Running dry?

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

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.

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.

"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

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.

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

"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.

"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...ndex.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.

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!

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.