Sucking a tank dry

Alexb2000 said:
It just never gets old flying close to max range into a headwind knowing you'll still have enough gas when you get there vs. being nervous the whole time.
Click to expand...

L.Adamson said:
You bet! It's one of the best items I added to my plane. Always accurate within a quarter of a gallon on every fuel up. It's also connected to the GPS, to display calculated use & reserve for destinations entered into the GPS.
Click to expand...

What happens if the fuel system develops a leak? Or someone siphons off 10 gallons of gas while you aren't looking? :wink2:
 
Greg Bockelman said:
What happens if the fuel system develops a leak? Or someone siphons off 10 gallons of gas while you aren't looking? :wink2:
Click to expand...

Or..........you leave the cap loose, or off...

And of course, that happens.

As to myself, I'll check fuel before I go. With a good leak, you can usually smell it.

In the meantime, it truly beats other forms of fuel monitoring, just as long as you know it isn't fool proof.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Yeah, I know. I have one in my plane. But it isn't the "End All Be All" of fuel management.
Click to expand...

That's correct.

You can also install a capacitance fuel monitoring system to replace fuel gauge floats. With "experimentals" we can do all of this.......for less$
 
Greg Bockelman said:
What happens if the fuel system develops a leak? Or someone siphons off 10 gallons of gas while you aren't looking? :wink2:
Click to expand...

Ah, it appears I have been demoted from idiot to F'n Idiot and before lunch on a Saturday.:)

Note to self: I sure don't want to mention listening to music and reading the paper while flying.
 
Inverted said:
Its one thing to time a tank and things like that. But its a whole other to just watch the gauge and when it hits zero you start timing. I have always been amazed that people say how inaccurate gauges are, yet they trust when they hit E.
Click to expand...
There's a good reason for that. FARs 23. 959 and 23.1337. The gauges are calibrated to read zero at the unusable fuel level, which has to do with unporting in critical attitudes like steep glides or Vx climbs. In normal cruise you'll burn "unusable" fuel and the gauge will have been at zero for some time when the engine quits.

Dan
 
Dan Thomas said:
There's a good reason for that. FARs 23. 959 and 23.1337. The gauges are calibrated to read zero at the unusable fuel level, which has to do with unporting in critical attitudes like steep glides or Vx climbs. In normal cruise you'll burn "unusable" fuel and the gauge will have been at zero for some time when the engine quits.

Dan
Click to expand...

Also, a large portion of the GA fleet were certified under CAR3, so 14 CFR Part 23 doesn't apply to them.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Also, a large portion of the GA fleet were certified under CAR3, so 14 CFR Part 23 doesn't apply to them.
Click to expand...

Both CAR3 and Part 23 read the same way. All normal flight regimes are supposed to deliver all the usable fuel. Similarly, the ten seconds to restart the engine after fuel interruption exists in both sets of regs.
 
Depends. I could watch the gage on the T-210 and know that the engine would start to run down when the needle was squarely over the E dot.

Dan Thomas said:
There's a good reason for that. FARs 23. 959 and 23.1337. The gauges are calibrated to read zero at the unusable fuel level, which has to do with unporting in critical attitudes like steep glides or Vx climbs. In normal cruise you'll burn "unusable" fuel and the gauge will have been at zero for some time when the engine quits.

Dan
Click to expand...
 
n12365 said:
I have flown certified low wing aircraft with a both selector. For example, the Rockwell Commander 114 has a both selector. If I remember correctly, the only time you have to select an individual tank is during an engine restart in flight.
Click to expand...

"have to" as in, book procedure? The Commander will run fine from either tank or both.



I fund that it doesnt always pull equally during flight, so I typically switch tanks durung cruise.


L.Adamson said:
I was looking into that yesterday. Does the Rockwell Commander, as mentioned in the previous reply, use something of the same? If you take a direct feed from right or left, into a both selector...........you WILL have serious problems without some kind of accumulator or header tank. Fuel will move from one tank to the other, and if one runs dry (or is unported), it will stop flow from the other. This can be tested by sucking through two staws and two glasses. Pull one straw out, and see what "no longer happens".

L.Adamson
Click to expand...

The Commanders have check valves in the fuel lines. There is no issue running on either tank individually or on both. As noted above, one sometimes needs to switch tanks to avoid imbalance.
 
flyingron said:
Both CAR3 and Part 23 read the same way. All normal flight regimes are supposed to deliver all the usable fuel. Similarly, the ten seconds to restart the engine after fuel interruption exists in both sets of regs.
Click to expand...

True, but what I'm saying is apply the correct regulation whether it be 14CFR Part 23 or CAR3.
 
There are a few schools of thought regarding running the tank dry. As far as the harm on the engines, I'd say that's pretty much a non-issue.

A fuel totalizer is nice, but it doesn't help you if you have a fuel tank leak. So accurate gauges and a fuel totalizer help you the most as far as fuel management goes, as well as a stopwatch.

My practice (as much as practical) is to determine how much time I have on a tank by running it dry. Now I know. I'll switch tanks a little bit early, that leaves me a few gallons in the tank in case there's a problem with the other tank that I don't catch. Will it really matter? Probably not, but I also don't push my fuel that tight.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
There are a few schools of thought regarding running the tank dry. As far as the harm on the engines, I'd say that's pretty much a non-issue.

A fuel totalizer is nice, but it doesn't help you if you have a fuel tank leak. So accurate gauges and a fuel totalizer help you the most as far as fuel management goes, as well as a stopwatch.

My practice (as much as practical) is to determine how much time I have on a tank by running it dry. Now I know. I'll switch tanks a little bit early, that leaves me a few gallons in the tank in case there's a problem with the other tank that I don't catch. Will it really matter? Probably not, but I also don't push my fuel that tight.
Click to expand...


I find I can have over 1/2 hr difference on running the aux tanks dry at the same speed/power by using different lever settings.
 
Henning said:
I find I can have over 1/2 hr difference on running the aux tanks dry at the same speed/power by using different lever settings.
Click to expand...
You mean like full rich in cruise vs LOP?:D
 
Henning said:
I find I can have over 1/2 hr difference on running the aux tanks dry at the same speed/power by using different lever settings.
Click to expand...

I believe I once saw that on the front page of "Duh" magazine. That's the whole reason why we run LOP vs. ROP.

I fly the plane consistently the same way, and find the fuel burn to be consistently the same when the input conditions are the same. Good to know that the laws of physics are repeatable. ;)
 
No, I'm talking same fuel flow even by altering MP & RPM to make the same power LOP. The Continental system is bypass/return system and RPM effects the rate of return. Since the Auxes return to the mains, the higher RPM I turn, the faster the auxes run dry.
 
Henning said:
No, I'm talking same fuel flow even by altering MP & RPM to make the same power LOP. The Continental system is bypass/return system and RPM effects the rate of return. Since the Auxes return to the mains, the higher RPM I turn, the faster the auxes run dry.
Click to expand...

Ah, this explains the "why low power settings run my auxes dry very quickly" issue. It's not the low HP setting but the fact that I usually have the blue knob all the way in in those circumstances.
 
I find that the totalizer is an outstanding tool. It gives me accurate information regarding fuel used, and I can correlate that information with what the gauges show to be remaining. I am reasonably confident that, if there was a serious problem (leaking tank), it would be apparent in the mis-match of what I use vs. what apparently remains.

The "one hour at destination" rule works for me, as well.
 
Henning said:
No, I'm talking same fuel flow even by altering MP & RPM to make the same power LOP. The Continental system is bypass/return system and RPM effects the rate of return. Since the Auxes return to the mains, the higher RPM I turn, the faster the auxes run dry.
Click to expand...

And that qualifies as running the plane differently. I know how the Continental system works. Like I said, I'll fly the plane the same and the time will be the same. Fancy that.
 
+1 on the totalizer, but even if I had one, I would make darn sure it's correct...over time, with fuel receipts, etc. Nothing like being led down the primrose path - with technology. After over 35 years of flying, 32 professionally, fuel (or the lack of it) has had me sitting on the edge of my chair more often than well, anything else.
 
j1b3h0 said:
+1 on the totalizer, but even if I had one, I would make darn sure it's correct...over time, with fuel receipts, etc. Nothing like being led down the primrose path - with technology. After over 35 years of flying, 32 professionally, fuel (or the lack of it) has had me sitting on the edge of my chair more often than well, anything else.
Click to expand...

I love my totalizer. I "recalibrate" it (mentally) with each "top-off". For each flight, I record the totalizer value on fuel burned & compare the sum of those values to the amount put in the tank during a top-off. I find mine to generally be spot-on, sometimes as much as 0.8 gallons difference - the error attributed to differences in "top-off" (the folks at Wings topped it off way more than a usual "top off").

In flight, cross-check of the totalizer against the fuel gauges is good enough to indicate whether there is major leakage in the fuel system. Living in the Northeast (as opposed to Texas), I tend to aim for at least an hour or so (or IFR reserves, if higher) at landing - flying in Texas and the Southwest, I tended to push it a bit more (45 min at landing) depending on the spacing of airports.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
And that qualifies as running the plane differently. I know how the Continental system works. Like I said, I'll fly the plane the same and the time will be the same. Fancy that.
Click to expand...

Right, my response was to Lance, I should have quoted.
 
j1b3h0 said:
+1 on the totalizer, but even if I had one, I would make darn sure it's correct...over time, with fuel receipts, etc. Nothing like being led down the primrose path - with technology. After over 35 years of flying, 32 professionally, fuel (or the lack of it) has had me sitting on the edge of my chair more often than well, anything else.
Click to expand...

Every fill I check against my totalizer, every time it is correctly matched. I first used a totalizer/FF when I bough my Travelair, and it has been an immediate instal on the planes I've had since.
 
It's worth noting that even totalizers or them fancy electronic digital fuel gauges I've found tend to drift over time.

Know thine equipment...
 
Ted DuPuis said:
It's worth noting that even totalizers or them fancy electronic digital fuel gauges I've found tend to drift over time.

Know thine equipment...
Click to expand...

To that point: I've had mine (EI) for 5+ years with no perceptible change. I still check it against every fill.

Trust, but verify....
 
wsuffa said:
To that point: I've had mine (EI) for 5+ years with no perceptible change. I still check it against every fill.

Trust, but verify....
Click to expand...

I'd say that pretty much goes for any piece of equipment. Some people have them for years without problems, others can't seem to go a flight without an issue.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I'd say that pretty much goes for any piece of equipment. Some people have them for years without problems, others can't seem to go a flight without an issue.
Click to expand...

Especially stuff rebuilt by Kelly... :wink2:

We're in full agreement, by the way.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
It's worth noting that even totalizers or them fancy electronic digital fuel gauges I've found tend to drift over time.

Know thine equipment...
Click to expand...

10 years and 1200 hrs on my Hoskins in my Travelair and it never varied, but as you say, I know this because I check it against every fill.
 
Henning said:
10 years and 1200 hrs on my Hoskins in my Travelair and it never varied, but as you say, I know this because I check it against every fill.
Click to expand...

Yep. I'd guess that most people have similar experiences to you and Bill. But I flew a turbo Arrow that had a wildly inaccurate fuel totalizer, my friend's Travel Air which had the very nice digital fuel gauges in them were inaccurate by several gallons after only a few years, etc. You get the idea.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Yep. I'd guess that most people have similar experiences to you and Bill. But I flew a turbo Arrow that had a wildly inaccurate fuel totalizer, my friend's Travel Air which had the very nice digital fuel gauges in them were inaccurate by several gallons after only a few years, etc. You get the idea.
Click to expand...

With the digital units, I have to wonder whether it's a sensor problem or someone managed to reset the calibration factor. Not much you can do to the sensors (at least not on the ones I've seen), but on some, the calbration faactors are pretty easy to reset.

Mine has a fuel pressure indication that matches really well against the primary analog guage in the plane.
 
wsuffa said:
I tend to aim for at least an hour or so (or IFR reserves, if higher) at landing - flying in Texas and the Southwest, I tended to push it a bit more (45 min at landing) depending on the spacing of airports.
Click to expand...

I haven't flown near VFR reserves since training in the 152. I guess my flights are IAP (I'm a p_ssy). I fly longer flights tanks full (about 5 or more hours indurance) and have never landed with less than 2 hours (want to get out, bathroom, stretch etc.).
 
danhagan said:
I haven't flown near VFR reserves since training in the 152. I guess my flights are IAP (I'm a p_ssy). I fly longer flights tanks full (about 5 or more hours indurance) and have never landed with less than 2 hours (want to get out, bathroom, stretch etc.).
Click to expand...

A couple of reasons for cutting it a bit closer than you do...

1) Blistering summer heat & a load that would be max gross w/full fuel meant much longer climbs to altitude (where it was -ah- cooler).
2) Solo long trips (SAT-PSP, well below max gross with full fuel) could be made as a one-stop by planning a fuel stop somewhere between El Paso and Deming.
3) Going west of San Antonio, weather tended to be much less of a factor than going east.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top