X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:06:13 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.67] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3c4) with ESMTP id 4040002 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 24 Dec 2009 11:59:20 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.67; envelope-from=douglasbrunner@earthlink.net DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=Dp1JY1vekosEaSprhs13t3l2FUlvPUX8Ogn6b/1soG2zS9NHJ+aCAqKIo9ETmAyd; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [74.93.196.178] (helo=DougsLaptop) by elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1NNr1S-0003Ci-JL for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 24 Dec 2009 11:58:46 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: From: "Douglas Brunner" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Fuel Planning X-Original-Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 11:58:56 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00B3_01CA8490.78440080" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6001.18000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6001.18049 X-ELNK-Trace: ad85a799c4f5de37c2eb1477c196d22294f5150ab1c16ac0da8416a478439239ae9398854a78b7d4eda16700c7190ec6350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 74.93.196.178 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00B3_01CA8490.78440080 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I thought I would share a personal experience that has affected my = philosophy about how much gas I ACTUALLY have in my tanks. I was going to do a quick flight to test how a modification to my cowl = inlets would affect CHTs in a climb. There was no fuel truck on the = field and the tanks were at the other end of the field. Don't remember = exactly how much fuel I had in the tanks but it was fairly low - around = 7 to 8 gallons a side. Around 15 gallons or an hour of flight. Rather = than refueling I decided to take off for just a short flight - after all = I had an hour of fuel. I took off and climbed up to about 5,000 ft. - CHTs were rock solid and = low so I descended to land. In the pattern at about 1,000 suddenly the = sound of the engine changed and I started to lose altitude. At first I = wasn't sure what had happened. Fortunately, I had the presence of mind = to switch tanks and put on low boost. The sound of the engine changed = again and I started to climb from an altitude of less than 500 ft. I = landed and after I turned off the runway wiped away the sweat and tried = to steady my hands. In retrospect, I made a bad/dumb/lazy decision to take off with only 15 = gallons. I had neglected to consider the difference between total fuel = and total usable fuel. Probably in the pattern I was uncoordinated for = a while and my pump started sucking air. I could have become a = statistic. Lesson (for me) - never take off with less than Unusable (approx 5 = gallons) + 10 gallons =3D 15 gallons in each tank. And while I agree = that carrying too much fuel will degrade the performance of our planes, = too little is much worse. D. Brunner ----- Original Message -----=20 From: vtailjeff@aol.com=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2009 10:37 AM Subject: [LML] Re: Fuel Planning Gary, Your analysis is interesting given that the leading cause of loss of = power accidents in the Lancair fleet is fuel exhaustion/ starvation. Jeff ------=_NextPart_000_00B3_01CA8490.78440080 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I thought I would share a personal = experience that=20 has affected my philosophy about how much gas I ACTUALLY have in my=20 tanks.
 
I was going to do a quick flight to = test how a=20 modification to my cowl inlets would affect CHTs in a climb.  There = was no=20 fuel truck on the field and the tanks were at the other end of the = field. =20 Don't remember exactly how much fuel I had in the tanks but it was = fairly low -=20 around 7 to 8 gallons a side. Around 15 gallons or an hour of = flight. =20 Rather than refueling I decided to take off for just a short flight - = after all=20 I had an hour of fuel.
 
I took off and climbed up to about = 5,000=20 ft. - CHTs were rock solid and low so I descended to land.  In = the=20 pattern at about 1,000 suddenly the sound of the engine=20 changed and I started to lose altitude.  At first I wasn't = sure what=20 had happened.  Fortunately, I had the presence of mind to switch = tanks and=20 put on low boost.  The sound of the engine changed again and I = started to=20 climb  from an altitude of less than 500 ft.  I landed and = after I=20 turned off the runway wiped away the sweat and tried to steady my=20 hands.
 
In retrospect, I made a bad/dumb/lazy = decision to=20 take off with only 15 gallons.  I had neglected to consider the = difference=20 between total fuel and total usable fuel.  Probably in the pattern = I was=20 uncoordinated for a while and my pump started sucking air.  I could = have=20 become a statistic.
 
Lesson (for me) - never take off = with less=20 than Unusable (approx 5 gallons) + 10 = gallons =3D 15 gallons in each = tank.  And=20 while I agree that carrying too much fuel will degrade the performance = of our=20 planes, too little is much worse.
 
D. Brunner
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 vtailjeff@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, December 24, = 2009 10:37=20 AM
Subject: [LML] Re: Fuel = Planning

Gary,
 
Your analysis is interesting given that the leading cause of loss = of=20 power accidents in the Lancair fleet is fuel exhaustion/ = starvation.
 
Jeff
------=_NextPart_000_00B3_01CA8490.78440080--