Running dry?

Recently, Thomas Borchert posted:

Neil,

It's pretty rare not to find fuel within range in the US if you're
east of the Rockies or west of the Sierras.


Hmm. My experience differs.

Perhaps we're working with different operational definitions for "fuel"
and "within range"?

Neil

Doug Carter wrote:

In article , RST Engineering wrote:

Now, here's one for you. You reset your totalizer but the Line Goober used
an "auto off" nozzle that left you ten gallons short on a side. You run one
dry, but now your totalizer thinks you have twenty gallons more than you
have.


This assumes you are stupid enough to set your totalizer based on what
the Line Goober said rather than checking the tanks yourself.

Line goobers and tank checking are irrelavant. You check the pump or
your receipt and that is what you enter into your totalizer.

Thomas Borchert wrote:

refueling adds an hour
to your trip and the break to stretch your legs helps prevent fatigue on
really long trips.

IF there is an airfield with fuel along the route. Which often isn't the
case.

In my flying experience (admittedly east of the Mississippi is different
than flying out west) it's rare to not be able to reach an airport in
less than 15 minutes from wherever you are in the sky. But, regardless,
I fly a Cherokee Six for anything longer than two hours, which gives me,
conservatively, over five and half hours of gas. Since I don't fly
longer than four hours at a stretch (see above), I always have at least
1.5 hours reserve planned in. Sure that's more conservative than a lot
of people, but it's just not worth it to me to stretch it. An hour out
of my way to refuel is not that big of a deal. Trying to stretch my
range to save an hour, in my mind doesn't get me anything.


Also, consider an airplane with 4 or even 6 fuel tanks, not at all
uncommon. Leaving, say, 5 gallons sloshing around in each robs you of 25
gallons of fuel - which is at least 1.5 hours flying time. That is quite a
lot. In fact, it could be considered a really good reserve. Except for
that, you'd want it all in one tank.

No, I wouldn't. I like having options. The way I fly, if I go for my
max endurance (mine, not the plane's) of four hours, I land with one
tank with 45-60 minutes of fuel and three others with 10-20 minutes
each. Since I'm landing with at least 45 minutes of fuel in the last
tank, the 30-45 minutes in the other three tanks is unnecessary. If I
had a problem with that tank, I have three others to choose from. If
all of my fuel is in one tank, I have no options. Sure, I would have to
really be on my toes in case the tank I switched to runs dry, but that's
better than not even having that option.

Basically, I fly with the attitude that no matter what happens, I will
have another option. In practice that's virtually impossible to do
(what option do you have if a Canadian goose flies through your
windscreen?) but somethings are easy. Fuel is one of the easy ones.

No, I won't go so far as saying that those that run tanks dry as part of
their fuel management system are dumb, but I will say that I feel that
they are taking an unnecessary risk. That's not a personal attack, just
my opinion of the practice. There are a lot of things I do that other
people consider taking unnecessary risks (and therefore a foolish thing
to do), like riding a motorcycle without a helmet. But, it's my choice
to do so.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"Don't be a flower snack!"
-- My son, "The Bean"

Matt Barrow wrote:

"Newps" wrote in message
...


Matt Barrow wrote:



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.

On a 1300 foot strip I will be all alone and will have removed the rear
seats.



I assume he's getting a V-tail; CG is much better with a straight tail

(yet

still a bit narrow).

It is better with the A36, not with the 33's.


It is, but the 33 is still 2 1/2" wider than the 35, yet still more

The 33's envelope goes two inches farther aft but starts two inches
farther aft too because the tail weighs more.

john smith wrote:

Jay Honeck wrote:

I fly an airplane with a 1633 pound useful load and I find quite an
advantage to being light on fuel.


Holy cow. What GA plane has that kind of a useful load? A Caravan?


Have you ever looked inside an old, straight-backed Cessna 182 jumpship?
I would wager that they have 1600 pound useful load EASY!

Nope, not even close. The old 182's had the least useful. The newest
182's had almost 1400 pounds useful but that was a marketing ploy.
Cessna just raised the gross weight. The newer 182's(thru 1986) perform
the worst.

Newps wrote:

The 33's envelope goes two inches farther aft but starts two inches
farther aft too because the tail weighs more.

That seems backwards to me. A heavier tail should push the envelope forward, not
aft.

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.

Jay Honeck wrote:

Holy cow. What GA plane has that kind of a useful load? A Caravan?

Cessna 185.

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.

Then you haven't flown many vintage Cessnas.

Jim



"Neil Gould" wrote in message
.. .


What is this "find a ladder" bit? Every Cessna I've flown has a built-in
step to allow visual inspection of the fuel level.

john smith wrote:

Have you ever looked inside an old, straight-backed Cessna 182 jumpship?
I would wager that they have 1600 pound useful load EASY!

Max gross - 2,950. Empty weight - 1,595.

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.

George Patterson wrote:
Newps wrote:


The 33's envelope goes two inches farther aft but starts two inches
farther aft too because the tail weighs more.


That seems backwards to me. A heavier tail should push the envelope
forward, not aft.

The tail has a greater surface area.