KA ditches

I just checked a friend's profile that has a C90 with -135 engines; pretty close to what was flying. My C90 has very close to 2600 pounds of fuel with tanks full (384 useable gallons) and I'll assume that hasn't changed.
His fuel consumption is 600 the first hour and and between 450 and 500 per hour after that depending on cruise altitude. It would be the lower number that high up. Not to say that's the maximum cruise setting. That would provide just over five hours of total flight time if my math is correct. Maybe a bit more because he could save some fuel in the descent from FL280. If lower, he would consume more if he didn't adjust power. These things eat fuel low, but that wasn't the case here from what I see. His fuel flow in the climb is 750 per hour, and that could reduce range if he got step ups to altitude or stayed at max power longer for some reason.

Best,

Dave
 
Since you're obviously knowledgeable about King Air fuel systems, what would you tell the pilots to look for when they got on the ladder? How many King Air pilots have you seen look into the filler? Can you think of any good reasons they might not do so?

Hey. You're right Wayne. I'm no King Air expert.

I'd go read up, but it's doubtful I'd ever buy or operate such an aircraft, especially with all your warnings of fiscal doom for everyone who purchases one, unless they hire you to complete the deal. ;)

(I promise. I'll hire ya if I ever strike it rich fixing someone else's server farm at 2AM. I hear that leprechauns sometimes bury their gold underneath data center removable floor tiles.)

The "pros" ended up in the water and I didn't. That pretty much speaks for itself. As long as my tally in the "fuel exhaustion" column remains zero, I'm happy. I get to laugh at the sinking "pros". What else is an Internet forum for?

(In other words why don't you just act like a normal human being and explain why looking to see that the tanks are full wouldn't have worked... You don't have to be a prick about it.)

I know the path to success above a certain pay grade is more about using your elbows than anything else these days, but since I'm not playing in the "let's go be a broke Pro pilot" game, and I'm sure as hell not in the aircraft brokering biz, so I'm not sure what you throwing elbows is supposed to accomplish here.

See, if you'd just have explained, I would have said this really cool phrase... "Thanks Wayne. That's fascinating information."

Get your kicks whichever way you like. It's the Internet. Place is lousy with people who can't get along. No surprise there. I'll still buy ya a beer sometime if you like.

My point, and you know it, was that if you 100% trust line personnel with your fuel load and don't know it yourself, via whatever means you like, you're not "pro" pilot, you're just a passenger until the crash.

Look in the King Air tanks, unzip and drop your "dipstick" in it, drop a vaccuum cleaner down there, trust an FAA "certified" totalizer... I really don't care how.

The post I was responding to was saying that pilots of larger aircraft often trust the linemen 100%. I responded saying that's a pretty good way to end up floating in the ocean.

If looking in the tanks isn't the right way to check fuel levels on a King Air, you'd still better know if you're going to run out of gas over a big pond.

The "pros" went for a swim. Yay pros!

Feel free to share how you'd have done it. It is the whole point of the thread, after all. Tossing elbows at me is pretty much a waste of all our time.

The thread, like most accident threads, is bunch of us sitting around watching the train wreck and commenting from "the front porch of aviation" until the "We suspect, but have no proof, that X happened, because the aircraft is on the bottom of the ocean..." report comes in a year or so from now from some government agency charged with all our "safety".

Official news flash: Pro pilots ran out of gas.

I'm also guessing crashing in the ocean won't ever be considered "safe" operation. Just a guess.

Let me know if that's incorrect. I bet there will be some FAASTeam seminars on it soon.

I already said there aren't any published facts to go on. Let me re-phrase that sentence: "This thread is a giant circle-jerk."

Does that make it clearer since it was at the top of my post? I was trying to be nice.

With the above stipulation, I then effectively said "check your fuel load yourself, pilots".

I'll make sure to look up how to do it myself if I ever have the opportunity to fly a King Air over open water.

Love you. Smile. You can take all the swings at me you want to. My opinion that no one should trust a line guy with their fuel load 100%, is still quite valid. :)
 
I just checked a friend's profile that has a C90 with -135 engines; pretty close to what was flying. My C90 has very close to 2600 pounds of fuel with tanks full (384 useable gallons) and I'll assume that hasn't changed.
His fuel consumption is 600 the first hour and and between 450 and 500 per hour after that depending on cruise altitude. It would be the lower number that high up. Not to say that's the maximum cruise setting. That would provide just over five hours of total flight time if my math is correct. Maybe a bit more because he could save some fuel in the descent from FL280. If lower, he would consume more if he didn't adjust power. These things eat fuel low, but that wasn't the case here from what I see. His fuel flow in the climb is 750 per hour, and that could reduce range if he got step ups to altitude or stayed at max power longer for some reason.

Best,

Dave

It looks like he got a pretty quick climb up to altitude based on FlightAware. Sounds like the numbers are pretty similar to what I'm used to seeing in the Cheyenne. In the climb we're burning about 700ish pph, in low altitude cruise (FL200-220) about 500, and at "high" altitude cruise (240-260) about 400.
 
Nate, when you meet Wayne, you'll understand. And you'll enjoy it.
 
So you take the "professional" cheap shot with no idea of what you're talking about and expect everybody else to roll over and play dead? Then you need another 40 lines to try to weasel out? Nice try.

No more questions of this witness.

BTW, I'm calling BS on your statement about looking for business on this site or any other little airplane board. Never have, never will. If you've got something to prove differently, post it. If not, STFU.

Hey. You're right Wayne. I'm no King Air expert.

I'd go read up, but it's doubtful I'd ever buy or operate such an aircraft, especially with all your warnings of fiscal doom for everyone who purchases one, unless they hire you to complete the deal. ;)

(I promise. I'll hire ya if I ever strike it rich fixing someone else's server farm at 2AM. I hear that leprechauns sometimes bury their gold underneath data center removable floor tiles.)

The "pros" ended up in the water and I didn't. That pretty much speaks for itself. As long as my tally in the "fuel exhaustion" column remains zero, I'm happy. I get to laugh at the sinking "pros". What else is an Internet forum for?

(In other words why don't you just act like a normal human being and explain why looking to see that the tanks are full wouldn't have worked... You don't have to be a prick about it.)

I know the path to success above a certain pay grade is more about using your elbows than anything else these days, but since I'm not playing in the "let's go be a broke Pro pilot" game, and I'm sure as hell not in the aircraft brokering biz, so I'm not sure what you throwing elbows is supposed to accomplish here.

See, if you'd just have explained, I would have said this really cool phrase... "Thanks Wayne. That's fascinating information."

Get your kicks whichever way you like. It's the Internet. Place is lousy with people who can't get along. No surprise there. I'll still buy ya a beer sometime if you like.

My point, and you know it, was that if you 100% trust line personnel with your fuel load and don't know it yourself, via whatever means you like, you're not "pro" pilot, you're just a passenger until the crash.

Look in the King Air tanks, unzip and drop your "dipstick" in it, drop a vaccuum cleaner down there, trust an FAA "certified" totalizer... I really don't care how.

The post I was responding to was saying that pilots of larger aircraft often trust the linemen 100%. I responded saying that's a pretty good way to end up floating in the ocean.

If looking in the tanks isn't the right way to check fuel levels on a King Air, you'd still better know if you're going to run out of gas over a big pond.

The "pros" went for a swim. Yay pros!

Feel free to share how you'd have done it. It is the whole point of the thread, after all. Tossing elbows at me is pretty much a waste of all our time.

The thread, like most accident threads, is bunch of us sitting around watching the train wreck and commenting from "the front porch of aviation" until the "We suspect, but have no proof, that X happened, because the aircraft is on the bottom of the ocean..." report comes in a year or so from now from some government agency charged with all our "safety".

Official news flash: Pro pilots ran out of gas.

I'm also guessing crashing in the ocean won't ever be considered "safe" operation. Just a guess.

Let me know if that's incorrect. I bet there will be some FAASTeam seminars on it soon.

I already said there aren't any published facts to go on. Let me re-phrase that sentence: "This thread is a giant circle-jerk."

Does that make it clearer since it was at the top of my post? I was trying to be nice.

With the above stipulation, I then effectively said "check your fuel load yourself, pilots".

I'll make sure to look up how to do it myself if I ever have the opportunity to fly a King Air over open water.

Love you. Smile. You can take all the swings at me you want to. My opinion that no one should trust a line guy with their fuel load 100%, is still quite valid. :)
 
BTW, I'm calling BS on your statement about looking for business on this site or any other little airplane board. Never have, never will. If you've got something to prove differently, post it. If not, STFU.

Ironically, this statement would gain my business.

But first we need a few more donations. Make that a lot more than a few.
 
Wayne tries to provoke thought; it's sometimes difficult to do that.

For some folks that don't have the factual background to deduce, I can see it being problematic. For some of us that have more foundation, it causes us to contemplate things and figure 'em out more better (g).

Wayne has coached me several times and provided excellent factual information. He's been very up front in how he would work with me if I wanted him to find a plane, but never pushed to get an engagement. As a matter of fact, the KA I just purchased he helped another fella find; I then purchased if from that fella. Very nice plane that I'm very pleased with. Of the KAs of this vintage, excellent avionics and very well maintained. Hard to pick through all the KAs out there and find one like this.


Best,

Dave
 
Wayne is all cuddly and stuff.
 
Sorry Wayne about the shot at your work. I don't fully believe you when you say you don't advertise it, otherwise I wouldn't know that you do it. ;)

But it's more who you are, than blatant advertising. Apologies. Cheap shot.

Others are saying that you're applying the Socratic method. I'll take their word for it that you enjoy it. I know what it is.

This guy's article from 2009 sums up much of my reaction to it, whenever I've encountered it.

http://www.peterwall.net/2009/09/11/against-the-socratic-method/

I think it will be interesting to meet you someday, if I ever get the opportunity.
 
Nate, you're gonna meet Wayne at Gaston's, because you're moving, drawn as a moth to flame, and despite his better judgment and aversion to wet heat and mediocre food, so is Wayne.

The mediocre food is in the restaurant (breakfast is good, supper- meh), the great food comes fom the likes of Leslie Prellwitz, Pookies, Mary See, Mike Andrews' brats and grill-work, et al.
 
I don't make a secret of what I do for a living, nor do Bruce or Tom or a number of others who are involved in aviation. For a variety of reasons, I simply don't work the small airplane market other than an occasional isolated deal that finds me rather than me finding it.

There's no money in it for me and very little value added for the buyer when I'm forced to deal with the same wing-nut sellers as every other buyer. You think those guys care who they're talking to? OTOH, I've happily helped numerous people on various boards when they hit a snag in working through an acquisition, and if asked will continue to do so when time permits.

The jet and turboprop markets have been a good fit and will make the grandkids very happy when they learn about the results. If the phone continues to ring, I will continue to answer it. If not, the airport and the golf course are more fun than working but don't pay as much.

Insofar as the Socratic method is concerned, I don't know squat about any of that stuff, I just know that the fastest way to teach somebody something (including a lesson they probably won't like) is to ask them a question they can't answer. If your question had been phrased as a real question rather than what I considered as a cheap shot about something about which you have no knowledge, the answer would more likely (but not guaranteed) to have been an explanation about the methods used to verify fuel quantity and why looking in the hole is of no value.

We have a sauna at the local health club, so I won't be at Gastons if heat and humidity are the main attractions. The novelty of all that has long-since wore off. Otherwise, hope to see you there.

Sorry Wayne about the shot at your work. I don't fully believe you when you say you don't advertise it, otherwise I wouldn't know that you do it. ;)

But it's more who you are, than blatant advertising. Apologies. Cheap shot.

Others are saying that you're applying the Socratic method. I'll take their word for it that you enjoy it. I know what it is.

This guy's article from 2009 sums up much of my reaction to it, whenever I've encountered it.

http://www.peterwall.net/2009/09/11/against-the-socratic-method/

I think it will be interesting to meet you someday, if I ever get the opportunity.
 
Back
Top