Running dry?

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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 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

VE

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"

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.