Running dry?

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"

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)

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"

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)

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"

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

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"

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)

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

"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?