X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 12:51:00 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from QMTA08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.80] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3c4) with ESMTP id 4042780 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 27 Dec 2009 11:27:32 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=76.96.62.80; envelope-from=mjrav@comcast.net Received: from OMTA16.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.88]) by QMTA08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id NFYZ1d0021uE5Es58GSxpo; Sun, 27 Dec 2009 16:26:57 +0000 Received: from mjr ([24.2.137.82]) by OMTA16.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id NGeb1d0011mqhrL3cGedAT; Sun, 27 Dec 2009 16:38:37 +0000 X-Original-Message-ID: <001001ca8711$7e51bc00$6501a8c0@mjr> From: "Mark Ravinski" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" Subject: Re: Fuel Planning - other considerations. X-Original-Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 11:27:33 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000D_01CA86E7.954F4CD0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1983 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1983 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01CA86E7.954F4CD0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Due to responses on and off list, pro and con, let me elaborate a little = more. Condensation is a very valid issue.=20 I've had my 360 for 13 years now and only found any water in the tanks = one time. That time there was a lot of water. - about a cup full. I = must have parked a fuel cap under a leak in the roof or something......=20 By sumping the tanks before flight - that problem is of little concern = to me.=20 I have a header tank as well as both wet wings. 43 gal total. My fuel = gage in the header and my fuel computer both have worked very reliably.=20 Should both transfer pumps fail, I might have only half a header or 6 = gal available. That would be 45 minutes or 135 miles or so to get back = down. There are times I have felt the need to keep the header closer = to full. Having a fuel valve fail at a critical time is something that could = happen with full tanks also. I do see the point that it improves the = situation though. (even on a short local flight)=20 My weight is under 1200 lbs empty. Full fuel is over 20% of that and = makes a big impact on performance.=20 Back to the question. A 30 minute flight is only 10% of my fuel = capacity. Lets say I go with half tanks. My wings start to show = visible fuel at about half full. I'm saying I will be safer that way = than with full tanks. I can go and return with 1.5 hours reserve. I = could go and return again and still have minimal reserves. The 125 lbs = of fuel not in the tanks is more than 10% of my empty weight and makes a = very noticeable difference. The advantages are many. There is less wear and tear on all load = bearing parts of the plane. (wheels, brakes, struts, etc) Ground = performance is dramatically improved such as takeoff, abort or should = you have to dodge anything on the runway. (deer, goose, Cessna, etc) = Takeoff and landing speed is also reduced and possibly the chance of = shimmy.=20 Climb performance is much better - over obstacles, etc.. Cruise speed = will be higher. Maneuverability in the air is better - should you have = to dodge that goose or Cessna. It will roll faster and when you pull g's it won't strain the structure = as much. Also less strain (or chance of overstress) from sudden = turbulence. There will be alittle more room between traffic pattern = speed and stall speed. In the event of engine failure, glide speed = will be lower and a crash landing more survivable.=20 Less I forget, hauling extra weight around costs extra fuel to do it = with.=20 This all together makes an obvious case to me. I just can't see = advantages to 4+ hours of reserves. Happy new year=20 Mark Ravinski ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01CA86E7.954F4CD0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =EF=BB=BF
 
Due to responses on and off list, pro = and con, let=20 me elaborate a little more.


Condensation is a  very = valid=20 issue. 
 I've had my 360 for 13 years now = and only=20 found any water in the tanks one time.  That time there was a lot = of water.=20 - about a cup full.  I must have parked a fuel cap under a leak in = the roof=20 or something......

By sumping the tanks before flight - that = problem is=20 of little concern to me.

I have a header tank as well as both = wet=20 wings.  43 gal total.  My fuel gage in the header and my fuel = computer=20 both have worked very reliably.

Should both transfer pumps fail, = I might=20 have only half a header or 6 gal available.  That would be 45 = minutes or=20 135 miles or so to get back down.   There are times I have = felt the=20 need to keep the header closer to full.

Having a fuel valve = fail at=20 a critical time is something that could happen with full tanks = also.  I do=20 see the point that it improves the situation though.  (even on a = short=20 local flight) 

My weight is under 1200 lbs = empty. =20 Full fuel is over  20% of that and makes a big impact on = performance.=20


Back to the question.  A 30 minute flight is only 10% = of my=20 fuel capacity.  Lets say I go with half tanks.  My wings start = to show=20 visible fuel at about half full.  I'm saying I will be safer that = way than=20 with full tanks.  I can go and return with 1.5 hours reserve.  = I could=20 go and return again and still have minimal reserves.  The 125 lbs = of fuel=20 not in the tanks is more than 10% of my empty weight and makes a very = noticeable=20 difference.

The advantages are many.  There is less wear and = tear on=20 all load bearing parts of the plane. (wheels, brakes, struts, etc) = Ground=20 performance is dramatically improved such as takeoff, abort or should = you have=20 to dodge anything on the runway. (deer, goose, Cessna, etc)  = Takeoff and=20 landing speed is also reduced and possibly the chance of shimmy. =

Climb=20 performance is much better - over obstacles, etc.. Cruise speed = will be=20 higher.  Maneuverability in the air is better - should you have to = dodge=20 that goose or Cessna.
It will roll faster and when you pull  g's = it=20 won't strain the structure as much.  Also less strain (or chance of = overstress) from sudden turbulence.  There will be alittle more = room=20 between traffic pattern speed and stall speed.    In the event = of=20 engine failure, glide speed  will be lower and a crash landing = more=20 survivable.

Less I forget,  hauling extra weight around = costs extra=20 fuel to do it with.

This all together makes an obvious case to = me. I=20 just can't see advantages to 4+ hours of reserves.



Happy = new year=20



Mark = Ravinski






------=_NextPart_000_000D_01CA86E7.954F4CD0--