|
|
I was gratified to see that Rob's survey got some interesting comments going. I didn't remotely mean to imply that topping it was a poor or even inappropriate thing to do, just that without it being expressed in minutes of fuel the math didn't work out. I suspect that if it were, there would have been a lot of "240 minutes" entries and that would have skewed the results to a much higher value, but with a higher standard deviation. Regardless, there were replies that suggested that more fuel isn't always better, and I'm sure it depends partly on how much fuel capacity is available. Those with extra tankage might not top it and still have more than someone with standard tanks. Another suggested it depends on the accuracy of one's knowledge of the
remaining fuel (like with a header tank). In my case, I fly out of a 7,000 ft elevation airport that is 3800 feet long. To me the takeoff is the most critical phase of flight and I very seldom take off with full tanks; only when the temperature and the wind allow and adequate margin. I think the replies suggest that there isn't an absolute best answer - maximizing safety is a tradeoff between a number of conflicting factors. It might be a good idea not to put oneself at either end of the distribution curve.
Merry Christmas everyone! Gary
Aside from weight and balance implications "top it" is always the safest in my book. A wise old aviator once told me the following: " The sky above you, the runway behind you, and the air in your fuel tanks do you no good". In other words: fly high, rotate as early as safely possible, and carry gas.
Bryan N132BB On Dec 24, 2009, at 6:52 AM, Gary Casey wrote: Thanks, Rob, for posting the results. The ones that
said "top it" didn't abide by the spirit of the question :-) in that I don't know how many minutes of fuel that equates to, but there were enough replies in minutes.
|
|