X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 22:59:12 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-db02.mx.aol.com ([205.188.91.96] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.0) with ESMTP id 4064149 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 04 Jan 2010 20:09:24 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.91.96; envelope-from=Sky2high@aol.com Received: from imo-da03.mx.aol.com (imo-da03.mx.aol.com [205.188.169.201]) by imr-db02.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id o0518jJT007782 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 2010 20:08:45 -0500 Received: from Sky2high@aol.com by imo-da03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.5.) id q.d65.44bf66fe (34993) for ; Mon, 4 Jan 2010 20:08:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtprly-md01.mx.aol.com (smtprly-md01.mx.aol.com [64.12.143.154]) by cia-db01.mx.aol.com (v127.7) with ESMTP id MAILCIADB016-d4134b4291142e4; Mon, 04 Jan 2010 20:08:40 -0500 Received: from magic-m26.mail.aol.com (magic-m26.mail.aol.com [172.20.22.199]) by smtprly-md01.mx.aol.com (v127.7) with ESMTP id MAILSMTPRLYMD011-d4134b4291142e4; Mon, 04 Jan 2010 20:08:36 -0500 From: sky2high@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: <236ee.ac48148.3873eb14@aol.com> X-Original-Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 20:08:36 EST Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Fuel Planning X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_236ee.ac48148.3873eb14_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 9.5 sub 155 X-AOL-ORIG-IP: 67.175.242.202 X-AOL-IP: 172.20.22.199 X-Spam-Flag:NO X-AOL-SENDER: Sky2high@aol.com --part1_236ee.ac48148.3873eb14_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mike, Anybody have comments either way on fuel flow transducers? You bet. Early in my testing I had at least a 10% accuracy error in the FF readings. The reason was that I had used 2 different "reducers" at each end of the transducer. One was the hollow type used with a properly sized nipple and the other was a nipple with a size change at the pip thread (drilled out type). (http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/hapages/an816.php) Well, wouldn't you know it, I used the size change nipple on the input side and the turbulence caused by the small hole being near the transducer wheel led to false readings. When I swapped the fittings on the input and output, the transducer became as accurate as the readout on the self serve fuel pumps used to fill the tanks. Glory be! Uh, because I am using the more understandable Lycoming set up, the transducer is between the throttle body and the spider without fuel being returned to a tank. Grayhawk PS My tank levels back up FF and those pumps where Gallons spin the dollar indicator much faster. So do the time calculations. In a message dated 1/4/2010 5:49:12 P.M. Central Standard Time, mikeeasley@aol.com writes: 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 --part1_236ee.ac48148.3873eb14_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mike,
 
Anybody have comments either way on fuel= flow=20 transducers?
 
You bet.  Early in my testing I had at least a 10% accuracy erro= r in=20 the FF readings.  The reason was that I had used 2 different "reducer= s" at=20 each end of the transducer.  One was the hollow type used with= a=20 properly sized nipple
 
 and the other was a nipple with a size change at the= pip=20 thread (drilled out type). 
 
 
Well, wouldn't you know it, I used the size change nipple on the inpu= t side=20 and the turbulence caused by the small hole being near the transducer whee= l led=20 to false readings.  When I swapped the fittings on the input and outp= ut,=20 the transducer became as accurate as the readout on the self=20 serve fuel pumps used to fill the tanks.  Glory be!  Uh, be= cause=20 I am using the more understandable Lycoming set up, the transducer is betw= een=20 the throttle body and the spider without fuel being returned to a tank.
 
Grayhawk
 
PS My tank levels back up FF and those pumps where Gallons spin the= dollar=20 indicator much faster.  So do the time calculations.
 
In a message dated 1/4/2010 5:49:12 P.M. Central Standard Time,=20 mikeeasley@aol.com writes:
I mentioned earlier about the "mental= math" I do=20 to confirm that the time, fuel flow, fuel level numbers match up. = I=20 pulled up some of my JPI flight files and compared the fuel level change= s to=20 the fuel flow number and they matched up very well.  So my mental= math=20 and data confirm the current accuracy of my fuel gages.  My experie= nce is=20 the fuel flow transducer is a more accurate tool than the fuel level in= =20 determining how much fuel has been used out of a full tank. =20
 
Anybody have comments either way on fue= l flow=20 transducers?
 
Mike Easley
Colorado=20 Springs
--part1_236ee.ac48148.3873eb14_boundary--