---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Thu 08/13/09: 41 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 02:52 AM - Re: Icom 200 (jetboy) 2. 06:24 AM - Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: Re: Radio Noise (Jeff Page) 3. 06:53 AM - Re: Voltage drop puzzle (user9253) 4. 07:16 AM - Re: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges (Ernest Christley) 5. 07:23 AM - Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 08/12/09 (Speedy11@aol.com) 6. 07:24 AM - Re: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 7. 07:55 AM - Re: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 8. 07:55 AM - Re: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 08/12/09 (Matt Prather) 9. 08:13 AM - Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges (Byron Janzen) 10. 08:23 AM - Re: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges (Ian) 11. 09:14 AM - Re: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges (Ernest Christley) 12. 10:04 AM - Re: Why3 different alt disconnect relay wiring in Z schematics? (messydeer) 13. 10:17 AM - Re: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges (BobsV35B@aol.com) 14. 10:50 AM - Re: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges (BobsV35B@aol.com) 15. 11:22 AM - Re: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges (Dan Morrow) 16. 12:04 PM - Re: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges (Ian) 17. 12:22 PM - Re: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges (BobsV35B@aol.com) 18. 12:39 PM - Re: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges (BobsV35B@aol.com) 19. 12:49 PM - Re: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges (Roger) 20. 01:54 PM - Re: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges (BobsV35B@aol.com) 21. 02:02 PM - Re: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 22. 02:08 PM - Re: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges (Terry Watson) 23. 02:25 PM - Re: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges (BobsV35B@aol.com) 24. 02:39 PM - Re: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges (Ernest Christley) 25. 02:41 PM - Re: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges (Ernest Christley) 26. 02:41 PM - Re: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges (Roger) 27. 02:50 PM - Re: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges (BobsV35B@aol.com) 28. 02:50 PM - Re: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges (Chuck Jensen) 29. 03:01 PM - Re: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)) 30. 03:11 PM - Re: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges (Ian) 31. 03:11 PM - Re: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges (BobsV35B@aol.com) 32. 03:21 PM - Re: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges (BobsV35B@aol.com) 33. 03:25 PM - Re: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges (John Morgensen) 34. 03:27 PM - Re: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges (rparigor@SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US) 35. 04:21 PM - Re: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges (John Cox) 36. 04:32 PM - Re: Re: Why3 different alt disconnect relay wiring in Z schematics? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 37. 04:37 PM - Re: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges (John Cox) 38. 05:27 PM - Re: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges (BobsV35B@aol.com) 39. 05:41 PM - Re: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges (paul wilson) 40. 08:21 PM - Re: ANL Current limiters (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 41. 08:22 PM - Re: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges (Ernest Christley) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 02:52:29 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Icom 200 From: "jetboy" Luigi, The pilot microphone must connect to Molex pin "J" for the transmitter to operate. When switching to intercom, both microphones connect to "K" It is possible to leave the pilot microphone also connected to "J" as well. You might also check the pin "J" is connecting to the correct terminal on the 3-connection microphone jack, and not the ptt connection instead. The headset microphone must be amplified dynamic or amplified electret type. most GA headsets are this type. Some have the amplifier inside the mic housing, some have it inside the earcup. Hope that helps. Ralph -------- Ralph - CH701 / 2200a Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=257443#257443 ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 06:24:48 AM PST US From: "Jeff Page" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: Re: Radio Noise > Is the radio's rf connector making contact with the jack in the rack? > Hard to check, but rather important. This is definitely a point we are suspicious of. Unfortunately, the connector is rivetted to the frame, so we can't easily take it out to either test it or replace it. We might have to though. Yesterday we patched the handheld to the antenna connector in the rack and it worked perfectly, so the antenna and all cabling is good. We looked at the wiring to the connector at the back of the radio. Without tracing every wire, things looked reasonable. Curiously, there is a 10watt 4 ohm wirewound resistor connected from the speaker output to ground. There is no speaker in the aircraft, only headsets. It appeared like the connection to the radio was intermittent. Does this radio really need a speaker load if no speaker is installed ? Without it, could the amplifier section add a lot of noise ? Yesterday we were distracted with a stuck mic problem. It turned out to be a sticky switch. I was truly amazed at how patient the controller was considering he was unable to talk to aircraft in the circuit for up to 30 seconds at a time. After it happened the third time, he politely requested the aircraft head back to the hangar. Jeff Page Dream Aircraft Tundra #10 ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 06:53:37 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Voltage drop puzzle From: "user9253" What is the purpose of the diode connected to the over voltage relay coil? It appears that the intent is to raise the trip voltage by 0.7 volts, for instance from 16 to 16.7 volts. If the purpose of the diode is for arc suppression, then the diode should be connected in parallel with the coil, not in series. Also, the 1A fuse inside of the red circle will blow before the 2A circuit breaker will trip. The Fuse should be removed from the circuit. After shutdown, leaving the Aux Power switch on will drain the battery. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=257466#257466 ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 07:16:26 AM PST US From: Ernest Christley Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges Matt Prather wrote: > > Seems like sloshing can be dealt with either/both mechanically or/and > electrically: > > - A restriction or a baffle can be used to slow the flow of fuel into and > out of the tube(s). I'd be slightly surprised if the manufacturer didn't > include this. > > - A low pass filter can be used to average and damp the display in > response to the raw input from the sensor. Again, I'd be slightly > surprised if the manufacturer didn't include this. > > And the sensor should be located near the center of the tank putting it in the middle of where the sloshing "see-saws". -- Ernest Christley, President Ernest@TechnicalTakedown.com TechnicalTakedown, LLC www.TechnicalTakedown.com 101 Steep Bank Dr. Cary, NC 27518 (919) 741-9397 ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 07:23:58 AM PST US From: Speedy11@aol.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 08/12/09 Bill and Matt, I, too, visually check the fuel quantity as always, but it is nice to have some reasonably accurate indication of fuel quantity in the cockpit while flying. My AF-3400EM records fuel flow, quantity used/remaining, etc., and it is also a reference tool for decision making. The Princeton sensors for the RV are very short and they fit vertically at the wing root. So, the sloshing error should be minimized as compared to the Lancair version. There is also a dampening built into the sensor circuit to help eliminate the sloshing error. So, the sloshing error is largely mitigated. The problem I've had is getting the Princeton sensors to send consistent signals to the AF-3400 engine monitor. I calibrated the sensors seven times by draining the tanks and adding measured 2 gallon increments to each tank. After each addition, I let the fuel settle down before taking the reading being sent to the engine monitor and entering the reading into the engine monitor non-volatile memory. Above about 12 gallons, all readings are the same because the fuel level is above the top of the sensor. The problem I'm having is that the sensor is sending signals to the EM that are up and down the scale. The EM is simply displaying the quantity it recognizes in relation to the calibration entries. I am convinced the problem lies with the Princeton sensors. Yes, I've talked to the manufacturer and he says, "It should work. Try calibrating again." The fuel sensors are mounted in the wing root and, thus, are difficult to get to for removal and replacement. So, I'm not excited about pulling out the current ones and replacing them - too much Pro-Seal. I'm going to burn the tanks down some more and dip check the tanks and see how the readings compare. Stan Sutterfield ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 07:24:00 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges Seems like sloshing can be dealt with either/both mechanically or/and electrically: - A restriction or a baffle can be used to slow the flow of fuel into and out of the tube(s). I'd be slightly surprised if the manufacturer didn't include this. Me too. Over the years I've seen both mechanical and electrical approaches to slosh management. Long sensors can be mounted inside a tube that has a tiny hole at each end to restrict rate of flow into and out of the tube. The sensor he described may already have such restrictions. On the single engine Cessna's about '64 we looked at "lubricating" the pivots on the fuel gages (automotive moving magnets driven by rheostats with swing-arm-floats) with 30,000 centistoke silicone oil. The smallest droplet of this oil injected to the pivot bearing attenuated sloshing response to a very low value. - A low pass filter can be used to average and damp the display in response to the raw input from the sensor. Again, I'd be slightly surprised if the manufacturer didn't include this. Yeah, the one I'm working with now filters the slosh in software. The guys are playing with several filtering philosophies. The most attractive is a simple running average of 200 readings taken 10 times a second. The B52 had capacity fuel gages in it when I was working on them in '61. They were vacuum tube amplifier driven servo motors that kept an LRC bridge balanced. The servo motor also drove a potentiometer that produced the output signal for the panel instrument. I recall the instructor stating that the servo motor was deliberately designed to be slow. Full scale response time was on the order of 1 to 2 minutes. Exceedingly unresponsive to slosh. Anyone who has flown an old Cessna with the mechanical swing-arm-float indicators in the wing roots or a J-3 with a wire on a cork will understand the seeds from which more convenient and accurate fuel gaging systems were grown. Seems the only time those gages were accurately readable was on the ground. The first moves for embarking upon a new design for a fuel gaging system is to get the HISTORY. An excellent source are patents. Freepatentsonline.com is but one of several libraries of ideas good, bad, and ugly that go back over 100 years. I've looked at hundreds of such patents on liquid level measurement. There are no excuses these days for not meeting design goals that move the best-we-know-how-to-do forward. There's also no excuse for any system designed in the past 40 years not to provide a level of functionality commensurate with what they cost. Bob . . . --------------------------------------- ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 07:55:11 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges > 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 . . . ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 07:55:11 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 08/12/09 From: "Matt Prather" Any chance of a bad ground or some other noise working its way into the system? It doesn't sound like sloshing error, and maybe not a sensor problem - though I don't know enough to rule that out. It also doesn't sound like a calibration problem. I would stop calibrating as I don't think it will fix the problem (until you fix the real problem). :) Matt- > Bill and Matt, > > I, too, visually check the fuel quantity as always, but it is nice to have > some reasonably accurate indication of fuel quantity in the cockpit while > flying. My AF-3400EM records fuel flow, quantity used/remaining, etc., > and > it is also a reference tool for decision making. > > The Princeton sensors for the RV are very short and they fit vertically > at > the wing root. So, the sloshing error should be minimized as compared to > the Lancair version. There is also a dampening built into the sensor > circuit to help eliminate the sloshing error. So, the sloshing error is > largely > mitigated. The problem I've had is getting the Princeton sensors to send > consistent signals to the AF-3400 engine monitor. I calibrated the > sensors > seven times by draining the tanks and adding measured 2 gallon increments > to each tank. After each addition, I let the fuel settle down before > taking the reading being sent to the engine monitor and entering the > reading > into the engine monitor non-volatile memory. Above about 12 gallons, all > readings are the same because the fuel level is above the top of the > sensor. > > The problem I'm having is that the sensor is sending signals to the EM > that > are up and down the scale. The EM is simply displaying the quantity it > recognizes in relation to the calibration entries. I am convinced the > problem lies with the Princeton sensors. Yes, I've talked to the > manufacturer > and he says, "It should work. Try calibrating again." > > The fuel sensors are mounted in the wing root and, thus, are difficult to > get to for removal and replacement. So, I'm not excited about pulling out > the current ones and replacing them - too much Pro-Seal. > I'm going to burn the tanks down some more and dip check the tanks and see > how the readings compare. > > Stan Sutterfield > > > calbrated them, but I would be very shocked if the fuel slosh didn=92t > cause a > lot of errors. The sensors are about 6 feet long and must be no more > than > 20 degrees off of horizontal. Fuel sloshing would move a great distance > up > and down the tubes. I have them in there because FAA says I need a fuel > guage. I will check the level visually before each flight and refill > when I > should be at =BC to =BD tank. Reguardless of what the fuel gage says!> > > electrically: > > - A restriction or a baffle can be used to slow the flow of fuel into and > out of the tube(s). I'd be slightly surprised if the manufacturer didn't > include this. > > - A low pass filter can be used to average and damp the display in > response to the raw input from the sensor. Again, I'd be slightly > surprised if the manufacturer didn't include this.> > > ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 08:13:09 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Calibrating fuel qty gauges From: Byron Janzen Here's the low fuel sensor I'm using. http://www.pillarpointelectronics.com/ On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote: > At 04:29 AM 8/10/2009, you wrote: > > alania@optusnet.com.au> > > How do you calibrate fuel qty using a 10 - 75 ohm sender unit with a 0 -90 > ohm fuel gauge? in other words what's the best why to get the gauges to read > accurately near empty, which is more important then FULL. Thanks > > > The floats-on-a-swing-arm senders are > a legacy product from cars and other > vehicles that go back a very long way. > > Making these things really accurate in more\ > than one place is a bit fussy. > > Years ago, we crafted an electronic signal > conditioning board for the Bonanzas and Barons > that allowed dead-on calibration of empty > and full. All other readings across the scale > simply fell where where the physics of the > sender dictates. The physics of these devices > are affected mildly by linearity of the wire > wound sensor resistor (usually within 5% of > true) but a whole lot by trigonometry of > the swing arm and tank geometry. > > But as you've already recognized, the one > level you really want to be accurate is > the empty point. For this you can do some > things with series calibration resistors > and/or bending the float arm on the sender. > This CAN be a tedious, trial-by-error activity. > > If it were my airplane, I'd probably craft > a microprocessor based signal conditioner > that would allow me to take readings at 5% > increments from empty to full and generate > a lookup table that converts as-installed > sender (transducer) readings into real > numbers. The BEST way to watch full levels > is with installation of a "dip stick" style > sensor at the low fuel warning level (generally > 1/4 to 1/3 tank). Consider devices like this: > > [image: Emacs!] > One of these stuck through the tank wall at > the warning level will light a lamp on the > panel at the desired fuel quantity with > no risk for drift of calibration. See: > > http://www.gemssensors.com/content.aspx?id=282 > > This is the no-brainer, dead-nuts accurate > low liquid lever sensing method I know of. > Capacity fuel gages with processor augmentation > are also easy to calibrate . . . but I think > I could get by with no active fuel gaging > other than a set of optical level detectors > cited above. > > Bob . . . > > --------------------------------------- > ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) > ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) > ( appearance of being right . . . ) > ( ) > ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) > --------------------------------------- > > ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 08:23:12 AM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges From: Ian My EI FL-2CA fuel gauges come with the ability to select the "rate of update" which solves one of the problems, but isn't the REAL problem that one shouldn't be playing down in the "low fuel minefield" any way? Why worry about how to tell exactly when you're going to run out of fuel? I'd rather have really accurate gauges down to a quarter tank, and then who cares, it's time to fill up. An accurate stick with marks on it, and confidence in fuel consumption rates, IMHO, are much more important than measuring fuel quantities near empty, unless you have no access at all to a physical measurement of fuel levels. Ian Brown Bromont, QC On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 09:23 -0500, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > Seems like sloshing can be dealt with either/both mechanically or/and > electrically: > > - A restriction or a baffle can be used to slow the flow of fuel into and > out of the tube(s). I'd be slightly surprised if the manufacturer didn't > include this. > > Me too. Over the years I've seen both mechanical and > electrical approaches to slosh management. Long sensors > can be mounted inside a tube that has a tiny hole at > each end to restrict rate of flow into and out of the > tube. The sensor he described may already have such > restrictions. > > On the single engine Cessna's about '64 we looked at > "lubricating" the pivots on the fuel gages (automotive > moving magnets driven by rheostats with swing-arm-floats) > with 30,000 centistoke silicone oil. The smallest droplet > of this oil injected to the pivot bearing attenuated > sloshing response to a very low value. > > - A low pass filter can be used to average and damp the display in > response to the raw input from the sensor. Again, I'd be slightly > surprised if the manufacturer didn't include this. > > Yeah, the one I'm working with now filters the slosh > in software. The guys are playing with several filtering > philosophies. The most attractive is a simple running > average of 200 readings taken 10 times a second. > > The B52 had capacity fuel gages in it when I was > working on them in '61. They were vacuum tube amplifier > driven servo motors that kept an LRC bridge balanced. > The servo motor also drove a potentiometer that produced > the output signal for the panel instrument. I recall > the instructor stating that the servo motor was > deliberately designed to be slow. Full scale response > time was on the order of 1 to 2 minutes. Exceedingly > unresponsive to slosh. > > Anyone who has flown an old Cessna with the mechanical > swing-arm-float indicators in the wing roots or a J-3 > with a wire on a cork will understand the seeds from > which more convenient and accurate fuel gaging systems > were grown. Seems the only time those gages were accurately > readable was on the ground. > > The first moves for embarking upon a new > design for a fuel gaging system is to get the HISTORY. > An excellent source are patents. Freepatentsonline.com is > but one of several libraries of ideas good, bad, and > ugly that go back over 100 years. I've looked at > hundreds of such patents on liquid level measurement. > There are no excuses these days for not meeting design > goals that move the best-we-know-how-to-do forward. There's > also no excuse for any system designed in the past 40 > years not to provide a level of functionality commensurate > with what they cost. > > > Bob . . . > > --------------------------------------- > ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) > ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) > ( appearance of being right . . . ) > ( ) > ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) > --------------------------------------- > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 09:14:10 AM PST US From: Ernest Christley Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > Anyone who has flown an old Cessna with the mechanical > swing-arm-float indicators in the wing roots or a J-3 > with a wire on a cork will understand the seeds from > which more convenient and accurate fuel gaging systems > were grown. Seems the only time those gages were accurately > readable was on the ground. Maybe that is one more thing Heinlein should have added to his list of things a man should know how to do: tell how much fuel is in a tank by how wildly the indicator is bouncing. First rule: If you are so worried about the fuel remaining that you need to know within a tenth of a gallon, you need to be punching the "nearest" button on your GPS...not stretching your glide to the destination. Second rule: If the guage is bouncing all over the place, you either have fuel or the guage is broken. One of the first things we learned in my high-school chemistry class was how to interpret a bouncing arm on a triple-beam scale. If it bounced equally to both side of the center mark, then it was balanced. With the fuel level indicator, if it is bouncing around the top, proceed. If it bounces around the bottom, punch "nearest" of call the fuel truck before launching. Third rule: The FAA minimums are minimums, not a GOAL. -- Ernest Christley, President Ernest@TechnicalTakedown.com TechnicalTakedown, LLC www.TechnicalTakedown.com 101 Steep Bank Dr. Cary, NC 27518 (919) 741-9397 ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 10:04:01 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Why3 different alt disconnect relay wiring in Z schematics? From: "messydeer" Here are the links to the schematics: http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z16M.pdf http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z20K.pdf http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z21A.pdf As far as I can tell, they are current with the exception of Z20K. There is an L version of it that fixes the magneto wiring typo. But it's available only in .dwg. -------- Dan Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=257505#257505 ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 10:17:37 AM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges Just out of curiosity, What ever happened to "Ernest is a Nerd?" He sure seemed like a very nice person? Happy Skies, Old Bob Definitely Do Not Archive In a message dated 8/13/2009 11:15:33 A.M. Central Daylight Time, echristley@nc.rr.com writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ernest Christley Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > Anyone who has flown an old Cessna with the mechanical > swing-arm-float indicators in the wing roots or a J-3 > with a wire on a cork will understand the seeds from > which more convenient and accurate fuel gaging systems > were grown. Seems the only time those gages were accurately > readable was on the ground. Maybe that is one more thing Heinlein should have added to his list of things a man should know how to do: tell how much fuel is in a tank by how wildly the indicator is bouncing. First rule: If you are so worried about the fuel remaining that you need to know within a tenth of a gallon, you need to be punching the "nearest" button on your GPS...not stretching your glide to the destination. Second rule: If the guage is bouncing all over the place, you either have fuel or the guage is broken. One of the first things we learned in my high-school chemistry class was how to interpret a bouncing arm on a triple-beam scale. If it bounced equally to both side of the center mark, then it was balanced. With the fuel level indicator, if it is bouncing around the top, proceed. If it bounces around the bottom, punch "nearest" of call the fuel truck before launching. Third rule: The FAA minimums are minimums, not a GOAL. -- Ernest Christley, President Ernest@TechnicalTakedown.com TechnicalTakedown, LLC www.TechnicalTakedown.com 101 Steep Bank Dr. Cary, NC 27518 (919) 741-9397 ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 10:50:03 AM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges 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@aeroelectric.com writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > 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 . . . ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 11:22:14 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges From: Dan Morrow On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 13:30 -0400, BobsV35B@aol.com 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. > 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. > ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 12:04:00 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges From: Ian 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@aol.com 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. > > 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@aeroelectric.com writes: > > III" > > > > 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; > ================================================== > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > > > ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 12:22:35 PM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges Good Afternoon Dan, The availability of alternate landing space is absolutely part of the computations needed. When we were flying the T-38, we had the salt runways of Muroc available. When we were lifting air conditioners, there were alternate spots in the parking lot in which we could land. Worst case, we could stay on the roof and carry a gas of can up to the helicopter. Evaluating the reliability of the landing site is as big a part of fuel planning as is any other factor. Once again. proper planning is key. There are times when I want four hours worth of fuel when I am on final approach. I do NOT like to make wild guesses as to what will be needed. I plan for what is likely to happen. Both expected and variable conditions must be considered. As Always, It All Depends! Happy Skies Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried 628 west 86th Street Downers Grove, Illinois LL22 Stearman N3977A In a message dated 8/13/2009 1:23:19 P.M. Central Daylight Time, DanFM01@butter.toast.net writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dan Morrow On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 13:30 -0400, BobsV35B@aol.com 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. > 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. > ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 12:39:55 PM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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@videotron.ca writes: 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@aol.com 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. 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@aeroelectric.com writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > 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; ================================================== ____________________________________ ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 12:49:11 PM PST US From: "Roger" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges >> 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 ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 01:54:33 PM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: 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@verizon.net writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Roger" >> 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 ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 02:02:41 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: 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 . . . ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 02:08:59 PM PST US From: "Terry Watson" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: 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@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of BobsV35B@aol.com Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 12:39 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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@videotron.ca writes: 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@aol.com wrote: Good Afternoon 'Lectric Bob, ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 02:25:25 PM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: 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@tcwatson.com writes: 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 =9CBingo fuel was a bit less than twenty minutes wort h. Good enough for one full power go around and not much more.=9D Part of Old Bob=99s 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=99s not supposed to happen. The pattern is filling up with other T-38=99s needing to ge t on the ground soon and I=99m starting to sweat. My turn comes and I =99m 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=99 above, or virtually an Immleman off the runway). The next landing attempt was successful, but I spent at least a mile of the two-mi le long runway with the nose high and the rear tires maybe a foot off the runway because I hadn=99t quite pulled the throttles all the way back to the stops. So, I was 21 years old then and I=99m 66 years old now, and in that 45 years I don=99t 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 alre ady has capacitive gauges and a fuel flow sender. Terry RV-8A Seattle From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of BobsV3 5B@aol.com Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 12:39 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 Edwar ds 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 fue l 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 th e 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 al ways 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 handl e 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 actuall y in my flying machine. Whether I plan on landing with ten minutes fuel or four hours fuel, I wan t 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@videotron.ca writes: 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 ra dio 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 minute s, 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@aol.com wrote: Good Afternoon 'Lectric Bob, ======================== ============ (http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List) ======================== ============ ======================== ============ (http://www.matronics.com/contribution) ======================== ============ ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 02:39:14 PM PST US From: Ernest Christley Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges BobsV35B@aol.com wrote: > 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@TechnicalTakedown.com TechnicalTakedown, LLC www.TechnicalTakedown.com 101 Steep Bank Dr. Cary, NC 27518 (919) 741-9397 ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 02:41:11 PM PST US From: Ernest Christley Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges BobsV35B@aol.com wrote: > 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@TechnicalTakedown.com TechnicalTakedown, LLC www.TechnicalTakedown.com 101 Steep Bank Dr. Cary, NC 27518 (919) 741-9397 ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 02:41:22 PM PST US From: "Roger" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges 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 ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 02:50:25 PM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: 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@nc.rr.com writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ernest Christley BobsV35B@aol.com wrote: > 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@TechnicalTakedown.com TechnicalTakedown, LLC www.TechnicalTakedown.com 101 Steep Bank Dr. Cary, NC 27518 (919) 741-9397 ________________________________ Message 28 ____________________________________ Time: 02:50:25 PM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges From: "Chuck Jensen" "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 -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of BobsV35B@aol.com Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 1:31 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges 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@aeroelectric.com writes: > 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; _____ ________________________________ Message 29 ____________________________________ Time: 03:01:18 PM PST US From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: 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 -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ernest Christley Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 2:42 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges --> BobsV35B@aol.com wrote: > 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@TechnicalTakedown.com TechnicalTakedown, LLC www.TechnicalTakedown.com 101 Steep Bank Dr. Cary, NC 27518 (919) 741-9397 ________________________________ Message 30 ____________________________________ Time: 03:11:45 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges From: Ian 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@aol.com wrote: > 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@videotron.ca writes: > > 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@aol.com 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. > > 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@aeroelectric.com writes: > > > > Nuckolls, III" > > > > > > > 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; > > ================================================== > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > > > ________________________________ Message 31 ____________________________________ Time: 03:11:45 PM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: 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@nc.rr.com writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ernest Christley BobsV35B@aol.com wrote: > 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@TechnicalTakedown.com TechnicalTakedown, LLC www.TechnicalTakedown.com 101 Steep Bank Dr. Cary, NC 27518 (919) 741-9397 ________________________________ Message 32 ____________________________________ Time: 03:21:43 PM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: 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@verizon.net writes: 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 (http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List) (http://www.matronics.com/contribution) ________________________________ Message 33 ____________________________________ Time: 03:25:16 PM PST US From: John Morgensen Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote: > > 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) ________________________________ Message 34 ____________________________________ Time: 03:27:52 PM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges From: rparigor@SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US 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 sighthas a sag and you get fuel in it, orif 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 timewith 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 ________________________________ Message 35 ____________________________________ Time: 04:21:36 PM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges From: "John Cox" 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@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of rparigor@SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 3:26 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: 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 ________________________________ Message 36 ____________________________________ Time: 04:32:34 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Why3 different alt disconnect relay wiring in Z schematics? At 12:02 PM 8/13/2009, you wrote: > >Here are the links to the schematics: > >http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z16M.pdf The preferred methodology for PM alernator control assuming you're NOT depending on the AC output waveform to drive an engine tachometer as shown in . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z20L.pdf where we see the AC windings permanently connected to the rectifier/regulator. Here, alternator control reverts to the older philosophy of opening the DC power output lead from the R/R. Z20L.pdf had been plotted but not uploaded to the server. Z20K.dwg was still up and needed deletion. Must have been one of those late night deals . . . Note that Z-21 was a special adaptation to accommodate electronic controlled fuel injection . . . further, it suggests a means by which alternator control relay power to energize can come from either the battery or the alternator. >http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z21A.pdf Any of these drawings will perform as advertised and should be applied pending a match of your design goals and installed equipment with the matching Z-figure. Bob . . . --------------------------------------- ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 37 ____________________________________ Time: 04:37:05 PM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges From: "John Cox" UnVubmluZyBvdXQgb2YgZnVlbCBjb250aW51ZXMgdG8gYmUgYSBoaWdoIGNvbnRyaWJ1dG9yIHRv IFByZW1hdHVyZSBjb25jbHVzaW9uIG9mIGZsaWdodCBwcmlvciB0byBpbnRlbmRlZCBwbGFubmlu ZyAtIGxlYWRpbmcgdG8gaW5jcmVhc2VkIGluc3VyYW5jZSBwb2xpY3kgcGF5b3V0cy4gIE1ha2Vz IG1lIHJldGhpbmsgdGhlIFBsYW5uaW5nIHBvcnRpb24gd2l0aCB0b2RheSdzIHBvc3QuDQoNCiAN Cg0KSm9obg0KDQogDQoNCkZyb206IG93bmVyLWFlcm9lbGVjdHJpYy1saXN0LXNlcnZlckBtYXRy b25pY3MuY29tIFttYWlsdG86b3duZXItYWVyb2VsZWN0cmljLWxpc3Qtc2VydmVyQG1hdHJvbmlj cy5jb21dIE9uIEJlaGFsZiBPZiBJYW4NClNlbnQ6IFRodXJzZGF5LCBBdWd1c3QgMTMsIDIwMDkg MTI6MDAgUE0NClRvOiBhZXJvZWxlY3RyaWMtbGlzdEBtYXRyb25pY3MuY29tDQpTdWJqZWN0OiBS ZTogQWVyb0VsZWN0cmljLUxpc3Q6IFJlOiBDYWxpYnJhdGluZyBmdWVsIHF0eSBnYXVnZXMNCg0K IA0KDQpJdCdzIGEgc2lnbmlmaWNhbnRseSBtb3JlIHNlcmlvdXMgZXhlcmNpc2UgdGhhbiBvbmUg b2Ygc2VtYW50aWNzLiAgV2UncmUgdGFsa2luZyBhYm91dCBsaWZlLXNhdmluZyBiZWhhdmlvdXJz IGxpa2Ugbm90IFBMQU5OSU5HIHRvIHJ1biBvdXQgb2YgZ2FzIHRlbiBtaW51dGVzIGZyb20gbm93 LCB3aGlsc3Qgc3RpbGwgZmx5aW5nISEhISEhDQoNClR3byBkYXlzIGFnbyBJIHJldHVybmVkIHRv IHRoZSBjaXJjdWl0IGFuZCAic29tZSBpZGlvdCIgZGVjaWRlZCB0byBnbyBhaGVhZCBhbmQgZW5j cm9hY2ggdGhlIHJ1bndheSB3aXRob3V0IGEgcmFkaW8gY2FsbCwgZGVzcGl0ZSBteSByZXBlYXRl ZCBjYWxscyBvbiBkb3dud2luZCwgYmFzZSwgZmluYWwsIGFuZCAib3ZlcnNob290aW5nIi4gICBI ZSBhcG9sb2dpemVkIHRoYXQgaGlzIHJhZGlvIHJlY2VwdGlvbiB3YXNuJ3QgdmVyeSBnb29kLCBi dXQgdGhlbiBhcHBhcmVudGx5IG5laXRoZXIgd2FzIGhpcyBleWVzaWdodC4gIEhlIHRoZW4gZXhp dGVkIG91ciByaWdodCBoYW5kIGNpcmN1aXQgVU5ERVIgbWUsIGF0IGZpdmUgaHVuZHJlZCBmZWV0 LCAgd2hpbGUgSSB3YXMgc3RpbGwgaW4gdGhlIG92ZXJzaG9vdC4gIE15IGNpcmN1aXQgdG9vayBt b3JlIHRoYW4gdGVuIG1pbnV0ZXMsIGFuZCBJIGhhZCBQTEVOVFkgZnVlbCBmb3IgdGhlIGdvLWFy b3VuZC4NCg0KT2xkIElhbiAoYW5kIHBsYW5uaW5nIHRvIGdldCBvbGRlcikuDQoNCk9uIFRodSwg MjAwOS0wOC0xMyBhdCAxMzozMCAtMDQwMCwgQm9ic1YzNUJAYW9sLmNvbSB3cm90ZTogDQoNCkdv b2QgQWZ0ZXJub29uICdMZWN0cmljIEJvYiwgDQoNCgkgIA0KDQoJVGhpcyBtYXkgYmUganVzdCBh biBleGVyY2lzZSBpbiBzZW1hbnRpY3MsIGJ1dCBJIGRvIGRpc2FncmVlIHdpdGggdGhlIHBoaWxv c29waHkgSSB0aGluayB5b3UgYXJlIGVzcG91c2luZy4gDQoNCgkgIA0KDQoJVGhlcmUgaXMgbm90 aGluZyB3cm9uZyB3aXRoIHBsYW5uaW5nIG9uIGFycml2aW5nIGF0IGEgc2FmZSBsYW5kaW5nIHNw b3Qgd2l0aCB0ZW4gdG8gZmlmdGVlbiBtaW51dGVzIG9mIGZ1ZWwgYXMgbG9uZyBhcyB5b3UgYXJl IGNvbmZpZGVudCB5b3Ugd2lsbCBiZSBhdCB0aGF0IHNwb3QgYXQgdGhlIGFwcG9pbnRlZCB0aW1l LiANCg0KCSAgDQoNCglUbyBzYXkgd2Ugc2hvdWxkIGFsd2F5cyBoYXZlIHNvbWV0aGluZyBiZXlv bmQgd2hhdCBpcyByZXF1aXJlZCBpcyB0b28gYnJvYWQgZm9yIG15IGxpa2luZy4gT24gdGhvc2Ug ZmV3IG9jY2FzaW9ucyB3aGVuIEkgaGFkIHRoZSBwbGVhc3VyZSBvZiBmbHlpbmcgYSBULTM4LCB3 ZSBsYW5kZWQgZXZlcnkgdGltZSB3aXRoICJCaW5nbyIgZnVlbC4gSW4gdGhhdCBhaXJwbGFuZSwg QmluZ28gZnVlbCB3YXMgYSBiaXQgbGVzcyB0aGFuIHR3ZW50eSBtaW51dGVzIHdvcnRoLiBHb29k IGVub3VnaCBmb3Igb25lIGZ1bGwgcG93ZXIgZ28gYXJvdW5kIGFuZCBub3QgbXVjaCBtb3JlLiAN Cg0KCSAgDQoNCglXZSBwYXkgYSBMT1Qgb2YgbW9uZXkgZm9yIGV2ZXJ5IHBvdW5kIG9mIHBheWxv YWQgd2UgcHV0IGluIG91ciBmbHlpbmcgbWFjaGluZXMuIEkgdGhpbmsgaXQgaXMgdmVyeSByYXRp b25hbCB0byByZWR1Y2UgdGhlIGFtb3VudCBvZiBmdWVsIGRvd24gdG8gd2hhdCBpcyByZXF1aXJl ZCBmb3IgdGhlIG1pc3Npb24gYXQgaGFuZC4gTXkgY3Jvc3MgY291bnRyeSBmbHllciBoYXMgdGlw IHRhbmtzIGFuZCBpdCBjYW4gZmFpcmx5IGVhc2lseSBmbHkgdHdlbHZlIGhvdXJzIHdpdGggZnVs bCB0YW5rcy4gTXkgcGxhbm5pbmcgZm9yIHRoYXQgYWlycGxhbmUgb2Z0ZW4gaGFzIG1lIGFycml2 aW5nIHdpdGggbGVzcyB0aGFuIG9uZSBob3VycyB3b3J0aCBvZiBmdWVsLiBJZiBJIHdhcyBhYmxl IHRvIGJlIGFzIGNlcnRhaW4gb2YgbGFuZGluZyBmaWVsZCBhdmFpbGFiaWxpdHkgYXMgSSB3YXMg d2hlbiBmbHlpbmcgdGhlIFQtMzggYW5kIGFzIGNvbmZpZGVudCBhcyBJIHdhcyBvZiB0aGUgYWNj dXJhY3kgb2YgdGhlIGZ1ZWwgZ2F1Z2VzLCBJIHdvdWxkIG5vdCBoZXNpdGF0ZSB0byBmbHkgbXkg bG9uZyByYW5nZXIgZG93biB0byBhIEJpbmdvIGZ1ZWwgb2YgdHdlbnR5IG1pbnV0ZXMuIA0KDQoJ ICANCg0KCUJhY2sgd2hlbiBJIHdhcyBkb2luZyBzbGluZyB3b3JrIHdpdGggYSBoZWxpY29wdGVy LCB3ZSBhZGRlZCBmdWVsIGZvciBlYWNoIHRyaXAgbGlmdGluZyBhaXIgY29uZGl0aW9uZXJzIHRv IGEgcm9vZiB0b3AuIENhcnJ5aW5nIG5vIG1vcmUgdGhhbiBhYm91dCBmaXZlIG1pbnV0ZXMgb2Yg cmVzZXJ2ZSBmdWVsLCB3ZSBtYW5hZ2VkIHRvIGdldCBtb3JlIGFpciBjb25kaXRpb25lcnMgcGVy IGRheSB1cCBvbiB0b3Agb2YgdGhvc2Ugcm9vZnMuIFRoZSByZXNlcnZlIGZ1ZWwgcGxhbm5lZCBv biBzaG91bGQgYmUgYmFzZWQgb24gdGhlIGFjY3VyYWN5IG9mIHRoZSBmdWVsIGluZGljYXRpbmcg c3lzdGVtIGFuZCB0aGUgcmVsaWFiaWxpdHkgb2YgdGhlIGxhbmRpbmcgZXN0aW1hdGUgDQoNCgkg IA0KDQoJVG8gZG8gb3RoZXJ3aXNlIGlzIGFzIGZvb2xpc2ggYXMgYXNraW5nIHRoYXQgZXZlcnkg YWlycGxhbmUgYmUgZml0dGVkIHdpdGggZm91ciBlbmdpbmVzIGp1c3QgaW4gY2FzZSBvbmUgb2Yg dGhlbSBoYXBwZW5zIHRvIHF1aXQuIFdlIGhhdmUgZGVjaWRlZCB0aGF0IGEgZ29vZCBzaW5nbGUg ZW5naW5lIHByb3ZpZGVzIGFkZXF1YXRlIHNhZmV0eSBmb3IgbWFueSBvZiB1cy4gVGhlIHNhbWUg dGhpbmcgZ29lcyBmb3IgY2FycnlpbmcgZXh0cmEgZnVlbC4gRXZlcnkgb3VuY2Ugd2UgY2Fycnkg dGhhdCBpcyBub3QgbmVlZGVkIGZvciB0aGUgdGFzayBhdCBoYW5kIGNvc3RzIHVzIG1vbmV5IGFu ZCAkdGltZSQuIA0KDQoJICANCg0KCUkgcHJlZmVyIHRvIGtub3cgaG93IG11Y2ggZnVlbCBpcyBv biBib2FyZCBhbmQgaG93IG11Y2ggSSB3YW50IHdoZW4gSSBsYW5kLiANCg0KCSAgDQoNCglKdXN0 IG15IHRob3VnaHRzIA0KDQoJICANCg0KCUhhcHB5IFNraWVzLCANCg0KCSAgDQoNCglPbGQgQm9i IA0KDQoJU3RlYXJtYW4gTjM5NzdBIA0KDQoJRG93bmVycyBHcm92ZSwgSWxsaW5vaXMgDQoNCglM TDIyIA0KDQoJICANCg0KCUluIGEgbWVzc2FnZSBkYXRlZCA4LzEzLzIwMDkgOTo1NjowMiBBLk0u IENlbnRyYWwgRGF5bGlnaHQgVGltZSwgbnVja29sbHMuYm9iQGFlcm9lbGVjdHJpYy5jb20gd3Jp dGVzOiANCg0KCQktLT4gQWVyb0VsZWN0cmljLUxpc3QgbWVzc2FnZSBwb3N0ZWQgYnk6ICJSb2Jl cnQgTC4gTnVja29sbHMsIElJSSIgPG51Y2tvbGxzLmJvYkBhZXJvZWxlY3RyaWMuY29tPg0KCQkN CgkJDQoJCT4gIElNTywgZml4ZWQgcG9pbnQgc2Vuc29ycyBhcmUgbm90IHdvcmthYmxlIGluIGEg cGxhbmUuIEFuIGFuYWxvZyANCgkJPiBkZXNpZ24gaXMgcmVxdWlyZWQuIFRoZSBiZXN0IHNvbHV0 aW9uIEkgaGF2ZSBzZWVuIGFuZCBJIHVzZSBpcyBhIA0KCQk+IHNpbXBsZSBib2F0IHR1cmJpbmUg ZmxvdyBtZXRlciBtYWRlIGJ5IE5vcnRoc3Rhci4gVGhlIGdhdWdlIHJlYWRzIA0KCQk+IGdhbC9o b3VyLCBnYWwgcmVtYWluaW5nLCBhbmQgZ2FsIHVzZWQuIEl0IGhhcyB0byBiZSB1cGRhdGVkIGVh Y2ggDQoJCT4gdGltZSBmdWVsIGlzIGFkZGVkLg0KCQkNCgkJICAgIFRoaXMgaXMgYW4gYW1iaXRp b3VzIGRlc2lnbiBnb2FsIC4gLiAuIGFuZCB0ZWNobm9sb2dpY2FsbHkNCgkJICAgIGZlYXNpYmxl LiBJJ2xsIHN1Z2dlc3QgdGhhdCB0aGVyZSBhcmUgZ29vZCByZWFzb25zIE5PVCB0bw0KCQkgICAg aGF2ZSBzdWNoIGFjY3VyYWN5IGRpc3BsYXllZCBvbiB0aGUgcGFuZWwgb2YgYW4gYWlycGxhbmUu DQoJCQ0KCQkgICAgRm9sa3Mgd2hvIGxlYXJuZWQgYWJvdXQgbGl2aW5nIGNvbWZvcnRhYmx5IGlu IHRoZSB3b3JsZA0KCQkgICAgb2YgYWlycGxhbmVzIGRpc2NvdmVyZWQgcHJldHR5IHF1aWNrbHkg dGhhdCBvbGRlc3QgcGlsb3RzDQoJCSAgICB3ZXJlIG5vdCBzbyBib2xkIGFzIHRvIGZsaWdodC1w bGFuIHdpdGggYSBkZXBlbmRlbmN5IHVwb24NCgkJICAgIHRoZWlyICJmdWRnZSBmYWN0b3JzIi4g SS5lLiBmdWVsIHJlc2VydmVzLiBUaGUgcmVhc29ucyBmb3INCgkJICAgIHRoaXMgYXJlIHByZXR0 eSBjbGVhci4gSXQncyBkaWZmaWN1bHQgdG8gYW50aWNpcGF0ZSB5b3VyDQoJCSAgICBmdWVsIG5l ZWRzIHdpdGggYWNjdXJhY3kuIFdpbmRzIGNhbiBhZmZlY3Qgc3BlZWQgb3Zlcg0KCQkgICAgdGhl IGdyb3VuZC4gV2VhdGhlciBjYW4gYWZmZWN0IHJvdXRpbmcgY2hhbmdlcy4gQ29uZGl0aW9ucw0K CQkgICAgYXQgdGhlIGRlc3RpbmF0aW9uIGFpcnBvcnQgY2FuIGZvcmNlIGRlbGF5cyBvciBhbiBh bHRlcm5hdGUsIGV0Yy4NCgkJDQoJCSAgICBUaGUgZmluZWx5IHR1bmVkIGZ1ZWwgbGV2ZWwgaW5k aWNhdGlvbiBzeXN0ZW0gZW5jb3VyYWdlcw0KCQkgICAgdGhlIHBpbG90IHRvIGV4cGxvaXQgdGhh dCBrbm93bGVkZ2UuIFRoZSBwaWxvdCdzIHdpbGxpbmduZXNzDQoJCSAgICB0byBmbHkgY2xvc2Vy ICJ0byB0aGUgZWRnZSIgYmVjb21lcyBpbmNyZWFzaW5nbHkgY29tZm9ydGFibGUuDQoJCSAgICBU aGUgcHJ1ZGVudCBwaWxvdCBuZXZlciBsYXVuY2hlcyBpbnRvIGFuIGV4dGVuZGVkIG9wZXJhdGlv bg0KCQkgICAgd2l0aCBsZXNzIHRoYW4gS05PV04gYW1vdW50cyBvZiBmdWVsIGFib2FyZC4gVXAg dG8gdGhlIHRhYiwNCgkJICAgIHNsb3QtaW4tdGhlLXRhYiwgb3IgYmV0dGVyIHlldCAuIC4gLiBm dWxsLiBGcm9tIHRpbWUgb2YgdGFrZQ0KCQkgICAgb2YsIHRoZSBwaWxvdCB3aXRoIE5PIGZ1ZWwg Z2FnZSBpcyBhY3V0ZWx5IGF3YXJlIG9mIHRoZSBmYWN0DQoJCSAgICB0aGF0IHNvIG1hbnkgaG91 cnMgZnJvbSBub3csIHRoZSBlbmdpbmUgc3RvcHMuIEhlJ3MgYWxzbw0KCQkgICAgYXdhcmUgb2Yg dGhlIHZhcmlhYmxlcyB0aGF0IGFmZmVjdCBhY2N1cmFjeSBvZiB0aGF0DQoJCSAgICBjYWxjdWxh dGlvbi4gSGVuY2UsIHRoYXQgdGhpbmcgY2FsbGVkICJyZXNlcnZlIiBmdWVsIGlzDQoJCSAgICBh IGJvdGggYSBQSFlTSUNBTCBhbmQgUFNZQ0hPTE9HSUNBTCBidWZmZXIgZm9yIGhpdHRpbmcgdGhl DQoJCSAgICAid2FsbCBvZiB2YXJpYWJsZXMiIGluIGZsaWdodCBwbGFubmluZy4NCgkJDQoJCSAg ICBGaXR0aW5nIGFuIGFpcnBsYW5lIHdpdGggYSBmdWVsIGdhZ2UgdGhhdCBhY2N1cmF0ZWx5DQoJ CSAgICBkZXBpY3RzIGVuZ2luZSBzdG9wcGluZyB0byB0aGUgbWludXRlIGlzIGEgcHN5Y2hvbG9n aWNhbA0KCQkgICAgdHJhcCB0aGF0IFdJTEwgZXZlbnR1YWxseSBjYXRjaCBzb21lIHBpbG90IGFu ZCBoaXMvaGVyDQoJCSAgICBwYXNzZW5nZXJzLiBJJ20gbm90IHN1Z2dlc3RpbmcgdGhhdCBhbnlv bmUsIGluY2x1ZGluZw0KCQkgICAgeW91cnNlbGYsIGNhbm5vdCBwcnVkZW50bHkgdXNlIGFjY3Vy YXRlIGZ1ZWwgcXVhbnRpdHkNCgkJICAgIG1lYXN1cmVtZW50IHRvIGdvb2QgYWR2YW50YWdlIC4g LiAuIGFzIGxvbmcgYXMgeW91DQoJCSAgICBjb250aW51ZSB0byByZWNvZ25pemUgdGhhdCB0aGUg dmFsdWUgb2YgdGhhdCBhY2N1cmFjeQ0KCQkgICAgYmVjb21lcyBsZXNzIHVzZWZ1bCBhcyBsYXJn ZXIgYW5kIGxlc3MgcHJlZGljdGFibGUNCgkJICAgIGNvbmRpdGlvbnMgcGlsZSBvbnRvIHlvdXIg ZXJyb3IgYnVkZ2V0Lg0KCQkNCgkJPiAgSXQgaXMgYWNjdXJhdGUgYWZ0ZXIgdGhlIGluaXRpYWwg ZmlsbC4gT25lIHN0aWxsIGhhcyB0byByZW1lbWJlciANCgkJPiBob3cgbWFueSBnYWxsb25zIGlz IHNhZmUgd2hlbiB0aGUgdGFuayBnZXRzIGxvdy4gTWFueSBob21lYnVpbHRzIA0KCQk+IHVzZSB0 aGlzIHByb2R1Y3Qgd2l0aCBzdWNjZXNzLiBObyBpc3N1ZXMgd2l0aCBzbG9zaC4NCgkJPg0KCQk+ SSBhbSB0cnlpbmcgdGhlIENydXpQcm8gZ2F1Z2UgZm9yIG15IHRydWNrIHdoaWNoIGFsbG93cyBt YW55IGNhbCANCgkJPnBvaW50cyBhbmQgdGhlIGdhdWdlIHJlYWRzIHRoZSBzYW1lIHN0dWZmIGFz IHRoZSBOb3J0aHN0YXIuIFRoaXMgDQoJCT5zZXR1cCB1c2VzIHRoZSBzdG9jayByZXNpc3RhbmNl IGdhdWdlIGFuZCBpcyBzdGlsbCBpbmFjY3VyYXRlIGR1ZSB0byANCgkJPnNsb3NoIGFuZCB0aWx0 LiBIb3dldmVyIHRoZXJlIGlzIHNvbWUgZGFtcGluZyBpbiB0aGUgZmxvYXQgbWVjaGFuaXNtLg0K CQkNCgkJICAgIEFsbCB0cnVlLiBCdXQgbmV2ZXIgZGltaW5pc2ggdGhlIGlkZWFzIHRoYXQgZGVz Y3JpYmVkDQoJCSAgICB0aGUgV0hPTEUgZmxpZ2h0IHN5c3RlbSBhbmQgdGhlIGVudmlyb25tZW50 IGluIHdoaWNoDQoJCSAgICBpdCBvcGVyYXRlcy4gRXZlbiBpZiB5b3UgY2FuIGFic29sdTh0ZWx5 IGRlcGVuZCBvbg0KCQkgICAgdGhlIGFjY3VyYWN5IG9mIGEgZnVlbCBxdWFudGl0eSBtZWFzdXJl bWVudCBzeXN0ZW0sDQoJCSAgICBiZSBhbGVydCBhbmQgY29nbml6YW50IG9mIGJvdGggdGhlIHZh bHVlcyBhbmQgcmlza3MNCgkJICAgIGFzc29jaWF0ZWQgd2l0aCBLTk9XSU5HIHRoYXQgbnVtYmVy IHdoZW4gdGhlcmUNCgkJICAgIGFyZSBvdGhlciBtb3JlIHJlc3RyaWN0aXZlIGNvbmRpdGlvbnMg dGhhdCB5b3UNCgkJICAgIGNhbm5vdCBrbm93IG9yIHByZWRpY3Qgd2l0aCBhY2N1cmFjeS4NCgkJ DQoJCSAgICBUaGlzIGlzIHdoeSBvdXIgZnVlbCBnYWdpbmcgc3lzdGVtIHdpbGwgaW5jbHVkZSBi b3RoDQoJCSAgICBhIHJlYXNvbmFibHkgYWNjdXJhdGUgbGV2ZWwgaW5kaWNhdGlvbiBzeXN0ZW0g Y29tYmluZWQNCgkJICAgIHdpdGggImRpcCBzdGljayIgYWNjdXJhdGUgbGV2ZWwgd2FybmluZ3Mu IFRoZSBwdWJsaXNoZWQNCgkJICAgIGFkdmlzZSBmb3IgdXNpbmcgdGhpcyBzeXN0ZW0gd2lsbCBz dWdnZXN0IHRoYXQgbm8gbWF0dGVyDQoJCSAgICBob3cgYWNjdXJhdGUgdGhlIGluZGljYXRpb24s IG5vIG1hdHRlciBob3cgd2VsbCB5b3VyDQoJCSAgICBwbGFubmluZyBjb25mb3JtcyB0byBhY3R1 YWwgY29uZGl0aW9ucywgd2hlbiB0aGF0IGxvdw0KCQkgICAgZnVlbCB3YXJuaW5nIGxpZ2h0IGNv bWVzIG9uIHlvdSBuZWVkIHRvIGJlIDEwMCUgYXNzdXJlZA0KCQkgICAgb2YgY29tZm9ydGFibGUg cmV0dXJuIHRvIGVhcnRoIHdoZXRoZXIgYXQgeW91ciBhaXJwb3J0DQoJCSAgICBvZiBpbnRlbmRl ZCBkZXN0aW5hdGlvbiBvciBub3QuDQoJCQ0KCQkgICAgVGhlcmUgYXJlIHNpdHVhdGlvbnMgd2hl cmUgdGhlIGd1eSBmbHlpbmcgY29tZm9ydGFibHkNCgkJICAgIHdpdGggYSB3aXJlIG9uIGEgY29y ayBpcyBwZXJoYXBzIGJldHRlciBvZmYgdGhhbiB0aGUNCgkJICAgIGd1eSB3aG8gYmVsaWV2ZXMg dGhlcmUgaXMgZXhwbG9pdGFibGUgdmFsdWUgaW4ga25vd2luZw0KCQkgICAgZnVlbCBxdWFudGl0 eSByZW1haW5pbmcgZG93biB0byB0aGUgbmVhcmVzdCBjdWJpYw0KCQkgICAgY2VudGltZXRlci4g SGUgbWF5IG1ha2UgbW9yZSBmdWVsIHN0b3BzIGJ1dCBzaHVja3MsIHRob3NlDQoJCSAgICB0YWtl b2ZmcyBhbmQgbmVhciBncmVhc2VyIGxhbmRpbmdzIGFyZSBzbyBtdWNoIGZ1bi4NCgkJICAgIFlv dSBnZXQgdG8gbWVldCBtb3JlIGZyaWVuZGx5IEZCTyBsaW5lIGJveXMgdG9vLg0KCQkNCgkJICAg IEJvYiAuIC4gLiA9PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09IFVzZSB1dGlsaXRpZXMgRGF5ID09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PSAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgLSBNQVRST05JQ1MgV0VCIEZPUlVNUyA9PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT0gICAgICAgICAgICAtIExpc3QgQ29udHJpYnV0aW9uIFdlYiBTaXRl IHNwOyAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA9PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT0NCgkJDQoJCQ0KCQkNCg0KCSANCg0KX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCg0KCSANCgkgDQoJIA0KCSANCg0K ________________________________ Message 38 ____________________________________ Time: 05:27:53 PM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: 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@pacificnw.com writes: 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@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ian Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 12:00 PM 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@aol.com 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. 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@aeroelectric.com writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > 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; ================================================== ____________________________________ ________________________________ Message 39 ____________________________________ Time: 05:41:31 PM PST US From: paul wilson Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: 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: > > >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 . . . > > ________________________________ Message 40 ____________________________________ Time: 08:21:02 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ANL Current limiters At 08:03 PM 8/8/2009, you wrote: >Bob: > Is there a section in AeroElectric Connection where you discuss > the role of ANL current limiters? I've got revision 11 and I can't > seem to find it, although i've read the book three times. I'm sure > it's escaped me. > > Many thanks for your continued guidance.\] These are very robust (long blow time, very overload tolerant) fuses. The application is limited to fat wires at risk of damage from a battery-energizde (read 1000+ amps) faults. Where do you think you'd like to used one? Bob . . . --------------------------------------- ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) --------------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 41 ____________________________________ Time: 08:22:35 PM PST US From: Ernest Christley Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Calibrating fuel qty gauges paul wilson wrote: > > I guess I don't understand the resistance to functional gauges. Please > set me straight. > Paul No resistance, Paul. It is just that I don't think they can be had for reasonable dollars and effort. You're trying to hit a moving target. Literally, the fuel is jumping around all over the place. You can have mechanics integrate over time to come up with an average level. You can have electronics integrate for you, or you can do the integration on your own. Every design is a different moving target, and every gauge will have a slightly different calibration. Install a simple gauge, then get to know how it behaves and you will be better off. -- Ernest Christley, President Ernest@TechnicalTakedown.com TechnicalTakedown, LLC www.TechnicalTakedown.com 101 Steep Bank Dr. Cary, NC 27518 (919) 741-9397 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Matronics Email List Services ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message aeroelectric-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.