What The Heck Is That Noise!?!

"zatatime" wrote in message

I think that there's a certain measure of hyperbole involved. This has
happened plenty of times and the fuel doesn't drain at that rate. But I
don't doubt that it was a sobering experience.

No hyperbole at all. Since it's usenet, of course you're entitled to
your opinion, but what I saw was not part of usenet, nor were any of
the other witnesses. I'm sure each airplane is different due to the
amount of lift generated, and other factors. This airplane lost most
of its fuel once around the patch.

Not each 185. This doesn't come even close to the incidents I'm familiar
with. But I don't mean to downplay the seriousness of this mistake. It can
easily have fatal consequences.

moo

Happy Dog wrote:

I think that there's a certain measure of hyperbole involved. This has
happened plenty of times and the fuel doesn't drain at that rate.

It happened to a friend of mine in a Grumman. The fuel *does* drain at that
rate. He lost five gallons out of one tank and never reached pattern altitude
(did a fast 360 at about 400').

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message

Happy Dog wrote:

I think that there's a certain measure of hyperbole involved. This has
happened plenty of times and the fuel doesn't drain at that rate.

It happened to a friend of mine in a Grumman. The fuel *does* drain at
that
rate. He lost five gallons out of one tank and never reached pattern
altitude
(did a fast 360 at about 400').

I was speaking only of a 185. I'm not trying to make light of this error.

moo

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 16:10:04 -0500, "Happy Dog"
wrote:

"zatatime" wrote in message

I think that there's a certain measure of hyperbole involved. This has
happened plenty of times and the fuel doesn't drain at that rate. But I
don't doubt that it was a sobering experience.

No hyperbole at all. Since it's usenet, of course you're entitled to
your opinion, but what I saw was not part of usenet, nor were any of
the other witnesses. I'm sure each airplane is different due to the
amount of lift generated, and other factors. This airplane lost most
of its fuel once around the patch.

Not each 185.
Correct. I was thinking about 152 vs 172 vs 206, etc. What was in my
head was not transferred to "paper."

This doesn't come even close to the incidents I'm familiar
with. But I don't mean to downplay the seriousness of this mistake. It can
easily have fatal consequences.

Agreed.

z

Calm down. Nobody's calling you a liar. It can happen lke you said,
especially, as I said, with bladder tanks, since the bladder collapses
under the lower pressure and squeezes the fuel out. The dumb thing was
not getting the bladders checked before filling up and flying again.
Those bladders are held in place against the top and bottom wing skins
with snaps like you see on some jackets, and they come undone under
no-cap conditions. You're left with a partially-collapsed tank.

Dan

wrote in message
Calm down. Nobody's calling you a liar. It can happen lke you said,
especially, as I said, with bladder tanks, since the bladder collapses
under the lower pressure and squeezes the fuel out.

Lower pressure where? "Squeezing" implies higher pressure surrounding the
bladder. Is that what you meant to say? This happens just fine with metal
tanks too.

moo

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
Calm down. Nobody's calling you a liar. It can happen lke you said,
especially, as I said, with bladder tanks, since the bladder collapses
under the lower pressure and squeezes the fuel out.

Lower pressure where? "Squeezing" implies higher pressure surrounding the
bladder. Is that what you meant to say? This happens just fine with
metal
tanks too.

moo


Low pressure at the cap means low pressure in the bladder. Regular pressure
outside the wing means squeeze is pretty accurate.
--
Jim in NC

On 16 Dec 2004 15:52:26 -0800, wrote:

Calm down. Nobody's calling you a liar. It can happen lke you said,
especially, as I said, with bladder tanks, since the bladder collapses
under the lower pressure and squeezes the fuel out. The dumb thing was
not getting the bladders checked before filling up and flying again.
Those bladders are held in place against the top and bottom wing skins
with snaps like you see on some jackets, and they come undone under
no-cap conditions. You're left with a partially-collapsed tank.

Partially collapsed tank (bladder) should just go back to fitting with
fuel. I've had them pull up due to a blocked anti siphon vent.
They've always gone back to the proper fit.

When it comes to putting those clips back in, make sure to have a good
supply of band aids. You'll probably need them.:-=))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Dan

The wing root ventilation tubes on a 172 can cause a very strange noise if
they are pulled most of the way out. I aborted a take off one time because
of it. They noise was low frequency and oscillating, following the
throttle and acceleration of the airplane.

- Carl -

In article ,
Carl Ellis wrote:

The wing root ventilation tubes on a 172 can cause a very strange noise if
they are pulled most of the way out. I aborted a take off one time because
of it. They noise was low frequency and oscillating, following the
throttle and acceleration of the airplane.


A real hard pushover will cause the vent tubes to "scream".

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html