A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Fuel dump switch in homebuilt



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old December 4th 03, 11:06 AM
Stealth Pilot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 02:11:16 GMT, Ron Wanttaja
wrote:

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 10:59:02 -0700, Mark Hickey wrote:

Let's not rule out the one advantage of the fuel dump we haven't
discussed - that anyone who had to deadstick in due to fuel starvation
could then claim he had dumped the fuel to prepare for the deadstick
landing. Sure, he'd have some 'splainin' to do when the beast fires
right up when resupplied with go-juice, but he could always pull a
Unka BOb and claim it was just one of those evil intermittent auto
engine systems.


Actually, he might not have to explain too much. This sort of scenario
does happen (where the engine runs OK afterwards), and the NTSB usually
just chalks it up to "Engine failure for undetermined reasons."

Ron Wanttaja


in australia it is usually chalked up to carby ice.
Stealth Pilot
  #33  
Old December 4th 03, 02:09 PM
Kyler Laird
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Andrew Rowley writes:

I think I'd prefer to maximise the chances of keeping all the
remaining fuel safely in the tanks after landing. My view is that any
reduction in landing weight is more than offset by the chances of
having fuel still in the dump system on landing and making fire more
likely.


Yeah, but think of the path of that fire (as it spreads to the areas
now peppered with fuel). It'd be like a big burning arrow pointing
right at your plane. It should make it easy to find your body.

--kyler
  #34  
Old December 4th 03, 04:05 PM
Ron Wanttaja
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 18:06:19 +0800, Stealth Pilot
wrote:


Actually, he might not have to explain too much. This sort of scenario
does happen (where the engine runs OK afterwards), and the NTSB usually
just chalks it up to "Engine failure for undetermined reasons."


in australia it is usually chalked up to carby ice.


If the conditions were favorable for carb ice, the NTSB reports usual say
so, and often ascribe the accident to it. But in a lot of cases, they
don't mention it; they just do the "undetermined" shrug.

Ron Wanttaja

  #35  
Old December 4th 03, 06:34 PM
Jay
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Regarding how data for incident reports are gathered. Someone had
mentioned the experimental that ground looped and was whisked away
before any pesky official types nosed around. Another guy I know lost
an oil line on his Rotax 912 and, after the engine siezed, landed in
the brush out near Hemet. He hiked out, and came back with a trailer,
nothing reported even though he made a call on the radio on his glide
down from 6,000 AGL.

I also understand that an emergency off airport landing is not a
reported incident if there is no property damage. So if I lose power
and land on a freeway, as long as I'm able to merge with traffic and
not hit anything, it doesn't end up in the statistics. So this means
the incident stats are showing a more rosey impression than is real of
the state of reliability of GA.

Ron Wanttaja wrote in message . ..
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 10:59:02 -0700, Mark Hickey wrote:

Let's not rule out the one advantage of the fuel dump we haven't
discussed - that anyone who had to deadstick in due to fuel starvation
could then claim he had dumped the fuel to prepare for the deadstick
landing. Sure, he'd have some 'splainin' to do when the beast fires
right up when resupplied with go-juice, but he could always pull a
Unka BOb and claim it was just one of those evil intermittent auto
engine systems.


Actually, he might not have to explain too much. This sort of scenario
does happen (where the engine runs OK afterwards), and the NTSB usually
just chalks it up to "Engine failure for undetermined reasons."

Ron Wanttaja

  #36  
Old December 4th 03, 06:48 PM
andy asberry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 13:09:52 GMT, Kyler Laird
wrote:

Andrew Rowley writes:

I think I'd prefer to maximise the chances of keeping all the
remaining fuel safely in the tanks after landing. My view is that any
reduction in landing weight is more than offset by the chances of
having fuel still in the dump system on landing and making fire more
likely.


Yeah, but think of the path of that fire (as it spreads to the areas
now peppered with fuel). It'd be like a big burning arrow pointing
right at your plane. It should make it easy to find your body.

--kyler


Giving one of those redwood tree squatters a fuel shower might tick
him/her off enough to put the spark to your flaming arrow. Watch your
six!

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Yo! Fuel Tank! Veeduber Home Built 15 October 25th 03 02:57 AM
Pumping fuel backwards through an electric fuel pump Greg Reid Home Built 15 October 7th 03 07:09 PM
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 0 October 2nd 03 03:07 AM
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 4 August 7th 03 05:12 AM
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently-Asked Questions (FAQ) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 0 July 4th 03 04:50 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.