Jaybird180
Final Approach
Can some show a picture with arrows showing tabs (bottom, top, etc)?
Fuel reserves
- Thread starter Tom-D
- Start date
Yes I will if I am running on calculated reserves (rather than full tanks where I'll only use 1/3 of it on the trip) I will run my auxes dry.
Richard
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2005
- Messages
- 9,076
- Location
- West Coast Resistance
- Display Name
Display name:
Ack...city life
Several times, all intentionally.
dmccormack
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- May 11, 2007
- Messages
- 10,945
- Location
- Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
- Display Name
Display name:
Dan Mc
I let a student take off with not quite enough fuel to return on a long XC leg (There were airports en route and the airplane used a selector -- no "both" setting). I sked, "Are you sure we have enough...?"
"Oh yeah..."
Somewhere over Wild Wonderful West Virginia there was a sudden silence. I waited to see the reaction and it was pure panic. I reached for the fuel selector switch and the engine came back to life.
We landed 10 minutes later and re-fueled.
"Oh yeah..."
Somewhere over Wild Wonderful West Virginia there was a sudden silence. I waited to see the reaction and it was pure panic. I reached for the fuel selector switch and the engine came back to life.
We landed 10 minutes later and re-fueled.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Many times. I have 4 tanks, and will dry tank both tips all the time - on purpose. On my 2010 trip to Florida, I dry tanked 3 of the 4, but landed with an hour left in one of the mains.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
I've seen jump planes dead stick back to the runway.The jump zone is 4 miles from the threshold.
If you can't glide 4 miles from 11,000 feet....
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 29,914
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
Exactly. It's not a concern for me. But the first time or two, it was a bit scary.
jesse
Touchdown! Greaser!
I've done it a few times when I need to be really precise about fuel. Never really bothered me. I've always spotted a drop in fuel pressure before the engine quit and had my hand on the selector waiting.
tonycondon
Gastons CRO (Chief Dinner Reservation Officer)
i ran a tank dry in the 421 once. i found my response interesting as in the past i had never had the need or desire to run a tank dry. the first thing i noticed was the rising EGT as the mixture leaned out. the interesting thing was even though in knew that tank was almost dry i just enrichened the mixture to try to correct the egt. then it went even higher and the fuel flow went down. WTF!??! enrichened more. then the egt went up again! and the fuel flow went down and the engine started stumbling. that was when my brain came back from vacation so i switched tanks and everyone was happy.
denverpilot
Tied Down
I'll pipe up here and say that Capt. Barry and I "scared" ourselves last year returning from Oshkosh. No JPI in our bird, just lame Cessna gauges.
Neither one of us ever flies at sea-level or near it. We'd forgotten our basics... that our aircraft burns at least 2 GPH more below 4000' DA than it does up here at our high altitude home base, when properly leaned.
We got caught underneath a 3000'-4000' AGL scattered-to-broken layer all the way to our first refueling stop on the way home, and we'd launched out of Green Bay with less than full tanks due to the heavy Oshkosh load.
We planned a long leg to land with an hour of fuel on board. When we landed and sticked the tanks, we had less than 13 gallons. Not by a lot, but we were both a little dumbstruck until we thought about it a little bit. Those big 79 gallon useable bladders are hard to stick to get an accurate reading that low anyway, you can change what your stick shows by pushing the nose strut up or down.
I'm not too proud to admit that two rated pilots screwed this up in a Skylane. I'm just glad we didn't have any need/reason to push on any further past our planned stop.
Lesson learned about flyin' around at about 3500 MSL all day, without bending the airplane or us. But we both stared at that stick for a loooooong time and scratched our heads at the amount of fuel we had to take on to get back to where we wanted to be for the final leg.
If we weren't both "I want an hour in the tanks whenever I land" kinda guys, we'd have been VERY close to runnin' out of gas entering the pattern at our fuel stop.
I'd like to THINK that we'd have gotten a bit freaked out at the fuel gauges before that, but Cessna drivers tend to rely on their watch/clock more than those pieces of junk and I could see us disregarding it if it was bumpy and the gauges were bopping around.
Not too proud to admit it and very happy to be in the "an hour of gas on board is the 'land right now' minimum for cross-countries" group after that. I didn't like looking at that stick at all. If I remember correctly, one tank dipped to 3 gallons and it just happened to be the tank I did first. After the shock wore off, the other tank dipped at 7.
That's way way WAY below my comfort zone. I don't think I've ever sticked our airplane and seen lower than 10 a side. Even at the higher fuel flows down lower, that's still over an hour.
The error margin, even in a dipstick, is too high for my tastes too.
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 29,914
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
This is why I like having at least an hour in the tanks at landing. Because sometimes, that planned hour could turn into less than what's planned.
I'd feel like a real idiot if the reason I put an airplane into the trees was because I ran out of gas.
azure
Final Approach
+1. The most fuel I've ever put into the Branded Bird was the other day after bringing it home from replacing the wing spar. I left Ionia with what should have been half tanks, flew for 1.3 tach hours and then put in about 48 gallons. Nominal capacity is 60 gallons usable, so I'd had about an hour left. That's at the absolute bottom of my comfort zone (and why I actually put in 6 of those 48 before launching for the fuel run).
On the face of it, that means I burned 18 gallons in 1.3 tach hours, which would be running WAY rich. I've been scratching my head about that ever since. Now it just dawned on me as I was typing that: 60 gallons usable. 31.5 gallon tanks total capacity. The tanks had to be empty to remove the wings. So I really burned 15 gallons coming back, which sounds... just right. Whew.
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 29,914
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
I keep pretty close track of my fuel burn vs. hours flown for just that reason, to make sure that everything's doing what it ought to. It's an important part of getting to know an airplane. When I don't know an airplane's fuel burn characteristics, I tend to be especially conservative.
Of course, when you get into weight, CG, and runway length considerations, then it can be less safe to take on more fuel.
Multi Engine ops is where it really adds advantage to leave excess fuel behind.
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 29,914
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
Depends on the plane. The Aztec and 310 are such that I can have full fuel and put about anything I want in them, while still being within limits and able to get in and out of any runway that I want to fly into.
The Navajo, however, holds less weight with full fuel than the Aztec or 310. Plus it has fewer hours of fuel on board. When flying it, I need to be significantly more careful with my weight and balance. Doubly so if I have people in the #7 and #8 seats.
Yes, there is the engine out scenario, but again, the Aztec and 310 both do pretty well on one engine, even with a load. Especially the 310, being a Colemill conversion. The Navajo is probably the worst performing on one engine with a load, and the good engine will get unhappy with you a lot faster being turbocharged.
gismo
Touchdown! Greaser!
Perhaps anything you want and any runway you want to use. My B55 has a full fuel payload of around 850 lbs but on many trips with the whole family (including the dog) and one of my daughter's friends along we seem to be perfectly capable of exceeding that amount by at least 100 lbs. Also I occasionally fly in and out of sub 2000 ft grass strips on hot summer days in which case I try for the absolute minimum fuel load that will leave me with my hour's reserve. Similarly when flying in the mountains I like to keep the GW a few hundred pounds (the Colorado Pilot's assn recommends 10% below MGW which I think is excessive in my airplane most of the time since I theoretically have a 10,000 ft SE service ceiling at MGW) and fuel is often the most practical thing to leave out. I'm sure you'd agree that in your 310 and even in the AzTruk there could be times when you'd be better off departing with less than full tanks even though that could be a rare situation for you. And WRT that, your situation may change if and when you acquire a wife plus a teenager or two.
Last edited:
Excess weight always screws you from failure on take off, SE ceiling and the fuel it takes to haul the excess fuel.
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 29,914
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
Well, that IS what I said.
The 310 and Aztec both do better than the B55 in that regard. My Aztec, for instance, can still stuff right about 1200 lbs in with full fuel. With that, I'm still comfortable going out of 3500 ft gravel strips. If I had the 192-gallon long-range tanks, I'd probably have to have more consideration. However with 6 hours of range with the stock tanks the way I fly it, the extra weight would cause more harm than help in most cases.
Remember that my standard payload is a bunch of dogs in cages. I've found the best way to try to overload the plane is to put a bunch of humans with luggage in. Dogs are much better. I also set the minimum I'll take the Aztec and 310 in and out of at about 2700 ft. Yes, they'll do shorter. However the places that I go aren't that short, and the 310's landing gear is really not of the construction that I want to take it on grass strips anyway. Also, I only once went to Colorado. Yes, the Aztec was heavy, and no, it was not happy. That required special considerations vs. normal.
I never said that fuel was never a consideration, just that for me, it wasn't much of one for the flying I do. I've only twice told people that no, I won't land at that airport. And that was more due to the fact that it didn't have any instrument approaches than due to runway length (once again, that comes with the nature of my flying).
With the Navajo, I have to be significantly more careful. It'll hold roughly 950 lbs with full fuel... and that's with 8 seats that are always full if I'm flying it. That makes for some interesting W&B considerations, and fuel is the first thing that gets left out, especially when going into "tight" (~3500 ft) unimproved strips, for which I'm still heavy. Fortunately, the people who I fly in it are typically small and that does help, and they're good about limiting themselves to a backpack worth of stuff.
Last Sunday, for instance, we had to make a fuel stop due to leaving fuel out (vs. going non-stop if we had been able to take on full fuel). Then, when I was flying home (solo), I topped off all the tanks, went to 14,000, and put the turbos to work.
As I said, it depends on the plane.
As I said, for the Aztec and 310, it's pretty much a non-issue. I doubt that Laurie and I will be buying a 421 anytime soon, but who knows...
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 29,914
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
Yes, but depending on the airplane, the difference may or may not be a major one.
rottydaddy
En-Route
I've always planned for an hour reserve for daytime VFR... that's kept me out of trouble. But the last solo XC I did in a power plane (Champ; 13 gallons usable and an A-65 burning a little over 5 gph), I decided 30 minutes would be OK, even though I hadn't gone XC with it before, and didn't have a very firm grasp on how far I might go under any conditions. That was mistake #1. Mistake #2 did not happen, though...
If I hadn't gotten nervous watching the "magic 8-ball" style fuel gauge bumping "E" as it bounced around, I would have ended up cutting it very close (Chino to San Diego by way of Ramona, after making the same trip up and not refueling at Chino). I was almost abeam French Valley, with the wind now a slight headwind, so I landed there and topped off. Don't remember exactly how much was left, but I do remember thinking it would have given me a lot less than 30 minutes by the time I was near the pattern at KSDM. At best, I'd have probably been distracted by that gauge as it bounced less and less above "E", then diverted to Ramona or El Cajon to make a sweaty and distracted approach. It's not worth it, so I won't do that (plan for only a 30-minute reserve) again, I think.
If I hadn't gotten nervous watching the "magic 8-ball" style fuel gauge bumping "E" as it bounced around, I would have ended up cutting it very close (Chino to San Diego by way of Ramona, after making the same trip up and not refueling at Chino). I was almost abeam French Valley, with the wind now a slight headwind, so I landed there and topped off. Don't remember exactly how much was left, but I do remember thinking it would have given me a lot less than 30 minutes by the time I was near the pattern at KSDM. At best, I'd have probably been distracted by that gauge as it bounced less and less above "E", then diverted to Ramona or El Cajon to make a sweaty and distracted approach. It's not worth it, so I won't do that (plan for only a 30-minute reserve) again, I think.
azure
Final Approach
I've had that experience... my gauges seem to be fairly accurate down to about half, then then they cross the next quarter in no time at all. Plus, I do not have a fuel dipstick (since no one makes a calibrated one for the Cardinal, and the only way to calibrate a dipstick involves running a tank dry, something I'm a bit nervous about doing), so my policy is that if I can no longer see the fuel looking down into the tank from my stepladder, it's time to add some. I will fly a limited distance if I can't see the fuel but I know I have at least N gallons (because I've just added that much), but I'm too paranoid about becoming a fuel exhaustion statistic to not add fuel when I'm not sure of how much I have.
Clark1961
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 17,737
- Display Name
Display name:
Display name:
There is no need to run a tank dry in order to calibrate a dipstick. The procedure is more accurate if the tank is run fairly low, but it definitely doesn't have to be dry.
Just get the level low, measure it, add 5 gallons, measure again, (lather, rinse, repeat) until full. Plot the data (graphical presentation) and extrapolate the little bit that was in there initially using a nice straight line (or curvilinear segment if appropriate).
I did it for the Frankenkota (well before it was "Franken") and have been quite happy with the results. With the tabs in the Cherokee, it's easy to tell the top third of the tank but after that there's a problem. The bottom bit is a real problem (fuel not visible) so that's an automatic fill decision.
jesse
Touchdown! Greaser!
Can't you just run the tank somewhat low and then drain the rest out somehow?
gismo
Touchdown! Greaser!
That's a common behavior for swing arm float type fuel gauges and it's worse if the tank's walls aren't parallel and flat. The sender's resistance (and gauge indication) is fairly proportional to the angle of the sender arm with the float on it and when the arm reaches the lower 1/4 tank level the angle changes more rapidly with a linear drop in fuel level. In addition many tanks have a smaller cross section in the bottom than in the middle of the tank so the same decrease in level near the bottom represents less fuel quantity. Sometimes the manufacturers make custom markings on the gauge face to more accurately indicate the fuel volume but IME Cessna didn't bother with that on their singles.
True, most of the time I go full fuel because I need full fuel and then some. I fill 2-3 times westbound coast to coast and 1-2 times eastbound. Normal cabin load is maybe 375lbs with me, my luggage, toolbox, shtuff...
As for Navajos, the only ones I think are worth buying are the 325CR and the Chieftain. The 325 is a comfortable 4 passenger cabin + cockpit, 210 cruise you can even make a lav in the back and have a great family Bahamas plane. Now, if you want to load up 2 golf cars of buddies and clubs and do a scramble 2 states over, you can't beat the Chieftain. IMO the Chieftain is the only all around "winner" Piper has had in that class of aircraft. You can even put it to work.
Why not drain the last little bit though the gascolator (with a Piper you'll use the fuel pump). Now you fill it with whatever graduations you want at a time and calibrate the stick. This way you not only calibrate the stick, you can find discrepancies in "Usable Fuel".
Well, there is a solution to your quandary, you are not the only one with your concerns. First thing I put on the 310 (after the first flight) was an engine analyzer with fuel flows. The first time I had FF was on my Travelair and it was remarkably accurate. I always had confidence in knowing to the minute how much fuel I had remaining as well as exactly how much time. Now with it tied to the GPS, I know how much distance I have and if conditions have changed and I'm no longer going to make my destination, I get a warning. I also get a real time readout of my reserves. What it says I need is always what I fill to a sub half gallon tollerance.
If you already have an engine analyzer, there is typically a Fuel Flow add on available for a few hundred. They also make stand alone FF instruments if you don't have an analyzer. If you want to put some time and effort into learning how to use an analyzer to best use, it would prove in your best interest to go ahead and get one. They aren't outrageous, under $2200 for this one on special:
http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/1345198.html
The 172 is not a particularly difficult install either. If someone has done one before look at a day and a half, if they haven't call it 2-3. I'd say 15-25 hrs of labor.
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
when you run a tank dry while flying you can get the usable fuel out, then fly in a skid and get it all out. and if you burn it, you won't be required to comply with all the hazmat and common sense rules of storage and stuff like that..
azure
Final Approach
Yes, including the transducer it's $600 for my EDM-700... plus labor of course, which is likely to end up totaling 3 AMU before I'm done. That's an idea I've been toying with and really the only thing the plane could really use. I need to ask Tom if there was any particular reason he didn't get the fuel flow option when he installed the EDM. Considering that he didn't have a dipstick either, it seems odd that he didn't(and he put just about every other kind of doodad you can think of in that plane, in some cases two for redundancy) -- unless it wasn't feasible for some technical reason I'm not aware of.
But before I add anything, I have to get my electrical gremlin solved.
azure
Final Approach
I guess I could. I was thinking of doing that when they had the wings off to replace the carrythrough, since they had to drain the tanks anyway to disconnect the fuel lines. But they had to add 5 gallons for testing before I could get back there, so I scrapped the idea. There are all kinds of rules about fuel handling though at my airport... it's more of a project than I've had the ambition to tackle.
But I thought you were really supposed to run the tank dry so that your calibration reflects truly usable fuel only.
jesse
Touchdown! Greaser!
Better then nothing. Leave enough buffer to account for that.
As far as the fuel handing rules (mostly in place to make sure you don't bring in your own cheaper fuel)....burn it somewhat low and then do it in the middle of the night. Nobody shall know...
Or you could run it dry. It's not really as bad as it sounds. I'm not familiar enough with the Cardinal fuel system though to tell you if you should or not. It's certainly not a big deal in the Cherokees I've done it in.
Yes, including the transducer it's $600 for my EDM-700... plus labor of course, which is likely to end up totaling 3 AMU before I'm done. That's an idea I've been toying with and really the only thing the plane could really use. I need to ask Tom if there was any particular reason he didn't get the fuel flow option when he installed the EDM. Considering that he didn't have a dipstick either, it seems odd that he didn't(and he put just about every other kind of doodad you can think of in that plane, in some cases two for redundancy) -- unless it wasn't feasible for some technical reason I'm not aware of.
But before I add anything, I have to get my electrical gremlin solved.
Just adding a fuel flow to an existing system is a few hours work. You should be done and installed for under $1000. If you were down here, no worries, my buddies dad has an avionics shop.
What electrical Gremlins you have left? Did you put a desulfinator on or replace the battery yet? (maybe work, maybe not)
azure
Final Approach
No, but Cherokees don't have a "both" position on the fuel selector. The pre-landing checklist in every Cessna I've flown says fuel selector: BOTH. Since the fuel system is gravity-driven, I'm not sure it's a good idea to be maneuvering in the pattern with a dry tank.
Maybe that's a misconception on my part; if so, I hope someone will correct me.
azure
Final Approach
It's something I'll have to think about... again, I keep going back to why didn't Tom do it?Just adding a fuel flow to an existing system is a few hours work. You should be done and installed for under $1000. If you were down here, no worries, my buddies dad has an avionics shop.
It looks like desulfating has already been tried, my mechanic was using a Battery Minder to keep my battery charged during annual. At least it looks that way, since he left a Battery Minder on the hangar floor. I want to talk to him before I do anything else. Unfortunately no one can has seen him since last Tuesday, so most likely there has been some kind of emergency. In the end I expect I'll just replace the battery, but then the charging system is not healthy either. Gotta get it all fixed, and that will take most of my aviation budget for now.
Jaybird180
Final Approach
Sorry to come back to the thread late, but what is this this error you speak of?
No, but Cherokees don't have a "both" position on the fuel selector. The pre-landing checklist in every Cessna I've flown says fuel selector: BOTH. Since the fuel system is gravity-driven, I'm not sure it's a good idea to be maneuvering in the pattern with a dry tank.
Maybe that's a misconception on my part; if so, I hope someone will correct me.
Yes, that is a misconception because there is no reason to remain on "Both" after take off, it just makes the weight stay even. The reason you use "Both" on takeoff and landing is for the margin of fuel supply redundancy in case there is a clog in one of the systems before the valve. Having it on "Both" makes no difference whatsoever to the fuel pressure, flow or delivery as when you have it on Right or Left independently as long as both sides are clear.
The other weekend I flew a 172 with a 235lb person in the right back. I burned of the right tank first to help balance the controls since 172s don't have any form of roll trim.
Last edited:
denverpilot
Tied Down
The fact that my nose gear strut doesn't always end up at the same extension height unless you bob the nose up and down, the fact that the ramp may not be level even though it might look it to a tired/distracted pilot, the fact that I have bladder tanks and if things are really wrong they could develop a completely unseen and undetectable wrinkle...
All sorts of things make even "calibrated" sticks not work exactly as planned... how many people calibrate their stick and also write down the exact height of the nose strut (on a Cessna) or have some other way to reference that their aircraft is in an exact ground attitude they think it is?
I can park the 182 with one tire in a dimple in the pavement and get a significant difference on the left/right tanks even when I know they're exactly the same amount of fuel, for example...
The properly calibrated stick, sadly, is one heck of a lot more accurate tool than the cheap fuel gauges the aircraft came with in 1975. So I go with it, but one does have to realize the limitations of a stick...
The old adage "The only time you know how much gas you really have is when the tanks are full" in Cessnas, is only half-joke, and half-truth.
Check jail?
I still don't understand why you keep going on about your charging system being "unhealthy". You have not said one thing that indicates in any way that your charging system isn't doing exactly what it should be doing. What it does is exactly correct and the voltages are what they are because it can't do what it's supposed to do on a bad battery. You do not need an A&P mechanic to replace the battery in your plane. You can order one online, shop around, Chief and Aircraft Spruce are usually in the running but you may even have a local supplier who will meet or beat a deal. Batteries are very simple to change, just remember this one safety tip. When you change the battery, the ground terminal is the first off and the last on, this keeps you from accidentally arcing your wrench to your airframe when loosening and tightening the positive terminal/cable. It's simple maintenance legal for you to do under the FARs, just make an entry in the log book with the tach time and date and usually batteries come with a sticker for the log book. Then sign it and you're done. If you're gonna survive this with your wallet intact you're gonna have to start doing what work you can do yourself.
BTW, if there is a Battery Minder on the hangar floor, why the hell isn't it hooked up to the battery huh? The process is on going and time consuming, the more time the battery sits on it, the better. You better start thinkin girl or this plane ownership thing is gonna eat you up...
Last edited: