Flying a PA-28 140 from Maine to Georgia in a week end ...

[Bud_of_yours]

How I flew my '68 Cherokee 140 to Savannah from Maine...
Or
"Wow! My butt is sore..."

Here is the set up.

I found a '68 Cherokee 140 that was a good fit for my wife and me.
It was priced right, it looked pretty good, and it had almost
everything I needed in it so I could get my instrument rating. There
were a couple of flies in the ointment, however. For one thing, it was
in Sanford, Maine. And for another it was out of annual. I sent the
guy a deposit, and he put it directly in the shop to get the annual
done. While that was being done I asked the mechanic to go ahead and
install pitot heat so that I could certify the plane for IFR. Between
the annual snowballing into a >$6K affair, and the parts for the pitot
heat addition not coming in the date for me to fly up and retrieve the
plane was slipping. The weekend prior to the Holiday weekend was my
last hope. If we hadn't been able to get it then it would be
mid-January before I could have my own plane at home.

Here is the story.

After rescheduling eTickets once ($$$ my wife and I were finally on our
way from Savannah International at 5:30 pm on Friday. We were to
arrive in Portland, Maine at 9:37 pm. After being diverted due to fog,
landing in Boston, and being bussed back up to Portland, we finally got
in bed at 2:30 am.

The seller picked us up the next morning at 8:15 am and took us to see
the plane. Of course the plane wasn't quite ready... Seems that the
airspeed indicator was screwed up and when they checked out the
pitot/static system it showed up. So we were waiting on UPS to bring
the new one.

My insurance company required that I have an hour with a CFI before we
left for home. The seller had booked me for an hour on Saturday,
however, my hour came and went as the mechanics were installing the new
airspeed indicator. My wife and I decided to go get lunch while the
instructor took his scheduled student up for an hour.

By the time we finally got the plane rolled out, fueled up, and flown
for an hour it was nearly 2:30 pm. The folks at the FBO really were
concerned that we would blast off into the wild blue in an unfamiliar
airplane for a LONG VFR NIGHT cross country. They suggested that we
wait until morning to leave, but, we both felt that we needed to at
least "start" for home.

We took a quick look at the sectional and picked out something down the
road that looked big enough to have a place to eat and sleep. Bedford,
MA was going to be our first stop.
As in a lot of first flights after annual, we had a little problem show
up as we headed into Bedford's Hanscomb Field. It seems that they
could receive our Mode C. In fact, they couldn't see our transponder
at all. *Damn!* After having us do a couple of turns for
identification, they let us come on in and land. Less than an hour
into the trip and we've already had an issue.

By the way, Signature Flight Support treated us like a King and Queen.
Even though we taxied up in a lowly Cherokee, the treated us just as if
we had flown in a 747.

The next morning at 8:00 am we headed out. Because the xponder was on
the fritz, the controller asked us to cycle the power three or four
times before she finally turned us loose. Because I knew we were going
to be difficult for ATC to see and track I punched a route into the
GPSMAP 195 that kept us clear of all the busiest airports.

We flew southwesterly into a 30kt headwind for about 2 hours before
Mother Nature notified my wife that it was time for us to stop. We
took a restroom break in Middletown, NY and continued on, after going
around and landing to close her door.

Our next stop was Reading, PA, west of Philadelphia. After a pretty
good lunch and 44 gallons of 100LL we were on our way again. We turned
the corner and headed south at Hagerstown, MD. I knew that we were
going to have to make at least one more fuel stop before we got home so
I picked out Lynchburg, VA. I figured that if we could make it that
far, even if we had troubles Brother Falwell could probably pray us on
home !!! (just kidding...)

We made it to Lynchburg at about 3:30 pm, bought fuel and picked up
some snacks. Leaving Lynchburg headed south we saw about 120 kts
groundspeed !!! Whoo Wooo, we're cooking now!!! One of the most
beautiful sunsets I've ever seen was as the sun went down over the
mountains south of Lynchburg.

Somewhere over southern North Carolina we were cruising along at 4500
AMSL when the ground lights went out !!! We ran through a layer of
little puffy clouds. I dropped down to 3000 AMSL for the remainder of
the trip.

We arrived in the Savannah, GA area at about 8:30 pm. What a welcomed
sight! We were on the ground and tied down by 8:45 pm.

I learned quite a lot on this flight. I learned that the little
Cherokee was a good, dependable plane. During the annual it had two
cylinders replaced, so I flew it firewalled all the way home to break
in the cylinders and it never missed a beat.

In one day I flew the plane more hours than the previous owner had
flown it in the last year.

[pgbnh]

Sounds like an adventure, but also a great opportunity to get acquainted
with the new plane. I have been to Sanford often (based at MHT about 50nm
SE).

But a question about your comment:
"I asked the mechanic to go ahead and
install pitot heat so that I could certify the plane for IFR"

Not disputing that pitot heat is not a good idea, but why do you believe it
is required for ifr certification. And what exactly IS IFR certification.
Only items I was aware of are the flight instrument requirements, the
pitot/static requirements, and the transponder requirement. (and of course
having the necessary electronics to navigate). Not sure aboiut P/S though.
"Bud_of_yours" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> How I flew my '68 Cherokee 140 to Savannah from Maine...
> Or
> "Wow! My butt is sore..."
>
> Here is the set up.
>
> I found a '68 Cherokee 140 that was a good fit for my wife and me.
> It was priced right, it looked pretty good, and it had almost
> everything I needed in it so I could get my instrument rating. There
> were a couple of flies in the ointment, however. For one thing, it was
> in Sanford, Maine. And for another it was out of annual. I sent the
> guy a deposit, and he put it directly in the shop to get the annual
> done. While that was being done I asked the mechanic to go ahead and
> install pitot heat so that I could certify the plane for IFR. Between
> the annual snowballing into a >$6K affair, and the parts for the pitot
> heat addition not coming in the date for me to fly up and retrieve the
> plane was slipping. The weekend prior to the Holiday weekend was my
> last hope. If we hadn't been able to get it then it would be
> mid-January before I could have my own plane at home.
>
> Here is the story.
>
> After rescheduling eTickets once ($$$ my wife and I were finally on our
> way from Savannah International at 5:30 pm on Friday. We were to
> arrive in Portland, Maine at 9:37 pm. After being diverted due to fog,
> landing in Boston, and being bussed back up to Portland, we finally got
> in bed at 2:30 am.
>
> The seller picked us up the next morning at 8:15 am and took us to see
> the plane. Of course the plane wasn't quite ready... Seems that the
> airspeed indicator was screwed up and when they checked out the
> pitot/static system it showed up. So we were waiting on UPS to bring
> the new one.
>
> My insurance company required that I have an hour with a CFI before we
> left for home. The seller had booked me for an hour on Saturday,
> however, my hour came and went as the mechanics were installing the new
> airspeed indicator. My wife and I decided to go get lunch while the
> instructor took his scheduled student up for an hour.
>
> By the time we finally got the plane rolled out, fueled up, and flown
> for an hour it was nearly 2:30 pm. The folks at the FBO really were
> concerned that we would blast off into the wild blue in an unfamiliar
> airplane for a LONG VFR NIGHT cross country. They suggested that we
> wait until morning to leave, but, we both felt that we needed to at
> least "start" for home.
>
> We took a quick look at the sectional and picked out something down the
> road that looked big enough to have a place to eat and sleep. Bedford,
> MA was going to be our first stop.
> As in a lot of first flights after annual, we had a little problem show
> up as we headed into Bedford's Hanscomb Field. It seems that they
> could receive our Mode C. In fact, they couldn't see our transponder
> at all. *Damn!* After having us do a couple of turns for
> identification, they let us come on in and land. Less than an hour
> into the trip and we've already had an issue.
>
> By the way, Signature Flight Support treated us like a King and Queen.
> Even though we taxied up in a lowly Cherokee, the treated us just as if
> we had flown in a 747.
>
> The next morning at 8:00 am we headed out. Because the xponder was on
> the fritz, the controller asked us to cycle the power three or four
> times before she finally turned us loose. Because I knew we were going
> to be difficult for ATC to see and track I punched a route into the
> GPSMAP 195 that kept us clear of all the busiest airports.
>
> We flew southwesterly into a 30kt headwind for about 2 hours before
> Mother Nature notified my wife that it was time for us to stop. We
> took a restroom break in Middletown, NY and continued on, after going
> around and landing to close her door.
>
> Our next stop was Reading, PA, west of Philadelphia. After a pretty
> good lunch and 44 gallons of 100LL we were on our way again. We turned
> the corner and headed south at Hagerstown, MD. I knew that we were
> going to have to make at least one more fuel stop before we got home so
> I picked out Lynchburg, VA. I figured that if we could make it that
> far, even if we had troubles Brother Falwell could probably pray us on
> home !!! (just kidding...)
>
> We made it to Lynchburg at about 3:30 pm, bought fuel and picked up
> some snacks. Leaving Lynchburg headed south we saw about 120 kts
> groundspeed !!! Whoo Wooo, we're cooking now!!! One of the most
> beautiful sunsets I've ever seen was as the sun went down over the
> mountains south of Lynchburg.
>
> Somewhere over southern North Carolina we were cruising along at 4500
> AMSL when the ground lights went out !!! We ran through a layer of
> little puffy clouds. I dropped down to 3000 AMSL for the remainder of
> the trip.
>
> We arrived in the Savannah, GA area at about 8:30 pm. What a welcomed
> sight! We were on the ground and tied down by 8:45 pm.
>
> I learned quite a lot on this flight. I learned that the little
> Cherokee was a good, dependable plane. During the annual it had two
> cylinders replaced, so I flew it firewalled all the way home to break
> in the cylinders and it never missed a beat.
>
> In one day I flew the plane more hours than the previous owner had
> flown it in the last year.
>

[Barney Rubble]

Hmm, let's see, low time in make/model, just out of annual, a touch of get
homeitis combined with a long XC. No mode C due to transponder on the fritz,
inadvertent flight into IMC at night and subsequent scud running , departing
with door unlatched....
You do like to live on the edge don't you?
I guess you also landed in Reading with 3 galloons of useable fuel (50 gal
capacity/47 useable on a standard 1968 Cherokee 140), hmm 7GPH, it sounds
like you broke 91.151.

I'm glad you have a new plane and I'm happy for you, but this trip report
should set off some alarm bells about you flight planning and decision
making....

- Barney

[Bud_of_yours]

pgbnh wrote:
> Sounds like an adventure, but also a great opportunity to get acquainted
> with the new plane. I have been to Sanford often (based at MHT about 50nm
> SE).
>
> But a question about your comment:
> "I asked the mechanic to go ahead and
> install pitot heat so that I could certify the plane for IFR"
>
> Not disputing that pitot heat is not a good idea, but why do you believe it
> is required for ifr certification. And what exactly IS IFR certification.
> Only items I was aware of are the flight instrument requirements, the
> pitot/static requirements, and the transponder requirement. (and of course
> having the necessary electronics to navigate). Not sure aboiut P/S though.

I'm not sure that pitot heat is actually required... But, I'm sure
gonna feel better with it. At some point I may have heard someone say
that pitot heat was a requirement, and just added it to my list of
"common knowledge". LOL

[tom418]

Some years ago I sold my previous Seneca on Long Island. The buyer was a
school in Florida, who flew up (co rep and their CFI) to take delivery. As
they were preparing to leave, their CFI, while filing IFR, was asking me: "
how fast does it go?" Hmmm.... This guy was suppposedly experienced in
Senecas, was about to fly several hundred miles IFR in a plane he had
"experience" in and didn't know what to put as TAS on the flight plan.
Wonderful.
"Barney Rubble" > wrote in message
...
> Hmm, let's see, low time in make/model, just out of annual, a touch of get
> homeitis combined with a long XC. No mode C due to transponder on the
fritz,
> inadvertent flight into IMC at night and subsequent scud running ,
departing
> with door unlatched....
> You do like to live on the edge don't you?
> I guess you also landed in Reading with 3 galloons of useable fuel (50
gal
> capacity/47 useable on a standard 1968 Cherokee 140), hmm 7GPH, it sounds
> like you broke 91.151.
>
> I'm glad you have a new plane and I'm happy for you, but this trip report
> should set off some alarm bells about you flight planning and decision
> making....
>
> - Barney
>
>
>

[kontiki]

Barney Rubble wrote:
> Hmm, let's see, low time in make/model, just out of annual, a touch of get
> homeitis combined with a long XC. No mode C due to transponder on the fritz,
> inadvertent flight into IMC at night and subsequent scud running , departing
> with door unlatched....
> You do like to live on the edge don't you?
> I guess you also landed in Reading with 3 galloons of useable fuel (50 gal
> capacity/47 useable on a standard 1968 Cherokee 140), hmm 7GPH, it sounds
> like you broke 91.151.
>
> I'm glad you have a new plane and I'm happy for you, but this trip report
> should set off some alarm bells about you flight planning and decision
> making....

I'm glad I wasn't the only one who was somewhat disconcerted about you
flying off with your bride in an airplane that you had low time in etc.

I am glad you are serious about getting an instrument rating though.

[kontiki]

tom418 wrote:
> Some years ago I sold my previous Seneca on Long Island. The buyer was a
> school in Florida, who flew up (co rep and their CFI) to take delivery. As
> they were preparing to leave, their CFI, while filing IFR, was asking me: "
> how fast does it go?"

You should have said: "uhh.. it goes pretty fast..."

[Barney Rubble]

I think you meant this for the OP. I already have an IR....

- Barney

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Barney Rubble wrote:
>> Hmm, let's see, low time in make/model, just out of annual, a touch of
>> get homeitis combined with a long XC. No mode C due to transponder on the
>> fritz, inadvertent flight into IMC at night and subsequent scud running ,
>> departing with door unlatched....
>> You do like to live on the edge don't you?
>> I guess you also landed in Reading with 3 galloons of useable fuel (50
>> gal capacity/47 useable on a standard 1968 Cherokee 140), hmm 7GPH, it
>> sounds like you broke 91.151.
>>
>> I'm glad you have a new plane and I'm happy for you, but this trip report
>> should set off some alarm bells about you flight planning and decision
>> making....
>
> I'm glad I wasn't the only one who was somewhat disconcerted about you
> flying off with your bride in an airplane that you had low time in etc.
>
> I am glad you are serious about getting an instrument rating though.

[[email protected]]

"Barney Rubble" is absolutely correct...
"Bud" doesn't realize just how close he was to introducing himself and
his wife to the (lack of) glide capability of his new Cherokee 140.


Barney Rubble wrote:
> Hmm, let's see, low time in make/model, just out of annual, a touch of get
> homeitis combined with a long XC. No mode C due to transponder on the fritz,
> inadvertent flight into IMC at night and subsequent scud running , departing
> with door unlatched....
> You do like to live on the edge don't you?
> I guess you also landed in Reading with 3 galloons of useable fuel (50 gal
> capacity/47 useable on a standard 1968 Cherokee 140), hmm 7GPH, it sounds
> like you broke 91.151.
>
> I'm glad you have a new plane and I'm happy for you, but this trip report
> should set off some alarm bells about you flight planning and decision
> making....
>
> - Barney

[kontiki]

Barney Rubble wrote:
> I think you meant this for the OP. I already have an IR....
>
> - Barney

That's affirmative.

[Tony]

I mean this in a positive way: threads and responses like these are
likely to make us all safer pilots.It's peer review at its finest.



On Dec 22, 11:28 pm, wrote:
> "Barney Rubble" is absolutely correct...
> "Bud" doesn't realize just how close he was to introducing himself and
> his wife to the (lack of) glide capability of his new Cherokee 140.
>
>
>
> Barney Rubble wrote:
> > Hmm, let's see, low time in make/model, just out of annual, a touch of get
> > homeitis combined with a long XC. No mode C due to transponder on the fritz,
> > inadvertent flight into IMC at night and subsequent scud running , departing
> > with door unlatched....
> > You do like to live on the edge don't you?
> > I guess you also landed in Reading with 3 galloons of useable fuel (50 gal
> > capacity/47 useable on a standard 1968 Cherokee 140), hmm 7GPH, it sounds
> > like you broke 91.151.
>
> > I'm glad you have a new plane and I'm happy for you, but this trip report
> > should set off some alarm bells about you flight planning and decision
> > making....
>
> > - Barney- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

[[email protected]]

Absolutely.

'Tis much better to read about such things that to have to learn them
firsthand... like a good friend who had to put his new Cherokee 180
down in a soft plowed farm field a mere 1 mile short of the approach
end of our home runway due to fuel exhaustion... breaking off a main
gear & nose gear as they sunk into the soft dirt, and bashing his knee
into the lower instrument panel hard enough to crack his kneecap in the
very short rollout.

It was a "good" landing, however, as all occupants walked away with
relatively minor injuries and the airplane was repairable and is flying
once again. For some strange reason, he never allows his fuel to run
down lower than a one hour reserve anymore.

Tony wrote:
> I mean this in a positive way: threads and responses like these are
> likely to make us all safer pilots.It's peer review at its finest.
>
>
>
> On Dec 22, 11:28 pm, wrote:
> > "Barney Rubble" is absolutely correct...
> > "Bud" doesn't realize just how close he was to introducing himself and
> > his wife to the (lack of) glide capability of his new Cherokee 140.
> >
> >
> >
> > Barney Rubble wrote:
> > > Hmm, let's see, low time in make/model, just out of annual, a touch of get
> > > homeitis combined with a long XC. No mode C due to transponder on the fritz,
> > > inadvertent flight into IMC at night and subsequent scud running , departing
> > > with door unlatched....
> > > You do like to live on the edge don't you?
> > > I guess you also landed in Reading with 3 galloons of useable fuel (50 gal
> > > capacity/47 useable on a standard 1968 Cherokee 140), hmm 7GPH, it sounds
> > > like you broke 91.151.
> >
> > > I'm glad you have a new plane and I'm happy for you, but this trip report
> > > should set off some alarm bells about you flight planning and decision
> > > making....
> >
> > > - Barney- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

[M[_1_]]

Do your Cherokee a favor and get an autofuel STC for the low
compression engine. You'll love the fuel savings.

Bud_of_yours wrote:
> How I flew my '68 Cherokee 140 to Savannah from Maine...
> Or
> "Wow! My butt is sore..."
>
> Here is the set up.
>
> I found a '68 Cherokee 140 that was a good fit for my wife and me.

[Longworth[_1_]]

On Dec 22, 2:19 pm, "Bud_of_yours" > wrote:
> How I flew my '68 Cherokee 140 to Savannah from Maine...

Bud,
Congratulations on the purchase of your first plane.
I assumed that the annual was done by a shop chosen by the previous
owner. Did you check on that shop reputation? The fact that the plane
was flown infrequently and the transponder did not work right after the
annual concerned me a bit.
Thank you for taking the time to write about your long cross country
flight. It was quite an eventful trip.
At first, I thought Barney's post was a bit harsh. On further
thought, I agreed with Tony that " threads and responses like these are
likely to make us all safer pilots.It's peer review at its finest".
If you have not already done so, I would suggest filing a NASA
report immediately.
I had recently discovered that you can signup to be on the mailing list
to receive "Callback" newsletters. The newsletters are also online at

http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/callback_nf.htm

Hai Longworth

[M[_1_]]

> For some strange reason, he never allows his fuel to run
> down lower than a one hour reserve anymore.
>

Although this is a reasonable approach to fuel management, it's not the
most professional approach, nor does it allow the maximum utility of
one's aircraft. A competent pilot should, under certain circumstances,
land his plane with 30 minute fuel remaining, and do so safely without
anxiety.

It requires a complete confidence of fuel burn, which can only come
from many hours of operation of the exact same aircraft and proper
leaning procedure under all conditions and power setting. It requires
very detailed planning, because weather plays a significant role in
determining fuel reserve. It also requires a continuous re-evaluation
of weather and fuel situations in-flight, because weather can change
unexpectedly in a long flight that can affect what a safe fuel reserve
is. Last, it requires a clear alternative of what to do if something
unexpected happen at the destination runway: what if the runway you
intend to land become unavailable right when you approach the airport
with 30 minute fuel in the tank?

With all that, it is possible to plan a flight with 30 minute fuel
reserve. However it's just not possible to do this safely with a
unfamiliar aircraft.

[nrp]

A competent pilot should, under certain circumstances,
> land his plane with 30 minute fuel remaining, and do so safely without
> anxiety.

This should be taught in primary training - but it was not in my case.
Maybe something like having the student predict the fuel burn &
measuring the tank with a FuelHawk (or similar) before and after a
lesson. We just wiggled our fingers in the fuel caps of the C150.

I've heard lot of others with higher ratings etc than me say that a
student should always learn to fly in a fully fueled aircraft - but
that's just not the real world.

[Roy Smith]

In article m>,
"nrp" > wrote:

> A competent pilot should, under certain circumstances,
> > land his plane with 30 minute fuel remaining, and do so safely without
> > anxiety.
>
> This should be taught in primary training - but it was not in my case.
> Maybe something like having the student predict the fuel burn &
> measuring the tank with a FuelHawk (or similar) before and after a
> lesson. We just wiggled our fingers in the fuel caps of the C150.
>
> I've heard lot of others with higher ratings etc than me say that a
> student should always learn to fly in a fully fueled aircraft - but
> that's just not the real world.

Well, as "M" said, fuel planning like that is really only possible in a
personally owned airplane, where you have extensive experience with that
particular machine and are willing to execute a level of flight planning
which is (sadly) far beyond what I see most people doing.

In the environment I operate in (a flying club with 8 planes), people are
flying in different planes each time they fly. It's just not possible to
know the exact performance of any particular airplane that exactly. Nor is
it possible to know the exact fuel state except when a tank is full (or at
one or two special part-full points such as "to the tab"). With a
privately owned plane, you can keep a running history such as "I know I was
full, then burned off 34 gallons per the fuel totalizer, then added 10".

I also know that all the planes we have will get off the ground just fine a
little over-gross. I have far less confidence in their ability to make it
to the runway with the tanks a little under-empty.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, M > posted:

>> For some strange reason, he never allows his fuel to run
>> down lower than a one hour reserve anymore.
>>
>
> Although this is a reasonable approach to fuel management, it's not
> the most professional approach, nor does it allow the maximum utility
> of one's aircraft. A competent pilot should, under certain
> circumstances, land his plane with 30 minute fuel remaining, and do
> so safely without anxiety.
>
> It requires a complete confidence of fuel burn, which can only come
> from many hours of operation of the exact same aircraft and proper
> leaning procedure under all conditions and power setting. It requires
> very detailed planning, because weather plays a significant role in
> determining fuel reserve. It also requires a continuous re-evaluation
> of weather and fuel situations in-flight, because weather can change
> unexpectedly in a long flight that can affect what a safe fuel reserve
> is. Last, it requires a clear alternative of what to do if something
> unexpected happen at the destination runway: what if the runway you
> intend to land become unavailable right when you approach the airport
> with 30 minute fuel in the tank?
>
> With all that, it is possible to plan a flight with 30 minute fuel
> reserve. However it's just not possible to do this safely with a
> unfamiliar aircraft.
>
I question this scenario as you've presented it. As you've pointed out,
the weather plays a large part in fuel burn over a distance. Landing your
plane with 30 minutes reserve fuel presumes that when you've travelled x.y
hours at a particular burn rate, the airport is right under you. Chances
are good that will not be the case, and you will wind up with either more
or less than 30 minutes fuel remaining.

Also as you've pointed out, another consideration is that accurate leaning
is important to precise fuel burn. However, as GA mixture controls lack
precise calibration, one of the few other ways to know your fuel
consumption would be with a fuel flow meter. Many planes are not so
equipped, and if the plane you fly is one of those, then it doesn't really
matter whether you own it or not; you're making a guess about the
precision based on past experience, possibly against RPM.

Lastly, how much fuel should be remaining at your destination may be
better determined by how much additional fuel might be needed if there is
some unexpected problem at the destination. I wouldn't want to have 30
minutes remaining at the destination if the alternative is 45 minutes
away. ;-)

Regards, happy holidays and safe flying!

Neil

[Tony]

Aboutr fuel planning, flight endurance and fuel burn: I have a big
bunch of hours in my Mooney. It holds something like 33 gallons a side,
I almost always take off with full tanks. I would not dream of planning
a trip with 30 miutes reserve, and I know the airplane well. I f;ly
half the takeoff tank away, then most of the other tank, and when I
switch back to the take off tank, with 25% of the fuel still aboard,
I'm going to land for fuel, period, even if my RON is only 100 miles
farther along.

There are some obvious items careful readers will note: even with
careless leaning the bird will burn only 10 gph, so it has really long
legs. Carefully leaned at altitude I can get a bit more than 8 gph, so
range is rarely an issue. I might think differently if I was flying a
172, but probably not. Would I fly with a general aviation PIC who
plans on a 30 minute reserve at the planned termination of a flight?
I've never met anyone that good, thank you very much. My butt might not
be worth much, but it's the only one I have.




On Dec 24, 9:52 am, "Longworth" > wrote:
> On Dec 22, 2:19 pm, "Bud_of_yours" > wrote:
>
> > How I flew my '68 Cherokee 140 to Savannah from Maine...Bud,
> Congratulations on the purchase of your first plane.
> I assumed that the annual was done by a shop chosen by the previous
> owner. Did you check on that shop reputation? The fact that the plane
> was flown infrequently and the transponder did not work right after the
> annual concerned me a bit.
> Thank you for taking the time to write about your long cross country
> flight. It was quite an eventful trip.
> At first, I thought Barney's post was a bit harsh. On further
> thought, I agreed with Tony that " threads and responses like these are
> likely to make us all safer pilots.It's peer review at its finest".
> If you have not already done so, I would suggest filing a NASA
> report immediately.
> I had recently discovered that you can signup to be on the mailing list
> to receive "Callback" newsletters. The newsletters are also online at
>
> http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/callback_nf.htm
>
> Hai Longworth

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Roy Smith wrote:
> I also know that all the planes we have will get off the ground just fine a
> little over-gross. I have far less confidence in their ability to make it
> to the runway with the tanks a little under-empty.


Too true. My personal rule is at the point where I'm starting to worry about
fuel, I don't have enough.

All the pontification I've been reading from the purists with the totalizers is
getting to be a bit much for me. I've never flown an aircraft with a totalizer
and somehow have survived the experience.

And as far as the trip that started this whole thread goes, I don't see what
everybody is whining about. To me, it sounded like a typical trip in a new (to
him) aircraft. Stuff like the transponder failure are par for the course.

Apparently flying a whole fleet of crappy aircraft has made me somewhat more
forgiving in that regard, I suppose. I *expect* things not to all work at the
same time.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Roy Smith]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote:
> All the pontification I've been reading from the purists with the totalizers
> is getting to be a bit much for me. I've never flown an aircraft with a
> totalizer and somehow have survived the experience.

Most of my club's planes now have totalizers. At first, I thought they
would be a great tool for more precise fuel management. Over time,
however, I've come to realize that, like many other things, they're not as
magical as you might think.

If they are correctly calibrated, they can be amazingly accurate. The
problem is, in a fleet like mine, you can never really know if they're
calibrated or not. Each unit has a "k factor" which must be determined and
programmed into the unit. If the k factor is wrong, what you've got is a
very precise random number generator. You can reset the k factor with some
combination of button presses, and you never know which of the N pilots who
flew the plane before you have finger-****ed the unit sufficiently to reset
the calibration.

The units have the potential to be a very valuable addition to the panel.
If properly interfaced with your GPS, you can get information like "how
many minutes of fuel will I have left when I reach my destination?" Of
course, that assumes that your current fuel burn rate will remain constant
for the rest of the flight, and the winds won't change, and you won't get
rerouted, etc. And that the k-factor is set right. And that you've
mastered the totally inscrutable user interface sufficiently to have set
the starting fuel quantity correctly.

[M[_1_]]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

>
> Too true. My personal rule is at the point where I'm starting to worry about
> fuel, I don't have enough.
>
> All the pontification I've been reading from the purists with the totalizers is
> getting to be a bit much for me. I've never flown an aircraft with a totalizer
> and somehow have survived the experience.

I don't have a fuel totalizer. However I won't hesitate to plan a
flight with 30 minute fuel reserve if all the conditions I mentioned in
my previous post are met. Fuel reserve has more to do with weather,
alternate runways, enroute progress check than an arbitrary number of
minute in fuel reserve. One can easily name a situation when even an
hour of fuel reserve isn't safe (say flying a limited range aircraft to
a wide spread IFR area).

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

M wrote:
> I don't have a fuel totalizer. However I won't hesitate to plan a
> flight with 30 minute fuel reserve if all the conditions I mentioned in
> my previous post are met. Fuel reserve has more to do with weather,
> alternate runways, enroute progress check than an arbitrary number of
> minute in fuel reserve. One can easily name a situation when even an
> hour of fuel reserve isn't safe (say flying a limited range aircraft to
> a wide spread IFR area).


Not me, Buddy. I once ran a C-210 out of gas at the end of a 45 minute flight
that started with 1.5 hour's fuel (figured from elapsed time). Beautiful VFR
weather coming back from Freeport, Bahamas into Ft. Pierce, FL. Ended up with
one wing hanging over the edge of the tarmac at Ft. Pierce... another 30
second's fuel and I'd have been fine. As it was, it only injured my pride and
my wallet a bit. No violation from the feds at least....

They teach you not to believe the fuel gauges; to go by elapsed time instead.
Well, I did, and it bit me on the ass. So now I leave with full tanks and take
elapsed time with a grain of salt. And once I start worrying about fuel, I stop
and get some because I don't have enough. As a result, I never really worry
about fuel anymore except in the planning phase of the flight.

30 minutes? Sheeeeiiitttt.


--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote:

> Not me, Buddy. I once ran a C-210 out of gas at the end of a 45 minute
> flight that started with 1.5 hour's fuel (figured from elapsed time).

So, what went wrong?

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Roy Smith wrote:
> In article >,
> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Not me, Buddy. I once ran a C-210 out of gas at the end of a 45 minute
>> flight that started with 1.5 hour's fuel (figured from elapsed time).
>
> So, what went wrong?


Never really found out. Personally, I think fuel was stolen at Freeport. I
took off early in the morning; I couldn't buy fuel or find a ladder to climb up
and physically look in the fuel tanks. For me to run out when I actually did,
mathmatics would suggest I burned over 22 gallons an hour. That just wasn't
possible. I had averaged maybe 15 gallons block to block on earlier trips. 65%
power at my selected altitude should have yielded about 13.5 gallons per hour at
cruise.

Anyway, I freely admit I screwed the pooch on many different planes, pardon the
pun. Be that as it may, and after much grumbling from the FAA, they finally
decided to do nothing. No violation, no civil penalty, not even a nasty letter.
It just went away.

However, I have adjusted my practices quite a bit in the years that followed.
And of course, my personal rule about worrying about fuel means I don't have
enough came out of that.

As an aside: my father, a former USAF command pilot, ran out of gas while
driving near his home a couple of weeks later. Some wag down there asked if
he'd taught me how to fly. <G>



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[M[_1_]]

Ok, I have to admit, for me to plan a flight with 30 minute fuel
reserve, I have to start with full tanks. Otherwise there're just too
many variables to do it safely.


Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

>
>
> Never really found out. Personally, I think fuel was stolen at Freeport.

[nrp]

I contend a better way to set power is needed in fixed pitch A/C. We
had a manifold pressure gage in our 172. Others thought it was
guilding a lily, but fuel consumption could be predicted within maybe 4
percent. A tachometer is so variable w altitude.

[Matt Whiting]

M wrote:

> Ok, I have to admit, for me to plan a flight with 30 minute fuel
> reserve, I have to start with full tanks. Otherwise there're just too
> many variables to do it safely.

Even with full tanks, there are too many variables to really fly down to
30 minutes left. Just being a little off level when you fill your tanks
can make enough difference to make 30 minutes dicey in a plane that
burns less than 6 gallons in 30 minutes. That isn't much margin.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

nrp wrote:

> I contend a better way to set power is needed in fixed pitch A/C. We
> had a manifold pressure gage in our 172. Others thought it was
> guilding a lily, but fuel consumption could be predicted within maybe 4
> percent. A tachometer is so variable w altitude.
>

How does a tachometer vary with altitude? The tachometer reads
accurately at most any altitude.


Matt

[M[_1_]]

Neil Gould wrote:

> I question this scenario as you've presented it. As you've pointed out,
> the weather plays a large part in fuel burn over a distance. Landing your
> plane with 30 minutes reserve fuel presumes that when you've travelled x.y
> hours at a particular burn rate, the airport is right under you. Chances
> are good that will not be the case, and you will wind up with either more
> or less than 30 minutes fuel remaining.

Well, that's why you would need multiple "continue on or land to
refuel" checkpoints for such flight. With a GPS, it's fairly easy to
tell at multiple points enroute whether you're ahead or behind.

>
> Also as you've pointed out, another consideration is that accurate leaning
> is important to precise fuel burn. However, as GA mixture controls lack
> precise calibration, one of the few other ways to know your fuel
> consumption would be with a fuel flow meter. Many planes are not so
> equipped, and if the plane you fly is one of those, then it doesn't really
> matter whether you own it or not; you're making a guess about the
> precision based on past experience, possibly against RPM.

If you own a plane with all cylinder EGT and have many hours in it,
it's not hard to fly a fuel burn rate to a tenth of a gallon, even
without a fuel flow meter. I'm sure many plane owner can attest to
that.


>
> Lastly, how much fuel should be remaining at your destination may be
> better determined by how much additional fuel might be needed if there is
> some unexpected problem at the destination. I wouldn't want to have 30
> minutes remaining at the destination if the alternative is 45 minutes
> away. ;-)
>

well, if the an alternate runway is more than even 15 minutes away,
it's obviously not a candidate for such flight! See my original post
about alternate runways on the flight planning.

[Bud_of_yours]

I guess I'm getting better...

I just got back from a trip from KSAV (Savannah, GA) to KLIT (Little
Rock, AR) and back. I bought fuel three times and never took more than
40 gallons to top it off.

I got the transponder fixed before the trip... So I think we did a
pretty safe and sane trip with no squaks and didn't stretch our luck...

Sure is nice coming back east and getting 130 kts ground speed !!!

I've really enjoyed all the discussion on this thread.

[Blanche]

To the original poster -- baloney.

(You may insert or replace with your favorite obscenity, profanity and/or
invective in the natural language of your choice)

1) Using the phrase "the most professional approach" is a misnomer.
I know of full-time ATPs who use their personal single piston engine
to commute to their full-time job as commercial pilots (please note,
I did NOT use the term "professional pilot") who would NEVER, EVER
consider taking off in the ASEL without full fuel tanks.

2) Our little spam cans do not use the same quantity (translate to
the price tag) of fuel, nor do we have the same level of accuracy
and support in weather, route and fuel planning that the charter
and carriers have.

3) Based on your numerous criteria to land with only 30 min of fuel
left, why bother?

[M[_1_]]

So how many people here have taken off in a ASEL without full tanks?

And your airplane, whatever the fuel burn is, changes from flight to
flight, at the same power setting, that you can't even predict how much
fuel you burn after a 3 hour flight? That's called sloppy.


> 1) Using the phrase "the most professional approach" is a misnomer.
> I know of full-time ATPs who use their personal single piston engine
> to commute to their full-time job as commercial pilots (please note,
> I did NOT use the term "professional pilot") who would NEVER, EVER
> consider taking off in the ASEL without full fuel tanks.
>
> 2) Our little spam cans do not use the same quantity (translate to
> the price tag) of fuel, nor do we have the same level of accuracy
> and support in weather, route and fuel planning that the charter
> and carriers have.
>
> 3) Based on your numerous criteria to land with only 30 min of fuel
> left, why bother?

[Roy Smith]

In article om>,
"M" > wrote:

> So how many people here have taken off in a ASEL without full tanks?

I prefer to empty my tanks before taking off. It generally makes the rest
of the flight more enjoyable.

[Matt Whiting]

M wrote:

> So how many people here have taken off in a ASEL without full tanks?

I did it all the time in my Skylane. 80 gallons is a lot of fuel to
tanker around for short trips.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Roy Smith wrote:

> In article om>,
> "M" > wrote:
>
>
>>So how many people here have taken off in a ASEL without full tanks?
>
>
> I prefer to empty my tanks before taking off. It generally makes the rest
> of the flight more enjoyable.

How many tanks do you have? :-)

Matt

[Bob Noel]

In article om>,
"M" > wrote:

> So how many people here have taken off in a ASEL without full tanks?

More than once. It helps increase the number of paxs or the general
climb performance.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Blanche]

M > wrote:
>
>So how many people here have taken off in a ASEL without full tanks?
>
>And your airplane, whatever the fuel burn is, changes from flight to
>flight, at the same power setting, that you can't even predict how much
>fuel you burn after a 3 hour flight? That's called sloppy.

Density altitude.
Winds.
Terrain.
On-board weight.

[karl gruber[_1_]]

"M" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> So how many people here have taken off in a ASEL without full tanks?

The VAST majority of the time, both commercially and privately.
>
> And your airplane, whatever the fuel burn is, changes from flight to
> flight,

No. It doesn't

>at the same power setting, that you can't even predict how much
> fuel you burn after a 3 hour flight?

Can predict to 1/10th of a gallon after 5 hr flight.


>>>That's called sloppy.

You're called uninformed.

Karl

[Neil Gould]

Recently, M > posted:

> So how many people here have taken off in a ASEL without full tanks?
>
What's so unusual about that? If you know you won't need the fuel, why
carry it?

Neil

[Jim Macklin]

A Cub with 12 gallons total fuel capacity and 70 mph average
ground speed has a maximum range of about 210 miles. It
needs a 30 minute reserve by law so cut that to 180 miles.
On a local flight 8 gallons might be enough. On a
cross-country, all twelve gallons should be carried.

A Bonanza with 74 gallons usable fuel burns 12-16 gph and
has a speed in the 150-170 knot range. It can carry as many
as 6 persons, but not with full fuel. It can fly c-x
comfortably with 50 galloons of fuel, IFR and have enough
for a 250-300 nm trip with a 75 mile alternate, carrying a
good payload. Or it can carry full fuel and fly maybe 600
miles with an alternate.

The bigger the airplane the more trade-offs need to be made
to get safe, legal utility from the airplane. Weather,
traffic, airport delays, ATC and TSA all can conspire to
require more fuel or cut short a trip. Having the tanks
full may mean you can't carry the payload that unexpectedly
is on the ramp.

Can you de-fuel easily, can you sump the tanks easily?


"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
. net...
| Recently, M > posted:
|
| > So how many people here have taken off in a ASEL without
full tanks?
| >
| What's so unusual about that? If you know you won't need
the fuel, why
| carry it?
|
| Neil
|
|

[john smith]

In article om>,
"M" > wrote:

> So how many people here have taken off in a ASEL without full tanks?

I have. I fly a Cherokee Six 300. It has four tanks; 2x25 gal mains and
2x17 gal tips.
The mains have tabs that indicate 18 gal.
Your play with the loading and w/b to determine how much fuel to load.
You fly with fuel to the tabs in the mains and fill the tips.
Instead of 84 useable, you have 70 useable.
At 16-18 gph, you have five hours to dry tanks.
Filled to the tabs, you have four.
Three hours is my max bladder endurance, so I still land with one-hour
in the tanks.

> And your airplane, whatever the fuel burn is, changes from flight to
> flight, at the same power setting, that you can't even predict how much
> fuel you burn after a 3 hour flight? That's called sloppy.

[Jose[_1_]]

> If you know you won't need the fuel, why
> carry it?

.... because what hurts you is what you know, that isn't so.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Kingfish]

john smith wrote:
> I have. I fly a Cherokee Six 300. It has four tanks; 2x25 gal mains and
> 2x17 gal tips. The mains have tabs that indicate 18 gal.
> You play with the loading and w/b to determine how much fuel to load.
> You fly with fuel to the tabs in the mains and fill the tips.
> Instead of 84 useable, you have 70 useable.
> At 16-18 gph, you have five hours to dry tanks.
> Filled to the tabs, you have four.

Gotta love the older PA32s... I fly a T-tail Lance that'll carry over
800lb with full tanks. I've only flown at max gross once but it still
managed 500fpm climbing out of Lebanon NH. At 65% I lean to 15gph as
per the horribly accurate (!) fuel flow gauge at 120deg ROP. (John
Deakin is my guru)

> Three hours is my max bladder endurance, so I still land with one-hour in the tanks.

Geez, we must be related. My GPS plots "max bladder range" waypoints
auto-magically for me : )

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jose > posted:

>> If you know you won't need the fuel, why
>> carry it?
>
> ... because what hurts you is what you know, that isn't so.
>
When I know that I'll only be flying for an hour, I actually prefer the
fuel to be "at the tabs" rather than full. So far, that's worked out just
fine.

Neil

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Neil Gould wrote:
> When I know that I'll only be flying for an hour, I actually prefer the
> fuel to be "at the tabs" rather than full. So far, that's worked out just
> fine.


That makes perfect sense. You're starting with a known quantity of fuel, and
you still have way more than you need. I'd do that too, in that situation.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

Mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Tony]

One hour in the fuel tanks, zero reserve in the bladder! So you fly
down to minimums, can't see the runway environment, and have to fly the
miss. Oh oh!!!!

Those few times I carry 4 people I know -- make that I KNOW -- three
hour legs are plenty long enough. I carry a supply of 1 quart zip lock
bags for those who get motion sick (rarely used) or for the male
members who need frequent rest stops. For some reason those women who
risk their lives in a SEL seem to have about the same endurance as the
PIC. Go figure.






On Dec 27, 10:39 am, john smith > wrote:
> In article om>,
>
> "M" > wrote:
> > So how many people here have taken off in a ASEL without full tanks?I have. I fly a Cherokee Six 300. It has four tanks; 2x25 gal mains and
> 2x17 gal tips.
> The mains have tabs that indicate 18 gal.
> Your play with the loading and w/b to determine how much fuel to load.
> You fly with fuel to the tabs in the mains and fill the tips.
> Instead of 84 useable, you have 70 useable.
> At 16-18 gph, you have five hours to dry tanks.
> Filled to the tabs, you have four.
> Three hours is my max bladder endurance, so I still land with one-hour
> in the tanks.
>
>
>
> > And your airplane, whatever the fuel burn is, changes from flight to
> > flight, at the same power setting, that you can't even predict how much
> > fuel you burn after a 3 hour flight? That's called sloppy.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

[Matt Whiting]

Tony wrote:
> One hour in the fuel tanks, zero reserve in the bladder! So you fly
> down to minimums, can't see the runway environment, and have to fly the
> miss. Oh oh!!!!
>
> Those few times I carry 4 people I know -- make that I KNOW -- three
> hour legs are plenty long enough. I carry a supply of 1 quart zip lock
> bags for those who get motion sick (rarely used) or for the male
> members who need frequent rest stops. For some reason those women who
> risk their lives in a SEL seem to have about the same endurance as the
> PIC. Go figure.

No, it is just that most women would wet their pants before peeing in a
baggy in front of men! :-)

Matt

[Ken Reed]

> So how many people here have taken off in a ASEL without full tanks?

For most flying situations, I don't have a choice but to take off with
less than full tanks.
---
Ken Reed
M20M, N9124X

--
Ken Reed
M20M, N9124X

[DaveB]

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 22:18:33 -0500, Roy Smith > wrote:

>In article om>,
> "M" > wrote:
>
>> So how many people here have taken off in a ASEL without full tanks?
>
>I prefer to empty my tanks before taking off. It generally makes the rest
>of the flight more enjoyable.


Plus less weight=more airspeed
Daveb

[Newps]

>
>>In article om>,
>>"M" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So how many people here have taken off in a ASEL without full tanks?


Every time, unless it's a long cross country.

[Marty Shapiro]

"M" > wrote in
ups.com:

> So how many people here have taken off in a ASEL without full tanks?

Frequently. If weight of passengers + weight of full fuel is greater
than MGTOW, you need to leave something behind. My MGTOW is 132 pounds
higher than my maximum landing weight. I've got to figure in fuel burn to
ensure proper weight for landing. If I'm at MGTOW with full tanks, I had
better be planning a 2 hour flight if I want to land at or below my MGLW.
For the same payload with a flight less than 2 hours, I need to take off
with less than full tanks.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)