 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mrspudandcompany(at)veriz
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 11:49 am Post subject: Calibrating fuel qty gauges |
 |
|
| Quote: | > There is nothing wrong with planning on arriving at a safe landing
> spot with ten to fifteen minutes of fuel as long as you are confident
> you will be at that spot at the appointed time.
>
What if something happens you didn't plan on -- such as an accident
blocking the runway 10 minutes before your arrival or unforecast thick
fog etc. Prudent planning includes adequate fuel to fly to an
alternate.
|
My personal phylosophy is "If I keep some fuel in the top 3/4 of
the tank, the bottom 1/4 will take care of itself"
Roger
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:54 pm Post subject: Calibrating fuel qty gauges |
|
|
Good Afternoon Roger,
And if your flying machine has one hour of fuel when full, you will always land with at least forty-five minutes of fuel on board. Of course, your normal fuel range will be only fifteen minutes long.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 8/13/2009 2:50:23 P.M. Central Daylight Time, mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net writes:
| Quote: | --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Roger" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net>
| Quote: | > There is nothing wrong with planning on arriving at a safe landing
> spot with ten to fifteen minutes of fuel as long as you are confident
> you will be at that spot at the appointed time.
>
What if something happens you didn't plan on -- such as an accident
blocking the runway 10 minutes before your arrival or unforecast thick
fog etc. Prudent planning includes adequate fuel to fly to an
alternate.
|
My personal phylosophy is "If I keep some fuel in the top 3/4 of
the tank, the bottom 1/4 will take care of itself"
======================== = Use utilities Day ================================================ - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS ================================================ - List Contribution Web Site sp; ===================================================
|
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:02 pm Post subject: Calibrating fuel qty gauges |
|
|
At 12:30 PM 8/13/2009, you wrote:
Good Afternoon 'Lectric Bob,
This may be just an exercise in semantics, but I do disagree with the
philosophy I think you are espousing.
There is nothing wrong with planning on arriving at a safe landing
spot with ten to fifteen minutes of fuel as long as you are confident
you will be at that spot at the appointed time.
Confidence is the key word. I recall one situation
where upon returning to ICT in a Skipper, I was asked
to run downwind and expect to follow three big fellows
already lined up for the one long runway opened. With
requisite spacing being observed, I trudged half way
out to Whitewater Ks while the big guys did their
thing. This probably added 12-15 minutes to my planned
flight time. If I had planned to land with 15 minutes
remaining . . .
Now, I did pass within a few miles of other runway
options on the extended downwind. Further, I could
have declared low fuel and no doubt would have been
given access to the concrete . . . along a good chewing
out by numerous folks on the ground.
To say we should always have something beyond what is required is too
broad for my liking. On those few occasions when I had the pleasure
of flying a T-38, we landed every time with "Bingo" fuel. In that
airplane, Bingo fuel was a bit less than twenty minutes worth. Good
enough for one full power go around and not much more.
But keep in mind my friend that we're not here to
offer advice and training to professional pilots.
Only a small percentage of our 1800 readers fly for
a living and many if not most are under 300 hour
pilots.
In the mean time, technology continues to march ahead
and it's now quite possible to have milliliter accuracy
for measured fuel, 10-yard accuracy for present
position, 1 foot/second accuracy for speed over the
ground. This DOES add up to a lot of capability if
used with training, experience, good judgement and
the calibration of all sources is good.
We pay a LOT of money for every pound of payload we put in our flying
machines. I think it is very rational to reduce the amount of fuel
down to what is required for the mission at hand. My cross country
flyer has tip tanks and it can fairly easily fly twelve hours with
full tanks. My planning for that airplane often has me arriving with
less than one hours worth of fuel. If I was able to be as certain of
landing field availability as I was when flying the T-38 and as
confident as I was of the accuracy of the fuel gauges, I would not
hesitate to fly my long ranger down to a Bingo fuel of twenty minutes.
Back when I was doing sling work with a helicopter, we added fuel for
each trip lifting air conditioners to a roof top. Carrying no more
than about five minutes of reserve fuel, we managed to get more air
conditioners per day up on top of those roofs. The reserve fuel
planned on should be based on the accuracy of the fuel indicating
system and the reliability of the landing estimate
To do otherwise is as foolish as asking that every airplane be fitted
with four engines just in case one of them happens to quit. We have
decided that a good single engine provides adequate safety for many
of us. The same thing goes for carrying extra fuel. Every ounce we
carry that is not needed for the task at hand costs us money and $time$.
Agreed . . . and Cole Hamels can probably put
a fast-ball through the strike zone 99% of the
time. But he does it for a living.
I prefer to know how much fuel is on board and how much I want when I land.
Not a thing wrong with that . . . particularly if that
data can be used with skill. My concern for the
technology explosion in flight instrumentation
is that new and/or relatively low utilization
pilots will come to depend on those things with
decisions made 400 miles away. However, when you're
30 miles out and no other good place to land, your
pre-departure planning skills get tested. The risks
for unanticipated or overlooked conditions can become
critical.
I don't fly because it's comfortable, convenient,
or even without some degree of stress. I fly because
it's fun and I'm willing to expend the $time$ and
emotional capital to enjoy the experience. I don't
do it for a living. There are lots of ways to have an
unhappy day in the airplane. Of all hazards to flight,
fuel starvation is the easiest to avoid yet it remains
the #1 reason for loss of power in flight. The idea
that I can launch in a GA light aircraft and DEPEND
weather AND access to runways controlled by others
is fraught with some uncertainty and risk.
One may argue that having accurate fuel data
can trigger an early termination of flight to
avoid the unhappy day . . . but it can also
be combined with other data to make a press-on
decision with an exponential rise in risk.
I'm the first to extol the capabilities of modern
electo-whizzies (especially the ones I designed!).
But unless we are flying for a living, I'll suggest
that Uncle Bert's "highway in the sky" and AGATE's
"push-button-auto-land" technology have limited future
in the airplanes we're building and the reasons
for which most of us fly. Carrying around 40-60
pounds of "fuel never used" has some operational
expense but it brings a huge reduction in risk
for the casual/recreational pilot. These folks
will have to suffer THEIR bad day in the cockpit
at the exercise of some other hazard.
Bob . . .
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Terry Watson
Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 290
Location: Seattle, WA USA
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:08 pm Post subject: Calibrating fuel qty gauges |
|
|
Old Bob & others,
Somehow this subject and the track it has taken just seems to beg for my little story about my first solo in the T-38 that Old Bob mentioned here. Remember the “Bingo fuel was a bit less than twenty minutes worth. Good enough for one full power go around and not much more.” Part of Old Bob’s story. So, having successfully launched and shot three acceptable touch and go landings, it was time to make a full stop. But then someone blows a tire on landing and litters the runway with debris that has to be cleaned up. Suddenly I am Bingo fuel on my initial solo in the T-38. That’s not supposed to happen. The pattern is filling up with other T-38’s needing to get on the ground soon and I’m starting to sweat. My turn comes and I’m more than a little tense and it seemed that the normally hypersensitive T-38 was even more so at minimum fuel. That leads to a pronounced case of P.I.O. (pilot induced oscillation) on final, which requires afterburners to recover, followed by a closed traffic pattern (afterburner climb from the runway to the downwind 1500’ above, or virtually an Immleman off the runway). The next landing attempt was successful, but I spent at least a mile of the two-mile long runway with the nose high and the rear tires maybe a foot off the runway because I hadn’t quite pulled the throttles all the way back to the stops.
So, I was 21 years old then and I’m 66 years old now, and in that 45 years I don’t think I have run out of gas in anything but maybe a chain saw. My RV-8A, if it every gets finished, has low fuel warning lights similar to what Bob N. has described that I bought as a kit a few years ago. It already has capacitive gauges and a fuel flow sender.
Terry
RV-8A
Seattle
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 12:39 PM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges
Good Afternoon Old Ian,
If you are saying you disagree with my philosophy, that is just fine.
I rarely plan to arrive with only ten minutes of reserve fuel, but there are conditions where I would be happy to do so. The T-38 flights at Edwards were just such flights.
My personal planning at the average multi runway airport is forty-five minutes. If there is only one runway, I want a close by alternate and fuel to get there
It All Depends!
That is more than what the FAA requires, but it is what I like to have. However, I do NOT wish to arrive anywhere without knowing accurately how much fuel I do have on board. If I know that amount due to careful timing or by the trust I have in my fuel gauges, I still want to know the amount, not just that there is an indeterminate large amount of fuel on board.
You speak quite sarcastically about an airplane that was arriving at "your" destination and who was not listening to your pronouncements on the radio.
We all must remember that it is still legal for aircraft that have no radio to be using most airspace in this nation. You may not think that is proper, but if you are flying in pilot controlled airspace, you should always be aware that it is quite likely that a NORDO aircraft may be sharing "your" airspace.
The most likely cause of a NORDO conflict is when you or the pilot of the other aircraft have made the error of not tuning the correct frequency, flipping the right audio switch, pressing the wrong mike button or other similar pilot failures of omission or commission. I know I have made all of those errors at one time or another. While I try very hard to reduce my errors, I know that I am human and all of us humans do make mistakes. Not only that, but radios DO fail.
That is what planning is all about. We plan what we need and how to handle what we don't expect. Such planning requires careful analysis of the conditions that prevail and that includes a good idea as to how much fuel we have at any particular moment. I do not wish to carry somewhere between three to five hours of fuel when I have no idea which amount of fuel is actually in my flying machine.
Whether I plan on landing with ten minutes fuel or four hours fuel, I want to know how much there is and where it is located.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Didn't get that way by making Wild Guesses!
In a message dated 8/13/2009 2:05:48 P.M. Central Daylight Time, ixb(at)videotron.ca writes:
[quote]
It's a significantly more serious exercise than one of semantics. We're talking about life-saving behaviours like not PLANNING to run out of gas ten minutes from now, whilst still flying!!!!!!
Two days ago I returned to the circuit and "some idiot" decided to go ahead and encroach the runway without a radio call, despite my repeated calls on downwind, base, final, and "overshooting". He apologized that his radio reception wasn't very good, but then apparently neither was his eyesight. He then exited our right hand circuit UNDER me, at five hundred feet, while I was still in the overshoot. My circuit took more than ten minutes, and I had PLENTY fuel for the go-around.
Old Ian (and planning to get older).
On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 13:30 -0400, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
Good Afternoon 'Lectric Bob, [b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:25 pm Post subject: Calibrating fuel qty gauges |
|
|
Good Afternoon Terry,
First off, thank you for your service!
I last flew the T-38 about ten years ago and I was seventy at the time.
Believe me, had we not had all that salt available plus north base and south base at Edwards, I would not have been so comfortable at Bingo fuel level.
That T-38 is sure a neat machine whether there are elephants or monkeys dancing on the tail.
As Always, It All Depends!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 8/13/2009 4:10:57 P.M. Central Daylight Time, terry(at)tcwatson.com writes:
| Quote: |
Old Bob & others,
Somehow this subject and the track it has taken just seems to beg for my little story about my first solo in the T-38 that Old Bob mentioned here. Remember the “Bingo fuel was a bit less than twenty minutes worth. Good enough for one full power go around and not much more.” Part of Old Bob’s story. So, having successfully launched and shot three acceptable touch and go landings, it was time to make a full stop. But then someone blows a tire on landing and litters the runway with debris that has to be cleaned up. Suddenly I am Bingo fuel on my initial solo in the T-38. That’s not supposed to happen. The pattern is filling up with other T-38’s needing to get on the ground soon and I’m starting to sweat. My turn comes and I’m more than a little tense and it seemed that the normally hypersensitive T-38 was even more so at minimum fuel. That leads to a pronounced case of P.I.O. (pilot induced oscillation) on final, which requires afterburners to recover, followed by a closed traffic pattern (afterburner climb from the runway to the downwind 1500’ above, or virtually an Immleman off the runway). The next landing attempt was successful, but I spent at least a mile of the two-mile long runway with the nose high and the rear tires maybe a foot off the runway because I hadn’t quite pulled the throttles all the way back to the stops.
So, I was 21 years old then and I’m 66 years old now, and in that 45 years I don’t think I have run out of gas in anything but maybe a chain saw. My RV-8A, if it every gets finished, has low fuel warning lights similar to what Bob N. has described that I bought as a kit a few years ago. It already has capacitive gauges and a fuel flow sender.
Terry
RV-8A
Seattle
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 12:39 PM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges
Good Afternoon Old Ian,
If you are saying you disagree with my philosophy, that is just fine.
I rarely plan to arrive with only ten minutes of reserve fuel, but there are conditions where I would be happy to do so. The T-38 flights at Edwards were just such flights.
My personal planning at the average multi runway airport is forty-five minutes. If there is only one runway, I want a close by alternate and fuel to get there
It All Depends!
That is more than what the FAA requires, but it is what I like to have. However, I do NOT wish to arrive anywhere without knowing accurately how much fuel I do have on board. If I know that amount due to careful timing or by the trust I have in my fuel gauges, I still want to know the amount, not just that there is an indeterminate large amount of fuel on board.
You speak quite sarcastically about an airplane that was arriving at "your" destination and who was not listening to your pronouncements on the radio.
We all must remember that it is still legal for aircraft that have no radio to be using most airspace in this nation. You may not think that is proper, but if you are flying in pilot controlled airspace, you should always be aware that it is quite likely that a NORDO aircraft may be sharing "your" airspace.
The most likely cause of a NORDO conflict is when you or the pilot of the other aircraft have made the error of not tuning the correct frequency, flipping the right audio switch, pressing the wrong mike button or other similar pilot failures of omission or commission. I know I have made all of those errors at one time or another. While I try very hard to reduce my errors, I know that I am human and all of us humans do make mistakes. Not only that, but radios DO fail.
That is what planning is all about. We plan what we need and how to handle what we don't expect. Such planning requires careful analysis of the conditions that prevail and that includes a good idea as to how much fuel we have at any particular moment. I do not wish to carry somewhere between three to five hours of fuel when I have no idea which amount of fuel is actually in my flying machine.
Whether I plan on landing with ten minutes fuel or four hours fuel, I want to know how much there is and where it is located.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Didn't get that way by making Wild Guesses!
In a message dated 8/13/2009 2:05:48 P.M. Central Daylight Time, ixb(at)videotron.ca writes:
| Quote: |
It's a significantly more serious exercise than one of semantics. We're talking about life-saving behaviours like not PLANNING to run out of gas ten minutes from now, whilst still flying!!!!!!
Two days ago I returned to the circuit and "some idiot" decided to go ahead and encroach the runway without a radio call, despite my repeated calls on downwind, base, final, and "overshooting". He apologized that his radio reception wasn't very good, but then apparently neither was his eyesight. He then exited our right hand circuit UNDER me, at five hundred feet, while I was still in the overshoot. My circuit took more than ten minutes, and I had PLENTY fuel for the go-around.
Old Ian (and planning to get older).
On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 13:30 -0400, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
Good Afternoon 'Lectric Bob,
====================================
List href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
====================================
ms.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
====================================
tp://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
====================================
|
|
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
echristley(at)nc.rr.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:39 pm Post subject: Calibrating fuel qty gauges |
|
|
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
| Quote: | Just out of curiosity, What ever happened to "Ernest is a Nerd?" He
sure seemed like a very nice person?
|
It was "Ernest is a Geek". He is still at http://ernest.isa-geek.org,
and he still works on his airplane occassionally, but he turned one of
his hobbies into a start-up that is beginning to see some success and
now he is a crochety old billy-goat 8*)
--
Ernest Christley, President
Ernest(at)TechnicalTakedown.com
TechnicalTakedown, LLC
www.TechnicalTakedown.com
101 Steep Bank Dr.
Cary, NC 27518
(919) 741-9397
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
echristley(at)nc.rr.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:41 pm Post subject: Calibrating fuel qty gauges |
|
|
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
| Quote: | My personal planning at the average multi runway airport is forty-five
minutes. If there is only one runway, I want a close by alternate and
fuel to get there
Aren't we really talking about two different things. One is the
|
preflight planning where we calculate and then decide upon how much fuel
to carry. The other is fighting to get a dead accurate fuel reading
that would be used to make inflight decisions.
You have a lot more experience than me. You would preflight and put on
just enough fuel. I do it for fun, would preflight to make sure that
fuel will be of no concern and launch with a full tank (I only have the
one).
If you know that you have exactly 4.9 gallons left 10 miles out, you
know that you need to make that first approach a good one. If my
needle is barely bouncing off the "E" ten miles out, I know that I need
to make that first approach a good one.
--
Ernest Christley, President
Ernest(at)TechnicalTakedown.com
TechnicalTakedown, LLC
www.TechnicalTakedown.com
101 Steep Bank Dr.
Cary, NC 27518
(919) 741-9397
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mrspudandcompany(at)veriz
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:41 pm Post subject: Calibrating fuel qty gauges |
|
|
[quote]
And if your flying machine has one hour of fuel when full, you will always land with at least forty-five minutes of fuel on board. Of course, your normal fuel range will be only fifteen minutes long.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
My personal phylosophy is "If I keep some fuel in the top 3/4 of
the tank, the bottom 1/4 will take care of itself"
Well, Old Bob,
You seem to have your facts skewed slitely! An aircraft which can carry 1 hr. of fuel, landing with 1/4 tank has 15 minutes fob, not 45. I have never owned an aircraft that only carries 1 hr. of fuel.
I have no fight with you, just making a correction.
Roger
[b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:50 pm Post subject: Calibrating fuel qty gauges |
|
|
Hi Ernest Is A geek,
Glad to know it is working well and thanks for the correction!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Do Not Archive
In a message dated 8/13/2009 4:40:56 P.M. Central Daylight Time, echristley(at)nc.rr.com writes:
| Quote: | --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
| Quote: | Just out of curiosity, What ever happened to "Ernest is a Nerd?" He
sure seemed like a very nice person?
|
It was "Ernest is a Geek". He is still at http://ernest.isa-geek.org,
and he still works on his airplane occassionally, but he turned one of
his hobbies into a start-up that is beginning to see some success and
now he is a crochety old billy-goat 8*)
--
Ernest Christley, President
Ernest(at)TechnicalTakedown.com
TechnicalTakedown, LLC
www.TechnicalTakedown.com
101 Steep Bank Dr.
Cary, NC 27518
(919) ========================; = Use utilities Day ================================================ - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS ================================================ - List Contribution Web Site sp; ===================================================
|
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cjensen(at)dts9000.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:50 pm Post subject: Calibrating fuel qty gauges |
|
|
"The finely tuned fuel level indication system encourages
the pilot to exploit that knowledge. The pilot's willingness
to fly closer "to the edge" becomes increasingly comfortable."
Knowing where the edge is may increase the comfort of going close to the edge, but not knowing where the edge is attempting to make decisions with no reliable data.
In short, would we rather make decisions from hard facts, or soft ambiguity. I would rather have precise knowledge of fuel quantity, and then rely on discipline to plan appropriately compared to never being sure.
Chuck Jensen
[quote] --
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
frank.hinde(at)hp.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:01 pm Post subject: Calibrating fuel qty gauges |
|
|
Personally I would never rely on a fuel level guage to tell me how much I have left. What I have is a flow computer which actually measures flow going to the engine. It has been proven over and again to be accurate to within 1/10th of a gallon over full tanks.
The tank level guages are a backup indication which I expect to correspond to the integral of the flowrate..If not then chances are there is a hole in a tank...If either show unextected redings I am landing early, particularly if flying in IMC.
The only level guge I would rely on would be a sight tube, which cannot lie.
Frank RV7a
--
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ianxbrown
Joined: 16 May 2009
Posts: 80
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:11 pm Post subject: Calibrating fuel qty gauges |
|
|
OK, not wishing to have the last word, but at least being willing to clarify my philosophical response to your initial input.
A. I have never flown a T38 or a helicopter.
B. I imagine my limited hours in Cessnas, Pipers and now my RV-9A are more typical on this list.
C. I may not be the only person on the list who wonders how you could legally plan to have only "ten to fifteen minutes fuel" left.
D. My comment about a runway incursion had nothing to do with NORDO but thanks for the lecture anyway. I agree that's it's as important for us to remember that NORDO traffic exists, as it is for NORDO traffic to observe normal circuit protocol, if nothing else than for their own sake. Your response, though, was irrelevant to the topic of not running yourself down to the last ten minutes of fuel. In fact it proved the point. The guy who taxied onto the runway on my final approach just didn't look or listen to anything other than his girlfriend! The fact was that he was the reason I had to go around.
E. Getting back to the philosophy thing, I sincerely believe that the majority of the people reading this have never lifted an air conditioner on top of a building. They may have read your comment about flying within ten minutes of your life without realizing that you would only do that when lifting a heavy air conditioner near the lifting capabilities of your aircraft. I'm sure that if you re-read your initial comment you might agree that it wasn't quite qualified in that way.
My response was not out of disrespect for an eminently skillful and experienced pilot, but out of concern for us mere mortals, low time pilots, who when reading this thread, may have been misled into believing that it's more important to focus on the accuracy of your fuel gauge than to keep plenty gas in the tank. I'd add to the old adage about "nothing more useless than runway behind you or altitude above you" that there is very little opportunity, after the fact, to claim that there was a really useful airspace in you tanks just ready for all that fuel.
Respectfully,
Ian
On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 15:39 -0400, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote: | Quote: | Good Afternoon Old Ian, If you are saying you disagree with my philosophy, that is just fine. I rarely plan to arrive with only ten minutes of reserve fuel, but there are conditions where I would be happy to do so. The T-38 flights at Edwards were just such flights. My personal planning at the average multi runway airport is forty-five minutes. If there is only one runway, I want a close by alternate and fuel to get there It All Depends! That is more than what the FAA requires, but it is what I like to have. However, I do NOT wish to arrive anywhere without knowing accurately how much fuel I do have on board. If I know that amount due to careful timing or by the trust I have in my fuel gauges, I still want to know the amount, not just that there is an indeterminate large amount of fuel on board. You speak quite sarcastically about an airplane that was arriving at "your" destination and who was not listening to your pronouncements on the radio. We all must remember that it is still legal for aircraft that have no radio to be using most airspace in this nation. You may not think that is proper, but if you are flying in pilot controlled airspace, you should always be aware that it is quite likely that a NORDO aircraft may be sharing "your" airspace. The most likely cause of a NORDO conflict is when you or the pilot of the other aircraft have made the error of not tuning the correct frequency, flipping the right audio switch, pressing the wrong mike button or other similar pilot failures of omission or commission. I know I have made all of those errors at one time or another. While I try very hard to reduce my errors, I know that I am human and all of us humans do make mistakes. Not only that, but radios DO fail. That is what planning is all about. We plan what we need and how to handle what we don't expect. Such planning requires careful analysis of the conditions that prevail and that includes a good idea as to how much fuel we have at any particular moment. I do not wish to carry somewhere between three to five hours of fuel when I have no idea which amount of fuel is actually in my flying machine. Whether I plan on landing with ten minutes fuel or four hours fuel, I want to know how much there is and where it is located. Happy Skies, Old Bob Didn't get that way by making Wild Guesses! In a message dated 8/13/2009 2:05:48 P.M. Central Daylight Time, ixb(at)videotron.ca writes: | Quote: | It's a significantly more serious exercise than one of semantics. We're talking about life-saving behaviours like not PLANNING to run out of gas ten minutes from now, whilst still flying!!!!!!
Two days ago I returned to the circuit and "some idiot" decided to go ahead and encroach the runway without a radio call, despite my repeated calls on downwind, base, final, and "overshooting". He apologized that his radio reception wasn't very good, but then apparently neither was his eyesight. He then exited our right hand circuit UNDER me, at five hundred feet, while I was still in the overshoot. My circuit took more than ten minutes, and I had PLENTY fuel for the go-around.
Old Ian (and planning to get older).
On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 13:30 -0400, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
| Quote: | Good Afternoon 'Lectric Bob,
This may be just an exercise in semantics, but I do disagree with the philosophy I think you are espousing.
There is nothing wrong with planning on arriving at a safe landing spot with ten to fifteen minutes of fuel as long as you are confident you will be at that spot at the appointed time.
To say we should always have something beyond what is required is too broad for my liking. On those few occasions when I had the pleasure of flying a T-38, we landed every time with "Bingo" fuel. In that airplane, Bingo fuel was a bit less than twenty minutes worth. Good enough for one full power go around and not much more.
We pay a LOT of money for every pound of payload we put in our flying machines. I think it is very rational to reduce the amount of fuel down to what is required for the mission at hand. My cross country flyer has tip tanks and it can fairly easily fly twelve hours with full tanks. My planning for that airplane often has me arriving with less than one hours worth of fuel. If I was able to be as certain of landing field availability as I was when flying the T-38 and as confident as I was of the accuracy of the fuel gauges, I would not hesitate to fly my long ranger down to a Bingo fuel of twenty minutes.
Back when I was doing sling work with a helicopter, we added fuel for each trip lifting air conditioners to a roof top. Carrying no more than about five minutes of reserve fuel, we managed to get more air conditioners per day up on top of those roofs. The reserve fuel planned on should be based on the accuracy of the fuel indicating system and the reliability of the landing estimate
To do otherwise is as foolish as asking that every airplane be fitted with four engines just in case one of them happens to quit. We have decided that a good single engine provides adequate safety for many of us. The same thing goes for carrying extra fuel. Every ounce we carry that is not needed for the task at hand costs us money and $time$.
I prefer to know how much fuel is on board and how much I want when I land.
Just my thoughts
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Stearman N3977A
Downers Grove, Illinois
LL22
In a message dated 8/13/2009 9:56:02 A.M. Central Daylight Time, nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes:
| Quote: | --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
> IMO, fixed point sensors are not workable in a plane. An analog
> design is required. The best solution I have seen and I use is a
> simple boat turbine flow meter made by Northstar. The gauge reads
> gal/hour, gal remaining, and gal used. It has to be updated each
> time fuel is added.
This is an ambitious design goal . . . and technologically
feasible. I'll suggest that there are good reasons NOT to
have such accuracy displayed on the panel of an airplane.
Folks who learned about living comfortably in the world
of airplanes discovered pretty quickly that oldest pilots
were not so bold as to flight-plan with a dependency upon
their "fudge factors". I.e. fuel reserves. The reasons for
this are pretty clear. It's difficult to anticipate your
fuel needs with accuracy. Winds can affect speed over
the ground. Weather can affect routing changes. Conditions
at the destination airport can force delays or an alternate, etc.
The finely tuned fuel level indication system encourages
the pilot to exploit that knowledge. The pilot's willingness
to fly closer "to the edge" becomes increasingly comfortable.
The prudent pilot never launches into an extended operation
with less than KNOWN amounts of fuel aboard. Up to the tab,
slot-in-the-tab, or better yet . . . full. From time of take
of, the pilot with NO fuel gage is acutely aware of the fact
that so many hours from now, the engine stops. He's also
aware of the variables that affect accuracy of that
calculation. Hence, that thing called "reserve" fuel is
a both a PHYSICAL and PSYCHOLOGICAL buffer for hitting the
"wall of variables" in flight planning.
Fitting an airplane with a fuel gage that accurately
depicts engine stopping to the minute is a psychological
trap that WILL eventually catch some pilot and his/her
passengers. I'm not suggesting that anyone, including
yourself, cannot prudently use accurate fuel quantity
measurement to good advantage . . . as long as you
continue to recognize that the value of that accuracy
becomes less useful as larger and less predictable
conditions pile onto your error budget.
> It is accurate after the initial fill. One still has to remember
> how many gallons is safe when the tank gets low. Many homebuilts
> use this product with success. No issues with slosh.
>
>I am trying the CruzPro gauge for my truck which allows many cal
>points and the gauge reads the same stuff as the Northstar. This
>setup uses the stock resistance gauge and is still inaccurate due to
>slosh and tilt. However there is some damping in the float mechanism.
All true. But never diminish the ideas that described
the WHOLE flight system and the environment in which
it operates. Even if you can absolu8tely depend on
the accuracy of a fuel quantity measurement system,
be alert and cognizant of both the values and risks
associated with KNOWING that number when there
are other more restrictive conditions that you
cannot know or predict with accuracy.
This is why our fuel gaging system will include both
a reasonably accurate level indication system combined
with "dip stick" accurate level warnings. The published
advise for using this system will suggest that no matter
how accurate the indication, no matter how well your
planning conforms to actual conditions, when that low
fuel warning light comes on you need to be 100% assured
of comfortable return to earth whether at your airport
of intended destination or not.
There are situations where the guy flying comfortably
with a wire on a cork is perhaps better off than the
guy who believes there is exploitable value in knowing
fuel quantity remaining down to the nearest cubic
centimeter. He may make more fuel stops but shucks, those
takeoffs and near greaser landings are so much fun.
You get to meet more friendly FBO line boys too.
Bob . . . ========================= Use utilities Day ================================================ - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS ================================================ - List Contribution Web Site sp; ===================================================
|
|
|
|
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:11 pm Post subject: Calibrating fuel qty gauges |
|
|
Good Afternoon Ernest,
I guess we could separate it into two parts, but I do not see it that way.
Just like you, I fly for fun.(Always have, even when I was getting paid for it!)
Part of that fun is planning the trip. You surmise that I "put on just enough fuel". That may be true in some way, but "just enough fuel" means to me that I have enough fuel to get to my destination and adequate reserves to cover whatever may come to pass.
Is that any different from the way you do it? If you always carry full fuel, doesn't the total you have available enter into the planning as to how long a flight you will plan?
The more knowledge I have about my fuel quantity and the rate of burn, the better decisions I can make as to how to handle contingencies
My daily transportation machine is ten knots slower with full fuel on board than it is when it is at my minimum fuel weight. That is a BIG difference to me and worthy of some thought as to just how heavy I want my machine to be.
As Always, It All Depends!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 8/13/2009 4:42:15 P.M. Central Daylight Time, echristley(at)nc.rr.com writes:
| Quote: | --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
| Quote: | My personal planning at the average multi runway airport is forty-five
minutes. If there is only one runway, I want a close by alternate and
fuel to get there
Aren't we really talking about two different things. One is the
|
preflight planning where we calculate and then decide upon how much fuel
to carry. The other is fighting to get a dead accurate fuel reading
that would be used to make inflight decisions.
You have a lot more experience than me. You would preflight and put on
just enough fuel. I do it for fun, would preflight to make sure that
fuel will be of no concern and launch with a full tank (I only have the
one).
If you know that you have exactly 4.9 gallons left 10 miles out, you
know that you need to make that first approach a good one. If my
needle is barely bouncing off the "E" ten miles out, I know that I need
to make that first approach a good one.
--
Ernest Christley, President
Ernest(at)TechnicalTakedown.com
TechnicalTakedown, LLC
www.TechnicalTakedown.com
101 Steep Bank Dr.
Cary, NC 27518
(919) ========================; = Use utilities Day ================================================ - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS ================================================= -Matt ===================================================
|
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:21 pm Post subject: Calibrating fuel qty gauges |
|
|
Good Afternoon Roger,
My recollection is that you said you like to keep the fuel level above the three quarter mark so that the one quarter mark takes care of itself. That is why I said forty-five minutes! I see that you really said you want to keep it in the top three quarters of the tank capacity, so I do stand corrected.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 8/13/2009 4:42:23 P.M. Central Daylight Time, mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net writes:
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
And if your flying machine has one hour of fuel when full, you will always land with at least forty-five minutes of fuel on board. Of course, your normal fuel range will be only fifteen minutes long.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
My personal phylosophy is "If I keep some fuel in the top 3/4 of
the tank, the bottom 1/4 will take care of itself"
Well, Old Bob,
You seem to have your facts skewed slitely! An aircraft which can carry 1 hr. of fuel, landing with 1/4 tank has 15 minutes fob, not 45. I have never owned an aircraft that only carries 1 hr. of fuel.
I have no fight with you, just making a correction.
Roger
====================================
List href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
====================================
ms.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
====================================
tp://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
====================================
|
|
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JohnInReno
Joined: 08 Sep 2007
Posts: 150
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:25 pm Post subject: Calibrating fuel qty gauges |
|
|
Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote:
| Quote: |
The only level guge I would rely on would be a sight tube, which cannot lie.
I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that you have never
|
enjoyed flying a Grumman Yankee with 11 gallons in each wing and an
O-320. 
John Morgensen
RV4
Grumman AA1B-150 (For Sale)
RV9A (wiring)
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
_________________
John Morgensen
RV-9A - Born on July 3, 2013
RV4 - for sale |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.N
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:27 pm Post subject: Calibrating fuel qty gauges |
|
|
Hi Frank RV7a"The only level guge I would rely on would be a sight tube, which cannot lie."For the record sight tubes can and do lie all the time! Don't absoluetly trust them. Get foamy fuel above them, or if the run on top of sight has a sag and you get fuel in it, or if you get air below them, or foamy below them, or if the outlet is in a higher or lower pressure then inside the tank, you can get a low or high reading. Bout as reliable as Cessna fuel gauges IMHO.For anyone who installs one on their machine, take the time with a few 1 liter soda bottles and a piece of tygon tubing between them to learn the downside to such a stone simple indicator that has the potential to have your engine playing silent night. Has happened to more than a few Europas.Ron Parigoris [quote][b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AV8ORJWC
Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 1149
Location: Aurora, Oregon "Home of VANS"
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 3:21 pm Post subject: Calibrating fuel qty gauges |
|
|
Ask Sean Tucker about his last Dead Stick Landing in California a few weeks ago. It was a sight glass issue which he admitted included Operator error. Great Story.
John
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 3:26 PM
To: AeroelectricList
Subject: RE: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges
Hi Frank RV7a
"The only level guge I would rely on would be a sight tube, which cannot lie."
For the record sight tubes can and do lie all the time!
Don't absoluetly trust them. Get foamy fuel above them, or if the run on top of sight has a sag and you get fuel in it, or if you get air below them, or foamy below them, or if the outlet is in a higher or lower pressure then inside the tank, you can get a low or high reading. Bout as reliable as Cessna fuel gauges IMHO.
For anyone who installs one on their machine, take the time with a few 1 liter soda bottles and a piece of tygon tubing between them to learn the downside to such a stone simple indicator that has the potential to have your engine playing silent night. Has happened to more than a few Europas.
Ron Parigoris [quote] [/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][b]http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List[b][/b][b]http://forums.matronics.com[b][/b]http://www.matronics.com/contribution [b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AV8ORJWC
Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 1149
Location: Aurora, Oregon "Home of VANS"
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 3:37 pm Post subject: Calibrating fuel qty gauges |
|
|
Running out of fuel continues to be a high contributor to Premature conclusion of flight prior to intended planning - leading to increased insurance policy payouts. Makes me rethink the Planning portion with today's post.
John
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ian
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 12:00 PM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges
It's a significantly more serious exercise than one of semantics. We're talking about life-saving behaviours like not PLANNING to run out of gas ten minutes from now, whilst still flying!!!!!!
Two days ago I returned to the circuit and "some idiot" decided to go ahead and encroach the runway without a radio call, despite my repeated calls on downwind, base, final, and "overshooting". He apologized that his radio reception wasn't very good, but then apparently neither was his eyesight. He then exited our right hand circuit UNDER me, at five hundred feet, while I was still in the overshoot. My circuit took more than ten minutes, and I had PLENTY fuel for the go-around.
Old Ian (and planning to get older).
On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 13:30 -0400, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
Good Afternoon 'Lectric Bob, | Quote: |
This may be just an exercise in semantics, but I do disagree with the philosophy I think you are espousing.
There is nothing wrong with planning on arriving at a safe landing spot with ten to fifteen minutes of fuel as long as you are confident you will be at that spot at the appointed time.
To say we should always have something beyond what is required is too broad for my liking. On those few occasions when I had the pleasure of flying a T-38, we landed every time with "Bingo" fuel. In that airplane, Bingo fuel was a bit less than twenty minutes worth. Good enough for one full power go around and not much more.
We pay a LOT of money for every pound of payload we put in our flying machines. I think it is very rational to reduce the amount of fuel down to what is required for the mission at hand. My cross country flyer has tip tanks and it can fairly easily fly twelve hours with full tanks. My planning for that airplane often has me arriving with less than one hours worth of fuel. If I was able to be as certain of landing field availability as I was when flying the T-38 and as confident as I was of the accuracy of the fuel gauges, I would not hesitate to fly my long ranger down to a Bingo fuel of twenty minutes.
Back when I was doing sling work with a helicopter, we added fuel for each trip lifting air conditioners to a roof top. Carrying no more than about five minutes of reserve fuel, we managed to get more air conditioners per day up on top of those roofs. The reserve fuel planned on should be based on the accuracy of the fuel indicating system and the reliability of the landing estimate
To do otherwise is as foolish as asking that every airplane be fitted with four engines just in case one of them happens to quit. We have decided that a good single engine provides adequate safety for many of us. The same thing goes for carrying extra fuel. Every ounce we carry that is not needed for the task at hand costs us money and $time$.
I prefer to know how much fuel is on board and how much I want when I land.
Just my thoughts
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Stearman N3977A
Downers Grove, Illinois
LL22
In a message dated 8/13/2009 9:56:02 A.M. Central Daylight Time, nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes: | Quote: |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
> IMO, fixed point sensors are not workable in a plane. An analog
> design is required. The best solution I have seen and I use is a
> simple boat turbine flow meter made by Northstar. The gauge reads
> gal/hour, gal remaining, and gal used. It has to be updated each
> time fuel is added.
This is an ambitious design goal . . . and technologically
feasible. I'll suggest that there are good reasons NOT to
have such accuracy displayed on the panel of an airplane.
Folks who learned about living comfortably in the world
of airplanes discovered pretty quickly that oldest pilots
were not so bold as to flight-plan with a dependency upon
their "fudge factors". I.e. fuel reserves. The reasons for
this are pretty clear. It's difficult to anticipate your
fuel needs with accuracy. Winds can affect speed over
the ground. Weather can affect routing changes. Conditions
at the destination airport can force delays or an alternate, etc.
The finely tuned fuel level indication system encourages
the pilot to exploit that knowledge. The pilot's willingness
to fly closer "to the edge" becomes increasingly comfortable.
The prudent pilot never launches into an extended operation
with less than KNOWN amounts of fuel aboard. Up to the tab,
slot-in-the-tab, or better yet . . . full. From time of take
of, the pilot with NO fuel gage is acutely aware of the fact
that so many hours from now, the engine stops. He's also
aware of the variables that affect accuracy of that
calculation. Hence, that thing called "reserve" fuel is
a both a PHYSICAL and PSYCHOLOGICAL buffer for hitting the
"wall of variables" in flight planning.
Fitting an airplane with a fuel gage that accurately
depicts engine stopping to the minute is a psychological
trap that WILL eventually catch some pilot and his/her
passengers. I'm not suggesting that anyone, including
yourself, cannot prudently use accurate fuel quantity
measurement to good advantage . . . as long as you
continue to recognize that the value of that accuracy
becomes less useful as larger and less predictable
conditions pile onto your error budget.
> It is accurate after the initial fill. One still has to remember
> how many gallons is safe when the tank gets low. Many homebuilts
> use this product with success. No issues with slosh.
>
>I am trying the CruzPro gauge for my truck which allows many cal
>points and the gauge reads the same stuff as the Northstar. This
>setup uses the stock resistance gauge and is still inaccurate due to
>slosh and tilt. However there is some damping in the float mechanism.
All true. But never diminish the ideas that described
the WHOLE flight system and the environment in which
it operates. Even if you can absolu8tely depend on
the accuracy of a fuel quantity measurement system,
be alert and cognizant of both the values and risks
associated with KNOWING that number when there
are other more restrictive conditions that you
cannot know or predict with accuracy.
This is why our fuel gaging system will include both
a reasonably accurate level indication system combined
with "dip stick" accurate level warnings. The published
advise for using this system will suggest that no matter
how accurate the indication, no matter how well your
planning conforms to actual conditions, when that low
fuel warning light comes on you need to be 100% assured
of comfortable return to earth whether at your airport
of intended destination or not.
There are situations where the guy flying comfortably
with a wire on a cork is perhaps better off than the
guy who believes there is exploitable value in knowing
fuel quantity remaining down to the nearest cubic
centimeter. He may make more fuel stops but shucks, those
takeoffs and near greaser landings are so much fun.
You get to meet more friendly FBO line boys too.
Bob . . . ========================= Use utilities Day ================================================ - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS ================================================ - List Contribution Web Site sp; ===================================================
|
|
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 4:27 pm Post subject: Calibrating fuel qty gauges |
|
|
Good Evening John,
Agreed. That is why we should emphasis the planning aspects so that we will all know for sure whether or not we have adequate en route fuel and adequate reserves to cover all reasonable alternatives.
With modern fuel flow capability we sure should know what we are burning. If we have reasonably accurate fuel gauges, we should be able to spot any discrepancy that might indicate a fuel leak.
Works for me!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 8/13/2009 6:38:41 P.M. Central Daylight Time, johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com writes:
| Quote: |
Running out of fuel continues to be a high contributor to Premature conclusion of flight prior to intended planning - leading to increased insurance policy payouts. Makes me rethink the Planning portion with today's post.
John
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ian
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 12:00 PM
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges
It's a significantly more serious exercise than one of semantics. We're talking about life-saving behaviours like not PLANNING to run out of gas ten minutes from now, whilst still flying!!!!!!
Two days ago I returned to the circuit and "some idiot" decided to go ahead and encroach the runway without a radio call, despite my repeated calls on downwind, base, final, and "overshooting". He apologized that his radio reception wasn't very good, but then apparently neither was his eyesight. He then exited our right hand circuit UNDER me, at five hundred feet, while I was still in the overshoot. My circuit took more than ten minutes, and I had PLENTY fuel for the go-around.
Old Ian (and planning to get older).
On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 13:30 -0400, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
Good Afternoon 'Lectric Bob, | Quote: |
This may be just an exercise in semantics, but I do disagree with the philosophy I think you are espousing.
There is nothing wrong with planning on arriving at a safe landing spot with ten to fifteen minutes of fuel as long as you are confident you will be at that spot at the appointed time.
To say we should always have something beyond what is required is too broad for my liking. On those few occasions when I had the pleasure of flying a T-38, we landed every time with "Bingo" fuel. In that airplane, Bingo fuel was a bit less than twenty minutes worth. Good enough for one full power go around and not much more.
We pay a LOT of money for every pound of payload we put in our flying machines. I think it is very rational to reduce the amount of fuel down to what is required for the mission at hand. My cross country flyer has tip tanks and it can fairly easily fly twelve hours with full tanks. My planning for that airplane often has me arriving with less than one hours worth of fuel. If I was able to be as certain of landing field availability as I was when flying the T-38 and as confident as I was of the accuracy of the fuel gauges, I would not hesitate to fly my long ranger down to a Bingo fuel of twenty minutes.
Back when I was doing sling work with a helicopter, we added fuel for each trip lifting air conditioners to a roof top. Carrying no more than about five minutes of reserve fuel, we managed to get more air conditioners per day up on top of those roofs. The reserve fuel planned on should be based on the accuracy of the fuel indicating system and the reliability of the landing estimate
To do otherwise is as foolish as asking that every airplane be fitted with four engines just in case one of them happens to quit. We have decided that a good single engine provides adequate safety for many of us. The same thing goes for carrying extra fuel. Every ounce we carry that is not needed for the task at hand costs us money and $time$.
I prefer to know how much fuel is on board and how much I want when I land.
Just my thoughts
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Stearman N3977A
Downers Grove, Illinois
LL22
In a message dated 8/13/2009 9:56:02 A.M. Central Daylight Time, nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes: | Quote: |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
| Quote: | IMO, fixed point sensors are not workable in a plane. An analog
design is required. The best solution I have seen and I use is a
simple boat turbine flow meter made by Northstar. The gauge reads
gal/hour, gal remaining, and gal used. It has to be updated each
time fuel is added.
|
This is an ambitious design goal . . . and technologically
feasible. I'll suggest that there are good reasons NOT to
have such accuracy displayed on the panel of an airplane.
Folks who learned about living comfortably in the world
of airplanes discovered pretty quickly that oldest pilots
were not so bold as to flight-plan with a dependency upon
their "fudge factors". I.e. fuel reserves. The reasons for
this are pretty clear. It's difficult to anticipate your
fuel needs with accuracy. Winds can affect speed over
the ground. Weather can affect routing changes. Conditions
at the destination airport can force delays or an alternate, etc.
The finely tuned fuel level indication system encourages
the pilot to exploit that knowledge. The pilot's willingness
to fly closer "to the edge" becomes increasingly comfortable.
The prudent pilot never launches into an extended operation
with less than KNOWN amounts of fuel aboard. Up to the tab,
slot-in-the-tab, or better yet . . . full. From time of take
of, the pilot with NO fuel gage is acutely aware of the fact
that so many hours from now, the engine stops. He's also
aware of the variables that affect accuracy of that
calculation. Hence, that thing called "reserve" fuel is
a both a PHYSICAL and PSYCHOLOGICAL buffer for hitting the
"wall of variables" in flight planning.
Fitting an airplane with a fuel gage that accurately
depicts engine stopping to the minute is a psychological
trap that WILL eventually catch some pilot and his/her
passengers. I'm not suggesting that anyone, including
yourself, cannot prudently use accurate fuel quantity
measurement to good advantage . . . as long as you
continue to recognize that the value of that accuracy
becomes less useful as larger and less predictable
conditions pile onto your error budget.
| Quote: | It is accurate after the initial fill. One still has to remember
how many gallons is safe when the tank gets low. Many homebuilts
use this product with success. No issues with slosh.
I am trying the CruzPro gauge for my truck which allows many cal
points and the gauge reads the same stuff as the Northstar. This
setup uses the stock resistance gauge and is still inaccurate due to
slosh and tilt. However there is some damping in the float mechanism.
|
All true. But never diminish the ideas that described
the WHOLE flight system and the environment in which
it operates. Even if you can absolu8tely depend on
the accuracy of a fuel quantity measurement system,
be alert and cognizant of both the values and risks
associated with KNOWING that number when there
are other more restrictive conditions that you
cannot know or predict with accuracy.
This is why our fuel gaging system will include both
a reasonably accurate level indication system combined
with "dip stick" accurate level warnings. The published
advise for using this system will suggest that no matter
how accurate the indication, no matter how well your
planning conforms to actual conditions, when that low
fuel warning light comes on you need to be 100% assured
of comfortable return to earth whether at your airport
of intended destination or not.
There are situations where the guy flying comfortably
with a wire on a cork is perhaps better off than the
guy who believes there is exploitable value in knowing
fuel quantity remaining down to the nearest cubic
centimeter. He may make more fuel stops but shucks, those
takeoffs and near greaser landings are so much fun.
You get to meet more friendly FBO line boys too.
Bob . . . ========================= Use utilities Day ================================================ - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS ================================================ - List Contribution Web Site sp; ===================================================
|
|
|
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pwmac(at)sisna.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 4:41 pm Post subject: Calibrating fuel qty gauges |
|
|
The poor guy wants a reliable fuel quantity meter. He did not ask
about proper flight planning and all you guys philosophy on that wrong subject.
If there is an instrument in the plane it should reflect what is
going on. Like oil pressure should read correctly in flight as well
as on the ground. same thing with the volt meter etc.
Level sensing fuel gauges do not give reasonable accuracy in flight
but usually give good data on the ground. A flow meter gauge reads
fuel remaining any time it is powered on.
I cite the example of the famous Cessna fuel cap o-ring. On a flight
from Denver to Cheyenne with full tanks. The poor pilot arrived in
Cheyenne with no reserve. To bad he did not have a reliable gauge
that told him the fuel remaining was drastically decreasing. Even if
he watched his gauge he probably did not believe it because it is so
erratic in flight. For sure this was not a flight planning issue.
So a functional gauge especially with a warning feature would be
desirable in case it is desired to monitor a fuel related failure mode.
Bottom line is we do not have to live with garbage gauges that have
been used for years or newfangled level sensing gauges that only are
good on the ground.
I guess I don't understand the resistance to functional gauges.
Please set me straight.
Paul
============
At 03:01 PM 8/13/2009, you wrote:
| Quote: |
<nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
At 12:30 PM 8/13/2009, you wrote:
Good Afternoon 'Lectric Bob,
This may be just an exercise in semantics, but I do disagree with
the philosophy I think you are espousing.
There is nothing wrong with planning on arriving at a safe landing
spot with ten to fifteen minutes of fuel as long as you are
confident you will be at that spot at the appointed time.
Confidence is the key word. I recall one situation
where upon returning to ICT in a Skipper, I was asked
to run downwind and expect to follow three big fellows
already lined up for the one long runway opened. With
requisite spacing being observed, I trudged half way
out to Whitewater Ks while the big guys did their
thing. This probably added 12-15 minutes to my planned
flight time. If I had planned to land with 15 minutes
remaining . . .
Now, I did pass within a few miles of other runway
options on the extended downwind. Further, I could
have declared low fuel and no doubt would have been
given access to the concrete . . . along a good chewing
out by numerous folks on the ground.
To say we should always have something beyond what is required is
too broad for my liking. On those few occasions when I had the
pleasure of flying a T-38, we landed every time with "Bingo" fuel.
In that airplane, Bingo fuel was a bit less than twenty minutes
worth. Good enough for one full power go around and not much more.
But keep in mind my friend that we're not here to
offer advice and training to professional pilots.
Only a small percentage of our 1800 readers fly for
a living and many if not most are under 300 hour
pilots.
In the mean time, technology continues to march ahead
and it's now quite possible to have milliliter accuracy
for measured fuel, 10-yard accuracy for present
position, 1 foot/second accuracy for speed over the
ground. This DOES add up to a lot of capability if
used with training, experience, good judgement and
the calibration of all sources is good.
We pay a LOT of money for every pound of payload we put in our
flying machines. I think it is very rational to reduce the amount of
fuel down to what is required for the mission at hand. My cross
country flyer has tip tanks and it can fairly easily fly twelve
hours with full tanks. My planning for that airplane often has me
arriving with less than one hours worth of fuel. If I was able to be
as certain of landing field availability as I was when flying the
T-38 and as confident as I was of the accuracy of the fuel gauges, I
would not hesitate to fly my long ranger down to a Bingo fuel of
twenty minutes.
Back when I was doing sling work with a helicopter, we added fuel
for each trip lifting air conditioners to a roof top. Carrying no
more than about five minutes of reserve fuel, we managed to get more
air conditioners per day up on top of those roofs. The reserve fuel
planned on should be based on the accuracy of the fuel indicating
system and the reliability of the landing estimate
To do otherwise is as foolish as asking that every airplane be
fitted with four engines just in case one of them happens to quit.
We have decided that a good single engine provides adequate safety
for many of us. The same thing goes for carrying extra fuel. Every
ounce we carry that is not needed for the task at hand costs us
money and $time$.
Agreed . . . and Cole Hamels can probably put
a fast-ball through the strike zone 99% of the
time. But he does it for a living.
I prefer to know how much fuel is on board and how much I want when I land.
Not a thing wrong with that . . . particularly if that
data can be used with skill. My concern for the
technology explosion in flight instrumentation
is that new and/or relatively low utilization
pilots will come to depend on those things with
decisions made 400 miles away. However, when you're
30 miles out and no other good place to land, your
pre-departure planning skills get tested. The risks
for unanticipated or overlooked conditions can become
critical.
I don't fly because it's comfortable, convenient,
or even without some degree of stress. I fly because
it's fun and I'm willing to expend the $time$ and
emotional capital to enjoy the experience. I don't
do it for a living. There are lots of ways to have an
unhappy day in the airplane. Of all hazards to flight,
fuel starvation is the easiest to avoid yet it remains
the #1 reason for loss of power in flight. The idea
that I can launch in a GA light aircraft and DEPEND
weather AND access to runways controlled by others
is fraught with some uncertainty and risk.
One may argue that having accurate fuel data
can trigger an early termination of flight to
avoid the unhappy day . . . but it can also
be combined with other data to make a press-on
decision with an exponential rise in risk.
I'm the first to extol the capabilities of modern
electo-whizzies (especially the ones I designed!).
But unless we are flying for a living, I'll suggest
that Uncle Bert's "highway in the sky" and AGATE's
"push-button-auto-land" technology have limited future
in the airplanes we're building and the reasons
for which most of us fly. Carrying around 40-60
pounds of "fuel never used" has some operational
expense but it brings a huge reduction in risk
for the casual/recreational pilot. These folks
will have to suffer THEIR bad day in the cockpit
at the exercise of some other hazard.
Bob . . .
|
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
