X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 18:47:47 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-da01.mx.aol.com ([205.188.105.143] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.0) with ESMTP id 4063062 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 04 Jan 2010 07:30:42 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.105.143; envelope-from=MikeEasley@aol.com Received: from imo-ma04.mx.aol.com (imo-ma04.mx.aol.com [64.12.78.139]) by imr-da01.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id o04CTthn013341 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 2010 07:29:55 -0500 Received: from MikeEasley@aol.com by imo-ma04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.5.) id q.c1f.75b5579c (44228) for ; Mon, 4 Jan 2010 07:29:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from MikeNotebook (c-75-71-55-189.hsd1.co.comcast.net [75.71.55.189]) by cia-dd08.mx.aol.com (v127.7) with ESMTP id MAILCIADD086-acc44b41df3f16b; Mon, 04 Jan 2010 07:29:52 -0500 X-Original-Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 05:29:45 -0700 From: mikeeasley Subject: Re: [LML] Fuel Planning X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" In-Reply-To: X-Original-Message-ID: References: X-Mailer: Nexus Desktop Client 3.1.20.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/alternative; BOUNDARY=63e4b089-b3cc-42b8-90cf-d1eaa519da15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-AOL-IP: 75.71.55.189 X-Spam-Flag:NO X-AOL-SENDER: MikeEasley@aol.com --63e4b089-b3cc-42b8-90cf-d1eaa519da15 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii I mentioned earlier about the "mental math" I do to confirm that the time, fuel flow, fuel level numbers match up. I pulled up some of my JPI flight files and compared the fuel level changes to the fuel flow number and they matched up very well. So my mental math and data confirm the current accuracy of my fuel gages. My experience is the fuel flow transducer is a more accurate tool than the fuel level in determining how much fuel has been used out of a full tank. Anybody have comments either way on fuel flow transducers? Mike Easley Colorado Springs --63e4b089-b3cc-42b8-90cf-d1eaa519da15 Content-Type: TEXT/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT

I mentioned earlier about the "mental math" I do to confirm that the time, fuel flow, fuel level numbers match up. I pulled up some of my JPI flight files and compared the fuel level changes to the fuel flow number and they matched up very well. So my mental math and data confirm the current accuracy of my fuel gages. My experience is the fuel flow transducer is a more accurate tool than the fuel level in determining how much fuel has been used out of a full tank.

Anybody have comments either way on fuel flow transducers?

Mike Easley

Colorado Springs

--63e4b089-b3cc-42b8-90cf-d1eaa519da15--