X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:29:20 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-da03.mx.aol.com ([205.188.105.145] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3c4) with ESMTP id 4042867 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 27 Dec 2009 14:22:07 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.105.145; envelope-from=Sky2high@aol.com Received: from imo-da04.mx.aol.com (imo-da04.mx.aol.com [205.188.169.202]) by imr-da03.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id nBRJLP7P027625 for ; Sun, 27 Dec 2009 14:21:25 -0500 Received: from Sky2high@aol.com by imo-da04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.5.) id q.d0b.61c75e2b (14502) for ; Sun, 27 Dec 2009 14:21:20 -0500 (EST) From: Sky2high@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 14:21:19 EST Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Fuel Planning X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1261941679" X-Mailer: AOL 9.5 sub 155 X-Spam-Flag:NO X-AOL-SENDER: Sky2high@aol.com -------------------------------1261941679 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bill, Bill, Bill......... We are all a product of our experiences. You flew a vehicle that was built by the lowest bidder to gov't specs. You never fueled your own plane. Your experience has left you a bitter faithless nail biter. ;<) I also flew a plane built to gov't specs - built by hands of many, uh, qualified people. It was called a Skymaster (C337G) with extended range tanks - 6 in total and all connected to a state of the art brain (well, that was 1970 or earlier technology). These were analog gauges that didn't even read empty correctly. Fuel consumption (gph) was measured by a magical conversion of fuel pressure and displayed by a needle where even movement of its width was significant (Don't ya just love Continental engines?). I had 1300 hours over many cross-country miles and never ran out of fuel. Deeply imbedded in my persona is the use of the fourth dimension - time. I used each fuel stop to estimate the amount consumed for the trip and topped her up - after about 300 hours and many different flight regimes, I would be within a gallon or two of the truck quantity. Gauges, I didn't need no stink'n gauges or sticks - I used my own 1941 era brain. Then came the building my Lancair 320 - what a joy as I could do something about the miserable fuel management systems I had to experience with Cessna products. No selector valves (a source of many accidents), header always full automatic system for the emergency case of no electrical power plus evenly emptying fuel from both wings to keep lateral balance, digital displays accurately calibrated, idiot lights and audible warnings for low fuel states of any tank and of the aggregate, independent accurate fuel flow instrumentation and, finally, the mental set that makes a landing more desirable than some animalistic urge to try to reach the destination at any cost. Oh, BTW I am still ingrained to make use of the fourth dimension (that being time) so as not to run out of fuel and I still estimate top-up fuel amounts accurately even if 3 or 4 intervening flights have taken place. You know, another benefit of low winged aircraft is that I can see all the fuel caps whilst flying (that's why they are shiny). I certainly agree that an accident due to running out of fuel is one of the more stupid ones. With respect to Darwin, it is too late - I have had all the children I am going to have. Scott Krueger AKA Grayhawk In a message dated 12/27/2009 11:51:27 A.M. Central Standard Time, gt_phantom@hotmail.com writes: I received two responses to my post; I am responding to both in this post. To both Grayhawk and Mike Easley I respectfully submit that you are asking for needless trouble. If you will refer to my original post, I did not say that "Full" was not the only POSSIBLE "known quantity, but rather that it was the only known quantity for each tank on most Lancairs. That is a FACTUAL statement, your arguments about the reliability of your respective fuel gauges notwithstanding. Do you visually confirm that the amount of fuel in each tank matches what the gauge says, and if so, how? Capacitance gauges, while very accurate today, do have failure modes. Do you know all of them? Do you know how to recognize them in the cockpit? Is it even POSSIBLE to recognize them all in the cockpit? Fuel starvation is one of the leading causes of accidents and is THE most preventable accident cause. The same type of gauges were used in the F-4 Phantoms I flew in my mis-spent youth. One day on a training flight after the external tanks were dry, I started noticing that my fuel quantity seemed to be going down more quickly than Lead's. Too, the gauge was "bouncing around more than normal." After a brief discussion with my back seater we decided we would rather be live sissies than end up walking home or worse, so we told Lead we were heading home. Lead, being a rather arrogant ass, asked us to repeat the diagnosis we had already performed and, in level flight, the gauge seemed to level out just a bit below Lead's reading. Logically, if we both started out with full tanks and there was no leakage, our fuel remaining should be about the same. Lead passed off the fluctuation as a simple gauge problem and said, "let's continue the mission and just keep an eye on it;" however, I told him to take the stick if he wanted to fly my airplane, otherwise we were going home with or without him. He grudgingly "led us back." On the way home, the gauge started falling at an increased pace, so much so that we had Lead drop back twice and look for fuel leaking. None. On short initial the Fuel Low Level light (which was independent from the gauge system) came on - this system was supposed to be "fool proof" and "absolutely reliable" and was supposed to indicate 2200-2300 pounds of fuel remaining (a good 10-12 minutes at reduced power setting). I pitched, throttled back, dropped gear and flaps, turned base, and landed in minimum time with minimum use of throttle. On touchdown I shut down one engine (standard practice); rolled to the end of the runway, turned off and pulled into my hanger (by happenstance the first hanger) all without touching the throttles again and then wrote up the plane for a faulty fuel gauge system. In order to inspect the fuel system gauges, it was necessary to remove the remaining fuel from the aircraft. Full internal fuel on the F-4 was about 12,500 lbs, or about 1900 gallons which represents a bit over an hour of flying time (~180 gallons = 6 minutes; 18 gallons = 0.6 minutes). When they defueled the aircraft, they only got 6 gallons, or less than 20 seconds of fuel remaining. Complacency is the single biggest killer in aircraft accidents. If you trust your newfangled gadgets without verifying, you are an accident statistic waiting to happen - period, and I make no apology for that statement. Now, having said that there ARE legitimate ways to insure there is a "KNOWN QUANTITY" of fuel. My particular Lancair has a header tank, so I can fill that and know I have enough fuel to ferry the aircraft to another airport for cheaper gas. I can (and have) fill a single wing tank, and accept that it will be wing-heavy on takeoff (I lost a gas cap on a cross country, and flew with two tanks rather than be stuck out for a day or more). For those builders who plan ahead ( or a clever person improvising after instruction), tabs can be installed inside the wing fill caps ala' Piper, so that if you "fill to the tabs" you have both a balanced and known quantity of fuel. Some people have carefully calibrated dip sticks to determine exactly how much fuel is in a given tank. All of these are acceptable and reliable practices. However, if you choose to steadfastly maintain that looking at your gauge is a "reliable way to determine your fuel" then all I can say is that when the day comes that I see "fuel starvation" as the cause of your accident, I will tell everyone at your funeral that you were provided with information that could have prevented it and that you knowingly chose to act in a dangerous fashion. Oh, and I'll nominate you for a Darwin Award, too... ;-) Best regards all, Happy New Year, and fly safe! Bill Reister __________________________________________ "GT, You must not have seen my Lancair 320 since I do know the amount of fuel I have at any given time and the amount is within 1-2 gallons (the tank displays do not show fractions of gallons). It was an important capability for me and I had no problem in installing and using a system that went beyond FAA certification rules that only require the gauges be accurate when they show empty. On behalf of those 300 series pilots that perform aerobatics, going out to compete or practice with only a full header is prudent as fuel in the wings may upset the balance of some maneuvers. Grayhawk" ____________________________________________ mikeeasley wrote: I disagree with the concept that the only known fuel quantity is FULL. Maybe in the old days in certified aircraft, but my ES fuel gages are accurate. Back when fuel planning was done with an E6B, an estimated hourly fuel burn, one EGT analog gage; a very generous "fudge factor" needed to be included in our flight planning. I even think the winds aloft forecasts are better now than they were 20 years ago. With accurate fuel gages, fuel flow transducers, GPS calculated ground speed, ETA, fuel remaining at destination, and many of us have calculated winds aloft; we have a lot of accurate data on board. Most of our Lancairs have superior fuel management tools. I found Jeff's statistic surprising, unless pilots have failed to properly calibrate the fuel instruments or maybe just ignored them. I flew one of my tanks down to .7 gallons on a flight to Lancair to do some repair work on a wing. I had to drain the tank for the repair and I wasn't confident enough to run it dry in flight. I drained about 3/4 of a coffee can of fuel out on the ramp at Lancair. I have very high confidence in my fuel gages. That said, I have never landed with less than 20 gallons on board. My home field is almost 7,000 MSL so topping it off is at least something to think about, especially in the summertime. I have much more runway than Gary Casey up the road at Kelly Airpark. Mike Easley Colorado Springs In a message dated 12/26/09 06:01:45 Mountain Standard Time, _gt_phantom@hotmail.com_ (mailto:gt_phantom@hotmail.com) writes: Full tanks on a 320/360 is < 250 lbs, or a heavy passenger. When you calculate the theoretical savings you MIGHT obtain not filling the tanks vs. the empirical evidence of greater safety from ALWAYS filling the tanks, I'll have to say I'm quite willing to shell out a few extra dollars on the side of safety. Too, in every Lancair I've seen there is only one KNOWN quantity of gas for each tank - FULL. Every other condition is "unknown." However, that still does allow having at least one tank FULL and the wings "not full" and still know you have enough gas for a local flight. I have taken off once with only a full header tank - that was to go get cheaper gas at another airport. But don't let my caution stop you from taking of with an unknown quantity of gas. Merry Christmas, all! :-) -- For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html -------------------------------1261941679 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Bill, Bill, Bill.........
 
We are all a product of our experiences.  You flew a vehicle tha= t was=20 built by the lowest bidder to gov't specs.  You never fueled your own= =20 plane. Your experience has left you a bitter faithless nail biter. ;<)<= /DIV>
 
I also flew a plane built to gov't specs - built by hands= of=20 many, uh, qualified people.  It was called a Skymaster (C337G) w= ith=20 extended range tanks - 6 in total and all connected to a state of the art= brain=20 (well, that was 1970 or earlier technology).  These were=20 analog gauges that didn't even read empty correctly.  Fuel consu= mption=20 (gph) was measured by a magical conversion of fuel pressure and= =20 displayed by a needle where even movement of its width=20 was significant (Don't ya just love Continental engines?).  = ;I had=20 1300 hours over many cross-country miles and never ran out of fuel.&n= bsp;=20 Deeply imbedded in my persona is the use of the fourth dimension - time.&n= bsp; I=20 used each fuel stop to estimate the amount consumed for the trip and toppe= d her=20 up - after about 300 hours and many different flight regimes, I would= be=20 within a gallon or two of the truck quantity. Gauges, I didn't need= no=20 stink'n gauges or sticks - I used my own 1941 era brain.
 
Then came the building my Lancair 320 - what a joy as I cou= ld do=20 something about the miserable fuel management systems I had to experience= with=20 Cessna products.  No selector valves (a source of many accidents), he= ader=20 always full automatic system for the emergency case of no electrical power= plus=20 evenly emptying fuel from both wings to keep lateral balance, digital disp= lays=20 accurately calibrated, idiot lights and audible warnings for low fuel stat= es of=20 any tank and of the aggregate, independent accurate fuel flow=20 instrumentation and, finally, the mental set that makes a landing=20 more desirable than some animalistic urge to try to reach the=20 destination at any cost.
 
Oh, BTW I am still ingrained to make use of the fourth= =20 dimension (that being time) so as not to run out of fuel and I still estim= ate=20 top-up fuel amounts accurately even if 3 or 4 intervening flights have tak= en=20 place.  You know, another benefit of low winged aircraft is that I ca= n see=20 all the fuel caps whilst flying (that's why they are shiny).
 
I certainly agree that an accident due to running out of fuel is one= of the=20 more stupid ones.  With respect to Darwin, it is too late - I have ha= d all=20 the children I am going to have. 
 
Scott Krueger AKA Grayhawk
 
In a message dated 12/27/2009 11:51:27 A.M. Central Standard Time,=20 gt_phantom@hotmail.com writes:
I=20 received two responses to my post; I am responding to both in this post.=  =20

To both Grayhawk and Mike Easley I respectfully submit that you= are=20 asking for needless trouble.

If you will refer to my original pos= t, I=20 did not say that "Full" was not the only POSSIBLE "known quantity, but= rather=20 that it was the only known quantity for each tank on most Lancairs. = ; That=20 is a FACTUAL statement, your arguments about the reliability of your=20 respective fuel gauges notwithstanding.

Do you visually confirm= that=20 the amount of fuel in each tank matches what the gauge says, and if so,= =20 how?  Capacitance gauges, while very accurate today, do have failur= e=20 modes.  Do you know all of them?  Do you know how to recognize= them=20 in the cockpit?  Is it even POSSIBLE to recognize them all in the= =20 cockpit? 

Fuel starvation is one of the leading causes of= =20 accidents and is THE most preventable accident cause.

The same ty= pe of=20 gauges were used in the F-4 Phantoms I flew in my mis-spent youth. = One=20 day on a training flight after the external tanks were dry, I started no= ticing=20 that my fuel quantity seemed to be going down more quickly than Lead's.&= nbsp;=20 Too, the gauge was "bouncing around more than normal."  After a bri= ef=20 discussion with my back seater we decided we would rather be live sissie= s than=20 end up walking home or worse, so we told Lead we were heading home. = ;=20 Lead, being a rather arrogant ass, asked us to repeat the diagnosis we= had=20 already performed and, in level flight, the gauge seemed to level out ju= st a=20 bit below Lead's reading.  Logically, if we both started out with= full=20 tanks and there was no leakage, our fuel remaining should be about the= =20 same.  Lead passed off the fluctuation as a simple gauge problem an= d=20 said, "let's continue the mission and just keep an eye on it;" however,= I told=20 him to take the stick if he wanted to fly my airplane, otherwise we were= going=20 home with or without him.  He grudgingly "led us back."

On= the way=20 home, the gauge started falling at an increased pace, so much so that we= had=20 Lead drop back twice and look for fuel leaking.  None.  On sho= rt=20 initial the Fuel Low Level light (which was independent from the gauge= system)=20 came on - this system was supposed to be "fool proof" and "absolutely=20 reliable" and was supposed to indicate 2200-2300 pounds of fuel remainin= g (a=20 good 10-12 minutes at reduced power setting).  I pitched, throttled= back,=20 dropped gear and flaps, turned base, and landed in minimum time with min= imum=20 use of throttle.  On touchdown I shut down one engine (standard=20 practice); rolled to the end of the runway, turned off and pulled into= my=20 hanger (by happenstance the first hanger) all without touching the throt= tles=20 again and then wrote up the plane for a faulty fuel gauge system.
In=20 order to inspect the fuel system gauges, it was necessary to remove the= =20 remaining fuel from the aircraft.  Full internal fuel on the F-4 wa= s=20 about 12,500 lbs, or about 1900 gallons which represents a bit over an= hour of=20 flying time (~180 gallons =3D 6 minutes; 18 gallons =3D 0.6 minutes).&nb= sp; When=20 they defueled the aircraft, they only got 6 gallons, or less than 20 sec= onds=20 of fuel remaining.

Complacency is the single biggest killer in ai= rcraft=20 accidents.  If you trust your newfangled gadgets without verifying,= you=20 are an accident statistic waiting to happen - period, and I make no apol= ogy=20 for that statement.

Now, having said that there ARE legitimate wa= ys to=20 insure there is a "KNOWN QUANTITY" of fuel.  My particular Lancair= has a=20 header tank, so I can fill that and know I have enough fuel to ferry the= =20 aircraft to another airport for cheaper gas.  I can (and have) fill= a=20 single wing tank, and accept that it will be wing-heavy on takeoff (I lo= st a=20 gas cap on a cross country, and flew with two tanks rather than be stuck= out=20 for a day or more).  For those builders who plan ahead ( or a cleve= r=20 person improvising after instruction), tabs can be installed inside the= wing=20 fill caps ala' Piper, so that if you "fill to the tabs" you have both a= =20 balanced and known quantity of fuel.  Some people have carefully=20 calibrated dip sticks to determine exactly how much fuel is in a given= =20 tank.

All of these are acceptable and reliable practices. = =20 However, if you choose to steadfastly maintain that looking at your gaug= e is a=20 "reliable way to determine your fuel" then all I can say is that when th= e day=20 comes that I see "fuel starvation" as the cause of your accident, I will= tell=20 everyone at your funeral that you were provided with information that co= uld=20 have prevented it and that you knowingly chose to act in a dangerous=20 fashion.  Oh, and I'll nominate you for a Darwin Award, too... = ;=20 ;-)

Best regards= all,=20 Happy New Year, and fly safe!

Bill=20 Reister

__________________________________________
"GT,=20
 
You must not have seen= my Lancair=20 320 since I do know the amount of fuel I have at any given time and= the=20 amount is within 1-2 gallons (the tank displays do not show=20 fractions of gallons).  It was an important capability fo= r me=20 and I had no problem in installing and using a system that went beyond= FAA=20 certification rules that only require the gauges be accurate= when=20 they show empty. 
 
On behalf of those 300= series=20 pilots that perform aerobatics, going out to compete or practice wi= th=20 only a full header is prudent as fuel in the wings may upset the balance= of=20 some maneuvers.
 
Grayhawk"
_____________________________________= _______


mikeeasley=20 wrote:=20
I disagree with the concept that the= only known=20 fuel quantity is FULL.  Maybe in the old days in certified aircra= ft,=20 but my ES fuel gages are accurate.
 
Back when fuel planning was done with= an E6B,=20 an estimated hourly fuel burn, one EGT analog gage; a very generous "f= udge=20 factor" needed to be included in our flight planning.  I even thi= nk the=20 winds aloft forecasts are better now than they were 20 years=20 ago.
 
With accurate fuel gages, fuel flow= =20 transducers, GPS calculated ground speed, ETA, fuel remaining at=20 destination, and many of us have calculated winds aloft; we have a lot= of=20 accurate data on board.  Most of our Lancairs have superior fuel= =20 management tools.  I found Jeff's statistic surprising, unless pi= lots=20 have failed to properly calibrate the fuel instruments or maybe just= ignored=20 them.
 
I flew one of my tanks down to .7 gal= lons on a=20 flight to Lancair to do some repair work on a wing.  I had= to=20 drain the tank for the repair and I wasn't confident enough to run it= dry in=20 flight.  I drained about 3/4 of a coffee can of fuel out on the= ramp at=20 Lancair.  I have very high confidence in my fuel gages.  Tha= t=20 said, I have never landed with less than 20 gallons on board.
 
My home field is almost 7,000 MSL&nbs= p;so=20 topping it off is at least something to think about, especially in the= =20 summertime.  I have much more runway than Gary Casey up the road= at=20 Kelly Airpark.
 
Mike Easley
Colorado Springs
 
In a message dated 12/26/09 06:01:45 Mountain Standard Time, gt_phantom@hotmail.com=20 writes:
Full tanks on a 320/360 is < 250 lbs, or a heavy passenger.
When=20 you calculate the theoretical savings you MIGHT obtain not filling= the=20 tanks vs. the empirical evidence of greater safety from ALWAYS filli= ng the=20 tanks, I'll have to say I'm quite willing to shell out a few extra= dollars=20 on the side of safety.  Too, in every Lancair I've seen there= is only=20 one KNOWN quantity of gas for each tank - FULL.  Every other=20 condition is "unknown."  However, that still does allow having= at=20 least one tank FULL and the wings "not full" and still know you have= =20 enough gas for a local flight.  I have taken off once with only= a=20 full header tank - that was to go get cheaper gas at another=20 airport.

But don't let my caution stop you from taking of wit= h an=20 unknown quantity of gas.

Merry Christmas, all!

:-) 

--

For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.htm=
l
-------------------------------1261941679--