jim Ricks
>

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Greg Copeland wrote:
> Again, this sounds like an accident caused by poor planning. This is not
> what I'm talking about. Poor fuel management is poor fuel management.
> Let's not confuse the two.


My bad. I absolutely agree it was caused by poor fuel management. I also
concede your point that the article is about *intentionally* running the tank
dry to squeeze every drop.


> Deakin specifically addresses the issue with passengers on board. In his
> opinion, proper passenger briefing, a timer, and calm behavior on part of
> the pilot is key.


I don't care how calm the pilot is: the average passenger isn't enough in love
with aviation to tolerate this. You can brief all you want. Some people fear
spiders no matter how beneficial you tell them they might be. It's the same way
when the engine quits, particularly when you have no control over the matter.
Ever been driving in the mountains going a little too fast around the curves?
The driver doesn't mind... he's got his hands on the wheel and is in control.
It's a whole 'nother thing for the passengers.



>> If I were trying to stretch a flight and even then only if I were alone,
>> I might consider running one dry. But I have to tell you: running a
>> tank dry in a Cherokee results in te longest 30 seconds of your life. I
>> ran a C-210 tank dry once and almost the second I hit the boost after
>> switching the fuel selector I got a restart. Not so in the Cherokee...
>> it takes a while. A loooong while. Kind of scarey.
>
> If you have not done so, please read his article and see what you think. I
> must say, my impression of your position is one of fear not one of reason.
> Am I wrong?


Yes. I've run tanks dry many times in both high and low wing airplanes. It
doesn't bother me especially except in rough IFR when my hands are already busy.


> I must admit, I certainly would not expect something like a 30-second
> delay. I would expect something more in line of a couple of seconds at
> most. Perhaps it was a could of seconds but felt like 30? ;)


No, perhaps it was 30 seconds. Go run a tank dry in a PA-32R and tell me how
long it takes to restart. If you want a 2 second restart, fly a Cessna single.

Come back and question me again after you've actually done this.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[ORVAL FAIRAIRN]

In article >,
Greg Copeland > wrote:

> In September 2004 issue of AOPA Flight Training, Mark Cook has an article,
> "No Fueln' Around". Under the "Selector boy" side article, he mentions
> that he runs some of his tanks dry in his Bellanca Viking. In at least
> one of John Deakin's articles
> (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182044-1.html), he not only recommends
> running tanks dry but puts forth a powerful argument that it's a
> responsible fuel management strategy. Furthermore, Deakin also offers
> that he has never found an NTSB accident report related to a failed engine
> start when running a tank dry and switching to the next. Both guys
> recommend setting a timer a couple of minutes before the tank should run
> dry; which acts of both early warning and as validation of your
> anticipated fuel consumption.
>
> Is this common? How many run their tank(s) dry as part of their fuel
> management strategy? If you don't run dry, why not? Aside from the heat
> beat skipping which is sure to follow the first couple of times, what's
> the down side to this strategy?

I was taught to run aux tanks dry, as a matter of fuel management. This
technique is best on carbureted engines, as restart is just about
instantaneous, as soon as th float bowl fills. On fuel-injected engines,
it takes a few seconds (which seems like hours) to get fuel to the
engine and back running.

The philosophy is that it is best to end a flight with all of yoy=ur
available fuel in a single tank, to prevent starvation at critical
times. On the old, pressure-carburetor Bonanzas, the fuel return fed
back to the left main tank only (about 2-3 gph). The procedure was to
run that tank dry, switch to the aux tank(s), run dry, switch to right
main an run it dry. You are left with an hour's worth of fuel in the
left main and no longer have to switch tanks for the duration of the
flight.

You can catch the "tank dry" point by monitoring the fuel pressure gage
and switch as soon as you see it flicker.

[Michael]

I'm familiar with the article, and somewhat in agreement. Running a
tank dry intentionally and at a safe altitude can be a responsible fuel
management strategy, uninformed comments to the contrary
notwithstanding.

Some factors favor running a tank dry. These factors are normally
aspirated engines (start right up when fuel is restored - an injected
engine can vapor-lock) and a gravity-feed fuel system (once again - no
risk of vapor lock). In a plane with a carbureted engine and a gravity
feed system, I would not hesitate to run tanks dry routinely. In a
plane with an engine driven suction pump and injected engines, I would
need a good reason - yes, the engine WILL restart - but it could take
forever (well, OK, 30-60 seconds) before the surging stops and full
available power is restored.

So what is a good reason to run a tank dry intentionally? Paradoxical
as it may sound, one good reason is to prevent running one dry
unintentionally - like the guy who ran his dry on the approach. It's
certainly more of an issue in IFR flying than it is in VFR flying,
because you're often not in a position where you can land safely on 15
mintues notice, and thus you NEED your reserves.

So how does one run a tank dry unintentionally? One method I often see
taught for fuel management that drives me absolutely bat**** is the
30-minute switch. Two tanks, run 30 minutes off each one. Works great
if you never use anything close to the full range of the airplane (in
which case ANYTHING works) or if you have the fuel consumption nailed.
If not, you're setting yourself up to run a tank dry - and what happens
when you do? Now you have less than 30 minutes left in the other tank!
Under VFR, that will probably be enough to make the nearest airport.
Under IFR, it may not be enough to reach an airport with a suitable
approach.

If flying something carbureted with a gravity feed system, I will
routinely run tanks dry in cruise just to have all my reserve fuel in
one tank. That way, if the worst happens (someone gears up on the only
runway and closes the airport, or the airport and my alternated go
below mins unexpectedly) I have all my reserve fuel in one place AND I
know exactly how much I have so I know what kind of plan I can make.
The advantage I gain may be slim (an extra 20 miles of range) but the
cost is essentially nil.

If flying something with a suction pump system and fuel injection, I
won't intentionally run a tank dry - but I will calculate exactly how
long I expect the tank to last and run it exactly that long - NOT LESS.
If I run out sooner than expected, that tells me my fuel consumption
is high, or I was misfueled (maybe due to fueling on a slope - can't
always avoid it) and thus I derate the amount of time I should have
available on the tank(s) I didn't run dry - and maybe change my
destination.

As a general rule, I would say you should always manage your fuel burn
such that if a tank unexpectedly runs dry due to misfueling or
higher-than-expected consumption, you should always have enough in
another tank to make a safe landing. Switching tanks in 30 minute
intervals does not do that.

Michael

[Michael]

> I don't recommend doing engine outs by
> pulling the mixture knob either. But people do it and usually get away
> with it.

Actually, on carbureted engines the mixture cut is the safe way to do
it, and it's the people who use the throttle who are taking a risk -
the very real risk of fouling plugs and building carb ice (carb heat
may not be terribly effective at idle power) rather than some
mysterious and unexplained risk of the engine not starting again.

On injected engines, it's not so simple - there vapor lock is a real
issue so the correct procedure is a throttle cut - but one must pay
VERY careful attention to keeping the mixture VERY lean, lest plugs
foul and full power is not availabe just when you need it most.

Michael

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Michael wrote:
> As a general rule, I would say you should always manage your fuel burn
> such that if a tank unexpectedly runs dry due to misfueling or
> higher-than-expected consumption, you should always have enough in
> another tank to make a safe landing. Switching tanks in 30 minute
> intervals does not do that.


If you extend that to every hour, be prepared to carry one wing for a while due
to weight imbalance. It's not dangerous; just an annoyance.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Denny]

On my Super Viking I routinely ran the Aux tanks dry... I ran a timer
so I knew within a few minutes when it would happen... The engine would
begin to lose power and I would switch tanks and hit the boost pump...
Usually did not get an engine stoppage... If I was a bit slow on the
switch the engine might stop running but relight within a few seconds
of the tank change.. On my Apache I run the tank(s) dry about once a
year to clean them out (and I usually stick a mirror in them before
refilling)...
Now, running a tank dry and running out of fuel are two different
critters... I do not allow the fuel on the Apache to go below 1 hour (6
hours total capacity) for any reason...

denny

[Jose]

> The philosophy is that it is best to end a flight with all of yoy=ur
> available fuel in a single tank, to prevent starvation at critical
> times. On the old, pressure-carburetor Bonanzas, the fuel return fed
> back to the left main tank only (about 2-3 gph). The procedure was to
> run that tank dry, switch to the aux tank(s), run dry, switch to right
> main an run it dry. You are left with an hour's worth of fuel in the
> left main and no longer have to switch tanks for the duration of the
> flight.

Unless the fuel return didn't function properly (can you preflight it?),
in which case you have zip.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Greg Copeland > posted:
>
> Is this common? How many run their tank(s) dry as part of their fuel
> management strategy? If you don't run dry, why not?
>
Two main reasons; there are better ways to gauge your fuel consumption
rate, for example, logging how much fuel you put back in the tank after
the flight; and why play with the trim to keep the plane going in a
straight line, then start all over again with that fiddling when you
switch tanks?

> Aside from the
> heat beat skipping which is sure to follow the first couple of times,
> what's the down side to this strategy?
>
Besides being pointless? How about being uneccesarily risky?

Neil

[Greg Copeland]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 17:21:16 +0000, Neil Gould wrote:

> Recently, Greg Copeland > posted:
>>
>> Is this common? How many run their tank(s) dry as part of their fuel
>> management strategy? If you don't run dry, why not?
>>
> Two main reasons; there are better ways to gauge your fuel consumption
> rate, for example, logging how much fuel you put back in the tank after
> the flight; and why play with the trim to keep the plane going in a
> straight line, then start all over again with that fiddling when you
> switch tanks?
>
>> Aside from the
>> heat beat skipping which is sure to follow the first couple of times,
>> what's the down side to this strategy?
>>
> Besides being pointless? How about being uneccesarily risky?
>

"I know of no accidents that have occurred because an engine would not
restart when supplied with fuel in flight. I have personally done this
literally thousands of times myself, and never seen more than a couple of
seconds of interruption, even when I was completely unaware the engine was
about to quit. If we count all the people I know who routinely did it,
there are literally millions of such events." -John Deakin

"This is simply not true of recips. When a recip runs out of fuel, nothing
else has changed. The spark is still there on every power stroke, the
piston is still pumping air, driven by the prop, which is nearly
impossible to stop, inflight even when you want to. Two of the "three
necessities" (fuel, air, spark) remain, totally unaffected by the lack of
fuel." -John Deakin

So what risk factor can you assign to what is more or less, a non-event?

As for the "why", John Says, "I'd like to take a look at fuel management,
and since my method sometimes calls for running a tank dry, let's get that
out of the way first." In other words, its his strategy for fuel
management which lets him known and understand how much he really has in
reserve and how much can he get out of the "unuseable". Should he have an
event where he has to bite into his reserves, he never has to say, "I sure
hope I have enough. I wonder how much is there".

This is not to say that I've bought into it, but hey, someone has to play
Devil's Advocate! :)

Greg

[john smith]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> If I were trying to stretch a flight and even then only if I were alone, I might
> consider running one dry. But I have to tell you: running a tank dry in a
> Cherokee results in te longest 30 seconds of your life.

Four tank Pipers (PA28-235, PA32-300 series) manuals specifically state
that up to 10 seconds is required for fuel to refill the system after
running an outboard tank dry.

1972 PA32-300 POH, page 4-1, Emergency Procedures, Engine Powere Loss
During Takeoff and page 4-2, Engine Powere Loss in Flight
and
1979 PA32-300 POH, page 3-7, Emergency Procedures, Section 3.9, Engine
Powere Loss During Takeoff and page 3-8,Section 3.11, Engine Powere Loss
in Flight

"NOTE: If an engine failure was caused by fuel exhaustion, power will
not be regained after tanks are switched until empty fuel lines are
filled, which may require up to ten seconds."

[Frank Stutzman]

In rec.aviation.piloting James Ricks > wrote:

> I'd like to know exactly how much fuel is useable, too, but think I'd probably
> run a tank low, pump out the remaining gas, then either high idle or taxi
> around until it sputtered, switch over, then fill the empty tank. Seems waaay
> too much hassle to not just believe the manufacturer. If you choose to do this
> when flying, please don't have either me or your insurance agent as a
> passenger.

I routinely run tanks dry on long flights. As I know my plane and know
when a tank is about to empty, chances are that you, my insurance agent,
or my somewhat nervous wife or children ever notice that a tank went dry.

My first warning is a tank is about to dry is that my timer runs out.
A few minutes later I see a slight increase in my EGT (I've a good engine
monitor). About 40 seconds later, my fuel pressure gauge twitches. I
then switch tanks and the engine hasn't even burbled. Nobody notices.

BTW, Beech sez I've got 20 gallon tanks, with 17.5 usable. After running
my right tank dry, I can put fill with 20.8 gallons. My aux tank tank is
20 with 19 usable according to the book. After running it dry, I can put
19.7 in it. I don't know how much I can put in my left one as I only have
three tanks and I try hard not to have all three of them empty at one time
;-)

Fortunately, what Beech put in my owners book were written by engineers
with an engineers fudge factor. The books on later models were written by
lawyers using the engineers data (with the afore mentioned fudge factor).
Way lotta slop there.

> In my day job, I operate a 2005 vehicle, and see the gunk that comes out of
> fuel filters regularly. I can hardly imagine what could lurk in the +/- 30
> year old tanks on aircraft we trust to keep us out of the trees.

Does your 2005 vehicle have sumps that you drain every time before you
start it?

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

[Jose]

> BTW, Beech sez I've got 20 gallon tanks, with 17.5 usable. After running
> my right tank dry, I can put fill with 20.8 gallons. [...]
>
> Fortunately, what Beech put in my owners book were written by engineers
> with an engineers fudge factor. [...] Way lotta slop there.

"Usable" means usable in EVERY flight attitude. The "unusable" fuel can
be used in SOME flight attitudes, obviously some of that unusable fuel
could be used in the specific flight attitude in which you were at the time.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mark T. Dame]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
>
> Now, to get back to the first question: how often does one run a tank dry
> intentionally? If I was in a Cherokee Six with four tanks and had passengers,
> hopefully never. The downside of this is that if you left just a couple of
> estimated gallons in each tank, you have lost a significant amount of useful
> fuel.
>
> If I were trying to stretch a flight and even then only if I were alone, I might
> consider running one dry. But I have to tell you: running a tank dry in a
> Cherokee results in te longest 30 seconds of your life. I ran a C-210 tank dry
> once and almost the second I hit the boost after switching the fuel selector I
> got a restart. Not so in the Cherokee... it takes a while. A loooong while.
> Kind of scarey.

I've run a C-6 main tank dry (unintentionally) and the engine sputtered
for about 3 seconds (the time it took me to turn on the aux pump and
switch to the other main tank). My fuel management method in the C-6 is:

Left Main: 1 hour
Right Main: 1.5 hours
Left Main: 30 minutes
Right Aux: 45 minutes
Left Aux: 45 minutes
(left and right may be swapped as I have no hard and fast rule for which
tank I start on)

This gives me 4.5 hours and leaves me with about 10 minutes in each main
and 25 minutes in each aux tank, which is about as close to empty as I
want to come. In practice, I usually only use the second aux tank for
my approach and landing because I don't care to sit for longer than 4
hours at a stretch. In the case of running the tank dry, I was getting
ready to switch to the first aux tank when the tank ran dry (less than a
minute left on the timer), so I was ready for it and the engine didn't
have the chance to fully shut down, but it was enough to wake up my wife
in a panic. (-:


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead."

[Frank Stutzman]

In rec.aviation.piloting Jose > wrote:
> > main an run it dry. You are left with an hour's worth of fuel in the
> > left main and no longer have to switch tanks for the duration of the
> > flight.

> Unless the fuel return didn't function properly (can you preflight it?),
> in which case you have zip.

Owning one of these planes that Oval mentioned (pressure carbed E-225
powered Bonanza), I doubt you could even get it started if the fuel return
wasn't working. It's sort of like asking if you can start the plane
without the magnetos.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

[Frank Stutzman]

In rec.aviation.piloting Jose > wrote:
> > BTW, Beech sez I've got 20 gallon tanks, with 17.5 usable. After running
> > my right tank dry, I can put fill with 20.8 gallons. [...]
> >
> > Fortunately, what Beech put in my owners book were written by engineers
> > with an engineers fudge factor. [...] Way lotta slop there.

> "Usable" means usable in EVERY flight attitude. The "unusable" fuel can
> be used in SOME flight attitudes, obviously some of that unusable fuel
> could be used in the specific flight attitude in which you were at the time.

True, but so what?

Did you notice I was putting 20.8 gallons in what is supposed to be a 20
gallon tank? My point is that POH are not completely accurate in regards
to fuel managment, and that you don't know how inaccurate they are for
YOUR particular plane until you run a tank dry.


--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Greg Copeland > posted:

> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 17:21:16 +0000, Neil Gould wrote:
>> Besides being pointless? How about being uneccesarily risky?
>>
>
[...]
> So what risk factor can you assign to what is more or less, a
> non-event?
>
It's a non-event *if* the tank runs dry at a convenient time and place,
*if* the engine restarts (I've had one heck of a time restarting a warm
fuel-injected engine at times), etc. Even if these risks are low, they're
still uneccesary, so I'll stand by my opinion. ;-)

> As for the "why", John Says, "I'd like to take a look at fuel
> management, and since my method sometimes calls for running a tank
> dry, let's get that out of the way first." In other words, its his
> strategy for fuel management which lets him known and understand how
> much he really has in reserve and how much can he get out of the
> "unuseable". Should he have an event where he has to bite into his
> reserves, he never has to say, "I sure hope I have enough. I wonder
> how much is there".
>
What's the point in all of this? If he can't figure out fuel consumption
rates from the amount of fuel that he replaces after the flight, what good
is running the tanks dry? One is supposed to have a 45-minute reserve VFR;
that's quite a bit more fuel than running dry. The whole idea is *not* to
run dry. To me, it sounds like a fools game to do otherwise.

Neil

[George Patterson]

Greg Copeland wrote:
>
> How many run their tank(s) dry as part of their fuel
> management strategy? If you don't run dry, why not? Aside from the heat
> beat skipping which is sure to follow the first couple of times, what's
> the down side to this strategy?

I do not. The examiner for my PPC recommended a variation of this -- he said to
switch tanks every half an hour. He said "When the tank you're on runs dry,
you'll know exactly how much is left in the other tank." Well, I wasn't going to
argue with him, but what if it runs dry two minutes after you switched? You'd
better be on final approach.

As for the down side to this strategy, that's what killed Will Rogers and Willie
Post. Willie used to fly on one tank until it ran dry and then switch to the
next. The tank he was on ran dry a few hundred feet up on takeoff.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Greg Copeland]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 19:02:46 +0000, Neil Gould wrote:

> Recently, Greg Copeland > posted:
>
>> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 17:21:16 +0000, Neil Gould wrote:
>>> Besides being pointless? How about being uneccesarily risky?
>>>
>>
> [...]
>> So what risk factor can you assign to what is more or less, a
>> non-event?
>>
> It's a non-event *if* the tank runs dry at a convenient time and place,
> *if* the engine restarts (I've had one heck of a time restarting a warm
> fuel-injected engine at times), etc. Even if these risks are low, they're
> still uneccesary, so I'll stand by my opinion. ;-)
>

At a convenient time? That's the difference between running out of fuel
and running the tank dry. After all, if you chosen to run the tank dry,
it better be because its both a convenient time and place. If you allowed
your self to run out of fuel at an "inconvenient time and place", then you
ran out fuel, which is not what is advocated here. Remember, this is
part of a fuel management strategy and not blindly flying until the tank
reads empty and the engine sputters.

Deakin's article clearly spells out that there are some planes which
this should not be done on. Fuel injected engines is probably one such
category to not try this on because of vapor-lock issues. In most
carborated engines, in most planes, I must admit it sure sounds like a
non-event to me. Again, as even Deakin points out, there are exceptions
to every rule; whereby he even provides one.

Also, I do thank you for sharing your opinion.

>> As for the "why", John Says, "I'd like to take a look at fuel
>> management, and since my method sometimes calls for running a tank
>> dry, let's get that out of the way first." In other words, its his
>> strategy for fuel management which lets him known and understand how
>> much he really has in reserve and how much can he get out of the
>> "unuseable". Should he have an event where he has to bite into his
>> reserves, he never has to say, "I sure hope I have enough. I wonder
>> how much is there".
>>
> What's the point in all of this? If he can't figure out fuel consumption
> rates from the amount of fuel that he replaces after the flight, what good
> is running the tanks dry? One is supposed to have a 45-minute reserve VFR;
> that's quite a bit more fuel than running dry. The whole idea is *not* to
> run dry. To me, it sounds like a fools game to do otherwise.

Fair enough.

>
> Neil

Greg

[Greg Copeland]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 19:25:45 +0000, George Patterson wrote:

> Greg Copeland wrote:
>>
>> How many run their tank(s) dry as part of their fuel management
>> strategy? If you don't run dry, why not? Aside from the heat beat
>> skipping which is sure to follow the first couple of times, what's the
>> down side to this strategy?
>
> I do not. The examiner for my PPC recommended a variation of this -- he
> said to switch tanks every half an hour. He said "When the tank you're
> on runs dry, you'll know exactly how much is left in the other tank."
> Well, I wasn't going to argue with him, but what if it runs dry two
> minutes after you switched? You'd better be on final approach.

Doesn't sound like that's a winning strategy for night VFR either. Seems
like a 45-minute to an hour switch would be better.


> As for the down side to this strategy, that's what killed Will Rogers
> and Willie Post. Willie used to fly on one tank until it ran dry and
> then switch to the next. The tank he was on ran dry a few hundred feet
> up on takeoff.
>
>
On take off? Doesn't that mean the PIC failed to properly fuel the plane
rather than invalidate the strategy? How was that not pilot error, pure
and simple?


> George Patterson

Greg

[Jim Burns]

I remember reading that article several months ago, so I just breezed
through it this time. A couple points that I've thought about, along with
the author. I've never ran a tank dry, and don't intend to. Why not?
Well, even disregarding the potential safety issues, we have fuel injected
engines and our electric fuel pumps have great big red stickers on them that
say DO NOT RUN DRY. $632 each for rebuilt models, I think I won't gamble
that kind of cash.

I haven't done it yet, but I would like to examine, with a mirror as Denny
has, our rubber fuel bladders. I would also like to know their exact
current capacity. I would like to assure myself that they are still
"buttoned" down and have not even partially collapsed. To date, I've fueled
each of our 36 gallon tanks, with 30 gallons each, 6 gallons remaining in
each, about 2 of which was unusable according to the book. So I'm fairly
confident that they hold at least 30 gallons each.

But rather than running a tank dry, what's wrong with simply running it low,
then draining the remainder through the sump? This is "supposed" to be the
lowest point on the tank or in the system, right? It would seem that any
"crud" that hasn't been sucked through the fuel filter, would then just
dribble out into your gas can.

Afterwards, the bladders can be inspected and filled to the brim for an
accurate capacity. All done on the ground.

Jim

[Jose]

>> "Usable" means usable in EVERY flight attitude. The "unusable" fuel can
>> be used in SOME flight attitudes, obviously some of that unusable fuel
>> could be used in the specific flight attitude in which you were at the time.
>
>
> True, but so what?
>
> Did you notice I was putting 20.8 gallons in what is supposed to be a 20
> gallon tank? My point is that POH are not completely accurate in regards
> to fuel managment, and that you don't know how inaccurate they are for
> YOUR particular plane until you run a tank dry.

So there are different values of "dry". When you run a tank "dry" that
doesn't mean there's no gas in it. The problem isn't that the POH isn't
accurate (and I make no statements about its accuracy), but rather, that
"empty" isn't a yes or no thing.

The fuel has to be able to flow until you reach the "unusable fuel".
After that, the fuel =might= flow in certain attitudes (and almost
certainly will, to some extent, in some of them). So, if you are trying
to measure "usable fuel" this way, you've run the tank =more=than= dry
when the engine quits, but you don't know how much more than dry you've
run it, because that depends on the flight attitude when you did that.

And if you're trying to measure =total= fuel, running a tank dry doesn't
mean it has no fuel in it.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[George Patterson]

Greg Copeland wrote:
>
> On take off? Doesn't that mean the PIC failed to properly fuel the plane
> rather than invalidate the strategy? How was that not pilot error, pure
> and simple?

This was a floatplane operation in Alaska. He landed at an Eskimo hunting camp
to determine where he was. No fuel available. Yes, it was pilot error. His
aircraft had 7 tanks of somewhat indeterminate size. Only one had a gauge. Post
would run one dry after another until he was flying on the one with the gauge.
He was still on number 6 when the engine quit. His floatplane takeoff technique
also left something to be desired, so the plane almost immediately stalled and
went in. Post was crushed by the engine. Rogers was not strapped in.

Me, I prefer to never let the gauges get below 1/8 tank on either of my mains
(and I had no auxiliary tanks in my aircraft). For one thing, that ensures that
I have fuel in that sort of situation even if I forget to switch to the fullest
tank for takeoff.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Robert M. Gary]

Don't do it. Upsets the wife.

[Robert M. Gary]

I bought a fuel computer (JPI add-on to my EDM). I know exactely how
much fuel is in each tank.

[Robert M. Gary]

That's why God invented fuel computers. I know exactly how long I have
left on each tank and I don't need to scar the crap out of my wife and
pax to do it.

[Kyler Laird]

Greg Copeland > writes:

>How many run their tank(s) dry as part of their fuel
>management strategy?

I sometimes do. I did it much more years ago than I do now (mostly because
I'm lazy). I especially like that it lets me calibrate my calculations. I
usually run on both sets of tanks (switching at least once) before I run
one dry. It scares me to think that I might switch to a set of tanks with
contaminated fuel. (I sometimes only top off one set of tanks.)

--kyler

[Kyler Laird]

"Jim Burns" > writes:

>Well, even disregarding the potential safety issues, we have fuel injected
>engines and our electric fuel pumps have great big red stickers on them that
>say DO NOT RUN DRY.

I concur. Don't run them dry. Leave 'em off.

--kyler

[Jose]

> That's why God invented fuel computers. I know exactly how long I have
> left on each tank...

You think you know. You might find that the computer has a surprise for
you. All the other computers in my life have surprises for me.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Michael]

> That's why God invented fuel computers. I know exactly how long I have
> left on each tank and I don't need to scar the crap out of my wife and
> pax to do it.

Interestingly enough, that was exactly the logic I was using the one
time I inadvertently ran a tank dry on my Twin Comanche. I was quite
surprised - there was supposed to be another 30 minutes of fuel left in
that tank.

Fuel computers are not infallible. However, I do agree that if you use
your fuel computer to draw ALL the fuel from the tank that is supposed
to be there, that's just as good as running one dry. It just doesn't
work if you leave, say, a 30m minute reserve there that you plan to get
later if you need it. It may not be there.

Michael

[Blueskies]

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message ...
> In September 2004 issue of AOPA Flight Training, Mark Cook has an article,
> "No Fueln' Around". Under the "Selector boy" side article, he mentions
> that he runs some of his tanks dry in his Bellanca Viking. In at least
> one of John Deakin's articles
> (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182044-1.html), he not only recommends
> running tanks dry but puts forth a powerful argument that it's a
> responsible fuel management strategy. Furthermore, Deakin also offers
> that he has never found an NTSB accident report related to a failed engine
> start when running a tank dry and switching to the next. Both guys
> recommend setting a timer a couple of minutes before the tank should run
> dry; which acts of both early warning and as validation of your
> anticipated fuel consumption.
>
> Is this common? How many run their tank(s) dry as part of their fuel
> management strategy? If you don't run dry, why not? Aside from the heat
> beat skipping which is sure to follow the first couple of times, what's
> the down side to this strategy?
>
> Lastly, I did cross post this message as I feel it's of value to both
> student and general pilot population alike.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Greg
>
>

The Ercoupe had it right. Both wing tanks are pumped into the header tank behind the engine in front of the pilot.
Excess fuel is routed back to one of the wing tanks (right side?). Gravity feeds the engine. When all of the fuel is
gone in the wing tanks the header tank bobber starts to go down; leaves something like 5 gallons available and you know
you used up the mains and you have about an hour left...

[Robert M. Gary]

I've had excellent results with my JPI fuel computer. Unless you are
leaking gas (something the fuel gauge may clue you into) it should work
great. I am able to take trips deep into Mexico that I would not have
felt comfortable doing without the fuel computer. I measure my fuel
before and after every flight. I've never had the computer be off by
more the 0.1 gals.
There is only a universe if you are looking at it. If you are not
looking at it, whether or not there is a universe is undefined.

-Robert

[vincent p. norris]

> I am concerned about what might happen with the
>sediment in these aging fuel bladders as the fuel empties. But, I have
>read articles that dispel this myth so perhaps this is a non-issue.

Right. We ran out tanks dry on long overwater flights as standard
practice in the Marines, years ago.

vince norris

[Paul kgyy]

Not quite; it only tells you what goes through the flowmeter. If you
have a leak before the fuel gets to the meter, the only way you'll know
is if the plane catches fire or the gauges go down too fast :-)

[Paul kgyy]

The ACS magazine this month mentions sometimes 2-3 minutes to restart a
Comanche engine after running a tank dry. They don't recommend doing
it...

[Roger]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:58:18 -0400, "Peter R."
> wrote:

>Greg Copeland > wrote:
>
>> Is this common? How many run their tank(s) dry as part of their fuel
>> management strategy? If you don't run dry, why not? Aside from the heat
>> beat skipping which is sure to follow the first couple of times, what's
>> the down side to this strategy?
>
>I would like to do this just one time for each of the two main tanks in the
>Bonanza V35 I fly if for no other reason than to validate the actual
>duration and total gallons. However, I have yet to take the time or have
>the courage to do so.
>
>As far as disadvantages, I am concerned about what might happen with the
>sediment in these aging fuel bladders as the fuel empties. But, I have
>read articles that dispel this myth so perhaps this is a non-issue.

I've run every tank on/in the Deb (35-33) dry. Just not at the same
time. At least with the fuel injected engine there is no running
rough. It just quits, but you have plenty of time to reach down and
turn the fuel selector.

This also lets you know if your tanks/bladders are in position and
just how much fuel each tank really holds. Take a ruler and keep
dipping each tank as you fill. Mark the depths as you fill and you
have a calibrated dip-stick.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Thomas Borchert]

Robert,

> I know exactely how
> much fuel is in each tank.
>

Nope, you don't. In fact, without running the tanks dry at least once
(or emptying them in the hangar), you have no idea. You know how much
has gone from the tanks if there is no leak. That doesn't tell you at
all how much is left.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> That is possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read in these newsgroups.
>
> IMHO, proper fuel management means never even coming *close* to running a
> tank dry, let alone doing it intentionally.
> --
>

And now you expect us to call you names, too?

Readthe other posts here, and you may learn that it is not as simple to judge
as you make it.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Robert,

> I know exactly how long I have
> left on each tank
>

No, you don't. You know how much is gone from the tanks, not how much
is left.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-08-19, Paul kgyy > wrote:
> The ACS magazine this month mentions sometimes 2-3 minutes to restart a
> Comanche engine after running a tank dry. They don't recommend doing
> it...

Not borne out by experience, though. A friend of mine would routinely
run a tank dry in his Comanche - when he did it with me on board, the
engine caught immediately when the tank was changed. It may as well have
been a high wing Cessna single.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-08-18, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> IMHO, proper fuel management means never even coming *close* to running a
> tank dry, let alone doing it intentionally.

How close is close?

I prefer to not run a tank dry (and NEVER with passengers, even pilot
passengers), however consider this.

My old Cessna 140 (and other early high wing Cessnas, like the C180) has
fuel pickups in the inboard centre of the tank. This necessitates a 'No
takeoff zone' for the last quarter of each tank due to the risk of the
fuel unporting with the nose pitched up for takeoff.

1/4 of a tank is 30 minutes of fuel in most of these planes. At my
planned point of landing, I want at least this much fuel + 30 minutes
extra _in a single tank_ to ensure I can do a go around, fly to a new
airport and do a go around there too.

On a long cross country, to not 'come close' to running one tank dry
would really kill the range of the aircraft. My usual procedure is to
run one tank almost dry so I have plenty above the 'no takeoff zone' in
the remaining tank when I arrive. To have the other tank nowhere near
that would require a huge cut in range.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-08-18, Mortimer Schnerd, RN > wrote:
> Michael wrote:
>> As a general rule, I would say you should always manage your fuel burn
>> such that if a tank unexpectedly runs dry due to misfueling or
>> higher-than-expected consumption, you should always have enough in
>> another tank to make a safe landing. Switching tanks in 30 minute
>> intervals does not do that.
>
>
> If you extend that to every hour, be prepared to carry one wing for a while due
> to weight imbalance. It's not dangerous; just an annoyance.

It largely depends on the plane. In my old C140, you couldn't even tell.
In my friend's Tripacer, it's obvious. In a Grumman Cheetah, it's
noticable a little. In a Cessna 180, you can hardly notice.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Brian]

Doing it not only checks the guage indication.
It also checks.

1. Fuel Pickup integrety
2. Fuel Cell Integreity (Bladders especially)
3. Fuel Filling issues (some airplane are difficult to fill completely)

Brian

[Matt Barrow]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:58:18 -0400, "Peter R."
>As far as disadvantages, I am concerned about what might happen with the
>sediment in these aging fuel bladders as the fuel empties. But, I have
>read articles that dispel this myth so perhaps this is a non-issue.

Maybe this one? http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182044-1.html

"The Creeping Crud OWT
Then there is the secondary OWT that says something like "But what if some
crud gets sucked into the system from the tank bottom?" Give me a break!
Think about this, for a moment. There are three areas where "crud" might be
a concern. Crud lying on the bottom, crud suspended in the fuel, and crud
floating on the surface. When we fuel the airplane, fuel is injected rather
violently, stirring up the whole tank. When we fly in turbulence, fuel
sloshes rather violently around the tank. Do you really think anything will
be peacefully lying on the bottom, year after year? If it were, why would
running the tank dry stir it up, and if it's that tenacious, how on earth is
running the tank dry going to magically pick it up?

How about suspended crud? It is no more, or less likely to be sucked into
the fuel lines at any fuel level. Floating crud, on the surface? Well,
maybe, but can you name me something that will do that? And if there is,
well, how much of it will you allow, before you rip the tank out for
"cleaning," or how WILL you get it out, someday? Just how, and when, will
you identify it, detect it, and get rid of it? And, how much fuel do you
want as a "buffer" below the floating crud, to keep from sucking it in? In
fact, if there is a little something floating on the surface, I WANT it to
be sucked into the fuel lines, preferably a little at a time, so that the
strainers and filters can catch it, and alert me that something is going on
in there. The likelihood of there being enough to cause a problem is remote,
at best, and if running a tank dry will pick up a little crud, then running
a tank dry often is a very good thing, because you'll catch it a little at a
time, and drain it out the strainer.

Of course, if you keep the tank full most of the time, and the cap on, and
drain the sumps often, there isn't any way for crud to get into, or stay in
the tank in the first place."

[Robert M. Gary]

Nope. I have drained the tanks before and used that measurement to
calibrate the computer. Draining the tank shows the computer to be
correct within 0.1 gallons (1/10 of a gallon). Running the tank dry
once doesn't tell me if I get a new leak but I do also have accurate
fuel gauges. If you fly long trips as often as I do, spend some money
on the gauges and a good, calibrated fuel computer rather than scar the
crap out of your pax.

[Robert M. Gary]

Too many of you have been reading "The Cheap *******'s Pilot's Guide".
I have good working gauges and a fuel computer that has been
professionally calibrated and verified at each 100 hour inspection. I
don't need to make the wife want to leave me in order to know how much
fuel I have. Flying over the Sierras, dodging TS's is exciting enough,
I don't need to turn off the fan to add more excitment to my life.

[Michael]

Are your gauges accurate enough to reliably tell the difference between
30 minutes fuel at 60% power and empty in tyubulent air?
Will your fuel computer account for fuel that leaves via a cap that has
developed a leak?

Michael

[Kyler Laird]

"Robert M. Gary" > writes:

>Flying over the Sierras, dodging TS's is exciting enough,

Yeah, been there, didn't enjoy it.

>I don't need to turn off the fan to add more excitment to my life.

We seem to have diverging groups. Some of us see running a tank (nearly)
dry as a non-event. Others see it as "turn[ing] off the fan". I've seen
a few references to the *possibility* that some planes will actually lose
power for more than an instant if the tank is run down. Are any of us
who run the tanks "dry" actually experiencing this? I suspect that the
reason most of us who do this don't get so excited about it is because it
is such a non-event. Is that plane-specific?

(I've had it take a long time to figure out which tank just went dry when
an engine started surging. It wakes me up but it's sure not so exciting
that I'd avoid the practice.)

--kyler

[ORVAL FAIRAIRN]

In article . com>,
"Michael" > wrote:

> Are your gauges accurate enough to reliably tell the difference between
> 30 minutes fuel at 60% power and empty in tyubulent air?
> Will your fuel computer account for fuel that leaves via a cap that has
> developed a leak?
>
> Michael

INHO, the biggest error thet the "don't run it dry" crowd fails to grasp
is that, at the end of the flight, it is far better to have that 45
minutes of fuel in a single tank, rather than scattered among three or
four tanks totaling 45 minutes worth.

That is where a lot of fuel starvation accidents happen. Pilot gets busy
on approach, thinking he has selected a tank with enough fuel in it when
that fuel is in another tank.

[Roger]

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 09:17:22 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>Robert,
>
>> I know exactely how
>> much fuel is in each tank.
>>
>
>Nope, you don't. In fact, without running the tanks dry at least once
>(or emptying them in the hangar), you have no idea. You know how much
>has gone from the tanks if there is no leak. That doesn't tell you at
>all how much is left.

Coming back from HTL with full tanks, the gauge on the left main
started down. I didn't know if I had a gauge problem, or the tank was
leaking, or if the quick drain had failed. It was moving fast enough
that if it was correct I was going to be really wing heavy on the
right. As soon as I noticed the gauge going down I switched to the
right tank.

At any rate, I had filled the tank prior to starting out, but I had no
real idea as to how much gas was left. I knew I'd only burn about 4.5
gallons on the way home so I knew what *should* be in there, but not
how much I really had.

I did a precautionary landing at GDW. A check showed no leak and the
level was where it should be. When I fired back up the gauge was
reading properly.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[RST Engineering]

The primary function of the fuel gauges in most light aircraft is to
indicate when the master switch is on.

Jim



> I did a precautionary landing at GDW. A check showed no leak and the
> level was where it should be. When I fired back up the gauge was
> reading properly.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger]

On 19 Aug 2005 10:48:45 -0700, "Robert M. Gary" >
wrote:

>Too many of you have been reading "The Cheap *******'s Pilot's Guide".
>I have good working gauges and a fuel computer that has been
>professionally calibrated and verified at each 100 hour inspection. I
>don't need to make the wife want to leave me in order to know how much
>fuel I have. Flying over the Sierras, dodging TS's is exciting enough,
>I don't need to turn off the fan to add more excitment to my life.

What happens if a tank develops a leak? We had a Comanche go down a
few years ago due to running out of fuel. He took off with full fuel
and at that point should have had near half left.

The verdict? Mice had chewed holes in the bladders. When he fueled
up the pressure kept the bladders sealed against the metal so no leaks
were apparent, but once in the air the turbulence kept him bouncing
enough that the tanks lost a lot of fuel.

He knew how much he burned, but the gauges were bouncing too, or at
least until they were near empty. He was doing really well on that
paved mountain road until he found that mail box sent on a steel pipe
full of concrete.

No injuries except for the airplane and with a new wing it's been back
flying for some time.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Seth Masia]

When I'd had my Comanche less than a month, and hadn't yet figured out an
accurate fuel burn rate, I accidently ran a tank dry -- at night over Puget
Sound. Switched tanks and hit the boost pump and it started immediately.

Then I restarted my heart, turned east and landed at Skagit to fill up.

Seth
"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2005-08-19, Paul kgyy > wrote:
>> The ACS magazine this month mentions sometimes 2-3 minutes to restart a
>> Comanche engine after running a tank dry. They don't recommend doing
>> it...
>
> Not borne out by experience, though. A friend of mine would routinely
> run a tank dry in his Comanche - when he did it with me on board, the
> engine caught immediately when the tank was changed. It may as well have
> been a high wing Cessna single.
>
> --
> Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
> Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
> Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
> "Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[RST Engineering]

Gets your attention over trees, rocks, or water, doesn't it?

Jim


>
> Then I restarted my heart, turned east and landed at Skagit to fill up.

[Seth Masia]

Ayup.

Pretty religious about my reserves since then.

I have two 30-gallon tanks. I switch tanks as soon as I reach cruise
altitude -- usually about 20 min at full power, which I interpret as burning
half an hour of fuel at 65% cruise. Then I switch each hour thereafter. In
theory, this leaves me thirty minutes if I go dry.

Seth

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> Gets your attention over trees, rocks, or water, doesn't it?
>
> Jim
>
>
>>
>> Then I restarted my heart, turned east and landed at Skagit to fill up.
>
>

[Ryan Ferguson]

Greg Copeland wrote:

> In September 2004 issue of AOPA Flight Training, Mark Cook has an article,
> "No Fueln' Around". Under the "Selector boy" side article, he mentions
> that he runs some of his tanks dry in his Bellanca Viking. In at least
> one of John Deakin's articles
> (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182044-1.html), he not only recommends
> running tanks dry but puts forth a powerful argument that it's a
> responsible fuel management strategy. Furthermore, Deakin also offers
> that he has never found an NTSB accident report related to a failed engine
> start when running a tank dry and switching to the next. Both guys
> recommend setting a timer a couple of minutes before the tank should run
> dry; which acts of both early warning and as validation of your
> anticipated fuel consumption.
>
> Is this common? How many run their tank(s) dry as part of their fuel
> management strategy? If you don't run dry, why not? Aside from the heat
> beat skipping which is sure to follow the first couple of times, what's
> the down side to this strategy?

Yes, as usual John Deakin is right on the money. Just ran the tanks dry
today, in fact. I do a commute to work two to three times per week and
have found that by carefully managing my fuel consumption, and by
completely utilizing the aux tanks, I can avoid an extra stop for fuel
every third trip.

There is nothing I can think of relating to running a tank dry in cruise
that would cause any difficulty or concern other than psychological. Go
ahead and do it... the article you read gave you all the right data,
and all the right reasons.

[Jay Honeck]

>> That is possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read in these newsgroups.
>>
>> IMHO, proper fuel management means never even coming *close* to running a
>> tank dry, let alone doing it intentionally.
>
> And now you expect us to call you names, too?
>
> Readthe other posts here, and you may learn that it is not as simple to
> judge
> as you make it.

I'm sorry, was I calling someone a name? I thought he was quoting an
article?

I have read all the posts in this thread with great interest. Nothing said
here has come close to explaining how the minimal utility you might get from
running a tank dry could possibly overcome the very real danger that the
engine might stop.

My statement stands -- it's a dumb idea.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Robert M. Gary]

They should stop being cheap *******s and just buy the damn fuel
computer. Then you know how much fuel is in each tank. You back woods
pilots worry me.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

I have a real airplane and as such, I could see if my caps developed a
leak in flight. :) My caps also get new seals every 12 months per AD.
And yes, ,my gauges can tell the difference between 30 minutes of fuel
and none even in turb. Fuel gauges can be VERY accurate, you just need
to spend the money to keep them in good repair.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

So, you're ok over the Sierras without the motor running?

[Ron Lee]

I have run the tanks dry on both sides about three times each so I
know my gauges are accurate and can predict to within about 0.2 to 0.3
gallon useage when the engine will stumble.

Not once did the engine quit.

To be honest about the first time I was circling over an unused runway
and for some unexplained reason the circles became tighter (smaller
radius) as the tank got closer to zero. Obviously I had planty of
altitude.

Ron Lee

[Blueskies]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message ups.com...
>I have a real airplane and as such, I could see if my caps developed a
> leak in flight. :)
>
> -Robert
>

No way the sumps can leak, eh? ;-)

[john smith]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> They should stop being cheap *******s and just buy the damn fuel
> computer. Then you know how much fuel is in each tank. You back woods
> pilots worry me.

I fly a 1945 Aeronca Champ. It has a single 13-gallon fuel tank that
sits above my legs on the cabin side of the firewall. If there is a
leak, I will feel it smell it.
The Champ has no electrical system, so it cannot power a computer.
I plan for 4-gallons/hour, but in actuality, it burns 3.5 to 3.75 gph.
The most fuel I have put in at one fillup was 12 gallons.

[Thomas Borchert]

Robert,

> I have drained the tanks before and used that measurement to
> calibrate the computer.
>

In that case, I take back most of what I said. I stand by my statement
that you can apply the technique without scaring anybody, though.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> I'm sorry, was I calling someone a name?
>

Saying "That is possibly the dumbest thing..." kind of implies the
author is dumb in most interpretations, doesn't it? John Deakin sure is
a lot of things. Dumb is definitely not among them.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Michael 182]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I bought a fuel computer (JPI add-on to my EDM). I know exactely how
> much fuel is in each tank.
>

Assuming the last person who filled it filled it all the way. I find a
discrepancy of about 10 gallons seems to happen depending on how the tanks
are filled.


Michael

[karl gruber]

Your "K" factor must first be corrected during several top offs. After
that most of the discrepency is caused by various methods of filling to
various levels. Furhter, most gas pumps have cummy metering, and those
that are ripping you off are easy to tell with the JPI FF.

To be most exact, one needs to fill the tanks yourself, from the same
trusted pump. After that the JPI will easily be within .1 gallons of
actual use. Time and time again.

karl

[john smith]

karl gruber wrote:
> Your "K" factor must first be corrected during several top offs. After
> that most of the discrepency is caused by various methods of filling to
> various levels. Furhter, most gas pumps have cummy metering, and those
> that are ripping you off are easy to tell with the JPI FF.

Takes three flights, minimum. A fourth can be used to tweak it tightly.

[Jay Honeck]

>> I'm sorry, was I calling someone a name?
>>
> Saying "That is possibly the dumbest thing..." kind of implies the
> author is dumb in most interpretations, doesn't it? John Deakin sure is
> a lot of things. Dumb is definitely not among them.

Sorry, even Einstein had dumb ideas. This is one of Deakins...

In fact, I would never have guessed that this kind of a hair-brained "fuel
management" procedure would merit a serious discussion in these newsgroups.
To even contemplate running a tank dry in the air, let alone propose it as a
standard -- even beneficial (?!) -- procedure, makes for astonishing
reading.

Although this thread *does* answer a question that has bugged me for a very
long time. I've often wondered how it was possible that so many NTSB
reports ended with "fuel exhaustion" as an explanation.

Now I know.

(And, no, before any "English as a second language" folks misinterpret the
meaning of my post, I DON'T mean that any particular crash happened because
the pilots were purposefully running a tank dry. Rather, it's the "let's
extend our fuel range to the maximum possible" attitude that kills people --
and this thread goes a long ways toward explaining that mentality.)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose]

> Rather, it's the "let's
> extend our fuel range to the maximum possible" attitude that kills people --
> and this thread goes a long ways toward explaining that mentality.)

But this is what aviation =is=.

Aviation is all about limits. We are held up on nothing more than a
blast of air (ob politics: ... and will be brought down by nothing more
than a blast of hot air). In order for that to work, airframes are made
as thin as they can, engines are made as light as they can, reserves are
as thin as they can be... all up to a point. Where that point =is=
(beyond the FARs) is a matter of comfort and physics. If you didn't go
flying unless you had a guaranteed two hours reserve, you'd never go
anywhere. So we cut it down to forty-five minutes - or even half an
hour in clear daylight. Some would consider this reckless, some would
consider it ultra-conservative, but it is what it is - a compromise.

Having only {fill in} reserve is stretching it.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Marc J. Zeitlin]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> In fact, I would never have guessed that this kind of a hair-brained
> "fuel management" procedure would merit a serious discussion in these
> newsgroups.

The fact that you consider it "hair-brained" does not make it so.

> To even contemplate running a tank dry in the air, let alone propose
> it as a standard -- even beneficial (?!) -- procedure, makes for
> astonishing reading.

Huh. I've run my tanks dry on occasion, for a couple of reasons. First
of all, I wanted to calibrate my new fuel flow gauge. With 56 gallons
in the tanks (28 on each side), I ran one side dry and noted the fuel
used - good within 0.1 gallons out of 28 - I was happy. After I landed,
with 15 gallons left in the other tank (and with a fuel burn on that
trip of about 8.5 gal/hr) I still had almost a 2 hour reserve. It takes
me about 3 seconds to switch tanks, and I do so as soon as I hear the
engine start to stumble. It never stops firing, and it CERTAINLY never
stops rotating - not at 180 Kts TAS at 11.5K ft.

Plus, when I would run one tank dry BEFORE I had the FF gauge, it would
be the only time that I would know EXACTLY how much fuel I had left in
the plane. Seems like something worth knowing.

I'm totally confused as to what the dangerous part of this action might
be. The engine was running before - it'll run after 3 seconds of not
quite getting enough fuel. And since the prop doesn't stop turning (I
have to slow below about 90 Kts before that would happen), it starts
right back up as soon as the fuel returns.

> Although this thread *does* answer a question that has bugged me for a
> very long time. I've often wondered how it was possible that so many
> NTSB reports ended with "fuel exhaustion" as an explanation.
>
> Now I know.

I don't really think that you do. As I noted, I can run a tank dry and
have anywhere from 2.5 to 5 hours of fuel (depending on how fast I want
to go) left in the other side - that's hardly a "fuel exhaustion"
danger - some airplanes don't carry that much fuel when they take off
full.

--
Marc J. Zeitlin
http://www.cozybuilders.org/
Copyright (c) 2005

[Roger]

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 14:34:27 -0700, "RST Engineering"
> wrote:

>The primary function of the fuel gauges in most light aircraft is to
>indicate when the master switch is on.

And they *usually* work for that.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>Jim
>
>
>
>> I did a precautionary landing at GDW. A check showed no leak and the
>> level was where it should be. When I fired back up the gauge was
>> reading properly.
>>
>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>

[[email protected]]

Not quite-

Did you drain the tank from the sump, or from the line? The Super Cub
is supposed to have 17.4 gallons usable, 18 gallons total. If drain it
from the sump, and fill it, you'll put 18 gallons in. If you run a
tank dry, you'll put 17.2 in. If you're running at a low cruise, that
1.6 gallons you don't have is 20 minutes of fuel that you were counting
on.
..

[Ron Lee]

"Marc J. Zeitlin" > wrote:
>
Jay wrote:

>> Although this thread *does* answer a question that has bugged me for a
>> very long time. I've often wondered how it was possible that so many
>> NTSB reports ended with "fuel exhaustion" as an explanation.
>>
>> Now I know.
>
>I don't really think that you do. As I noted, I can run a tank dry and
>have anywhere from 2.5 to 5 hours of fuel (depending on how fast I want
>to go) left in the other side - that's hardly a "fuel exhaustion"
>danger - some airplanes don't carry that much fuel when they take off
>full.
>
>Marc J. Zeitlin

I have to agree with Marc on this. I know very accurately how much
fuel I have since I have run the tanks dry to "calibrate" my fuel
gauge (and engine monitor fuel gauge). And yet the closest I have
ever gotten to fuel exhaustion is about one hour of fuel remaining
with several airports between me and my final destination.

I will have to check that one hour number since I did make a fuel stop
in La Junta because my projected remaining fuel in COS was
unacceptable low (about 45 minutes between LHX and COS).

Frankly Jay if you do not wish to ever run a tank dry that is your
decision. I am not critical of it. However, I do not agree with your
assertion that running a tank dry implies the same sort of situational
awareness that leads to exhausting all fuel in flight and making an
off airport landing/crash.

Ron Lee

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 15:42:31 GMT, "Jay Honeck" >
wrote:

>IMHO, proper fuel management means never even coming *close* to running a
>tank dry, let alone doing it intentionally.

And how do you know how much fuel you really have in your tanks?

It seems simpler, and safer, to figure this out by running the tanks dry,
at least once, than to trust the manufacturer's numbers. In my case, I
have about four gallons less than the published numbers which is 1/2 hour
at economy cruise which is VFR reserves.

I don't see any reason to run tanks dry routinely, but my usual flights
don't require maximum endurance. Doing it once (or twice with two tanks)
seems to me to be a prudent thing to assess fuel capacity.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Bob Moore]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote
> In fact, I would never have guessed that this kind of a hair-brained
> "fuel management" procedure would merit a serious discussion in these
> newsgroups. To even contemplate running a tank dry in the air, let
> alone propose it as a standard -- even beneficial (?!) -- procedure,
> makes for astonishing reading.

Jay, during a period of "shore duty" in the Navy, I had the misfortune
to ocassionly fly the SNB (Secret Navy Bomber) known to civilians as
the Beachcraft D-18. It had no electric fuel pumps, but rather a
mechanical "wobble" pump located on the floor between the pilots.

It was standard procedure to run each tank dry. When the engine quit,
the pilot switched tanks and started pumping the wobble pump like crazy.
Never had a problem.

I find that many of your posts are colored by the limited types of
aircraft that you have flown and the limited conditions under which
you have flown those aircraft.

Bob Moore

[Doug Carter]

In article >, Ron Lee wrote:

> ...I have to agree with Marc on this. I know very accurately how much
> fuel I have since I have run the tanks dry to "calibrate" my fuel
> gauge (and engine monitor fuel gauge)...

That's one way to calibrate the gauge. Perhaps since my Pitts has one tank I
simply drained and refilled it on the ground. The fuel flow gauge is
now accurate to a tenth of a gallon every time I refill.

[RST Engineering]

Jay, you were in the newspaper biz too long to use "always", "never", and
words of that finality in your thinking.

Would I teach running a tank dry to a student? Most likely not. Would I
recommend the procedure be taught on a BFR? Most likely not. Would I run
one dry with trees, rocks, or water underneath (say, from Scottsbluff to
Sacramento)? Most likely not.

Would I run one dry where there are nothing but airports and soybeans
underneath? I might. Depends on what I'm trying to accomplish. I think
Deakin knew what he was talking about and expected at least a MODICUM of
intelligence on the part of his readers.

Let's think about why an engine would not restart with one dry. The only
reason I can see for this happening is if the fuel flow from the full tank
could not get to the engine. Air bubble? Not with any sort of positive
pressure. Fuel handle snap off in your hand? Not likely. Give me a
failure mechanism that is likely.

Jim


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:iQRNe.266478$x96.133671@attbi_s72...

>
> In fact, I would never have guessed that this kind of a hair-brained "fuel
> management" procedure would merit a serious discussion in these
> newsgroups. To even contemplate running a tank dry in the air, let alone
> propose it as a standard -- even beneficial (?!) -- procedure, makes for
> astonishing reading.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Ron Rosenfeld > posted:

> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 15:42:31 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> > wrote:
>
>> IMHO, proper fuel management means never even coming *close* to
>> running a tank dry, let alone doing it intentionally.
>
> And how do you know how much fuel you really have in your tanks?
>
At most all you've learned is what the fuel capacity of your tanks are,
and that could be more accurately established while on the ground, FWIW.
In fact, the POH should suffice, unless you intend to violate FARs as a
regular practice. Given that "how much fuel you really have in your tanks"
is only one factor in how long you can continue to fly, and that those
other factors aren't addressed by running your tanks dry, what *is* the
point in doing so?

Neil

[Roy Smith]

"Neil Gould" > wrote:
> At most all you've learned is what the fuel capacity of your tanks are,
> and that could be more accurately established while on the ground, FWIW.
> In fact, the POH should suffice, unless you intend to violate FARs as a
> regular practice.

What FAR says you may not run a tank dry?

> Given that "how much fuel you really have in your tanks"
> is only one factor in how long you can continue to fly, and that those
> other factors aren't addressed by running your tanks dry, what *is* the
> point in doing so?

Assume you are flying something with two tanks and no "both" position on
the fuel selector. You're 30 minutes from your destination, which would
you rather have: an estimated 30 minutes of fuel left in each tank, or have
one tank dry and an estimated hour's worth in the other?

[Blanche]

I'm not following this thread about running tanks dry. Without an
accurate fuel flow meter (e.g. JPI or EDI) how can you really know
how much fuel is left? Good example - flight from Denver to OSH had
me seeing 132 mph IAS and 155 mph ground speed on the GPS. But I
was also running much higher RPM than usual (almost loaded to the
brim, about 2340/2400 pounds). Great tail wind. But I also used much
more fuel than I planned for due to the higher RPM use.

(remember, my ground is 5500 ft., so I lean by default, which saves
fuel)

In the flat lands, I was unable to lean as much as I usually do,
hence the fuel usage was more than indicated even in the POH and
Lycoming manual for fuel.

Coming home, just the reverse - serious headwinds, high RPM and
more fuel used than I expected. How would knowing a more
accurate fuel capacity help? To me it seems that knowing fuel
usage is more critical than fuel capacity.

Or am I showing my ignorance again? Wouldn't be the first time...

NB: I had planned on installing either JPI or EDI fuel flow meter
this year at the annual but at this point it's a luxury and not
a safety item for me. Since my body doesn't like more than 2 hours
of flying at a time (altho I did 3+ on this past trip) I don't
worry about running out of fuel -- usually.

[Newps]

Blanche wrote:

>
> Coming home, just the reverse - serious headwinds, high RPM and
> more fuel used than I expected. How would knowing a more
> accurate fuel capacity help? To me it seems that knowing fuel
> usage is more critical than fuel capacity.

Without a fuel flow gauge you can't know you're fuel usage unless you
know how much each tank holds. My 182 has 42 gallon bladder tanks. I
recently replaced my left tank with a brand new one. If I wouldn't
have run it dry I would never have known that it actually holds 44 gallons.


>
> NB: I had planned on installing either JPI or EDI fuel flow meter
>

Avoid JPI like the plague.

[Matt Barrow]

Blanche wrote:
>
>
> Coming home, just the reverse - serious headwinds, high RPM and
> more fuel used than I expected. How would knowing a more
> accurate fuel capacity help? To me it seems that knowing fuel
> usage is more critical than fuel capacity.

What does it serve to know FUEL FLOW unless you can calulate that again
CAPACITY?

How does it help to know how much money you spend if you don't know how much
you have in the bank? (Insert joke about "How can I be out of money, I still
have checks in my checkbook?")

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Newps > wrote:

> Avoid JPI like the plague.

My club has been installing JPI's on most of our planes. It is true that
they're over-priced, and have totally inscrutable user interfaces, but this
is true of almost all avionics. What in particular makes you not like JPI?

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Roy Smith > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote:
>> At most all you've learned is what the fuel capacity of your tanks
>> are, and that could be more accurately established while on the
>> ground, FWIW. In fact, the POH should suffice, unless you intend to
>> violate FARs as a regular practice.
>
> What FAR says you may not run a tank dry?
>
The FARs address minimum fuel levels when you arrive at your destination.
If you have less than the required amount when you land, you are in
violation. If you are managing your fuel consumption adequately, there is
no need to run your tank dry.

>> Given that "how much fuel you really have in your tanks"
>> is only one factor in how long you can continue to fly, and that
>> those other factors aren't addressed by running your tanks dry, what
>> *is* the point in doing so?
>
> Assume you are flying something with two tanks and no "both" position
> on the fuel selector. You're 30 minutes from your destination, which
> would you rather have: an estimated 30 minutes of fuel left in each
> tank, or have one tank dry and an estimated hour's worth in the other?
>
I regularly fly something with two tanks and no "both" position (PA28),
and my preference is to arrive at my destination with more than 30 minutes
worth of fuel, period. I see no point in pushing those limits any more
than seeing how much over gross I can fly. IMO, such points are just
useless information. YMMV.

Neil

[Jose]

> The FARs address minimum fuel levels when you arrive at your destination.
> If you have less than the required amount when you land, you are in
> violation.

I know of no such rule under part 91 of the US regs. (I am not familiar
with part 135 ops). You are required to carry sufficient fuel upon
takeoff to make it to your destination with reserves, but once in the
air, if you need the reserves, you may use them. That is what they are
there for.

If you go too far into your reserves and crash, having passed up
opportunities to not crash, the FAA may get you on "careless or
reckless", but simply landing having used some of your reserves is not a
violation AFAIK.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[George Patterson]

ORVAL FAIRAIRN wrote:
>
> The philosophy is that it is best to end a flight with all of your
> available fuel in a single tank, to prevent starvation at critical
> times.

My Maule had only two tanks and a "both" setting on the fuel selector. There
would be no advantage to running one of the tanks dry with this plane.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Matt Barrow]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
.. .
> Recently, Roy Smith > posted:
>
> > "Neil Gould" > wrote:
> >> At most all you've learned is what the fuel capacity of your tanks
> >> are, and that could be more accurately established while on the
> >> ground, FWIW. In fact, the POH should suffice, unless you intend to
> >> violate FARs as a regular practice.
> >
> > What FAR says you may not run a tank dry?
> >
> The FARs address minimum fuel levels when you arrive at your destination.

It doesn't say which tank it has to be in, so you have not answered the
question.


> If you have less than the required amount when you land, you are in
> violation.

Still haven't answered his question.

> If you are managing your fuel consumption adequately, there is
> no need to run your tank dry.

And you STILL haven't answered his question.

Oh-for-three.

[Roy Smith]

"Neil Gould" > wrote:
> > What FAR says you may not run a tank dry?
> >
> The FARs address minimum fuel levels when you arrive at your destination.

I'm not aware of any such regulation. I suspect you're thinking of:

91.151 Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions.

(a) No person may begin a flight in an airplane under VFR conditions
unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough
fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal
cruising speed

(1) During the day, to fly after that for at least 30 minutes; or

(2) At night, to fly after that for at least 45 minutes.

But that only talks about how much fuel you have at takeoff, not at landing.

> I regularly fly something with two tanks and no "both" position (PA28),
> and my preference is to arrive at my destination with more than 30 minutes
> worth of fuel, period. I see no point in pushing those limits any more
> than seeing how much over gross I can fly. IMO, such points are just
> useless information. YMMV.

I also think landing with 30 minutes of fuel is too little. So, how much
is enough? Let's assume we can agree on an hour, which in a 180 HP PA-28
means about 8 gallons. You take off with 48 usable and fly for 5 hours,
leaving an estimated 8 gallons left. Which is a more useful configuration
to have at this point, an estimated 4 gallons usable remaining in each
tank, or an estimated 8 gallons usable in one tank and the other one dry?

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 16:13:30 GMT, "Neil Gould" >
wrote:

>Recently, Ron Rosenfeld > posted:
>
>> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 15:42:31 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> IMHO, proper fuel management means never even coming *close* to
>>> running a tank dry, let alone doing it intentionally.
>>
>> And how do you know how much fuel you really have in your tanks?
>>
>At most all you've learned is what the fuel capacity of your tanks are,
>and that could be more accurately established while on the ground, FWIW.

Capacity on the ground is not worth much. I'm more interested in useful
fuel during flight at cruise attitude.

>In fact, the POH should suffice,

If I follow your advice, I would assume 26 gallons per side. That would be
pretty stupid since I can't get 26 gallons into a tank after running it
dry!

>unless you intend to violate FARs as a
>regular practice.

How does knowing your real fuel capacity lead to FAR violations?

I would think that NOT knowing your real fuel capacity will be more likely
to lead not only to FAR violations, but also be more likely to landing
short of your destination.

>Given that "how much fuel you really have in your tanks"
>is only one factor in how long you can continue to fly, and that those
>other factors aren't addressed by running your tanks dry, what *is* the
>point in doing so?

Well, I like to know how much fuel I have in my tanks. That gives me
information such as, "how long can I hold to wait for weather improvement
before diverting to my alternate" (and still have comfortable reserves when
I land there). And that scenario does occur in this part of the world.

It is certainly possible to adopt practices that would make knowledge of
your fuel capacity relatively unimportant. And if you choose to fly that
way, that's your decision. But I'd like to be able to get more utility out
of my airplane, and knowing its limitations allows me to operate at a safe
margin within those limitations.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 17:28:17 GMT, "Neil Gould" >
wrote:

>The FARs address minimum fuel levels when you arrive at your destination.
>If you have less than the required amount when you land, you are in
>violation.

Perhaps in Part 135 or 121, but I fly under Part 91. Where in Part 91 is
there a regulation indicating how much fuel you have to have when you land?

So far as I know, the regulations regarding fuel reserves have to do with
planning, and how much is on board at the time you depart, given forecasts,
winds, etc. Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place?

In any event, how does not knowing your fuel capacity enable you to be less
likely to violate these regulations than knowing your fuel capacity?


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[George Patterson]

Roy Smith wrote:
>
> What in particular makes you not like JPI?

For me, I avoid them because they're absolute *******s. I will not support them
with my money.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[George Patterson]

Neil Gould wrote:
>
> The FARs address minimum fuel levels when you arrive at your destination.
> If you have less than the required amount when you land, you are in
> violation.

Not true. The FARs state that you have to *plan* the flight so that, if all goes
as planned, you have a certain amount of fuel in reserve. Nothing says you
actually have to have that amount when you land.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Newps]

Roy Smith wrote:
> In article >,
> Newps > wrote:
>
>
>>Avoid JPI like the plague.
>
>
> My club has been installing JPI's on most of our planes. It is true that
> they're over-priced, and have totally inscrutable user interfaces, but this
> is true of almost all avionics. What in particular makes you not like JPI?

Their attitude towards their customers. Customers are a necessary evil
to JPI.

[Roger]

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 04:00:49 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>>> That is possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read in these newsgroups.
>>>
>>> IMHO, proper fuel management means never even coming *close* to running a
>>> tank dry, let alone doing it intentionally.
>>
>> And now you expect us to call you names, too?
>>
>> Readthe other posts here, and you may learn that it is not as simple to
>> judge
>> as you make it.
>
>I'm sorry, was I calling someone a name? I thought he was quoting an
>article?
>
>I have read all the posts in this thread with great interest. Nothing said
>here has come close to explaining how the minimal utility you might get from
>running a tank dry could possibly overcome the very real danger that the
>engine might stop.

The engine isn't going to stop. It will most likely quit developing
power, but other than being quieter, the prop keeps right on spinning.
Turn the fuel selector to a tank that still has gas in it and the
engine will go right back to developing power. If you are quick it
only sounds like a hick up.

>
>My statement stands -- it's a dumb idea.

I might think differently with a carbureted engine, but this pretty
much goes back to the debate of instructors pulling the mixture or
throttle on power outs, except this is of a far shorter duration. I've
had tanks un port on a "missed" while climbing out. Now that will get
your attention. The old Deb doesn't have any baffles in the tanks so
any approach want's to be on the fullest main. On cross countries if
you don't burn the one side down you are going to be carrying a lot of
gas and losing about an hours flying time.

I've had one complete engine failure, but it wasn't due to running a
tank dry. That too, gets your attention right away.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Seth Masia]

How about a corroded, iced or otherwise inoperable selector valve?

Valves do fail. I can conceive of a situation in which the selector handle
might simply break off.

And what's the likelihood of carb ice when power tails off due to fuel
starvation? That might interfere with the restart.




"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> Jay, you were in the newspaper biz too long to use "always", "never", and
> words of that finality in your thinking.
>
> Would I teach running a tank dry to a student? Most likely not. Would I
> recommend the procedure be taught on a BFR? Most likely not. Would I run
> one dry with trees, rocks, or water underneath (say, from Scottsbluff to
> Sacramento)? Most likely not.
>
> Would I run one dry where there are nothing but airports and soybeans
> underneath? I might. Depends on what I'm trying to accomplish. I think
> Deakin knew what he was talking about and expected at least a MODICUM of
> intelligence on the part of his readers.
>
> Let's think about why an engine would not restart with one dry. The only
> reason I can see for this happening is if the fuel flow from the full tank
> could not get to the engine. Air bubble? Not with any sort of positive
> pressure. Fuel handle snap off in your hand? Not likely. Give me a
> failure mechanism that is likely.
>
> Jim
>
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:iQRNe.266478$x96.133671@attbi_s72...
>
>>
>> In fact, I would never have guessed that this kind of a hair-brained
>> "fuel management" procedure would merit a serious discussion in these
>> newsgroups. To even contemplate running a tank dry in the air, let alone
>> propose it as a standard -- even beneficial (?!) -- procedure, makes for
>> astonishing reading.
>
>

[RST Engineering]

C'mon George, tell us what you REALLY think of them {;-)

Jim



"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:9d4Oe.1416$IG2.824@trndny01...
> Roy Smith wrote:
>>
>> What in particular makes you not like JPI?
>
> For me, I avoid them because they're absolute *******s. I will not support
> them with my money.

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> Sorry, even Einstein had dumb ideas. This is one of Deakins...
>

Well, while you're certainly entitled to your opinion, it might be
prudent to not offer it in such absolute terms in this case. It might
be wise to say something like "I wouldn't do it, but if it works for
you guys, so be it." Instead, you try to offer pseudo-facts about
alleged accidents caused by this. To which, with all due respect, I
say: THAT is dumb BS.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[RST Engineering]

"Seth Masia" > wrote in message
...

> How about a corroded,

You can't correct for lousy maintenance.


> iced or otherwise inoperable selector valve?

Everybody (in the lower 48) who has had an iced valve, raise your hands?
None? I thought so.

Inoperable? And you departed the airport this way? Hm.

>
> Valves do fail. I can conceive of a situation in which the selector
> handle might simply break off.

In which case you've got just about as many options as if you burn it down
to a couple of gallons before you do the old switcheroo. Which is why I
posted that this is an improper technique over rocks, trees, and water.


>
> And what's the likelihood of carb ice when power tails off due to fuel
> starvation? That might interfere with the restart.

With a one to two second "off" time before restart? Not bloody likely. The
exhaust stacks remain hot enough that carb heat is still effective.

Am I advocating for or against running one dry? Not really. There have
been times I have intentionally run one dry. THere are times I wouldn't run
one dry for all the tea in China. All I want is a LIKELY scenario for a
failed restart with a semifull tank selected.

Jim

[Roy Smith]

"Seth Masia" > wrote:

> How about a corroded, iced or otherwise inoperable selector valve?

If you think valve (or selector handle) failure is a significant risk, then
wouldn't it make sense to change tanks as infrequently as possible?

> And what's the likelihood of carb ice when power tails off due to fuel
> starvation? That might interfere with the restart.

Carb ice isn't going to form in a few seconds.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Roy Smith > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote:
>>> What FAR says you may not run a tank dry?
>>>
>> The FARs address minimum fuel levels when you arrive at your
>> destination.
>
> I'm not aware of any such regulation. I suspect you're thinking of:
>
> 91.151 Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions.
>
[...]
> But that only talks about how much fuel you have at takeoff, not at
> landing.
>
You're (all) right; I was thinking of that FAR, and I stretched the point
too FAR. ;-)

>> I regularly fly something with two tanks and no "both" position
>> (PA28), and my preference is to arrive at my destination with more
>> than 30 minutes worth of fuel, period. I see no point in pushing
>> those limits any more than seeing how much over gross I can fly.
>> IMO, such points are just useless information. YMMV.
>
> I also think landing with 30 minutes of fuel is too little. So, how
> much is enough? Let's assume we can agree on an hour, which in a 180
> HP PA-28 means about 8 gallons. You take off with 48 usable and fly
> for 5 hours, leaving an estimated 8 gallons left. Which is a more
> useful configuration to have at this point, an estimated 4 gallons
> usable remaining in each tank, or an estimated 8 gallons usable in
> one tank and the other one dry?
>
I would feel more comfortable with 4 in each tank than with a dry tank.

I had an interesting thing happen to me in an Archer. During an XC, a
facia screw on the fuel selector had worked loose and backed out enough
that when I went to switch tanks, it wouldn't go into that position. My
choices were the tank I was on, or off. I'm glad the tank I was on wasn't
dry, because when the A&P looked it over, it took him around 15 minutes to
figure out what was wrong. Needless to say, I wouldn't have figured that
out en route before hitting the ground, because I couldn't see the problem
from my seated position. Stuff happens.

Neil

[Roy Smith]

"Neil Gould" > wrote:

> > I also think landing with 30 minutes of fuel is too little. So, how
> > much is enough? Let's assume we can agree on an hour, which in a 180
> > HP PA-28 means about 8 gallons. You take off with 48 usable and fly
> > for 5 hours, leaving an estimated 8 gallons left. Which is a more
> > useful configuration to have at this point, an estimated 4 gallons
> > usable remaining in each tank, or an estimated 8 gallons usable in
> > one tank and the other one dry?
> >
> I would feel more comfortable with 4 in each tank than with a dry tank.

Let's examine that. We're comparing the relative risk of two events.

Event 1 is that the fuel selector valve fails when you go to switch to the
tank containing the remaining 8 gallons.

Event 2 is that your estimate of how much fuel is left in the tank is wrong
by 4 gallons (16%).

Which is more likely?

[Greg Copeland]

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 08:24:49 -0700, RST Engineering wrote:

[snip]
> Would I run one dry where there are nothing but airports and soybeans
> underneath? I might. Depends on what I'm trying to accomplish. I
> think Deakin knew what he was talking about and expected at least a
> MODICUM of intelligence on the part of his readers.

In fact, Deakin is very clear that if you can't figure out these types of
details, you probably shouldn't be flying at all. He also states there
are exceptions to every rule and even provides one. He clearly is making
the distinction betweena purposeful act of running a tank dry at a
planning time and place is not confusing this with running out of gas;
which Jay seems to be completely confused by.

Ultimately, I believe Deakin's intention is to make pilots talk and
compare notes. Making pilots think about the results of their actions is
always a good thing, even if you don't buy into his method. Does it
really matter is someone think's this is a crazy idea? Nope. It does
matter that we came together and talked. I think there's been some really
great posts here...and I feel smarter for having asked and learned.

Lastly, I should add, I believe this type of procedure is SOP for many
military piston pilots where range it critical to their mission. Please
correct me as needed. If this were a high risk venture, I doubt it would
SOP. As such, I believe the risk of a non-start for many planes is very
low. IMHO, the only remaining question is, what risk are you willing to
tolorate and what is the REAL risk of a non-start. Is the risk one in a
million? One in a billion? One in a hundred? I dunno.... thus the FUD
had lots of room to creep in...

Greg

[Jay Honeck]

> Would I teach running a tank dry to a student? Most likely not. Would I
> recommend the procedure be taught on a BFR? Most likely not. Would I run
> one dry with trees, rocks, or water underneath (say, from Scottsbluff to
> Sacramento)? Most likely not.
>
> Would I run one dry where there are nothing but airports and soybeans
> underneath? I might. Depends on what I'm trying to accomplish.

Let's talk about what you're trying to accomplish.

Are you:

- Checking the accuracy of your fuel gauges?

That's absurd -- anyone who relies on fuel gauges is an off-field landing
waiting to happen.

- Trying to fly the absolute maximum distance your fuel will allow?

That's unwise. Anyone who tries to stretch endurance guarantees headwinds.

- Trying to avoid buying a fuel totalizer?

Man, just go buy the stupid thing. It'll tell you your fuel burn to within
a few ounces.

What other reason is there to run a tank dry on a GA plane? I mean,
c'mon -- we're not doing maximum endurance search and rescue flights over
the Pacific here -- we're flying to St. Louis for lunch! There is
absolutely no logical reason that I can see to purposefully run a tank dry
in flight on a GA plane. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

> Let's think about why an engine would not restart with one dry.

In my plane, it can take 10 to 12 seconds for fuel to feed from one of our
tip tanks. If I ran a main tank dry, the prop stopped, and I switched to
that tip, I suspect that would be the longest 10 seconds of my life. I'd
prefer not to take that chance, thank you.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Jay, during a period of "shore duty" in the Navy, I had the misfortune
> to ocassionly fly the SNB (Secret Navy Bomber) known to civilians as
> the Beachcraft D-18. It had no electric fuel pumps, but rather a
> mechanical "wobble" pump located on the floor between the pilots.
>
> It was standard procedure to run each tank dry. When the engine quit,
> the pilot switched tanks and started pumping the wobble pump like crazy.
> Never had a problem.
>
> I find that many of your posts are colored by the limited types of
> aircraft that you have flown and the limited conditions under which
> you have flown those aircraft.

Bob, are you really justifying running gas tanks dry in modern GA planes
because of your experience flying an antique POS that didn't have fuel
pumps?

Just because you survived it, doesn't make it smart.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Robert M. Gary]

Not without a change to the regularly checked and serviced fuel gauges.

[Robert M. Gary]

I used to have a 1946 Chief. It had one 13 gal tank in front of you
with a aux feed tank behind you. Running that tank dry would have been
a very, very bad idea. There is no guarantee that the aux tank will
drain to the main tank faster than the plane drinks at all attitudes.

[Roy Smith]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> In my plane, it can take 10 to 12 seconds for fuel to feed from one of our
> tip tanks. If I ran a main tank dry, the prop stopped, and I switched to
> that tip, I suspect that would be the longest 10 seconds of my life. I'd
> prefer not to take that chance, thank you.

I've only flown a couple of models with tip tanks (Cherokee Six and
aftermarket tips on a Bonanza). In both of those, takeoffs and landings
are done on the main tanks. I'm guessing that's standard for all tips.
Wouldn't it make more sense to drain the tips, *then* drain the mains?

[Robert M. Gary]

Not in my aircraft. I spend money to make mine work. The wife likes
that better than looking down at the Sierras without the motor running.

[Jay Honeck]

> Frankly Jay if you do not wish to ever run a tank dry that is your
> decision. I am not critical of it. However, I do not agree with your
> assertion that running a tank dry implies the same sort of situational
> awareness that leads to exhausting all fuel in flight and making an
> off airport landing/crash.

Running a tank dry probably won't lead to anything worse than sucking all
the crap out of your gas tanks -- but you're missing my point.

Pilots who end up landing off-airport (or, worse, dying) because of
something as stupid as running out of gas have something mis-wired in their
heads. They apparently have learned to feel that it's okay to run on the
bleeding edge of empty, and I'll bet dollars to donuts their fuel management
stupidity wasn't a one-time affair.

Behavior is progressive. You get away with running low on gas once, maybe
you think you can do it again. You look in the tanks, can't see any fuel,
but say to yourself "Well, let's see; I flew only 1.4 hours yesterday, and
I was full before that flight, so I'm SURE I can make it another 3 hours..."

And you get away with THAT.

And then you start trying to extend your range to the max by running a tank
dry before switching tanks, and you get away with THAT. And, before you
know it, by God, you've figured out how to fly almost 6 hours without
refueling. Now you think you're really hot ****, and you can entirely skip
a planned refueling stop, and save yourself an hour or more -- and you get
away with THAT a few times.

Until that last flight, when the headwinds are more than predicted, and your
guesstimated fuel is off by 20%. Suddenly your tank is running dry, and
you realize that you already ran the *other* tank dry -- and you're heading
for terra firma, pronto. It's not the fact that someone routinely runs a
tank dry before switching that is dangerous; rather, it's the attitude that
this kind of fuel "management" indicates that I find scary.

Here's an easy way to make sure you never run out of gas.

1. Refuel after every flight. You will be ready to go for your next flight,
and can rest assured that you have gas on board. (Renters will have to
switch this to refueling BEFORE every flight.)

2. Install a fuel totalizer. They are cheap (in aviation money), and will
tell you your fuel usage to within a few ounces. (Sorry, renters. Get on
the FBO to install one.)

3. Never try to stretch your range. Bite the bullet, land and buy gas.

4. Measure your gas with your watch, never your fuel gauges.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> In fact, Deakin is very clear that if you can't figure out these types of
> details, you probably shouldn't be flying at all. He also states there
> are exceptions to every rule and even provides one. He clearly is making
> the distinction betweena purposeful act of running a tank dry at a
> planning time and place is not confusing this with running out of gas;
> which Jay seems to be completely confused by.

The only thing I'm confused about is how a group of pilots can sit here and
argue -- on the STUDENT forum, of all things -- that running a gas tank dry
in flight, on purpose, is a wise thing to do.

Apparently you can't grasp the subtlety of what I'm saying, so allow me to
bludgeon you with it: Any pilot who knowingly, willingly and routinely runs
gas tanks dry in flight displays a cavalier attitude toward fuel management.
Running a tank dry by accident indicates poor planning. Running a tank dry
on purpose indicates poor fuel management. Both are dumb. Both are
dangerous.

To suggest otherwise in a forum where student pilots gather is unwise.

> Lastly, I should add, I believe this type of procedure is SOP for many
> military piston pilots where range it critical to their mission. Please
> correct me as needed. If this were a high risk venture, I doubt it would
> SOP. As such, I believe the risk of a non-start for many planes is very
> low. IMHO, the only remaining question is, what risk are you willing to
> tolorate and what is the REAL risk of a non-start. Is the risk one in a
> million? One in a billion? One in a hundred?

You ask this question as if we are on an equal situational footing with
military pilots. 99.999% of the people reading this post are GA pilots (or
students) whose main concern will be missing a day of work if they're late
getting back from vacation. There is NO reason for any pilot here to fly to
the maximum range of their aircraft, and to talk about using a procedure
that is "SOP for many military piston pilots where range is critical to
their mission", as if that is justification for running a tank dry, is just
crazy talk.

Do you run your engine as low as possible on oil, too, just to extend the
range between oil changes? Shoot, according the book, my Lycoming O-540
will run on as little as 2 quarts of oil -- why am I dumping those other 10
quarts in, anyway?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> I've only flown a couple of models with tip tanks (Cherokee Six and
> aftermarket tips on a Bonanza). In both of those, takeoffs and landings
> are done on the main tanks. I'm guessing that's standard for all tips.
> Wouldn't it make more sense to drain the tips, *then* drain the mains?

We always take off and land on the mains. Once airborne, we'll fly for 30
minutes on that tank, then 30 minutes on the other main.

If the flight is longer than an hour, we will then run the tips in 15 minute
increments. (Or 10, or 20 -- whatever it takes to keep them even when we
arrive at our destination.) In our plane, having 17 gallons WAY out at the
end of the wing means that you had better keep things balanced, or you're
gonna be flying tipped at an angle pretty quickly!

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Michael 182]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:4Z9Oe.272046$_o.92006@attbi_s71...

> Here's an easy way to make sure you never run out of gas.

Since you have been so didactic in your statements in this thread, I'll
assume you are equally so in this post.

>
> 1. Refuel after every flight. You will be ready to go for your next
> flight, and can rest assured that you have gas on board. (Renters will
> have to switch this to refueling BEFORE every flight.)

Might be a problem if you ever need less than full tanks for weight.

>
> 2. Install a fuel totalizer. They are cheap (in aviation money), and will
> tell you your fuel usage to within a few ounces. (Sorry, renters. Get on
> the FBO to install one.)

Yes, they will tell you your usage. But... I travel a lot, often landing at
airports where a line guy fills the tanks. They don't all fill to the same
"top", so when I reset my Shadin I don't really know if I have "full" tanks.
I manually subtract 10 gallons from the full setting if the tanks seem lower
than a normal top during preflight.

>
> 3. Never try to stretch your range. Bite the bullet, land and buy gas.

Absolutely.

>
> 4. Measure your gas with your watch, never your fuel gauges.

Fuel flow changes dramatically with altitude and power settings. I can burn
anywhere from 12 to 16 GPH. Timing is one input, but using the fuel gauges
and the Shadin are equally worthwhile.

Michael

[Greg Copeland]

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 01:53:09 +0000, Jay Honeck wrote:

[snip]
> The only thing I'm confused about is how a group of pilots can sit here
> and argue -- on the STUDENT forum, of all things -- that running a gas
> tank dry in flight, on purpose, is a wise thing to do.

It's actually cross posted to piloting too. You don't think students can
learn from a topic which clearly even pilots debate? I don't see anyone
advocating students run out and run their tanks dry. I doubt you do
either. I'm really not sure what your point is here.


> Apparently you can't grasp the subtlety of what I'm saying, so allow me
> to

Actually, I'm fairly sure EVERYONE here grasps exactly what you're saying.
Just not everyone agrees with you. You've been very clear. Everyone that
disagrees with you is dumb. Point made. The horse is dead. Move on.

> bludgeon you with it: Any pilot who knowingly, willingly and routinely
> runs gas tanks dry in flight displays a cavalier attitude toward fuel
> management. Running a tank dry by accident indicates poor planning.
> Running a tank dry on purpose indicates poor fuel management. Both are
> dumb. Both are dangerous.
>
>
Hmmm. I'm thinking I've read this before. You've been very clear.
Everyone that disagrees with you is dumb. Point made. The horse is dead.
Move on.

> To suggest otherwise in a forum where student pilots gather is unwise.
>
>
Yes! You would never want students, which will one day turn into pilots,
to be equiped to think for themselves having read other pilots sound off.
Won't someone think of the children!

>> Lastly, I should add, I believe this type of procedure is SOP for many
>> military piston pilots where range it critical to their mission. Please
>> correct me as needed. If this were a high risk venture, I doubt it
>> would SOP. As such, I believe the risk of a non-start for many planes
>> is very low. IMHO, the only remaining question is, what risk are you
>> willing to tolorate and what is the REAL risk of a non-start. Is the
>> risk one in a million? One in a billion? One in a hundred?
>
> You ask this question as if we are on an equal situational footing with
> military pilots.

Wrong. I asked a question as any intelligent person would. I know I
don't know everything. Part of flying is risk assessment. How is my
question any different? It's not. Exactly. If we don't understand the
risk, which was my point, it's pretty dang hard to do any type of real
risk assessment. If anything, that should serve as a warning to ay
potential student wanting to rush out and run a tank dry. I'm still not
realy sure what you're point is.

> 99.999% of the people reading this post are GA pilots
> (or students) whose main concern will be missing a day of work if
> they're late getting back from vacation. There is NO reason for any
> pilot here to fly to the maximum range of their aircraft, and to talk

It's nice how you plugged in your own take on things and assert that this
is the only fact. Simple fact is, YOU are the only one asserting this has
anything to do with maximum range. Everyone else, including Deakin, is
asserting it's a fuel strategy to better know your plane, to better plan
your trip, and to better understand how long you can fly should the worst
happen (need to eat into your reserves). I'll happily stick with the
actual topic rather than your emotional redefinition.

> about using a procedure that is "SOP for many military piston pilots
> where range is critical to their mission", as if that is justification
> for running a tank dry, is just crazy talk.
>
>
Nope. Did not such thing. The point, which you seemingly refuse to
understand, is that you certainly don't hear, see, or read about planes
falling out of the air because pilots were switching tanks. Ya, I know
you'll ignore that point again. A point which many others have made
elsewhere already. Others, which we all now know are dumb.

> Do you run your engine as low as possible on oil, too, just to extend
> the range between oil changes? Shoot, according the book, my Lycoming
> O-540 will run on as little as 2 quarts of oil -- why am I dumping those
> other 10 quarts in, anyway?

Are you insane? You have no point and the above is completely
non-topical. Your example is, well, dumb, insulting, and just plain out
there.

Don't expect a reply unless you have something new to add; which better
yet, would be topical.


Greg

[Mike Weller]

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 01:34:56 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:


>4. Measure your gas with your watch, never your fuel gauges.

That has served me well for a long time.

Mike Weller

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 21:59:07 -0500, Mike Weller >
wrote:

>On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 01:34:56 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:
>
>
>>4. Measure your gas with your watch, never your fuel gauges.
>
>That has served me well for a long time.
>
>Mike Weller
>
>

I used to believe the same mantra. But one flight many years ago changed
my mind.

You need to believe the method that is the most conservative at the time.

Some years ago, when I believed as you wrote, a tank ran dry unexpectedly
about 12,000 feet over the hills of W Va. Not a very hospitable place.
The tank ran dry about 5 minutes before I was planning to switch, at a time
when there should have been about 20 minutes of fuel remaining.

The fact that it ran dry allowed me to refigure my fuel consumption and
know what I had left in the other tank. The closest airport happened to be
my planned destination (CRW) and I landed with maybe 15 minutes of fuel
remaining, instead of the planned for 60 minutes.

The problem turned out to be a leaky gasket in the fuel servo, increasing
my fuel consumption by about 10-15%, if I recall correctly.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Matt Barrow]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 21:59:07 -0500, Mike Weller >
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 01:34:56 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>4. Measure your gas with your watch, never your fuel gauges.
> >
> >That has served me well for a long time.
> >
> >Mike Weller
> >
> >
>
> I used to believe the same mantra. But one flight many years ago changed
> my mind.
>
> You need to believe the method that is the most conservative at the time.
>
> Some years ago, when I believed as you wrote, a tank ran dry unexpectedly
> about 12,000 feet over the hills of W Va. Not a very hospitable place.
> The tank ran dry about 5 minutes before I was planning to switch, at a
time
> when there should have been about 20 minutes of fuel remaining.
>
> The fact that it ran dry allowed me to refigure my fuel consumption and
> know what I had left in the other tank. The closest airport happened to
be
> my planned destination (CRW) and I landed with maybe 15 minutes of fuel
> remaining, instead of the planned for 60 minutes.
>
> The problem turned out to be a leaky gasket in the fuel servo, increasing
> my fuel consumption by about 10-15%, if I recall correctly.

What says a fuel gauge is any more or less accurate than a fuel FLOW gauge?

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> Running a tank dry probably won't lead to anything worse than sucking all
> the crap out of your gas tanks

Well, that is precisely what won't happen.

> Pilots who end up landing off-airport (or, worse, dying) because of
> something as stupid as running out of gas

Those pilots have NOTHING at all to do with what we're discussing here. on the
contrary, we're discussing precise fuel planning.

> Here's an easy way to make sure you never run out of gas.
>
> 1. Refuel after every flight.

If you're talking about topping off, that may be practical in your plane -
congrats on that! It isn't in mine and it sure isn't in the majority of
single-engine four-seaters, since you're giving up WAY too much useful load.

> 2. Install a fuel totalizer.

Which becomes even more useful when running tanks dry.

> 3. Never try to stretch your range. Bite the bullet, land and buy gas.

Which has nothing to do with the technique recommended here.

> 4. Measure your gas with your watch, never your fuel gauges.

Which, again, has nothing to do with the technique recommended here.


Sorry, I still fail to see your point.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Matt,

> What says a fuel gauge is any more or less accurate than a fuel FLOW gauge?
>

Experience <gd&r>. Seriously, most fuel gauges are horrendously unreliable.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Neil,

> I would feel more comfortable with 4 in each tank than with a dry tank.
>

Well, I definitely wouldn't, the odd and very rare fuel selector
malfunction notwithstanding.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> Apparently you can't grasp the subtlety of what I'm saying,

There's nothing subtle at all in claiming what someone else writes (and makes
an argument for quite elaborately) is "dumb". And that's all you offer, some
nice "if you're not with me, you're against me" rethoric. Sad, actually.


> so allow me to
> bludgeon you with it: Any pilot who knowingly, willingly and routinely runs
> gas tanks dry in flight displays a cavalier attitude toward fuel management.
> Running a tank dry by accident indicates poor planning. Running a tank dry
> on purpose indicates poor fuel management. Both are dumb. Both are
> dangerous.

Sorry, but that's BS, plain and simple.

>
> Do you run your engine as low as possible on oil, too, just to extend the
> range between oil changes?

Not as low as possible, but certainly below the allowed maxium. I do it to
avoid blowing oil overboard senselessly. I have never filled up to the maximum
allowed. It would be dumb.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 20:48:12 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>What says a fuel gauge is any more or less accurate than a fuel FLOW gauge?

I don't see the relationship of your question to anything I posted. But
certainly in the ranges over a quarter tank, experience in small a/c show
that a properly calibrated fuel flow gauge is more accurate.

As a matter of fact, I believe that the fuel quantity indicators are only
required to be accurate at zero fuel in level flight (for a/c certified
under Part 23).


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Roy Smith wrote:
> I've only flown a couple of models with tip tanks (Cherokee Six and
> aftermarket tips on a Bonanza). In both of those, takeoffs and landings
> are done on the main tanks. I'm guessing that's standard for all tips.
> Wouldn't it make more sense to drain the tips, *then* drain the mains?


On the Cherokee Six, I'd generally start on one main, climb to altitude and
after about half an hour, switch to the opposite tip tank. Then to the other
tip tank (after I don't remember how long... I think it was 45 minutes).
Anyway, it was my intention to burn the tips off first; the theory being that
the arm was longer and would have more effect on the weight of the wing,
therefore it was a good thing to get those tanks out of the equation first.
Subsequently the fuel burn would have a minimal effect on the lateral balance of
the aircraft... you could run for an hour on each side before switching again
without really feeling it.

The mains held 25 gallons each and the tips were 17 each, IIRC.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Michael 182 wrote:
>> 3. Never try to stretch your range. Bite the bullet, land and buy gas.
>
> Absolutely.


If you're worried about fuel, you don't have enough. Learn it. Live it.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Roy Smith > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote:
>
>> I would feel more comfortable with 4 in each tank than with a dry
>> tank.
>
> Let's examine that. We're comparing the relative risk of two events.
>
> Event 1 is that the fuel selector valve fails when you go to switch
> to the tank containing the remaining 8 gallons.
>
> Event 2 is that your estimate of how much fuel is left in the tank is
> wrong by 4 gallons (16%).
>
> Which is more likely?
>
Talk about straw men! If the *only* risk in running a tank dry in flight
was the fuel selector valve failing -- probably the *least* likely thing
to happen -- there wouldn't be much point in this discussion, would there?
Yet, a variant on the "least likely thing to happen" happened to me in
flight. OTOH, my fuel consumption estimates have NEVER been off by 4
gallons (which is closer to between 20-25% in the planes that I fly, btw).
So, what can be concluded from this data? IMO, nada.

I recently read an article by a pilot that ferries aircraft between Hawaii
and Australia. Part of his prep was to test actual fuel flow in flight,
because the jump would necessitate reliance on the reserves. He didn't
mention doing it by running a tank dry in flight.

In the flying that I do, there is no direction that I can go where there
isn't fuel well within the range of the plane's fuel capacity without
considering reserves. So, I plan accordingly. You can fly however you
wish. I just see no point in unnecessarily pushing limits.

Regards,

Neil

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-08-19, Michael > wrote:
> Are your gauges accurate enough to reliably tell the difference between
> 30 minutes fuel at 60% power and empty in tyubulent air?
> Will your fuel computer account for fuel that leaves via a cap that has
> developed a leak?

I think this is why it is important to have fuel gauges that are at
least useful, and give a reasonable indication of how much fuel is left
- so you can tell if there's less fuel in the tank than you expected
there to be. It can alert you to a problem. The first time I took a
Cessna 182 (the 1960 model, which didn't have overly capacious fuel
tanks to start with) for a long cross country, I landed short of my
destination because the fuel gauges showed that I had less fuel than my
time/fuel burn calculation said I had. The fuel gauge was right - I did
have less fuel than I expected. Reasonably working fuel gauges can alert
you to fuel leaks, missing fuel caps and other sources of having less
fuel than you expected to have.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Roy Smith]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> If the flight is longer than an hour, we will then run the tips in 15 minute
> increments. (Or 10, or 20 -- whatever it takes to keep them even when we
> arrive at our destination.) In our plane, having 17 gallons WAY out at the
> end of the wing means that you had better keep things balanced, or you're
> gonna be flying tipped at an angle pretty quickly!

If I understand what you're saying, you always take off with the tips
filled, even for a short flight. If that's the case, aren't you hauling
200 lbs of fuel around all the time that you don't really need? If your
mains give you (I'm guessing here) 4 hours endurance, and you're planning a
1 hour flight, I would think having 3 hour reserve would be more than
enough for even the most conservative pilot.

It sounds like (correct me if I'm wrong), that if you're making a 1:20
flight, you'll run 0:30 on one main, 0:30 on the other, 0:10 on one tip,
0:10 on the other tip, then switch back to one of the mains for landing?

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-08-21, Roy Smith > wrote:
> My club has been installing JPI's on most of our planes. It is true that
> they're over-priced, and have totally inscrutable user interfaces, but this
> is true of almost all avionics. What in particular makes you not like JPI?

JPI have done many dubious things as a company. The most recent example,
after finding out that pilots are hooking up computers to one of their
gauges and the pilot community has made useful programs to analyse the
data, they encrypted the data to stop people doing that. That, to me, is
basically sociopathic behaviour. They basically found out people were
making the instrument they bought more useful - so decided to cripple
the instrument.
http://www.avweb.com/newswire/11_18b/briefs/189696-1.html

They have also bullied a smaller firm (Matronics):
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:M6JBAJUIKnAJ:home.earthlink.net/~timrv6a/Boycott_JPI.doc+JPI+Matronics&hl=en&client=firefox-a

The encryption issue is enough to make me not want to use a company's
product.
--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-08-22, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> 1. Refuel after every flight. You will be ready to go for your next flight,
> and can rest assured that you have gas on board. (Renters will have to
> switch this to refueling BEFORE every flight.)

Again, this is not a hard and fast rule. It is NOT stupidity to NOT do
this, and often it's necessary. Indeed, airlines routinely fly without
full tanks.

I'm making an assumption here - by refuelling, you mean top the tanks. I
apologise if this isn't what you really mean, but let's assume that you
(or the generic 'you') do mean that. It probably works well for you with
your aircraft and your typical mission. But consider this.

I did my multi training in a Piper Apache (Geronimo conversion) which
carried rather a lot of fuel. Seven hours of fuel in fact. 7 hours of
fuel weighs quite a bit, even at the fuel burn of a Piper Apache. The
plane has 5 seats. I need to be able to trade off fuel for payload in
case a bunch of us are going somewhere. 7 hours of fuel and 5 filled
seats = way over gross, which in a Piper Apache means you are not going
anywhere other than down should one of the donkeys decides to take the
day off. To fly with half fuel to go to an airport an hour away is
NOT bad decision making - it is called trading off range for payload,
and as I said, it's common practise with the airlines.

Really, the same goes for taking 4 people in a Cessna 172 or a Warrior -
you're going to have to trade off fuel for payload. I don't consider it
"stupid" to carry only 2.5 hours of fuel to take three friends on a 30
minute sightseeing trip around the local area.

About 2 weeks ago, I was flying with my friend Paul in his Cessna 180.
We were departing from an 860 foot long back country airstrip with a
field elevation of 4200 feet. If the airfield sold fuel (it doesn't), it
would have been foolish in the extreme to top the tanks before departing
this airfield. (Of course, some people may argue it's foolish in the
extreme to use that airstrip at all, but IMHO the rewards exceeded the
risks).

My old Cessna 140. I've flown it up in the mountains. Flying with half
fuel was a given. With 85 horsepower you need all the help you can get
at high elevations.

Towing the gliders at Andreas. Taking a full tank of fuel in the Auster
simply prolongs the climb and means you have to run the engine at full
power (where it gets hot because the installation doesn't exactly have
the best cooling in the world). Much better to avoid flying with more
than half tanks.

If your normal mission and your aircraft allows it, by all means top off
after every flight. However, it is not stupid or wrong NOT to top off
after every flight - especially if you don't know what your next flight
will be and you fly a plane where you can usefully trade range for
something else (rate of climb or non-fuel payload). The main thing is to
use your brain when deciding how much fuel to carry.

> 4. Measure your gas with your watch, never your fuel gauges.

No. Measure your gas with your watch AND KEEP THE FUEL GAUGES IN YOUR
CROSS CHECK. If the fuel gauges indicate less fuel than you expect to
have at the given stage of the flight, land and check it out. Do NOT
ignore your fuel gauges. If you own the plane, it behooves you to make
sure your fuel gauges are at least useful enough so that you can detect
the situation where you have less fuel than you calculated. If you rent,
get to know the planes you fly and know how useful the fuel gauges are
for cross-checking.

Working fuel gauges provide a useful cross check. In most things in
aviation - you should avoid relying on a single source of data and at
least have a cross check. For your watch and fuel calculations, cross
check with the gauges. For your GPS, cross check by using VOR and
pilotage. There's lots of emphasis on cross checks when flying IFR. It's
not just IFR that benefits from cross checking - pretty much anything is
less likely to land you with an unpleasant surprise if you can perform a
cross check.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-08-22, Ron Rosenfeld > wrote:
> As a matter of fact, I believe that the fuel quantity indicators are only
> required to be accurate at zero fuel in level flight (for a/c certified
> under Part 23).

Close, but no cigar. That one is a bit of an OWT. The fuel quantity
indicator must be calibrated to read zero when there is no usable fuel
left, but:

23.1337:

b) Fuel quantity indication. There must be a means to indicate to the
flightcrew members the quantity of usable fuel in each tank during
flight. An indicator calibrated in appropriate units and clearly marked
to indicate those units must be used. In addition:

(1) Each fuel quantity indicator must be calibrated to read
zero during level flight when the quantity of fuel remaining
in the tank is equal to the unusable fuel supply determined under
§23.959(a);

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Thomas Borchert]

RN,

> If you're worried about fuel, you don't have enough.
>

Well, I, for one, like to worry before I don't have enough.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Dylan Smith > wrote:

> On 2005-08-21, Roy Smith > wrote:
> > Carb ice isn't going to form in a few seconds.
>
> It's even less likely to form if there's no fuel!

Duh, I should have realized that. Touché!

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-08-22, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> - Checking the accuracy of your fuel gauges?
>
> That's absurd -- anyone who relies on fuel gauges is an off-field landing
> waiting to happen.

Some people who don't know how well their fuel gauges are working are
also an off-field landing waiting to happen. So you don't know how good
your fuel gauges are, so ignore them - then one day, for whatever
reason, you have a fuel leak or similar problem - and your watch says
you have 1.5 hours remaining, but you really have five minutes
remaining. If I own a plane, I damned well make sure the fuel gauges
work. I want them in my cross check. Working fuel gauges can tell you
that there's a problem.

As I said earlier, personally, I don't like running fuel tanks dry, but
I will run a tank fairly empty. Consider the Apache I used to fly with
four tanks. On a VFR cross country, I like to plan on an hour reserve
under normal circumstances. I'd rather not have that one hour divided
evenly between four fuel tanks! (Or would you argue an hour reserve is
too little?) I'd rather have the vast majority of that hour reserve in
one tank.

> In my plane, it can take 10 to 12 seconds for fuel to feed from one of our
> tip tanks. If I ran a main tank dry, the prop stopped

If you don't have an autofeathering prop, how will it stop?

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Doug Carter]

In article >, Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

> On the Cherokee Six, I'd generally start on one main, climb to altitude and
> after about half an hour, switch to the opposite tip tank. Then to the other
> tip tank (after I don't remember how long... I think it was 45 minutes)...

In the Skylane RG I take off on both, cruise on both and land on both.

Do newer low wing designs (Cirrus, et al) still require the pilot to
disconnect and reconnect the fuel supply while in flight?

:)

[Jay Honeck]

>> Pilots who end up landing off-airport (or, worse, dying) because of
>> something as stupid as running out of gas
>
> Those pilots have NOTHING at all to do with what we're discussing here. on
> the
> contrary, we're discussing precise fuel planning.

No, you're talking about doing something stupid in a very precise way. That
doesn't change the fact that it's not very bright to purposefully run tanks
dry.

>> 1. Refuel after every flight.
>
> If you're talking about topping off, that may be practical in your plane -
> congrats on that! It isn't in mine and it sure isn't in the majority of
> single-engine four-seaters, since you're giving up WAY too much useful
> load.

I said "refuel" after every flight, not "top it off" after every flight.

>> 2. Install a fuel totalizer.
>
> Which becomes even more useful when running tanks dry.

??? Why's that? Just so you can verify that your totalizer is actually
measuring your fuel precisely to the last ounce?

There are a multitude of other ways to do that, without waiting for the
engine to stumble.

>> 3. Never try to stretch your range. Bite the bullet, land and buy gas.
>
> Which has nothing to do with the technique recommended here.

???? People here (outside of Deakin's article) are claiming that they
"routinely" run tanks dry. What other possible reason is there to do so
routinely, *other* than to stretch your range?

> > 4. Measure your gas with your watch, never your fuel gauges.
>
> Which, again, has nothing to do with the technique recommended here.

It's the *attitude* of "routinely" running tanks dry that I believe leads to
guys running out of gas. Running on the razor's edge of empty in an
aircraft is just asking for trouble.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

>> If the flight is longer than an hour, we will then run the tips in 15
>> minute
>> increments. (Or 10, or 20 -- whatever it takes to keep them even when we
>> arrive at our destination.) In our plane, having 17 gallons WAY out at
>> the
>> end of the wing means that you had better keep things balanced, or you're
>> gonna be flying tipped at an angle pretty quickly!
>
> If I understand what you're saying, you always take off with the tips
> filled, even for a short flight. If that's the case, aren't you hauling
> 200 lbs of fuel around all the time that you don't really need?

Yep. But the extra wing loading (by having the tips full) really, REALLY
makes a difference in turbulence. We have flown places with other pilots
who bitterly complained about the moderate chop en route, which we had not
noticed at all.

Also, in a plane like the Pathfinder, with a 1460 pound useful load, there
is no advantage gained by going light on fuel. (Well, other than rate of
climb, which -- in Iowa -- is pretty much a non-issue. There is no such
thing as having to "out-climb" the terrain around here, and we routinely see
700 fpm climb in summer even with full tanks) Therefore, we top 'er off
after every flight -- even when we have only flown for an hour or two.

> If your
> mains give you (I'm guessing here) 4 hours endurance, and you're planning
> a
> 1 hour flight, I would think having 3 hour reserve would be more than
> enough for even the most conservative pilot.

We are VERY conservative with fuel management.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

>> That's absurd -- anyone who relies on fuel gauges is an off-field landing
>> waiting to happen.
>
> Some people who don't know how well their fuel gauges are working are
> also an off-field landing waiting to happen. So you don't know how good
> your fuel gauges are, so ignore them - then one day, for whatever
> reason, you have a fuel leak or similar problem - and your watch says
> you have 1.5 hours remaining, but you really have five minutes
> remaining. If I own a plane, I damned well make sure the fuel gauges
> work. I want them in my cross check. Working fuel gauges can tell you
> that there's a problem.

A very good point, and one that I assumed was implicitly understood but --
given the fact that we're cross-posting in the student forum -- should be
clearly stated.

Our gauges happen to be remarkably accurate in all flight regimes, and at
all fuel levels. We watch them carefully -- but always time our fuel AND
have a fuel totalizer AND refuel every time we push the plane in the hangar.
To say we're anal about fuel management would not be an exaggeration.

>> In my plane, it can take 10 to 12 seconds for fuel to feed from one of
>> our
>> tip tanks. If I ran a main tank dry, the prop stopped
>
> If you don't have an autofeathering prop, how will it stop?

I suppose you could get too slow to keep the prop turning, although I've not
tested this "theory" in flight, for obvious reasons.

I've read of this happening to pilots (admittedly in Cubs)...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[George Patterson]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>
> As a matter of fact, I believe that the fuel quantity indicators are only
> required to be accurate at zero fuel in level flight (for a/c certified
> under Part 23).

Nope. They are required to report the amount of fuel in the tank. They can't do
that without being accurate.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> No, you're talking about doing something stupid in a very precise way. That
> doesn't change the fact that it's not very bright to purposefully run tanks
> dry.

Well, apparently you are not able to look beyond your own limited opinion or
even accept that it is not more than that - an opinion. Instead, you continue
badmouthing people just because they differ with you. That's too bad and very
out of character for you, if I may say so.

> I said "refuel" after every flight, not "top it off" after every flight.

If you meant that, I fail to see the connection.

> It's the *attitude* of "routinely" running tanks dry that I believe leads to
> guys running out of gas.

Ok, then give us just one example to back up your belief. Just one. And next
time, do it before you start calling people dumb - because I am sure you can't
find an example. Which, well, would make YOU look pretty dumb, wouldn't it?


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Our gauges happen to be remarkably accurate in all flight regimes, and at
> all fuel levels.

The gauges in my Maule were also very accurate.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:

Therefore, we top 'er off
> after every flight -- even when we have only flown for an hour or two.

You must not demand much of your plane. Don't you ever just putz around
the local area landing on dirt strips just generally screwing off? I
never fill my 182's tanks unless I am going on a long cross country. I
normally fly with 30-40 gallons onboard. That 240-300 pounds I'm not
carrying makes a big difference in takeoff and landing performance. I'm
now in the middle of learning about my Bonanza I will be getting next
week. I don't care so much about the top end. Any idiot can push the
levers forward and see how fast it will go. I am mostly concentrating
on the low speed end. A friend has a V tail similar to mine except his
is a couple years older and has the 260 hp motor, mine has 285 hp. I
watched him takeoff Saturday. Took him 1400 feet to leave the runway
with just him and 80 gallons, no flaps. I was disappointed as my goal
is to be able to use a friends 1300 foot runway. Now I already know he
always has full tanks. Bo's have bladders and he's afraid of the rubber
drying out if he leaves any air in the tanks for more than about 15
minutes. He said he held it on the ground til 80 mph and then yanked it
off. Very good news. Take 40 gallons of fuel out, use half flaps and
then fly it off at 60 mph with 25 more horsepower weighing about 200
pounds less then he did. Now if you always have full tanks you can't do
this stuff.

[Ron Lee]

Doug Carter > wrote:

>In article >, Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
>
>> On the Cherokee Six, I'd generally start on one main, climb to altitude and
>> after about half an hour, switch to the opposite tip tank. Then to the other
>> tip tank (after I don't remember how long... I think it was 45 minutes)...
>
>In the Skylane RG I take off on both, cruise on both and land on both.
>
>Do newer low wing designs (Cirrus, et al) still require the pilot to
>disconnect and reconnect the fuel supply while in flight?

I think we are talking about individually selectable tanks ... not
systems that take fuel from both tanks simultaneously.

I see that this is going to s student list as well. CLASS...do as
your instructor tells you and be careful of any opinions expressed on
the internet. And don't do stupid things.

Ron Lee

[Ron Lee]

Thomas Borchert > wrote:

>RN,
>
>> If you're worried about fuel, you don't have enough.
>>
>
>Well, I, for one, like to worry before I don't have enough.

I prefer not to worry period.

Ron Lee

[Jose]

> I said "refuel" after every flight, not "top it off" after every flight.

What is the purpose of this? You need to fuel appropriately =before=
every flight. That's when the fuel is useful.

> 2. Install a fuel totalizer.

This tells you how much fuel you've used, not how much fuel you have
left. It's the fuel you have left that's important. Granted a
subtraction will get you there, but that depends on the very assumptions
that will bite you one day.

> What other possible reason is there to do so
> routinely, *other* than to stretch your range?

Every flight stretches one's range. We land with less fuel than we
started with. We take off with less runway than we started the takeoff
roll with. And leaning the engine, especially aggressively, is also
stretching one's range. What is the difference between "stretching
one's range" and "getting the maximum (fuel) performance out of the
aircraft"? I'm not sure I understand you here.

> It's the *attitude* of "routinely" running tanks dry that I believe leads to
> guys running out of gas.

It's the attitude of "I know how to do it, and any other way is dumb"
that I believe leads to NTSB investigations.

> Running on the razor's edge of empty in an
> aircraft is just asking for trouble.

Running a tank dry in a cherokee at ten thousand AGL with twenty gallons
left in the other tank is not the razor's edge of empty.

That said, I do agree that there are some risks to it - a problem may
develop with the full tank and you have nothing to go back to. I think
I'm more comfortable with some gas in each (of two) tanks, though I'm
also comfortable running tip tanks dry at an approriate time and place
if I have them (the aircraft I routinely fly don't). But I would not
condemn either fuel management principle, nor the pilots who engage in them.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[James Ricks]

>Here's an easy way to make sure you never run out of gas

Have a 4-hour bladder and 5 hours of fuel.

Jim Ricks

>
>1. Refuel after every flight. You will be ready to go for your next flight,
>and can rest assured that you have gas on board. (Renters will have to
>switch this to refueling BEFORE every flight.)
>
>2. Install a fuel totalizer. They are cheap (in aviation money), and will
>tell you your fuel usage to within a few ounces. (Sorry, renters. Get on
>the FBO to install one.)
>
>3. Never try to stretch your range. Bite the bullet, land and buy gas.
>
>4. Measure your gas with your watch, never your fuel gauges.

[Matt Barrow]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 20:48:12 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> > wrote:
>
> >What says a fuel gauge is any more or less accurate than a fuel FLOW
gauge?
>
> I don't see the relationship of your question to anything I posted.

I was agreeing with your counterpoint to someone else who was a FF fanatic
:~).

> But
> certainly in the ranges over a quarter tank, experience in small a/c show
> that a properly calibrated fuel flow gauge is more accurate.
>
> As a matter of fact, I believe that the fuel quantity indicators are only
> required to be accurate at zero fuel in level flight (for a/c certified
> under Part 23).
>
Ummm...no; they must be accurate at all fuel levels. Point is to find out
exactly what 1/2, 3/4, ...really means. I do it a couple times a year just
to verify the gauge's accuracy. It actually is off my 15 gallons on a full
tanks. (Incidentally, those are the only times my tanks are topped off. They
hold 98 gallons by the POH, but 99.5 by my measurements. Other than those
time, I've never had more than 84 gallons in them and that was for a two leg
trip of over 800nm.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[john smith]

Be VERY careful in the Bo with reduced fuel in the tanks!
The leading edge tanks on the Bo cause the C/G to move aft with fuel burn.
Starting out with partial fuel means you are starting with the C/G
already partially aft.
I always calculated both the takeoff and landing C/G when I flew the Bo
I had access to.

Newps wrote:
> You must not demand much of your plane. Don't you ever just putz around
> the local area landing on dirt strips just generally screwing off? I
> never fill my 182's tanks unless I am going on a long cross country. I
> normally fly with 30-40 gallons onboard. That 240-300 pounds I'm not
> carrying makes a big difference in takeoff and landing performance. I'm
> now in the middle of learning about my Bonanza I will be getting next
> week. I don't care so much about the top end. Any idiot can push the
> levers forward and see how fast it will go. I am mostly concentrating
> on the low speed end. A friend has a V tail similar to mine except his
> is a couple years older and has the 260 hp motor, mine has 285 hp. I
> watched him takeoff Saturday. Took him 1400 feet to leave the runway
> with just him and 80 gallons, no flaps. I was disappointed as my goal
> is to be able to use a friends 1300 foot runway. Now I already know he
> always has full tanks. Bo's have bladders and he's afraid of the rubber
> drying out if he leaves any air in the tanks for more than about 15
> minutes. He said he held it on the ground til 80 mph and then yanked it
> off. Very good news. Take 40 gallons of fuel out, use half flaps and
> then fly it off at 60 mph with 25 more horsepower weighing about 200
> pounds less then he did. Now if you always have full tanks you can't do
> this stuff.
>

[Chris Colohan]

As a student, I would like to interject here with a couple of comments
and questions...

1. I have learned from this discussion that everyone has an opinion,
and their opinion is quite strongly held. Does anyone have any data,
on either side, to back up their opinion? How often do planes have
trouble caused by not knowing precisely how much gas they have,
perhaps influenced by inaccurate gages? How often do planes have
trouble caused by running a tank dry (NOT running the _last_ tank
dry)?

2. There seems to be a lot of discussion mentioning that the only way
to be sure of your tank's capacity is to run it dry. In my reading
about flying, I notice that folks talk about measuring fuel by looking
in the tanks and perhaps using a dipstick. Couldn't you calibrate
your gages by filling the tanks, going for a flight, then sticking a
ruler into the tank to see how much is left? Is running the tank dry
any more accurate or useful?


To me, the two sides of this debate seems to be as follows: some folks
want to be in control of every aspect of their flight, while other
folks want to have as wide of a saftey margin as possible at all
times. The fuel tank issue is one where these two goals conflict.

To the control oriented folks, having a tank run dry when they expect
it gives them one more data point which makes them more comfortable
and feel more in control during the flight. Any small change in
flight characteristics is detectable by a change in tank switch
timings, and so these folks are willing to accept what they think is a
small risk in changing tanks in order to detect any problems.

The safety margin folks feel more comfortable not knowing precisely
how much margin of safety they have, as long as that margin is wide
enough that they never have to worry about it. To these folks minor
problems will be covered by their ample margin of safety, and major
problems will become apparent on their gages. These folks want to
make sure they have as much fuel as possible in reserve in all tanks
when the major problem hits, and don't worry about missing a couple of
minor problems as a result.

Is my characterization accurate?

Chris
--
Chris Colohan Email: PGP: finger
Web: www.colohan.com Phone: (412)268-4751

[Matt Barrow]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> Be VERY careful in the Bo with reduced fuel in the tanks!
> The leading edge tanks on the Bo cause the C/G to move aft with fuel burn.

Where would the CG be with mid-wing tanks? Further aft?

> Starting out with partial fuel means you are starting with the C/G
> already partially aft.
> I always calculated both the takeoff and landing C/G when I flew the Bo
> I had access to.

All you need do is NOT overload the rear seats/baggage area.

I assume he's getting a V-tail; CG is much better with a straight tail (yet
still a bit narrow). Upgrading to an IO-550 from a IO-520 also moves the CG
a couple inches forward IIR.

[Matt Barrow]

"Chris Colohan" > wrote in message
.. .
> As a student, I would like to interject here with a couple of comments
> and questions...
>
> 1. I have learned from this discussion that everyone has an opinion,
> and their opinion is quite strongly held. Does anyone have any data,
> on either side, to back up their opinion? How often do planes have
> trouble caused by not knowing precisely how much gas they have,
> perhaps influenced by inaccurate gages? How often do planes have
> trouble caused by running a tank dry (NOT running the _last_ tank
> dry)?

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182044-1.html

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/subject_index.html#fuel

(The most common excuses are along the lines of "I though it was full when I
took of, so I didn't check it").
http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/sa16.pdf

> 2. There seems to be a lot of discussion mentioning that the only way
> to be sure of your tank's capacity is to run it dry. In my reading
> about flying, I notice that folks talk about measuring fuel by looking
> in the tanks and perhaps using a dipstick. Couldn't you calibrate
> your gages by filling the tanks, going for a flight, then sticking a
> ruler into the tank to see how much is left? Is running the tank dry
> any more accurate or useful?

Better to run ONE dry, land, and fill it to the rim and read the numbers on
the fuel truck.

NEVER run it dry when it is unintentional. Also, never run it dry
intentionally when you don't know within a few minutes of WHEN it's going to
cut out AND ARE WATCHING FOR IT TO CUT OUT.

> To me, the two sides of this debate seems to be as follows: some folks
> want to be in control of every aspect of their flight, while other
> folks want to have as wide of a saftey margin as possible at all
> times. The fuel tank issue is one where these two goals conflict.

See the AvWeb article at the URL above.

> To the control oriented folks, having a tank run dry when they expect
> it gives them one more data point which makes them more comfortable
> and feel more in control during the flight. Any small change in
> flight characteristics is detectable by a change in tank switch
> timings, and so these folks are willing to accept what they think is a
> small risk in changing tanks in order to detect any problems.
>
> The safety margin folks feel more comfortable not knowing precisely
> how much margin of safety they have, as long as that margin is wide
> enough that they never have to worry about it. To these folks minor
> problems will be covered by their ample margin of safety, and major
> problems will become apparent on their gages. These folks want to
> make sure they have as much fuel as possible in reserve in all tanks
> when the major problem hits, and don't worry about missing a couple of
> minor problems as a result.

One problem with fuel planning is when things don't shape up as expected
(headwinds, holds due to weather...), but how do you plan alternative
actions if your only know, in a fuzzy fashion, how much fuel you have. Yeah,
it's always better to play it safe, land, and take on both airplane and
people fuel...but when if that alternative is not immediately available.

Fly over the Colorado Rockies sometime during widespread, low weather and
your nearest fual can be esaily a half an hour away or more.

>
> Is my characterization accurate?

Pretty much.

[ORVAL FAIRAIRN]

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> Neil,
>
> > I would feel more comfortable with 4 in each tank than with a dry tank.
> >
>
> Well, I definitely wouldn't, the odd and very rare fuel selector
> malfunction notwithstanding.


Nor would I! I would rather have an hour in ONE tank, rather than spread
among FOUR tanks! How would you know which tank to select for landing? I
would not want to select the 5 minute tank, when I would have to go
around!

Those are the guys who run into fuel starvation problems!

[Jose]

> As a student, I would like to interject here with a couple of comments
> and questions...
> [...] How often do planes have
> trouble caused by running a tank dry (NOT running the _last_ tank
> dry)?

I would make this two parts - one for =deliberately= running a tank
(not the last tank) dry, and the other for =accidentally= doing the same.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Dale]

In article <itkOe.270577$x96.113603@attbi_s72>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:


> Yep. But the extra wing loading (by having the tips full) really, REALLY
> makes a difference in turbulence. We have flown places with other pilots
> who bitterly complained about the moderate chop en route, which we had not
> noticed at all.
>
> Also, in a plane like the Pathfinder, with a 1460 pound useful load, there
> is no advantage gained by going light on fuel. (Well, other than rate of
> climb, which -- in Iowa -- is pretty much a non-issue. There is no such
> thing as having to "out-climb" the terrain around here, and we routinely see
> 700 fpm climb in summer even with full tanks) Therefore, we top 'er off
> after every flight -- even when we have only flown for an hour or two.

I fly an airplane with a 1633 pound useful load and I find quite an
advantage to being light on fuel.

Dragging that extra fuel around makes you slower which means you burn
more fuel along your route.

Perhaps you should rethink your statement about rate-of-climb. What if
you lose a cylinder? (A not uncommon occurance) Now you've only got
partial power to drag your fuel laden airplane containing your family to
a safe landing.

Just because you aren't comfortable with a procedure does not make it
dumb or unsafe.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-08-22, Newps > wrote:
> watched him takeoff Saturday. Took him 1400 feet to leave the runway
> with just him and 80 gallons, no flaps. I was disappointed as my goal
> is to be able to use a friends 1300 foot runway. Now I already know he

The Bonanza can do considerably better than that. Admittedly at sea
level - but it was on a hot day - I practised with our club's S-35
Bonanza (with full fuel) and could land, come to a complete stop, then
take off again (comfortably) in less than 2000 feet when practising
short field technique in that plane.

Practise a bit, and you can get good short field performance out of a
Bonanza. Carrying half fuel can only help.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-08-22, john smith > wrote:
> Be VERY careful in the Bo with reduced fuel in the tanks!
> The leading edge tanks on the Bo cause the C/G to move aft with fuel burn.
> Starting out with partial fuel means you are starting with the C/G
> already partially aft.

I always did a weight and balance for both takeoff and one hour
remaining with any unfamiliar loads. However, although the CofG got
towards the rear of the envelope with 1 hour remaining, I never found a
loading that would put it out of CofG (and definitely not solo or with 2
on board). Four on board and one of them heavy in the back would do it
though.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Ron Lee]

Jose > wrote:
>
>> 2. Install a fuel totalizer.
>
>This tells you how much fuel you've used, not how much fuel you have
>left. It's the fuel you have left that's important. Granted a
>subtraction will get you there, but that depends on the very assumptions
>that will bite you one day.
>

My RMI engine monitor gives fuel remaining PLUS fuel endurance (time)
based upon current consumption rate. Add knowing time to destination
plus reasonably accurate fuel gauges and I am set.

I know my gauges are good at the bottom end (where it really matters)
and the fuel remaining is good because I have run tanks dry
deliberately to verify useable fuel. No guessing.

Ron Lee

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 12:52:36 -0000, Dylan Smith >
wrote:

>On 2005-08-22, Ron Rosenfeld > wrote:
>> As a matter of fact, I believe that the fuel quantity indicators are only
>> required to be accurate at zero fuel in level flight (for a/c certified
>> under Part 23).
>
>Close, but no cigar. That one is a bit of an OWT. The fuel quantity
>indicator must be calibrated to read zero when there is no usable fuel
>left, but:
>
>23.1337:
>
>b) Fuel quantity indication. There must be a means to indicate to the
>flightcrew members the quantity of usable fuel in each tank during
>flight. An indicator calibrated in appropriate units and clearly marked
>to indicate those units must be used. In addition:
>
>(1) Each fuel quantity indicator must be calibrated to read
>zero during level flight when the quantity of fuel remaining
>in the tank is equal to the unusable fuel supply determined under
>§23.959(a);


I sit corrected.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Newps]

Matt Barrow wrote:


>
>>Starting out with partial fuel means you are starting with the C/G
>>already partially aft.
>>I always calculated both the takeoff and landing C/G when I flew the Bo
>>I had access to.
>
>
> All you need do is NOT overload the rear seats/baggage area.

On a 1300 foot strip I will be all alone and will have removed the rear
seats.


>
> I assume he's getting a V-tail; CG is much better with a straight tail (yet
> still a bit narrow).

It is better with the A36, not with the 33's.

[Newps]

Dylan Smith wrote:

> On 2005-08-22, Newps > wrote:
>
>>watched him takeoff Saturday. Took him 1400 feet to leave the runway
>>with just him and 80 gallons, no flaps. I was disappointed as my goal
>>is to be able to use a friends 1300 foot runway. Now I already know he
>
>
> The Bonanza can do considerably better than that. Admittedly at sea
> level - but it was on a hot day - I practised with our club's S-35
> Bonanza (with full fuel) and could land, come to a complete stop, then
> take off again (comfortably) in less than 2000 feet when practising
> short field technique in that plane.
>
> Practise a bit, and you can get good short field performance out of a
> Bonanza. Carrying half fuel can only help.
>

Mine will be an S35 also. The empty weight is just a hair over 2000 pounds.

[john smith]

Chris Colohan wrote:
> 2. Couldn't you calibrate
> your gages by filling the tanks, going for a flight, then sticking a
> ruler into the tank to see how much is left? Is running the tank dry
> any more accurate or useful?

If only it were that simple!
Fuel tanks are of various shapes and sizes.
Linear measurements apply only to tanks with flat sides, tops and bottoms.
I can tell you that on some airplanes, if you look in the filler neck
and see it within an inch of the top, you can still get 10 or more
gallons into it.

[RST Engineering]

And saying something as misinformed as this is worse yet. 99.9% of the
"crap" is heavier than fuel, and sinks, so it is the FIRST thing out of the
tanks, not the last. The 0.1% that is still left floating is eventually
going to be visible in the filler neck.

Get a life, not a totalizer.

Jim


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:4Z9Oe.272046$_o.92006@attbi_s71...

>
> Running a tank dry probably won't lead to anything worse than sucking all
> the crap out of your gas tanks -- but you're missing my point.

[Mark T. Dame]

Marc J. Zeitlin wrote:
>
> Plus, when I would run one tank dry BEFORE I had the FF gauge, it would
> be the only time that I would know EXACTLY how much fuel I had left in
> the plane. Seems like something worth knowing.

That's only true if you never switch tanks until one tank is dry. If
you run one tank dry, then switch tanks only to find you have
contaminated fuel or, worse, a clogged fuel line, you're pretty much toast.

And if you do swap tanks every , then this
argument for running one tank dry doesn't hold up.

[i]
> I'm totally confused as to what the dangerous part of this action might
> be. The engine was running before - it'll run after 3 seconds of not
> quite getting enough fuel.

See above. If you switch tanks after three hours of running at 8.5gph
and find your other tank is worthless (contaminated or clogged fuel
line), you can still switch back to the first tank and maybe have enough
fuel to make an emergency powered landing at a nearby airfield instead
of an emergency dead stick landing in Farmer John's corn field (it
looked like a wheat field from the air!). Of course, you don't know how
much fuel you have left in the first tank, nor how long it will last,
but you *do* know for a fact that it will last longer than an empty tank.

In any case, knowing that I have exactly 28 gallons left after 3 hours
and 7 minutes instead of knowing that I have at least 28 gallons left
after 3 hours doesn't mean enough to me to risk not being able to
restart the engine.

Just my opinion.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers
exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will
instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre
and inexplicable.

There is another which states that this has already happened."
-- The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, Douglas Adams

[Ron Lee]

"RST Engineering" > wrote:

>Now, here's one for you. You reset your totalizer but the Line Goober used
>an "auto off" nozzle that left you ten gallons short on a side. You run one
>dry, but now your totalizer thinks you have twenty gallons more than you
>have. Who now is the safe one? The one that timed a tank to see how long
>it ran dry (and hence remaining time in the other one, since Goober probably
>used the same technique on one tank as the other) or the one that relies on
>the totalizer with about two hours less than calculated?
>
For mr that is a non-concern. I visually inspect each tank if I do
not fill it and any "shortfall" is well below my acceptable refueling
level anyway.

I like having a totalizer functionality.

Ron Lee

[Mark T. Dame]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> 4. Measure your gas with your watch, never your fuel gauges.

Are those the little gauges on either side of the fuel pressure gauge
with needles that move from right to left as you as you fly? I thought
those measured how tired the plane was: make sure you land before they
all reach zero or the plane will take a nap.

I trust my fuel gauges like I trust the IRS to help me with my taxes.
They'll tell me when I'm in deep doo-doo, but they won't keep me from
getting there.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"Madness has no purpose. Or reason. But it may have a goal."
-- Star Trek: Spock, "The Alternative Factor"

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mark T. Dame" > wrote in message
...
>
> I trust my fuel gauges like I trust the IRS to help me with my taxes.
> They'll tell me when I'm in deep doo-doo, but they won't keep me from
> getting there.


Luv it! Can I quote you on that?

[Dave Stadt]

"john smith" > wrote in message
.. .
> Chris Colohan wrote:
> > 2. Couldn't you calibrate
> > your gages by filling the tanks, going for a flight, then sticking a
> > ruler into the tank to see how much is left? Is running the tank dry
> > any more accurate or useful?
>
> If only it were that simple!
> Fuel tanks are of various shapes and sizes.
> Linear measurements apply only to tanks with flat sides, tops and bottoms.
> I can tell you that on some airplanes, if you look in the filler neck
> and see it within an inch of the top, you can still get 10 or more
> gallons into it.

It also depends on how the plane is parked. A couple of degrees left or
right, nose up or down can make a huge difference. That fact also plays
havoc with the fancy fuel measuring do dads. Just like navigation, never
rely on a single method of fuel management.

[Mark T. Dame]

Roy Smith wrote:

> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
>>If the flight is longer than an hour, we will then run the tips in 15 minute
>>increments. (Or 10, or 20 -- whatever it takes to keep them even when we
>>arrive at our destination.) In our plane, having 17 gallons WAY out at the
>>end of the wing means that you had better keep things balanced, or you're
>>gonna be flying tipped at an angle pretty quickly!
>
> If I understand what you're saying, you always take off with the tips
> filled, even for a short flight. If that's the case, aren't you hauling
> 200 lbs of fuel around all the time that you don't really need? If your
> mains give you (I'm guessing here) 4 hours endurance, and you're planning a
> 1 hour flight, I would think having 3 hour reserve would be more than
> enough for even the most conservative pilot.

If you're flying an older C-6 with tip tanks, your usable load is about
1500lbs. Even with all four tanks full, you can still put four 200lbs
adults in the cabin and not have much trouble unless it's a really hot
day and the runway is really short (<2000). Even then, with flaps, you
can do it quite safely even on a short runway.

Now, if you're talking about something without the trucking capacity of
the original C-6, then you need to think about it. The newest in the
C-6 line (Saratoga HP) has at least 300lbs less useful load. Depending
on options, it could be as little as 1000lbs. With 102 gallons of fuel
capacity, you have to start thinking about trading fuel for cargo.

But the point was "why would you fly with your tip tanks full on a short
flight". The answer is: because if your plane can handle it, why not?
Or, put another way, why dump fuel if you don't have to. But this
obviously varies by the equipment used.


> It sounds like (correct me if I'm wrong), that if you're making a 1:20
> flight, you'll run 0:30 on one main, 0:30 on the other, 0:10 on one tip,
> 0:10 on the other tip, then switch back to one of the mains for landing?

The C-6 POH recommends burning from the mains first. I've heard a lot
of different opinions on the "correct" way to manage fuel in the C-6,
but unless you intentionally run a tank dry, I don't think any one way
is much better than another. (-:


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it's still a foolish
thing."
-- Bertrand Russell

[Doug Carter]

In article >, RST Engineering wrote:
> Now, here's one for you. You reset your totalizer but the Line Goober used
> an "auto off" nozzle that left you ten gallons short on a side. You run one
> dry, but now your totalizer thinks you have twenty gallons more than you
> have.

This assumes you are stupid enough to set your totalizer based on what
the Line Goober said rather than checking the tanks yourself.

Does this relate to the problem at hand anyway? If the Goober'ed tank
is the last one you switch to you are going to be a glider anyway.

(Pulled that last one right past the stick :)

[Mark T. Dame]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 15:42:31 GMT, "Jay Honeck" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>IMHO, proper fuel management means never even coming *close* to running a
>>tank dry, let alone doing it intentionally.
>
> And how do you know how much fuel you really have in your tanks?
>
> It seems simpler, and safer, to figure this out by running the tanks dry,
> at least once, than to trust the manufacturer's numbers.

Wouldn't it be safer (maybe not simpler) to just drain the tank on the
ground to find out?


> In my case, I
> have about four gallons less than the published numbers which is 1/2 hour
> at economy cruise which is VFR reserves.

That's very important to know, but I still think that find out from the
safety of the hangar would be the best choice.

I find it very interesting that the "run the tanks dry occasionally"
group uses the argument that it is is about safety: knowing exactly how
much fuel your tank(s) hold. If they are truly interested in the
safety, it would seem to me that they would perform that operation on
the ground with a pony pump, some rubber hose, and a couple of clean 50
gallon drums (or a lot of clean buckets/gas cans).

The only two reasons I can see for intentionally running a tank dry are
to accurately determine your fuel flow (which doesn't really help you
since it's after the fact) or to extend your range to the absolute
maximum, which comes back to whether or not that's a good idea.
Personally, I think it's foolish since at worst, refueling adds an hour
to your trip and the break to stretch your legs helps prevent fatigue on
really long trips.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"OK, who stopped the payment on my reality check?"

[Roy Smith]

Well, after reading probably 100 posts in this thread over the past couple
of days, I've got a question to put to you all. What is the chance that
you run a tank dry and the switch to the other tank, only to discover that
you had a collision with a tree on takeoff and the other tank (along with
half the wing which contained it) was torn right off the airplane, and you
never noticed. Then you'd be in deep doo-doo, right?

What is this lunatic talking about, you ask? I'm talking about...

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005380500,00.html

[RST Engineering]

Oh, goodie two-shoes.

Mr. Lee, what brand of aircraft do you fly? Pipers where you can just open
the fuel cap and looksee? Or Cessnas where you have to drag the ladder back
after Gomer has put it away and look?

And what are you looking for? In a lot of aircraft with reasonable
dihedral, a quarter of an inch up or down the filler neck is 8 gallons or
so. Can you calibrate your eyeball that well? In wind? With the airplane
on a slope?

Sorry, no buy.

Jim



"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...

>>
> For mr that is a non-concern. I visually inspect each tank if I do
> not fill it and any "shortfall" is well below my acceptable refueling
> level anyway.
>
> I like having a totalizer functionality.
>
> Ron Lee

[RST Engineering]

Not if you look at your gauges to the full tank, see that it has gone down
to quarter tanks an hour before you expected it to, and start looking around
for a long straight stretch of concrete with gas pumps at one end.

Jim



"Doug Carter" > wrote in message
. net...
>>
> Does this relate to the problem at hand anyway? If the Goober'ed tank
> is the last one you switch to you are going to be a glider anyway.
>
> (Pulled that last one right past the stick :)
>
>

[Icebound]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2005-08-21, Roy Smith > wrote:
>> Carb ice isn't going to form in a few seconds.
>
> It's even less likely to form if there's no fuel!
>

Oh?

Carb ice forms because the reduction of pressure in the intake, causes the
air to cool below freezing, and if moist enough, the moisture condenses and
freezes onto the butterfly.

If there is no fuel but the motor continues to be turned by the prop, does
not carb suction (reduction in pressure ) still exist to some extent?

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
"Icebound" > wrote:

> "Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 2005-08-21, Roy Smith > wrote:
> >> Carb ice isn't going to form in a few seconds.
> >
> > It's even less likely to form if there's no fuel!
> >
>
> Oh?
>
> Carb ice forms because the reduction of pressure in the intake, causes the
> air to cool below freezing, and if moist enough, the moisture condenses and
> freezes onto the butterfly.
>
> If there is no fuel but the motor continues to be turned by the prop, does
> not carb suction (reduction in pressure ) still exist to some extent?

The biggest heat sink in the carburetor by far is gasoline being vaporized.
The adiabatic cooling you're describing is an infinitesimal effect compared
to the heat of vaporization being sucked up by the gasoline.

[Doug Carter]

In article >, RST Engineering wrote:
> Not if you look at your gauges to the full tank, see that it has gone down
> to quarter tanks an hour before you expected it to, and start looking around
> for a long straight stretch of concrete with gas pumps at one end.

That's asking a lot.

[Ron Lee]

Jim, I fly an RV-6A. Given the closeness of remaning fuel to fuel
added over many many refuelings I know my plane better than you think
I do. You don't have to buy. I know what is true.

Ron Lee


"RST Engineering" > wrote:

>Oh, goodie two-shoes.
>
>Mr. Lee, what brand of aircraft do you fly? Pipers where you can just open
>the fuel cap and looksee? Or Cessnas where you have to drag the ladder back
>after Gomer has put it away and look?
>
>And what are you looking for? In a lot of aircraft with reasonable
>dihedral, a quarter of an inch up or down the filler neck is 8 gallons or
>so. Can you calibrate your eyeball that well? In wind? With the airplane
>on a slope?
>
>Sorry, no buy.
>
>Jim
>
>
>
>"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
>
>>>
>> For mr that is a non-concern. I visually inspect each tank if I do
>> not fill it and any "shortfall" is well below my acceptable refueling
>> level anyway.
>>
>> I like having a totalizer functionality.
>>
>> Ron Lee
>
>

[George Patterson]

john smith wrote:
>
>
> I can tell you that on some airplanes, if you look in the filler neck
> and see it within an inch of the top, you can still get 10 or more
> gallons into it.

And in others, if it's within an inch of the top, fuel is already running out
the vent tubes.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Jay Honeck]

> Ok, then give us just one example to back up your belief. Just one. And
> next
> time, do it before you start calling people dumb - because I am sure you
> can't
> find an example. Which, well, would make YOU look pretty dumb, wouldn't
> it?

You know, Thomas, I don't know if it's a language thing, or what, but
calling an idea "dumb" is not the same as calling the person quoting the
article about the idea "dumb".

Try not to be so thin-skinned about this kind of thing -- this *is* usenet,
after all, and you, of all people, should be aware of the fact that getting
a point across to some people is all but impossible without resorting to
blunt language.

I always start off any thread as nice as pie. However, when posters
continuously (and, of course, purposefully) misconstrue what I'm saying (as
you are doing now), it gets aggravating. Only then will I resort to firmer
language that pretty much *can't* be misconstrued.

Yet, despite all this, I STILL have not called you "dumb"...

;-)

(Because, BTW, I certainly don't believe you are. I wouldn't waste my time
responding if I thought you were.)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[George Patterson]

Icebound wrote:
>
> Oh?

Yep.

> Carb ice forms because the reduction of pressure in the intake, causes the
> air to cool below freezing, and if moist enough, the moisture condenses and
> freezes onto the butterfly.

The evaporation of fuel in the carb throat also accounts for about 20 degrees of
the temperature drop. The carb will warm up when you cut of the gas.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Jay Honeck]

> I fly an airplane with a 1633 pound useful load and I find quite an
> advantage to being light on fuel.

Holy cow. What GA plane has that kind of a useful load? A Caravan?

And, of course, if I were thinking about landing at a short field on a hot
day, I'd plan ahead and go light on fuel. As a matter of routine, though,
our average flight is into a paved strip of more than 3500 feet, somewhere
in the Midwest -- so more sprightly take off performance isn't as important
as knowing that I've got enough fuel on board.

Remember, our last plane was a 150 hp Warrior. Even at full gross, our 235
outperforms the Warrior, so my climb expectations are easily met!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> 1. I have learned from this discussion that everyone has an opinion,
> and their opinion is quite strongly held. Does anyone have any data,
> on either side, to back up their opinion? How often do planes have
> trouble caused by not knowing precisely how much gas they have,
> perhaps influenced by inaccurate gages? How often do planes have
> trouble caused by running a tank dry (NOT running the _last_ tank
> dry)?

I don't know if there's a way to adequately answer your question, as no
records (to my knowledge) are kept of this kind of thing.

The one record we all know, however, is the appallingly high number of
"accidents" that happen each year because of planes running out of gas.
This is a statistic that should be easily improved, yet, year after year,
the numbers stay stubbornly high.

Why? Carelessness and stupidity. There simply IS no other reason for
running out of gas. (Short of a fuel leak, of course.)

My wife and I are both pilots. We have both had it pounded into our heads
(by instructors, FAA seminars, and magazine articles) that it is the
ultimate display of ignorance to ever run out of fuel. Thus, our *very*
conservative fuel management system has evolved over the last decade, and it
has served us well.

In the end, we may ultimately succumb to some sort of an aviation mishap --
but I can almost guarantee that it will *not* be due to fuel exhaustion.

> 2. There seems to be a lot of discussion mentioning that the only way
> to be sure of your tank's capacity is to run it dry. In my reading
> about flying, I notice that folks talk about measuring fuel by looking
> in the tanks and perhaps using a dipstick. Couldn't you calibrate
> your gages by filling the tanks, going for a flight, then sticking a
> ruler into the tank to see how much is left? Is running the tank dry
> any more accurate or useful?

The bottom line is that with a dipstick (or, in our plane, with the gauges)
you will be accurate to within a gallon -- maybe two. The truth is, if this
amount of gas is the difference between a safe arrival, and an off-field
landing, you have made a VERY dumb mistake in your fuel management.

In short, if you need it more accurate than *that*, you are pushing your
range too close to the razor's edge.

> Is my characterization accurate?

Quite.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Now, here's one for you. You reset your totalizer but the Line Goober
> used an "auto off" nozzle that left you ten gallons short on a side. You
> run one dry, but now your totalizer thinks you have twenty gallons more
> than you have. Who now is the safe one? The one that timed a tank to see
> how long it ran dry (and hence remaining time in the other one, since
> Goober probably used the same technique on one tank as the other) or the
> one that relies on the totalizer with about two hours less than
> calculated?

Who the heck flies a plane without visually examining their fuel supply
before each flight?

Oh, wait -- I forgot about those silly *high wings* and that whole "find a
ladder" thing.

Sorry, man.

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

>> I trust my fuel gauges like I trust the IRS to help me with my taxes.
>> They'll tell me when I'm in deep doo-doo, but they won't keep me from
>> getting there.
>
>
> Luv it! Can I quote you on that?

Most excellent. Me, too?

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Well, after reading probably 100 posts in this thread over the past couple
> of days, I've got a question to put to you all. What is the chance that
> you run a tank dry and the switch to the other tank, only to discover that
> you had a collision with a tree on takeoff and the other tank (along with
> half the wing which contained it) was torn right off the airplane, and you
> never noticed. Then you'd be in deep doo-doo, right?
>
> What is this lunatic talking about, you ask? I'm talking about...
>
> http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005380500,00.html

Yep. Just when you think you've seen EVERYTHING possible, a guy like this
takes to the air in a seemingly non-airworthy plane, and flies innocently
into infamy.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose]

> Holy cow. What GA plane has that kind of a useful load?

A plane that has the GPS ripped out of it, along with the fuel
totalizer, the autopilot, the dual vacuum pumps, the auxilliary
electrical system, the third nav/com, the second nav/com, the DME, the
radar pod, and the sferics unit. Once you pull that stuff out of the
panel, you can carry some payload. :)

> As a matter of routine, though,
> our average flight is into a...

Well, not everyone flies your average flight, so not everyone will use
(or require) the same flying technique. This includes fuel management.
I can certainly understand the benefit of, indeed the -need- of,
deliberately running a tank dry under known and ontrolled conditions
during a flight - a four or six tank airplane which is flown to leave
half an hour in each tank isn't going to fly very far. OTOH, I fly a
two tank airplane near sea level, and I prefer to have some fuel in the
other tank at all times.

Neither method is a priori "dumb". It may well be dumb for =you=, with
the kind of flying =you= do, and the kind of plane =you= own, and the
kind of experience =you= have. But not everyone is Jay. Not everyone
=should= be Jay. Not everyone should =fly= like Jay.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Matt Barrow]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>
> >
> >>Starting out with partial fuel means you are starting with the C/G
> >>already partially aft.
> >>I always calculated both the takeoff and landing C/G when I flew the Bo
> >>I had access to.
> >
> >
> > All you need do is NOT overload the rear seats/baggage area.
>
> On a 1300 foot strip I will be all alone and will have removed the rear
> seats.
>
>
> >
> > I assume he's getting a V-tail; CG is much better with a straight tail
(yet
> > still a bit narrow).
>
> It is better with the A36, not with the 33's.

It is, but the 33 is still 2 1/2" wider than the 35, yet still more
sensitive than other four place jobbies. Still, I got a B36 so I could
easily handle four people total.

[Dave Stadt]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:yWwOe.299648$xm3.128272@attbi_s21...
> I don't know if there's a way to adequately answer your question, as no
> records (to my knowledge) are kept of this kind of thing.
>
> The one record we all know, however, is the appallingly high number of
> "accidents" that happen each year because of planes running out of gas.
> This is a statistic that should be easily improved, yet, year after year,
> the numbers stay stubbornly high.

Are the large numbers due to fuel exhaustion or fuel mismanagement. Seems I
remember a lot of engine out accidents are fuel mismanagement and not
exhaustion.

[[email protected]]

Many of you, it seems never read Deakin's article, or have given much
thought to the procedure. My normal fuel management, when we'd tow
banners, was takeoff on the left tank (the "main" because it has
pickups in the front and back of the tank) and fly for 30 minutes.
Depending on the day and the size of the banner, that would leave :45
to 2:30 hours remaining (fuel burn ranged from 5.2 gph to 9.5 gph.
Switch then to the right tank, and run dry.

Worst case scenario, and I have contaminated fuel in the right tank, I
still have enough in the main to get home on. After running the right
tank dry, I'd know EXACTLY how much longer I could stay on station, and
still land with my required reserve. Normally, I could predict within
5 minutes when the tank would run out, and I'd climb to a safe altitude
in preparation (usually 600' AGL) the most altitude I ever lost while
the engine restarted was 100' on a silky smooth day when that tank ran
TOTALY dry at once, normally it would sputter and cough a few times
first.

In addition to now knowing how much endurence I had, this also meant
that all my fuel was in one tank, and as others have said, if I was to
land with :30 minutes of fuel at 5.5/hr, I'd much rather have all 2.8
gallons in one tank, rather than 1.4 in each! In practice, we never
landed with less than 45 minutes though; we'd want to have enough to
get to our field, attempt a drop, go around with a fouled banner, and
then proceed to the nearest paved runway, land, and fly back to base.

A friend of mine very nearly put one in short of the runway once
because someone else wasn't familiar with the fuel burn, and fuel
capacity. He routinely would get a safe 5 hour endurance out of his
plane, with reserve. Someone else flew it on his day off, and landed
with both tanks on "E" This means very little in a Super Cub, as the
last mark on the gauge reads "3pt attitude- 1/4 to E".

The next day, we didn't have fuel at our strip, and had to refuel at a
nearby airport (4 miles distant). He took off on the last selected
tank (figuring that it was the one landed on, it would be the fullest)
it ran dry on him 1 mile from the airport. Swiching tanks, he was able
to get a restart, and taxi in to refuel. 17.4 gallons was pumped into
the dry tank, and 17.2 into the other. The other pilot later claimed
he "knew you flew it for 5 hours, so I landed after 4" He thought he
had at LEAST a 1:30 hour reserve when he landed, in reality, it was
about 4 minutes.

They were both very lucky; had the other pilot run a tank dry (damn
near did anyway) he would have known his endurance estimate was way
off, and he'd have to land sooner than anticipated. Of course, the
prudent thing to do would have been to drain 5 gallons from another
airplane and pour it into my friend's plane, to be sure he could make
it, but we both assumed that our coworker wouldn't land with less than
5 minutes of fuel in the tanks.

Food for thought,
Mike

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> > Ok, then give us just one example to back up your belief. Just one. And
> > next
...
>
> I always start off any thread as nice as pie. However, when posters
> continuously (and, of course, purposefully) misconstrue what I'm saying (as
> you are doing now), it gets aggravating.

So where do I misconstrue? And what was your example supporting your belief
again?


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

John,

> Fuel tanks are of various shapes and sizes.
>

which may even change, e.g. when a fuel bladder collapses partially.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mark,

> refueling adds an hour
> to your trip and the break to stretch your legs helps prevent fatigue on
> really long trips.
>

IF there is an airfield with fuel along the route. Which often isn't the
case.

Also, consider an airplane with 4 or even 6 fuel tanks, not at all
uncommon. Leaving, say, 5 gallons sloshing around in each robs you of 25
gallons of fuel - which is at least 1.5 hours flying time. That is quite a
lot. In fact, it could be considered a really good reserve. Except for
that, you'd want it all in one tank.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jay Honeck > posted:
>
> Who the heck flies a plane without visually examining their fuel
> supply before each flight?
>
> Oh, wait -- I forgot about those silly *high wings* and that whole
> "find a ladder" thing.
>
What is this "find a ladder" bit? Every Cessna I've flown has a built-in
step to allow visual inspection of the fuel level. It's part of the
pre-flight regimen. Along with the 13 drain points in newer models... I
just want to know how they managed to get so many low points in their
tanks, and who thought that was a Good Thing? ;-)

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Thomas Borchert > posted:

> Mark,
>
>> refueling adds an hour
>> to your trip and the break to stretch your legs helps prevent
>> fatigue on really long trips.
>>
>
> IF there is an airfield with fuel along the route. Which often isn't
> the case.
>
It's pretty rare not to find fuel within range in the US if you're east of
the Rockies or west of the Sierras. So, I'd think it's "often" the case if
you only fly in the stretch between the Rockies and the Sierras. ;-P

Neil

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-08-23, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> Oh, wait -- I forgot about those silly *high wings* and that whole "find a
> ladder" thing.

Many high wing planes have a method of checking the fuel without a
ladder (many provide a small step). The other great thing they provide
is the ability to check the fuel sumps without crawling on wet, dirty
ground and the ability to tie down without having to crawl on the ground
too :-)

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-08-22, Mark T. Dame > wrote:
> Wouldn't it be safer (maybe not simpler) to just drain the tank on the
> ground to find out?

Maybe not unless you are geared up with the right equipment (a proper
fuel tank that can hold however many gallons the fuel tank can) and the
right firefighting equipment.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[john smith]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>I fly an airplane with a 1633 pound useful load and I find quite an
>>advantage to being light on fuel.

> Holy cow. What GA plane has that kind of a useful load? A Caravan?

Have you ever looked inside an old, straight-backed Cessna 182 jumpship?
I would wager that they have 1600 pound useful load EASY!

[john smith]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Who the heck flies a plane without visually examining their fuel supply
> before each flight?
> Oh, wait -- I forgot about those silly *high wings* and that whole "find a
> ladder" thing.

Short people.

[john smith]

Dylan Smith wrote:
> Many high wing planes have a method of checking the fuel without a
> ladder (many provide a small step). The other great thing they provide
> is the ability to check the fuel sumps without crawling on wet, dirty
> ground and the ability to tie down without having to crawl on the ground
> too :-)

Spoken like a true trike-driver! :-))

[Thomas Borchert]

Neil,

> It's pretty rare not to find fuel within range in the US if you're east of
> the Rockies or west of the Sierras.
>

Hmm. My experience differs.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mark T. Dame]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>>I trust my fuel gauges like I trust the IRS to help me with my taxes.
>>>They'll tell me when I'm in deep doo-doo, but they won't keep me from
>>>getting there.
>>
>>Luv it! Can I quote you on that?
>
> Most excellent. Me, too?

Quote away. That and $5.00 will get you a coffee at Starbucks. (-:


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"All your base are belong us!!"

[Dale]

In article <pKwOe.58359$084.28309@attbi_s22>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> Holy cow. What GA plane has that kind of a useful load? A Caravan?

Cessna 206

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Dale]

In article >,
john smith > wrote:


>
> Have you ever looked inside an old, straight-backed Cessna 182 jumpship?
> I would wager that they have 1600 pound useful load EASY!

Not even close. More like 950-1000.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Thomas Borchert > posted:

> Neil,
>
>> It's pretty rare not to find fuel within range in the US if you're
>> east of the Rockies or west of the Sierras.
>>
>
> Hmm. My experience differs.
>
Perhaps we're working with different operational definitions for "fuel"
and "within range"?

Neil

[Newps]

Doug Carter wrote:

> In article >, RST Engineering wrote:
>
>>Now, here's one for you. You reset your totalizer but the Line Goober used
>>an "auto off" nozzle that left you ten gallons short on a side. You run one
>>dry, but now your totalizer thinks you have twenty gallons more than you
>>have.
>
>
> This assumes you are stupid enough to set your totalizer based on what
> the Line Goober said rather than checking the tanks yourself.

Line goobers and tank checking are irrelavant. You check the pump or
your receipt and that is what you enter into your totalizer.

[Mark T. Dame]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
>
>>refueling adds an hour
>>to your trip and the break to stretch your legs helps prevent fatigue on
>>really long trips.
>
> IF there is an airfield with fuel along the route. Which often isn't the
> case.

In my flying experience (admittedly east of the Mississippi is different
than flying out west) it's rare to not be able to reach an airport in
less than 15 minutes from wherever you are in the sky. But, regardless,
I fly a Cherokee Six for anything longer than two hours, which gives me,
conservatively, over five and half hours of gas. Since I don't fly
longer than four hours at a stretch (see above), I always have at least
1.5 hours reserve planned in. Sure that's more conservative than a lot
of people, but it's just not worth it to me to stretch it. An hour out
of my way to refuel is not that big of a deal. Trying to stretch my
range to save an hour, in my mind doesn't get me anything.


> Also, consider an airplane with 4 or even 6 fuel tanks, not at all
> uncommon. Leaving, say, 5 gallons sloshing around in each robs you of 25
> gallons of fuel - which is at least 1.5 hours flying time. That is quite a
> lot. In fact, it could be considered a really good reserve. Except for
> that, you'd want it all in one tank.

No, I wouldn't. I like having options. The way I fly, if I go for my
max endurance (mine, not the plane's) of four hours, I land with one
tank with 45-60 minutes of fuel and three others with 10-20 minutes
each. Since I'm landing with at least 45 minutes of fuel in the last
tank, the 30-45 minutes in the other three tanks is unnecessary. If I
had a problem with that tank, I have three others to choose from. If
all of my fuel is in one tank, I have no options. Sure, I would have to
really be on my toes in case the tank I switched to runs dry, but that's
better than not even having that option.

Basically, I fly with the attitude that no matter what happens, I will
have another option. In practice that's virtually impossible to do
(what option do you have if a Canadian goose flies through your
windscreen?) but somethings are easy. Fuel is one of the easy ones.

No, I won't go so far as saying that those that run tanks dry as part of
their fuel management system are dumb, but I will say that I feel that
they are taking an unnecessary risk. That's not a personal attack, just
my opinion of the practice. There are a lot of things I do that other
people consider taking unnecessary risks (and therefore a foolish thing
to do), like riding a motorcycle without a helmet. But, it's my choice
to do so.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"Don't be a flower snack!"
-- My son, "The Bean"

[Newps]

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Matt Barrow wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Starting out with partial fuel means you are starting with the C/G
>>>>already partially aft.
>>>>I always calculated both the takeoff and landing C/G when I flew the Bo
>>>>I had access to.
>>>
>>>
>>>All you need do is NOT overload the rear seats/baggage area.
>>
>>On a 1300 foot strip I will be all alone and will have removed the rear
>>seats.
>>
>>
>>
>>>I assume he's getting a V-tail; CG is much better with a straight tail
>
> (yet
>
>>>still a bit narrow).
>>
>>It is better with the A36, not with the 33's.
>
>
> It is, but the 33 is still 2 1/2" wider than the 35, yet still more

The 33's envelope goes two inches farther aft but starts two inches
farther aft too because the tail weighs more.

[Newps]

john smith wrote:

> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>> I fly an airplane with a 1633 pound useful load and I find quite an
>>> advantage to being light on fuel.
>
>
>> Holy cow. What GA plane has that kind of a useful load? A Caravan?
>
>
> Have you ever looked inside an old, straight-backed Cessna 182 jumpship?
> I would wager that they have 1600 pound useful load EASY!

Nope, not even close. The old 182's had the least useful. The newest
182's had almost 1400 pounds useful but that was a marketing ploy.
Cessna just raised the gross weight. The newer 182's(thru 1986) perform
the worst.

[George Patterson]

Newps wrote:
>
> The 33's envelope goes two inches farther aft but starts two inches
> farther aft too because the tail weighs more.

That seems backwards to me. A heavier tail should push the envelope forward, not
aft.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Holy cow. What GA plane has that kind of a useful load? A Caravan?

Cessna 185.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[RST Engineering]

Then you haven't flown many vintage Cessnas.

Jim



"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
.. .

>>
> What is this "find a ladder" bit? Every Cessna I've flown has a built-in
> step to allow visual inspection of the fuel level.

[George Patterson]

john smith wrote:
>
> Have you ever looked inside an old, straight-backed Cessna 182 jumpship?
> I would wager that they have 1600 pound useful load EASY!

Max gross - 2,950. Empty weight - 1,595.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Newps]

George Patterson wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>
>>
>> The 33's envelope goes two inches farther aft but starts two inches
>> farther aft too because the tail weighs more.
>
>
> That seems backwards to me. A heavier tail should push the envelope
> forward, not aft.

The tail has a greater surface area.

[Newps]

George Patterson wrote:

> john smith wrote:
>
>>
>> Have you ever looked inside an old, straight-backed Cessna 182
>> jumpship? I would wager that they have 1600 pound useful load EASY!
>
>
> Max gross - 2,950. Empty weight - 1,595.


There's no straight tails that have a 2950 gross weight, they're either
2550 or 2650.

[Icebound]

"Mark T. Dame" > wrote in message
...
> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>>
>>>refueling adds an hour to your trip and the break to stretch your legs
>>>helps prevent fatigue on really long trips.
>>
>> IF there is an airfield with fuel along the route. Which often isn't the
>> case.
>
> In my flying experience (admittedly east of the Mississippi is different
> than flying out west) it's rare to not be able to reach an airport in less
> than 15 minutes from wherever you are in the sky. But, regardless, I fly
> a Cherokee Six for anything longer than two hours, which gives me,
> conservatively, over five and half hours of gas. Since I don't fly longer
> than four hours at a stretch (see above), I always have at least 1.5 hours
> reserve planned in. Sure that's more conservative than a lot of people,
> but it's just not worth it to me to stretch it. An hour out of my way to
> refuel is not that big of a deal. Trying to stretch my range to save an
> hour, in my mind doesn't get me anything.
>
>
>> Also, consider an airplane with 4 or even 6 fuel tanks, not at all
>> uncommon. Leaving, say, 5 gallons sloshing around in each robs you of 25
>> gallons of fuel - which is at least 1.5 hours flying time. That is quite
>> a lot. In fact, it could be considered a really good reserve. Except for
>> that, you'd want it all in one tank.
>
....
> Basically, I fly with the attitude that no matter what happens, I will
> have another option. In practice that's virtually impossible to do (what
> option do you have if a Canadian goose flies through your windscreen?) but
> somethings are easy. Fuel is one of the easy ones.
>
> No, I won't go so far as saying that those that run tanks dry as part of
> their fuel management system are dumb, but I will say that I feel that
> they are taking an unnecessary risk. That's not a personal attack, just
> my opinion of the practice. There are a lot of things I do that other
> people consider taking unnecessary risks (and therefore a foolish thing to
> do), like riding a motorcycle without a helmet. But, it's my choice to do
> so.
>

Is this thread (and Mr. Deakin) forgetting that almost no accident is the
result of any single issue?

Running a tank dry by itself is not likely to be fatal, as many in this
thread have so vigorously pointed out quite rightly.

But if it gets coupled with some other condition, the restart may not be
that automatic. Since running a tank dry in the air is optional, why add an
item purposely to a possible chain that may already be there inadvertently?

So if you are *absolutely* sure that no other impediment to a restart
exists, go ahead and run the tank dry. Obviously, in the overwhelming
number of cases, no such impediment will exist and the world will proceed as
it should.

How sure am I that *this* time, that is still the case?

I think that I am with Jay on this one.

[Allen]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:2ZwOe.299657$xm3.285691@attbi_s21...
>
> Who the heck flies a plane without visually examining their fuel supply
> before each flight?
>
> Oh, wait -- I forgot about those silly *high wings* and that whole "find a
> ladder" thing.
>
> Sorry, man.
>
> :-)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Flying can be such a bother. First you have to check the fuel, how much,
what color, no water. Then you have to see if there is air in the tires.
Then make sure all the flappy things are attached so they don't fall off and
hurt someone. No nicks in the prop? Good. And don't get me started about
engine run-ups; they're the worst. By the time I'm ready to fly I am
usually to tired and just put it back in the hangar. (This is not at you
Jay, just seems to be the trend of this thread).

allen

[Doug Carter]

In article >, Newps wrote:

>> This assumes you are stupid enough to set your totalizer based on what
>> the Line Goober said rather than checking the tanks yourself.
>
> Line goobers and tank checking are irrelavant. You check the pump or
> your receipt and that is what you enter into your totalizer.

And if the Goober forgot to reset the pump? Good cross check though...

[Brian]

Hi Jay

You missed #5 and #6

#5. check the fuel level before every flight. with a little research I
bet I could find the NTSB report where the Arrow crashed on its 2nd
time around the pattern after being refueled the night before. NTSB
report doesn't say, but sounds like fuel was stolen or leaked out
overnight.

#6 Drain excess fuel becuase you have been reading the Do you fly over
Gross Thread.

Just a quick note. I agree that running tanks dry on a regular basis is
a very bad idea. However I think running tank dry under controlled
conditions can be very educational and safe. BTW. That is all that John
D was proposing in his artical as well.

You would be surprised at how many students have been taught to
simulate trying the starter after an engine failure and how many don't
switch fuel tanks at the 1st sign of an engine failure.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

[john smith]

>>>> I fly an airplane with a 1633 pound useful load and I find quite an
>>>> advantage to being light on fuel.

>>> Holy cow. What GA plane has that kind of a useful load? A Caravan?

>> Have you ever looked inside an old, straight-backed Cessna 182
>> jumpship? I would wager that they have 1600 pound useful load EASY!

> Nope, not even close. The old 182's had the least useful. The newest
> 182's had almost 1400 pounds useful but that was a marketing ploy.
> Cessna just raised the gross weight. The newer 182's(thru 1986) perform
> the worst.

On cool days we put five jumpers with gear, a pilot and an hours fuel
into one and operated off a 2200 foot strip. The only "interior" in the
aircraft was the pilot's seat.

[Jose]

> You would be surprised at how many students have been taught to
> simulate trying the starter after an engine failure and how many don't
> switch fuel tanks at the 1st sign of an engine failure.

I had a tank run dry unexpectedly on me; I've never seen myself hit the
mixture, carb heat, fuel selector, fuel pump, and have my hand on the
mags so fast! It was =way= different from the simulations my CFI pulled.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Matt Whiting]

Icebound wrote:

> "Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On 2005-08-21, Roy Smith > wrote:
>>
>>>Carb ice isn't going to form in a few seconds.
>>
>>It's even less likely to form if there's no fuel!
>>
>
>
> Oh?
>
> Carb ice forms because the reduction of pressure in the intake, causes the
> air to cool below freezing, and if moist enough, the moisture condenses and
> freezes onto the butterfly.
>
> If there is no fuel but the motor continues to be turned by the prop, does
> not carb suction (reduction in pressure ) still exist to some extent?

Yes, but the temperature reduction due to the loss of pressure is fairly
miniscule compared to the temperature reduction due to the evaporation
of the fuel.

Matt

[Thomas Borchert]

Icebound,

> Since running a tank dry in the air is optional,
>

Flying itself is optional...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Dale wrote:
>> Have you ever looked inside an old, straight-backed Cessna 182 jumpship?
>> I would wager that they have 1600 pound useful load EASY!
>
> Not even close. More like 950-1000.


He probably confused the useful load with what they usually carry.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-08-23, john smith > wrote:
> Dylan Smith wrote:
>> Many high wing planes have a method of checking the fuel without a
>> ladder (many provide a small step). The other great thing they provide
>> is the ability to check the fuel sumps without crawling on wet, dirty
>> ground and the ability to tie down without having to crawl on the ground
>> too :-)
>
> Spoken like a true trike-driver! :-))

If you're having to crawl on the ground to tie the tail down, you're
doing it wrong :-)

[for reference, the plane I currently fly the most has a free castoring
tailwheel, so take that you steerable tailwheel weenies!]

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[john smith]

>>Dylan Smith wrote:
>>>Many high wing planes have a method of checking the fuel without a
>>>ladder (many provide a small step). The other great thing they provide
>>>is the ability to check the fuel sumps without crawling on wet, dirty
>>>ground and the ability to tie down without having to crawl on the ground
>>>too :-)

> On 2005-08-23, john smith > wrote:
>>Spoken like a true trike-driver! :-))

Dylan Smith wrote:
> If you're having to crawl on the ground to tie the tail down, you're
> doing it wrong :-)
> [for reference, the plane I currently fly the most has a free castoring
> tailwheel, so take that you steerable tailwheel weenies!]

This thread is denigrating nicely!
BTW, there are now available locking devices for free castoring
tailwheels, you know?

[Matt Barrow]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> > "Newps" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>
> >>Matt Barrow wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>>Starting out with partial fuel means you are starting with the C/G
> >>>>already partially aft.
> >>>>I always calculated both the takeoff and landing C/G when I flew the
Bo
> >>>>I had access to.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>All you need do is NOT overload the rear seats/baggage area.
> >>
> >>On a 1300 foot strip I will be all alone and will have removed the rear
> >>seats.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>I assume he's getting a V-tail; CG is much better with a straight tail
> >
> > (yet
> >
> >>>still a bit narrow).
> >>
> >>It is better with the A36, not with the 33's.
> >
> >
> > It is, but the 33 is still 2 1/2" wider than the 35, yet still more
>
> The 33's envelope goes two inches farther aft but starts two inches
> farther aft too because the tail weighs more.
>
Gotcha...I was thinking of something else and did a reference fart.

[Jay Honeck]

>> Since running a tank dry in the air is optional,
>>
>
> Flying itself is optional...

Take-offs are optional. Landings are mandatory.

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> I had a tank run dry unexpectedly on me; I've never seen myself hit the
> mixture, carb heat, fuel selector, fuel pump, and have my hand on the mags
> so fast! It was =way= different from the simulations my CFI pulled.

Same here. I didn't think it was possible to change tanks as fast as I
did -- but a little adrenaline goes a long way!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[john smith]

>>I had a tank run dry unexpectedly on me; I've never seen myself hit the
>>mixture, carb heat, fuel selector, fuel pump, and have my hand on the mags
>>so fast! It was =way= different from the simulations my CFI pulled.

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Same here. I didn't think it was possible to change tanks as fast as I
> did -- but a little adrenaline goes a long way!

I tend to remember what I read in The Blue Sheet a few years ago.
An airliner was flying along when suddenly an alarm sounded and a light
began to flash. The first officer looks over at the pilot, ready to
respond to his commands. As the seconds tick by, the FO observes the
pilot sitting there, winding his watch. Finally, the FO cannot stand the
wait any longer and queries the captain, "Shouldn't we do something? Why
are you just sitting there winding your watch?"
To which the captain replies, "I never killed anyone winding my watch."

[Icebound]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Icebound,
>
>> Since running a tank dry in the air is optional,
>>
>
> Flying itself is optional...
>

*Life* is optional.

Once having embarked upon it, however, we would like to get through it as
safely as possible. :-)

[Brian]

One of my instructors told me about a time when he and another
instuctor were flying a 206 and inadvernatly ran a tank dry.
They about knocked each other silly as their heads collided as the both
reached for the Fuel Selector.

He says the were so focused on changing fuel that if they had hit
little harder they probably would have knocked themselves out and still
got the fuel selector changed. In which case no one would have ever
figured out why the crashed.


Brian

[Dale]

In article <QbHOe.2349$IG2.1697@trndny01>,
George Patterson > wrote:

> john smith wrote:
> >
> > Have you ever looked inside an old, straight-backed Cessna 182 jumpship?
> > I would wager that they have 1600 pound useful load EASY!
>
> Max gross - 2,950. Empty weight - 1,595.

Gross weight on the 182 is 2550 pounds, the 182A and 182B gross at 2650.
Gross didn't get up to 2950 pounds until they put the girlie swept tail
on them.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[RST Engineering]

With NO changes in engine horsepower, NO changes in wing design, NO changes
in nothing else except a net NEGATIVE CHANGE in rudder area ...

How (in an engineering sense) did they do that?

Jim





"Dale" > wrote in message
...
>
> Gross weight on the 182 is 2550 pounds, the 182A and 182B gross at 2650.
> Gross didn't get up to 2950 pounds until they put the girlie swept tail
> on them.
>
> --
> Dale L. Falk