X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:35:54 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from col0-omc3-s3.col0.hotmail.com ([65.55.34.141] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.0) with ESMTP id 4065388 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 05 Jan 2010 13:56:05 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=65.55.34.141; envelope-from=lsmith541@msn.com Received: from COL111-DS16 ([65.55.34.136]) by col0-omc3-s3.col0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 5 Jan 2010 10:55:28 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [75.164.221.150] X-Originating-Email: [lsmith541@msn.com] X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: lsmith541@msn.com From: "LEON SMITH" X-Original-To: References: Subject: Re: [LML] Fuel Planning X-Original-Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 10:55:07 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0078_01CA8DF5.8B323DB0" In-Reply-To: X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: MSN 9 X-MimeOLE: Produced By MSN MimeOLE V9.60.0053.2200 Seal-Send-Time: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 10:55:07 -0800 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Jan 2010 18:55:28.0857 (UTC) FILETIME=[A60B9490:01CA8E38] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0078_01CA8DF5.8B323DB0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mike, I fly an ES with close to 600 hrs on it. Each time I fill up I check = the actual fuel pumped against the fuel computer and invariably the fuel = computer is accurate to within 1 1/2 gal. max. I trust it much more = that the fuel gauges. I only use the gauges to balance fuel load in = flight. I do cross check the gauges against Fuel Remaining and Time Flown just = for comfort. Leon Smith LNCE N63LS ----- Original Message -----=20 From: mikeeasley=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 3:47 PM Subject: Re: [LML] Fuel Planning 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. =20 Anybody have comments either way on fuel flow transducers? Mike Easley Colorado Springs ------=_NextPart_000_0078_01CA8DF5.8B323DB0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mike,
 
I fly an ES with close to 600 hrs on it.  Each time I fill up = I check=20 the actual fuel pumped against the fuel computer and invariably the fuel = computer is accurate to within 1 1/2 gal. max.  I trust it much = more that=20 the fuel gauges.  I only use the gauges to balance fuel load in=20 flight.
I do cross check the gauges against Fuel Remaining and Time Flown = just for=20 comfort.
 
Leon Smith
LNCE N63LS
 
----- Original Message -----
From: mikeeasley
Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 = 3:47=20 PM
Subject: Re: [LML] Fuel = Planning

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 = changes 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 = experience 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 = fuel flow=20 transducers?
 
Mike Easley
Colorado Springs
------=_NextPart_000_0078_01CA8DF5.8B323DB0--