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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:4Z9Oe.272046$_o.92006@attbi_s71... Here's an easy way to make sure you never run out of gas. Since you have been so didactic in your statements in this thread, I'll assume you are equally so in this post. 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.) Might be a problem if you ever need less than full tanks for weight. 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.) Yes, they will tell you your usage. But... I travel a lot, often landing at airports where a line guy fills the tanks. They don't all fill to the same "top", so when I reset my Shadin I don't really know if I have "full" tanks. I manually subtract 10 gallons from the full setting if the tanks seem lower than a normal top during preflight. 3. Never try to stretch your range. Bite the bullet, land and buy gas. Absolutely. 4. Measure your gas with your watch, never your fuel gauges. Fuel flow changes dramatically with altitude and power settings. I can burn anywhere from 12 to 16 GPH. Timing is one input, but using the fuel gauges and the Shadin are equally worthwhile. Michael |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 01:53:09 +0000, Jay Honeck wrote:
[snip] The only thing I'm confused about is how a group of pilots can sit here and argue -- on the STUDENT forum, of all things -- that running a gas tank dry in flight, on purpose, is a wise thing to do. It's actually cross posted to piloting too. You don't think students can learn from a topic which clearly even pilots debate? I don't see anyone advocating students run out and run their tanks dry. I doubt you do either. I'm really not sure what your point is here. Apparently you can't grasp the subtlety of what I'm saying, so allow me to Actually, I'm fairly sure EVERYONE here grasps exactly what you're saying. Just not everyone agrees with you. You've been very clear. Everyone that disagrees with you is dumb. Point made. The horse is dead. Move on. bludgeon you with it: Any pilot who knowingly, willingly and routinely runs gas tanks dry in flight displays a cavalier attitude toward fuel management. Running a tank dry by accident indicates poor planning. Running a tank dry on purpose indicates poor fuel management. Both are dumb. Both are dangerous. Hmmm. I'm thinking I've read this before. You've been very clear. Everyone that disagrees with you is dumb. Point made. The horse is dead. Move on. To suggest otherwise in a forum where student pilots gather is unwise. Yes! You would never want students, which will one day turn into pilots, to be equiped to think for themselves having read other pilots sound off. Won't someone think of the children! Lastly, I should add, I believe this type of procedure is SOP for many military piston pilots where range it critical to their mission. Please correct me as needed. If this were a high risk venture, I doubt it would SOP. As such, I believe the risk of a non-start for many planes is very low. IMHO, the only remaining question is, what risk are you willing to tolorate and what is the REAL risk of a non-start. Is the risk one in a million? One in a billion? One in a hundred? You ask this question as if we are on an equal situational footing with military pilots. Wrong. I asked a question as any intelligent person would. I know I don't know everything. Part of flying is risk assessment. How is my question any different? It's not. Exactly. If we don't understand the risk, which was my point, it's pretty dang hard to do any type of real risk assessment. If anything, that should serve as a warning to ay potential student wanting to rush out and run a tank dry. I'm still not realy sure what you're point is. 99.999% of the people reading this post are GA pilots (or students) whose main concern will be missing a day of work if they're late getting back from vacation. There is NO reason for any pilot here to fly to the maximum range of their aircraft, and to talk It's nice how you plugged in your own take on things and assert that this is the only fact. Simple fact is, YOU are the only one asserting this has anything to do with maximum range. Everyone else, including Deakin, is asserting it's a fuel strategy to better know your plane, to better plan your trip, and to better understand how long you can fly should the worst happen (need to eat into your reserves). I'll happily stick with the actual topic rather than your emotional redefinition. about using a procedure that is "SOP for many military piston pilots where range is critical to their mission", as if that is justification for running a tank dry, is just crazy talk. Nope. Did not such thing. The point, which you seemingly refuse to understand, is that you certainly don't hear, see, or read about planes falling out of the air because pilots were switching tanks. Ya, I know you'll ignore that point again. A point which many others have made elsewhere already. Others, which we all now know are dumb. Do you run your engine as low as possible on oil, too, just to extend the range between oil changes? Shoot, according the book, my Lycoming O-540 will run on as little as 2 quarts of oil -- why am I dumping those other 10 quarts in, anyway? Are you insane? You have no point and the above is completely non-topical. Your example is, well, dumb, insulting, and just plain out there. Don't expect a reply unless you have something new to add; which better yet, would be topical. Greg |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 01:34:56 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote: 4. Measure your gas with your watch, never your fuel gauges. That has served me well for a long time. Mike Weller |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 21:59:07 -0500, Mike Weller
wrote: On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 01:34:56 GMT, "Jay Honeck" wrote: 4. Measure your gas with your watch, never your fuel gauges. That has served me well for a long time. Mike Weller I used to believe the same mantra. But one flight many years ago changed my mind. You need to believe the method that is the most conservative at the time. Some years ago, when I believed as you wrote, a tank ran dry unexpectedly about 12,000 feet over the hills of W Va. Not a very hospitable place. The tank ran dry about 5 minutes before I was planning to switch, at a time when there should have been about 20 minutes of fuel remaining. The fact that it ran dry allowed me to refigure my fuel consumption and know what I had left in the other tank. The closest airport happened to be my planned destination (CRW) and I landed with maybe 15 minutes of fuel remaining, instead of the planned for 60 minutes. The problem turned out to be a leaky gasket in the fuel servo, increasing my fuel consumption by about 10-15%, if I recall correctly. Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message ... On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 21:59:07 -0500, Mike Weller wrote: On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 01:34:56 GMT, "Jay Honeck" wrote: 4. Measure your gas with your watch, never your fuel gauges. That has served me well for a long time. Mike Weller I used to believe the same mantra. But one flight many years ago changed my mind. You need to believe the method that is the most conservative at the time. Some years ago, when I believed as you wrote, a tank ran dry unexpectedly about 12,000 feet over the hills of W Va. Not a very hospitable place. The tank ran dry about 5 minutes before I was planning to switch, at a time when there should have been about 20 minutes of fuel remaining. The fact that it ran dry allowed me to refigure my fuel consumption and know what I had left in the other tank. The closest airport happened to be my planned destination (CRW) and I landed with maybe 15 minutes of fuel remaining, instead of the planned for 60 minutes. The problem turned out to be a leaky gasket in the fuel servo, increasing my fuel consumption by about 10-15%, if I recall correctly. What says a fuel gauge is any more or less accurate than a fuel FLOW gauge? |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
Jay,
Running a tank dry probably won't lead to anything worse than sucking all the crap out of your gas tanks Well, that is precisely what won't happen. Pilots who end up landing off-airport (or, worse, dying) because of something as stupid as running out of gas Those pilots have NOTHING at all to do with what we're discussing here. on the contrary, we're discussing precise fuel planning. Here's an easy way to make sure you never run out of gas. 1. Refuel after every flight. If you're talking about topping off, that may be practical in your plane - congrats on that! It isn't in mine and it sure isn't in the majority of single-engine four-seaters, since you're giving up WAY too much useful load. 2. Install a fuel totalizer. Which becomes even more useful when running tanks dry. 3. Never try to stretch your range. Bite the bullet, land and buy gas. Which has nothing to do with the technique recommended here. 4. Measure your gas with your watch, never your fuel gauges. Which, again, has nothing to do with the technique recommended here. Sorry, I still fail to see your point. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#137
|
|||
|
|||
Matt,
What says a fuel gauge is any more or less accurate than a fuel FLOW gauge? Experience gd&r. Seriously, most fuel gauges are horrendously unreliable. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
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. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#139
|
|||
|
|||
Jay,
Apparently you can't grasp the subtlety of what I'm saying, There's nothing subtle at all in claiming what someone else writes (and makes an argument for quite elaborately) is "dumb". And that's all you offer, some nice "if you're not with me, you're against me" rethoric. Sad, actually. so allow me to bludgeon you with it: Any pilot who knowingly, willingly and routinely runs gas tanks dry in flight displays a cavalier attitude toward fuel management. Running a tank dry by accident indicates poor planning. Running a tank dry on purpose indicates poor fuel management. Both are dumb. Both are dangerous. Sorry, but that's BS, plain and simple. Do you run your engine as low as possible on oil, too, just to extend the range between oil changes? Not as low as possible, but certainly below the allowed maxium. I do it to avoid blowing oil overboard senselessly. I have never filled up to the maximum allowed. It would be dumb. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#140
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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). Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Time, running out of fuel and fuel gauges | Dylan Smith | Piloting | 29 | February 3rd 08 07:04 PM |
Engine running again, the good, bad and ugly | Corky Scott | Home Built | 34 | July 6th 05 05:04 PM |
It's finally running! | Corky Scott | Home Built | 19 | April 29th 05 04:53 PM |
Rotax 503 won't stop running | Tracy | Home Built | 2 | March 28th 04 04:56 PM |
Leaving all engines running at the gate | John | Piloting | 12 | February 5th 04 03:46 AM |