X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 14:09:12 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from QMTA14.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.27.212] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.0) with ESMTP id 4067527 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 06 Jan 2010 20:46:00 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=76.96.27.212; envelope-from=j.hafen@comcast.net Received: from OMTA17.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.73]) by QMTA14.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id SRMR1d0041afHeLAERlRBC; Thu, 07 Jan 2010 01:45:25 +0000 Received: from [192.168.100.238] ([66.182.58.106]) by OMTA17.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id SRlE1d0022HX4dN8dRlJqD; Thu, 07 Jan 2010 01:45:22 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.17.0.090302 X-Original-Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 18:45:12 -0700 Subject: Re: [LML] Re: 2009 Lancair Accidents factoids From: John Hafen X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List X-Original-Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [LML] Re: 2009 Lancair Accidents factoids Thread-Index: AcqPOw0nn7BvQOJwtk+lmpNgTVRAtQ== In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3345648321_101901" > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3345648321_101901 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Matt: You should move. John Hafen Washington State Landing Fee $0 Ramp Fee, Huh? Overnight Camping at Friday Harbor, $0 $5 burger, $6.00 For everything else, there=B9s........ On 1/6/10 2:15 PM, "Matt Reeves" wrote: > Not to be negative but how many Lancairs flew in 2009 compared to 2008? = Or > any airplane for that matter? Just a few years ago, I'd see and hear pla= nes > fly all the time. Now, I'm lucky to hear one a month and never see them. > Sadly, GA is dying. In Rochester, it's $80 to land a small plane - $40 r= amp > fee plus $40 landing fee. Less planes fly, less planes crash but I'm no= t > sure that should be interpreted as an improvement. >=20 > --- On Wed, 1/6/10, vtailjeff@aol.com wrote: >>=20 >> From: vtailjeff@aol.com >> Subject: [LML] Re: 2009 Lancair Accidents factoids >> To: lml@lancaironline.net >> Date: Wednesday, January 6, 2010, 6:16 AM >>=20 >>=20 >> Interesting fact: 9 serious (four fatal with 7 fatalities) Lancair accid= ents >> last year. This is down from 20 accidents (12 fatal with 21 fatalities) = in >> 2008. Not a single serious accident in 2009 involved a LOBO member. This >> parallels COPA's membership accident statistics as well. Keep it up! >> =20 >> Jeff Edwards >> President, LOBO >>=20 >>=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Robert Mitchell >> To: lml@lancaironline.net >> Sent: Tue, Jan 5, 2010 10:19 pm >> Subject: [LML] Re: Fuel Planning >>=20 >> Some random experiences in Fuel (mis)management. >> =20 >> Gotcha #1. Left Madison, Wisc, minetes ahead of a rapid moving cold fro= nt in >> a C-180 ambhibian. Full tanks, checked cover on old style fuel tank - >> appeared on (the wing is 12+ feet in the air) so didn't crawel the ladde= r! >> On way to Midway airport, swithched tanks over what is now Tri-State >> expressway. Tank # 2 empty because cap loose under the old style cover. >> Landed without incident on the Tri-state (prior to concrete being laid.) >> =20 >> Gotcha #2. In a T-6. Three hours Fuel in two tanks, switching tanks ev= ery >> 1/2 hour. Made fuel selector swith twice without problem, on third swit= ch >> attempt the selector handle broke off. Now unable to fly on fuller tank= , so >> diverted to alternate airport and landed. No passenger in back seat as = there >> is a second selector there. Henceforth carried a vicegrip as do about 1= /3 of >> the knowledgeable T-6 pilots. >> =20 >> Gotcha #3. In a twin comanche with tip tanks. Heated hangar in N. Wisc= . >> Drained during preflight a small amount of fuel from the twins peculiar = low >> point central drain. Left for Florida, with full mains, full aux and fu= ll >> tips. My proceedure is to taxi out on the mains, switch to aux for run u= p >> then back to mains for take off. Uneventfull cruise at 8500'. Full aux= and >> tips showing on the gauges. At cruise I swith to left Aux tank, engine >> quites, back to main everything ok. Same with rt engine. Analysis froz= en >> water in both aux tanks. After landing and over night in heated hanger = drain >> over a gallon of water from sump. A/c always hangared! >> =20 >> Gotcha#4. I was checking out a CFI in a tailwheel Aeronca Champ, 85hp it= had >> a fuel system not unlike a Lnc-2. Header tank, 2 wing tanks that gravity= feed >> to the header. The CFI "student" checks the fuel. " half full header, = half >> full wing aux tanks". We were only going to do touch and goes in Sedona= , AZ. >> After 2-3 landings we turned on the aux which drains into the mains so a= s to >> continue circuits and the 4th landing was "dead stick". >> =20 >> Moral of the story(s), is that; when possible I fly on the top half of t= he >> tanks and enjoy the luxury of capacitance gauges, fuel flow/totalizers a= nd >> hopefully no more GOTCHA'S. >> =20 >> Bob Mitchell >> L320 >> =20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Subject: [LML] Re: Fuel Planning >>=20 >> 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 se= nsor, >> 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 recogni= ze >> this loss, nor will you, if you rely only on the totalizer. >> =20 >> Accordingly, we need a means of sensing, or directing reading of, the fu= el >> left in the tank(s) to know that we haven't had an unexpected loss and t= hat >> we can rely on the fuel totalizer. >>=20 >> Chuck Jensen=20 >>> =20 >=20 >=20 --B_3345648321_101901 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Re: [LML] Re: 2009 Lancair Accidents factoids Matt:

You should move.

John Hafen
Washington State
Landing Fee $0
Ramp Fee, Huh?
Overnight Camping at Friday Harbor, $0
$5 burger, $6.00
For everything else, there’s........


On 1/6/10 2:15 PM, "Matt Reeves" <mattreeves@yahoo.com> wrote:

<= SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'>Not to be negative but how many Lancairs flew in= 2009 compared to 2008?  Or any airplane for that matter?  Just a = few years ago, I'd see and hear planes fly all the time.  Now, I'm luck= y to hear one a month and never see them.  Sadly, GA is dying.  In= Rochester, it's $80 to land a small plane - $40 ramp fee plus $40 landing f= ee.   Less planes fly, less planes crash but I'm not sure that sho= uld be interpreted as an improvement.

--- On Wed, 1/6/10, vtailjeff@aol.com <vtailjeff@aol.com> wrote:
<= SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:11pt'>
From: vtailjeff@aol.com <vtailjeff@aol.com>
Subject: [LML] Re: 2009 Lancair Accidents factoids
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Wednesday, January 6, 2010, 6:16 AM


Interesting fact: 9 serious (four fatal with 7 fatalities) Lancair accident= s last year. This is down from 20 accidents (12 fatal with 21 fatalities) in= 2008. Not a single serious accident in 2009 involved a LOBO member. This pa= rallels COPA's membership accident statistics as well. Keep it up!
 
Jeff Edwards
President, LOBO


-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Mitchell <rmitch1@hughes.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Sent: Tue, Jan 5, 2010 10:19 pm
Subject: [LML] Re: Fuel Planning

Some random experiences in Fuel (mis)management.
 
Gotcha #1.  Left Madison, Wisc, minetes ahead of a rapid moving cold f= ront in a C-180 ambhibian.  Full tanks, checked cover on old style fuel= tank - appeared on (the wing is 12+ feet in the air) so didn't crawel the l= adder!  On way to Midway airport, swithched tanks over what is now Tri-= State expressway.  Tank # 2 empty because cap loose under the old style= cover.  Landed without incident on the Tri-state (prior to concrete be= ing laid.)
 
Gotcha #2.  In a T-6.  Three hours Fuel in two tanks, switching t= anks every 1/2 hour.  Made fuel selector swith twice without problem, o= n third switch attempt the selector handle broke off.  Now unable to fl= y on fuller tank, so diverted to alternate airport and landed.  No pass= enger in back seat as there is a second selector there.  Henceforth car= ried a vicegrip as do about 1/3 of the knowledgeable T-6 pilots.
 
Gotcha #3.  In a twin comanche with tip tanks.  Heated hangar in = N. Wisc.  Drained during preflight a small amount of fuel from the twin= s peculiar low point central drain.  Left for Florida, with full mains,= full aux and full tips. My proceedure is to taxi out on the mains, switch t= o aux for run up then back to mains for take off.  Uneventfull cruise a= t 8500'.  Full aux and tips showing on the gauges. At cruise I swith to= left Aux tank, engine quites, back to main everything ok.  Same with r= t engine.  Analysis frozen water in both aux tanks.  After landing= and over night in heated hanger drain over a gallon of water from sump. &nb= sp;A/c always hangared!
 
Gotcha#4. I was checking out a CFI in a tailwheel Aeronca Champ, 85hp it ha= d a fuel system not unlike a Lnc-2. Header tank, 2 wing tanks that gravity f= eed to the header.  The CFI "student" checks the fuel.  = " half full header, half full wing aux tanks".  We were only = going to do touch and goes in Sedona, AZ.  After 2-3 landings we turned= on the aux which drains into the mains so as to continue circuits and the 4= th landing was "dead stick".
 
Moral of the story(s), is that; when possible I fly on the top half of the = tanks and enjoy the luxury of capacitance gauges, fuel flow/totalizers and h= opefully no more GOTCHA'S.
 
Bob Mitchell
L320
 


Subject: [LML] Re: Fuel Planning

I rely heavily on the fuel totalizer in the Velocity.  On refueling, i= t is invariably accurate to within a gallon on a 30-70 gallon burn, but ther= e 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 total= izer 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 reco= gnize this loss, nor will you, if you rely only on the totalizer.  
 
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



--B_3345648321_101901--