X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 19:24:00 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [66.64.141.200] (HELO lucky.dts.local) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.0) with ESMTP id 4065657 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 05 Jan 2010 17:03:12 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.64.141.200; envelope-from=cjensen@dts9000.com Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CA8E52.EEEADDB4" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Fuel Planning X-Original-Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 17:03:38 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: <8984A39879F2F5418251CBEEC9C689B30104A8F6@lucky.dts.local> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [LML] Re: Fuel Planning Thread-Index: AcqOTzXdrBYa1+mIRpOJ706qcMlA6QAAv3Vg From: "Chuck Jensen" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01CA8E52.EEEADDB4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I rely heavily on the fuel totalizer in the Velocity. On refueling, it = is invariably accurate to within a gallon on a 30-70 gallon burn, but = there is one scenario where reliance on the totalizer can leave you in = the lurch, and a bad one at that. If a leak develops upstream of the = fuel totalizer sensor, or you leave a fuel cap off, you can be draining = or vacuuming a large fraction of your fuel overboard, but the fuel = totalizer does not recognize this loss, nor will you, if you rely only = on the totalizer. =20 =20 Accordingly, we need a means of sensing, or directing reading of, the = fuel left in the tank(s) to know that we haven't had an unexpected loss = and that we can rely on the fuel totalizer. Chuck Jensen=20 -----Original Message----- From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net]On Behalf Of = LEON SMITH Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 4:36 PM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Re: Fuel Planning Mike, =20 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. =20 Leon Smith LNCE N63LS =20 ----- 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 =20 Anybody have comments either way on fuel flow transducers? =20 Mike Easley Colorado Springs ------_=_NextPart_001_01CA8E52.EEEADDB4 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I rely heavily on the fuel = totalizer in the=20 Velocity. On refueling, it is invariably accurate to within a = gallon on a=20 30-70 gallon burn, but there is one scenario where reliance on the=20 totalizer can leave you in the lurch, and a bad one at that. If a = leak=20 develops upstream of the fuel totalizer sensor, or you leave a fuel cap = off, you=20 can be draining or vacuuming a large fraction of your fuel overboard, = but the=20 fuel totalizer does not recognize this loss, nor will you, if you rely = only on=20 the totalizer.

Accordingly, we need a means of = sensing, or=20 directing reading of, the fuel left in the tank(s) to know that we = haven't had=20 an unexpected loss and that we can rely on the fuel = totalizer.

Chuck=20 Jensen

-----Original Message-----
From: Lancair = Mailing List=20 [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net]On Behalf Of LEON = SMITH
Sent:=20 Tuesday, January 05, 2010 4:36 PM
To:=20 lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: Fuel=20 Planning

Mike,

I fly an ES with close to 600 hrs on it. Each time I fill = up I=20 check the actual fuel pumped against the fuel computer and invariably = the fuel=20 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=20 for comfort.

Leon Smith

LNCE N63LS

----- Original Message -----

From: mikeeasley

To: lml@lancaironline.net =

Sent: Monday, January 04, = 2010 3:47=20 PM

Subject: Re: [LML] Fuel = Planning

I mentioned earlier about the = "mental math" I=20 do 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=20 is 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_001_01CA8E52.EEEADDB4--