Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:57 AM - Re: TMXIO-540 and GAMI injectors (Richard Martin)
2. 06:34 AM - Re: Miniumum fuel comfort zone (Tim Olson)
3. 09:35 AM - Re: Miniumum fuel comfort zone (Jesse Saint)
4. 09:55 AM - Re: Miniumum fuel comfort zone (Tim Olson)
5. 11:10 AM - Re: Miniumum fuel comfort zone (Rene Felker)
6. 11:14 AM - Re: Miniumum fuel comfort zone (Rene Felker)
7. 12:59 PM - Re: Miniumum fuel comfort zone (Kelly McMullen)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: TMXIO-540 and GAMI injectors |
Alan,
I experienced a similar problem on my RV8. I switched to Air Flow
Performance injecters that have tunable inserts that alow you to micromanage
the fuel flow on each injecter. On my RV8 I found that I needed .026,,027
and .028 inserts . If you call them, talk to Dan Rivera and he will advise
the corect proceedure.
Good Luck
Dick Martin
RV8 N233M
the fast one
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Alan Mekler <amekler@metrocast.net> wrote:
> I have been trying the GAMI injectors( on the 4th set now) but found the
> fuel flow on the cylinders varies widely. My cylinder #5 has the richest
> injector and it still peaks a gallon or more before the other cylinders
> Before gamis it was 2.5 gallons.. Has any one had this problem? Any
> solutions?
>
> GAMI does not why the fuel is so unbalanced in this engine. I have 95 hours
> on the engine and all compressions are good. No intake leaks.
>
> Alan
>
> N668G
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Miniumum fuel comfort zone |
"I would much rather be flying with 8 gallons in one tank than
4 gallons in each. I think that's the issue."
I kind of agree with that statement, mainly from the standpoint
of fuel unporting during landing. I don't know that the best
balance would be 8/0 as opposed to 4/4, but I agree with your
point. Actually, when I do land with less fuel, it's usually
7/5 or something of that nature, so in theory I agree...I only
want one tank to be near the bottom. Our comfort with "bottom"
is just a little different. With the totalizers and the high
accuracy we have though, it's probably practical to be able
to go 6/2 on that split that you mention...that way there's
enough to finish a landing if needed, with bare minimum fuel,
but still plan to finish the flight with 6 gallons in the
active tank.
I probably, considering the accuracy of my totalizer, take
conservative fuel planning a little far in that I don't think
I've ever landed with less than 10 gallons in the RV-10,
but I suppose if you're going to err, the high side is
probably good. Not that what you're doing is an err. :)
There are more airports in your neck of the woods than mine,
too, to use as alternates. And, I feel MUCH better about
cutting fuel close on my trip to my home airport than
I do when I'm landing at somewhere unfamiliar. I know
how quick I can get on the ground at my home base.
The one point I made about useable fuel though that I think
is real important is the one about tank angle and useable
fuel. I know my floats drop maybe 2-3 gallons or so when I
transition from cruise to descent with lower fuel levels.
I think it would be a good test if someone burned a tank down
to, say 4 gallons, and then did a series of climbs to
10,000 AGL and switched to that tank and did a descent,
and waited for the fuel to run out. It may take a while to
burn 4 gallons at descent power, but some day one of us
should find out what minimum fuel is at descent angle.
Knowing where the fuel pickup is, I can see that perhaps
minimum fuel may be a gallon or as much as 2 gallons,
depending on the angle. I could be wrong. Many of
us have tested it in level flight though with the same
results....so I'd assume that one good test in descent
would let us know.
Regardless of fuel management procedure, what's important is
that people have a procedure and plan that works for them.
It would be nice to be able to look back in a few years and
say "in the last 10 years, never has an RV-10 been lost to
fuel exhaustion". It's one of those things that just shouldn't
happen to people unless they do something stupid.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
On 8/22/2010 10:23 PM, Jesse Saint wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Jesse
> Saint<jesse@saintaviation.com>
>
> I think the issue is more of a minimum fuel& where to have it. In
> normal practice, I burn down 10-15 on one side, switch& burn down to
> 10 on the other, then switch. Only on a long trip where I may be
> down to reserve do I do as I suggested. I personally think making
> minimum fuel of 7 per side too much. That's 46 gal useable. If it's
> a trip that would need 92 gallons, I would split it in half. If it's
> a 52-gallon flight, I would not split it up. Then I would burn down
> one tank dry or almost so, then fly my last stretch only on the
> other. I would much rather be flying with 8 gallons in one tank than
> 4 gallons in each. I think that's the issue.
>
> I agree that fuel alarms are good and important, but they are there
> to remind you in case you forget. On a long flight (like my nonstop
> from FL to WI for OSH), my main task is to let my autopilot fly the
> plane while I monitor my fuel, using the fuel computer& winds aloft
> info along my route to estimate fuel at destination. I then decide
> how close to minimum fuel I will be flying& burn accordingly. On a
> flight like that, the last thing I need is a low fuel alarm. Also, I
> have noticed with several systems that if I set an alarm at 5
> gallons, I need to keep the tank well above that or well below it to
> not have the alarm constantly going off as the float bounces when the
> fuel sloshes. Once down to 2-3 gallons, a 5-gal alarm will seldom go
> off after the first time. Once acknowledged& noted on the
> kneeboard, it's known& that tank not used again.
>
> Another thing I do is switch to the full tank one or twice for a
> minute or two before I go "dry" on one side to verify fuel supply is
> good& no flow restrictions.
>
> As you said, everybody will have their own way. This is the way that
> makes me feel the most comfortable.
>
> Jesse Saint I-TEC, Inc. jesse@itecusa.org www.itecusa.org
> www.mavericklsa.com C: 352-427-0285 O: 352-465-4545 F: 815-377-3694
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 22, 2010, at 10:28 PM, Tim Olson<Tim@myrv10.com> wrote:
>
>> --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson<Tim@myrv10.com>
>>
>> You know, I somewhat feel the same regarding fuel, that I like to
>> burn a lot off one tank and then I know if my other tank is plenty
>> full I'm doing great, but...I don't know that I'd take it quite as
>> far as you do with it. I agree with Jim, I think 5 gallons
>> remaining is a good bottom limit for most of the time. Here's
>> why...
>>
>> First, if you run a tank to the very end, you're going to have a
>> little more chance to get all the gunk and water that may be at
>> that low spot in the tank. Granted that since our inlet is
>> obviously REALLY close to the low spot, it probably doesn't matter
>> much, but just in concept, I don't know that bottom feeding on the
>> tank is such a great normal routine.
>>
>> Second, at least on my EFIS I have each tank set to alarm below a
>> certain point. If I flew one to empty as a routine, I'd have to
>> silence an alarm, and I don't want to get in the habit of
>> routinely silencing something like that if I can avoid it.
>>
>> Third, like Jim mentioned, it's nice to have a few gallons in that
>> tank that you just don't use, because those can be used to fall
>> back on later. What if suddenly your 2nd and final tank swallows a
>> gob of water that won't run through and your engine dies? If you
>> have even a couple gallons available, you can make it quite a few
>> more miles to get to an airport. I'd always leave 5 gallons just
>> so you have an "out".
>>
>> And last, I did a write up once, but on one IFR flight in IMC, I
>> noticed my tank was using fuel faster than normal. Stupid me, I
>> switched to the OTHER tank, well...it wasn't stupid exactly, but
>> that helped me identify that indeed with the tank shut off I was
>> draining fuel still. But what I SHOULD have done is after
>> verifying, switched back to that tank and used it up...rather than
>> waste all that fuel. I had sumped the tanks in the rain and with
>> all the rain coming down, didn't notice the sump was still
>> dripping and wasn't sealed well. If I would have been using my
>> opposite tank, and I used it to empty, I could have put myself into
>> a situation where I had one empty tank and a problem (leak) with
>> the other.
>>
>> Anyway, not really wanting to nit pick on a procedure, since
>> everyone can have their own, but I thought I'd point out a couple
>> of things on it as to why it's probably best to keep a few gallons
>> in there.
>>
>> I do know what you mean though. I know people that religiously
>> switch tanks every 30 minutes. That's fine, no problem there, but I
>> myself would rather maybe burn the top 10 gallons off one tank,
>> then suck 23 gallons out of the 2nd tank, and then burn my last 13
>> gallons off the original tank. Less switching, and like you, I
>> like to burn a pile of my fuel off and then have a good amount in
>> my final tank so I can easily figure that I'll make my home stretch
>> without needing to swap back to that lower tank again.
>>
>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD do not archive
>>
>>
>> On 8/22/2010 8:33 AM, Jesse Saint wrote:
>>> --> RV10-List message posted by: Jesse
>>> Saint<jesse@saintaviation.com>
>>>
>>> I think each person probably has their personal limit on this.
>>> Personally, I would much rather have 14 gallons in one tank than
>>> 7 gallons in each, maybe unless conditions are perfectly smooth.
>>> Even when flying a 172, on a long trip, I'll burn out of both
>>> tanks to verify everything is working in the system, but will
>>> burn one tank down until I start losing fuel pressure and then
>>> switch so I know all of my fuel is available from the current
>>> tank (and it also helps to verify how much fuel I have - see if
>>> my calculations are correct, which isn't as much of an issue in
>>> the -10). I do this at altitude so, if there's some kind of
>>> hickup, there would be plenty of time to get it worked out. I
>>> don't think I've ever taken the -10 to the point of losing fuel
>>> pressure, but I've taken it to the point where the float reads
>>> zero and the flow meter agrees.
>>>
>>> That's just the way I do it, and I don't like to get on the
>>> ground with less than 10 gallons, but all of that on one side if
>>> I do get that low.
>>>
>>> Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse@saintaviation.com C:
>>> 352-427-0285 F: 815-377-3694
>>>
>>> On Aug 22, 2010, at 2:37 AM, AirMike wrote:
>>>
>>>> --> RV10-List message posted by:
>>>> "AirMike"<Mikeabel@Pacbell.net>
>>>>
>>>> In re-analyzing my numbers from my trip to OSH - felt that it
>>>> is best to be on the ground when you have less than 7 gallons
>>>> in each tank. I have very accurate readings from my tank floats
>>>> and fuel scan is right on the money. Since a big percentage of
>>>> accidents are from just running out of gas, I'd like any input
>>>> on minimum usable fuel in the std tanks so that we can all keep
>>>> a comfortable safety zone.
>>>
>>>> I also need this info as I fit out my 90 gallon internal tank
>>>> for the round-the-poles flight - ok just kidding.......
>>>>
>>>> -------- OSH '10 or Bust Q/B - finally done
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> do not archive
>>>>
>>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>>
>>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=309710#309710
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Miniumum fuel comfort zone |
I agree that it would be great to have someone test the descent angle with low
fuel. However, if it does prove to unport at 2 gallons, then my 8/0 would be
much better than 6/2, because I would have access to 6 gallons instead of 4, and
much less chance of unporting in rough air, especially if I can trim or hold
rudder a little bit to keep the fueled side high. As you said, the most important
thing is that people have a system that works for them and that they are
comfortable with. For me, it's having all of my fuel in the active tank. For
others it may be having access to both tanks.
On the water issue, does everybody smell their fuel after they sump to verify that
it isn't all water? I have heard of cases where someone sumped, didn't see
the "bubble" of water, and went on their way, not realizing that the whole sump
was full of water, not fuel. I always smell it. Is that an accurate way
of determining that it's fuel, or does water that has been in the fuel tank also
smell like fuel in the cup?
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
On Aug 23, 2010, at 9:32 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
> "I would much rather be flying with 8 gallons in one tank than
> 4 gallons in each. I think that's the issue."
>
> I kind of agree with that statement, mainly from the standpoint
> of fuel unporting during landing. I don't know that the best
> balance would be 8/0 as opposed to 4/4, but I agree with your
> point. Actually, when I do land with less fuel, it's usually
> 7/5 or something of that nature, so in theory I agree...I only
> want one tank to be near the bottom. Our comfort with "bottom"
> is just a little different. With the totalizers and the high
> accuracy we have though, it's probably practical to be able
> to go 6/2 on that split that you mention...that way there's
> enough to finish a landing if needed, with bare minimum fuel,
> but still plan to finish the flight with 6 gallons in the
> active tank.
>
> I probably, considering the accuracy of my totalizer, take
> conservative fuel planning a little far in that I don't think
> I've ever landed with less than 10 gallons in the RV-10,
> but I suppose if you're going to err, the high side is
> probably good. Not that what you're doing is an err. :)
> There are more airports in your neck of the woods than mine,
> too, to use as alternates. And, I feel MUCH better about
> cutting fuel close on my trip to my home airport than
> I do when I'm landing at somewhere unfamiliar. I know
> how quick I can get on the ground at my home base.
>
> The one point I made about useable fuel though that I think
> is real important is the one about tank angle and useable
> fuel. I know my floats drop maybe 2-3 gallons or so when I
> transition from cruise to descent with lower fuel levels.
> I think it would be a good test if someone burned a tank down
> to, say 4 gallons, and then did a series of climbs to
> 10,000 AGL and switched to that tank and did a descent,
> and waited for the fuel to run out. It may take a while to
> burn 4 gallons at descent power, but some day one of us
> should find out what minimum fuel is at descent angle.
> Knowing where the fuel pickup is, I can see that perhaps
> minimum fuel may be a gallon or as much as 2 gallons,
> depending on the angle. I could be wrong. Many of
> us have tested it in level flight though with the same
> results....so I'd assume that one good test in descent
> would let us know.
>
> Regardless of fuel management procedure, what's important is
> that people have a procedure and plan that works for them.
> It would be nice to be able to look back in a few years and
> say "in the last 10 years, never has an RV-10 been lost to
> fuel exhaustion". It's one of those things that just shouldn't
> happen to people unless they do something stupid.
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
>
>
>
> On 8/22/2010 10:23 PM, Jesse Saint wrote:
>> --> RV10-List message posted by: Jesse
>> Saint<jesse@saintaviation.com>
>>
>> I think the issue is more of a minimum fuel& where to have it. In
>> normal practice, I burn down 10-15 on one side, switch& burn down to
>> 10 on the other, then switch. Only on a long trip where I may be
>> down to reserve do I do as I suggested. I personally think making
>> minimum fuel of 7 per side too much. That's 46 gal useable. If it's
>> a trip that would need 92 gallons, I would split it in half. If it's
>> a 52-gallon flight, I would not split it up. Then I would burn down
>> one tank dry or almost so, then fly my last stretch only on the
>> other. I would much rather be flying with 8 gallons in one tank than
>> 4 gallons in each. I think that's the issue.
>>
>> I agree that fuel alarms are good and important, but they are there
>> to remind you in case you forget. On a long flight (like my nonstop
>> from FL to WI for OSH), my main task is to let my autopilot fly the
>> plane while I monitor my fuel, using the fuel computer& winds aloft
>> info along my route to estimate fuel at destination. I then decide
>> how close to minimum fuel I will be flying& burn accordingly. On a
>> flight like that, the last thing I need is a low fuel alarm. Also, I
>> have noticed with several systems that if I set an alarm at 5
>> gallons, I need to keep the tank well above that or well below it to
>> not have the alarm constantly going off as the float bounces when the
>> fuel sloshes. Once down to 2-3 gallons, a 5-gal alarm will seldom go
>> off after the first time. Once acknowledged& noted on the
>> kneeboard, it's known& that tank not used again.
>>
>> Another thing I do is switch to the full tank one or twice for a
>> minute or two before I go "dry" on one side to verify fuel supply is
>> good& no flow restrictions.
>>
>> As you said, everybody will have their own way. This is the way that
>> makes me feel the most comfortable.
>>
>> Jesse Saint I-TEC, Inc. jesse@itecusa.org www.itecusa.org
>> www.mavericklsa.com C: 352-427-0285 O: 352-465-4545 F: 815-377-3694
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Aug 22, 2010, at 10:28 PM, Tim Olson<Tim@myrv10.com> wrote:
>>
>>> --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson<Tim@myrv10.com>
>>>
>>> You know, I somewhat feel the same regarding fuel, that I like to
>>> burn a lot off one tank and then I know if my other tank is plenty
>>> full I'm doing great, but...I don't know that I'd take it quite as
>>> far as you do with it. I agree with Jim, I think 5 gallons
>>> remaining is a good bottom limit for most of the time. Here's
>>> why...
>>>
>>> First, if you run a tank to the very end, you're going to have a
>>> little more chance to get all the gunk and water that may be at
>>> that low spot in the tank. Granted that since our inlet is
>>> obviously REALLY close to the low spot, it probably doesn't matter
>>> much, but just in concept, I don't know that bottom feeding on the
>>> tank is such a great normal routine.
>>>
>>> Second, at least on my EFIS I have each tank set to alarm below a
>>> certain point. If I flew one to empty as a routine, I'd have to
>>> silence an alarm, and I don't want to get in the habit of
>>> routinely silencing something like that if I can avoid it.
>>>
>>> Third, like Jim mentioned, it's nice to have a few gallons in that
>>> tank that you just don't use, because those can be used to fall
>>> back on later. What if suddenly your 2nd and final tank swallows a
>>> gob of water that won't run through and your engine dies? If you
>>> have even a couple gallons available, you can make it quite a few
>>> more miles to get to an airport. I'd always leave 5 gallons just
>>> so you have an "out".
>>>
>>> And last, I did a write up once, but on one IFR flight in IMC, I
>>> noticed my tank was using fuel faster than normal. Stupid me, I
>>> switched to the OTHER tank, well...it wasn't stupid exactly, but
>>> that helped me identify that indeed with the tank shut off I was
>>> draining fuel still. But what I SHOULD have done is after
>>> verifying, switched back to that tank and used it up...rather than
>>> waste all that fuel. I had sumped the tanks in the rain and with
>>> all the rain coming down, didn't notice the sump was still
>>> dripping and wasn't sealed well. If I would have been using my
>>> opposite tank, and I used it to empty, I could have put myself into
>>> a situation where I had one empty tank and a problem (leak) with
>>> the other.
>>>
>>> Anyway, not really wanting to nit pick on a procedure, since
>>> everyone can have their own, but I thought I'd point out a couple
>>> of things on it as to why it's probably best to keep a few gallons
>>> in there.
>>>
>>> I do know what you mean though. I know people that religiously
>>> switch tanks every 30 minutes. That's fine, no problem there, but I
>>> myself would rather maybe burn the top 10 gallons off one tank,
>>> then suck 23 gallons out of the 2nd tank, and then burn my last 13
>>> gallons off the original tank. Less switching, and like you, I
>>> like to burn a pile of my fuel off and then have a good amount in
>>> my final tank so I can easily figure that I'll make my home stretch
>>> without needing to swap back to that lower tank again.
>>>
>>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD do not archive
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/22/2010 8:33 AM, Jesse Saint wrote:
>>>> --> RV10-List message posted by: Jesse
>>>> Saint<jesse@saintaviation.com>
>>>>
>>>> I think each person probably has their personal limit on this.
>>>> Personally, I would much rather have 14 gallons in one tank than
>>>> 7 gallons in each, maybe unless conditions are perfectly smooth.
>>>> Even when flying a 172, on a long trip, I'll burn out of both
>>>> tanks to verify everything is working in the system, but will
>>>> burn one tank down until I start losing fuel pressure and then
>>>> switch so I know all of my fuel is available from the current
>>>> tank (and it also helps to verify how much fuel I have - see if
>>>> my calculations are correct, which isn't as much of an issue in
>>>> the -10). I do this at altitude so, if there's some kind of
>>>> hickup, there would be plenty of time to get it worked out. I
>>>> don't think I've ever taken the -10 to the point of losing fuel
>>>> pressure, but I've taken it to the point where the float reads
>>>> zero and the flow meter agrees.
>>>>
>>>> That's just the way I do it, and I don't like to get on the
>>>> ground with less than 10 gallons, but all of that on one side if
>>>> I do get that low.
>>>>
>>>> Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse@saintaviation.com C:
>>>> 352-427-0285 F: 815-377-3694
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 22, 2010, at 2:37 AM, AirMike wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> --> RV10-List message posted by:
>>>>> "AirMike"<Mikeabel@Pacbell.net>
>>>>>
>>>>> In re-analyzing my numbers from my trip to OSH - felt that it
>>>>> is best to be on the ground when you have less than 7 gallons
>>>>> in each tank. I have very accurate readings from my tank floats
>>>>> and fuel scan is right on the money. Since a big percentage of
>>>>> accidents are from just running out of gas, I'd like any input
>>>>> on minimum usable fuel in the std tanks so that we can all keep
>>>>> a comfortable safety zone.
>>>>
>>>>> I also need this info as I fit out my 90 gallon internal tank
>>>>> for the round-the-poles flight - ok just kidding.......
>>>>>
>>>>> -------- OSH '10 or Bust Q/B - finally done
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> do not archive
>>>>>
>>>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=309710#309710
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Miniumum fuel comfort zone |
You're right on that, which is why I like having one fuller
tank like you do. That's why I've used 7 as a yellow
caution and 5 as a red on my float levels....it keeps
me well above any unporting that should happen for normal
flight. But you're right, if I were stretching my
reserves to the minimum, I'd rather have plenty in
one tank so that unporting wasn't an issue.
The Sundowner I used to fly, I think was placarded to
no takeoffs with less than 11 gallons in a tank (if I
remember right) solely because of the unporting issue.
I figured if that tank can unport at 11 gallons,
and I didn't have any data on the RV-10 unporting,
I should either test it or keep enough in there
that I'm comfortable with it based on useable fuel.
I think that plane had like 2 gallons unusable though,
too, so it wasn't an apples to apples comparison.
I do smell the fuel, myself. I also if I have reason
to suspect water, feel the fuel between my fingers
and smell them too. You can tell if it's fuel
or water that way. I've rarely had water in the
RV-10 tanks though, except when outside in the
rain BEFORE I lubed and cleaned my fuel cap
orings (both of them). I used to get fuel leakage
on climbout from the stem oring, and that stem also
let in water during rain. Now though, it doesn't
do that anymore...and I haven't had water since.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
do not archive
On 8/23/2010 11:28 AM, Jesse Saint wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Jesse
> Saint<jesse@saintaviation.com>
>
> I agree that it would be great to have someone test the descent angle
> with low fuel. However, if it does prove to unport at 2 gallons,
> then my 8/0 would be much better than 6/2, because I would have
> access to 6 gallons instead of 4, and much less chance of unporting
> in rough air, especially if I can trim or hold rudder a little bit to
> keep the fueled side high. As you said, the most important thing is
> that people have a system that works for them and that they are
> comfortable with. For me, it's having all of my fuel in the active
> tank. For others it may be having access to both tanks.
>
> On the water issue, does everybody smell their fuel after they sump
> to verify that it isn't all water? I have heard of cases where
> someone sumped, didn't see the "bubble" of water, and went on their
> way, not realizing that the whole sump was full of water, not fuel.
> I always smell it. Is that an accurate way of determining that it's
> fuel, or does water that has been in the fuel tank also smell like
> fuel in the cup?
>
> Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse@saintaviation.com C:
> 352-427-0285 F: 815-377-3694
>
> On Aug 23, 2010, at 9:32 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
>> --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson<Tim@myrv10.com>
>>
>> "I would much rather be flying with 8 gallons in one tank than 4
>> gallons in each. I think that's the issue."
>>
>> I kind of agree with that statement, mainly from the standpoint of
>> fuel unporting during landing. I don't know that the best balance
>> would be 8/0 as opposed to 4/4, but I agree with your point.
>> Actually, when I do land with less fuel, it's usually 7/5 or
>> something of that nature, so in theory I agree...I only want one
>> tank to be near the bottom. Our comfort with "bottom" is just a
>> little different. With the totalizers and the high accuracy we
>> have though, it's probably practical to be able to go 6/2 on that
>> split that you mention...that way there's enough to finish a
>> landing if needed, with bare minimum fuel, but still plan to finish
>> the flight with 6 gallons in the active tank.
>>
>> I probably, considering the accuracy of my totalizer, take
>> conservative fuel planning a little far in that I don't think I've
>> ever landed with less than 10 gallons in the RV-10, but I suppose
>> if you're going to err, the high side is probably good. Not that
>> what you're doing is an err. :) There are more airports in your
>> neck of the woods than mine, too, to use as alternates. And, I
>> feel MUCH better about cutting fuel close on my trip to my home
>> airport than I do when I'm landing at somewhere unfamiliar. I
>> know how quick I can get on the ground at my home base.
>>
>> The one point I made about useable fuel though that I think is real
>> important is the one about tank angle and useable fuel. I know my
>> floats drop maybe 2-3 gallons or so when I transition from cruise
>> to descent with lower fuel levels. I think it would be a good test
>> if someone burned a tank down to, say 4 gallons, and then did a
>> series of climbs to 10,000 AGL and switched to that tank and did a
>> descent, and waited for the fuel to run out. It may take a while
>> to burn 4 gallons at descent power, but some day one of us should
>> find out what minimum fuel is at descent angle. Knowing where the
>> fuel pickup is, I can see that perhaps minimum fuel may be a gallon
>> or as much as 2 gallons, depending on the angle. I could be wrong.
>> Many of us have tested it in level flight though with the same
>> results....so I'd assume that one good test in descent would let us
>> know.
>>
>> Regardless of fuel management procedure, what's important is that
>> people have a procedure and plan that works for them. It would be
>> nice to be able to look back in a few years and say "in the last 10
>> years, never has an RV-10 been lost to fuel exhaustion". It's one
>> of those things that just shouldn't happen to people unless they do
>> something stupid.
>>
>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8/22/2010 10:23 PM, Jesse Saint wrote:
>>> --> RV10-List message posted by: Jesse
>>> Saint<jesse@saintaviation.com>
>>>
>>> I think the issue is more of a minimum fuel& where to have it.
>>> In normal practice, I burn down 10-15 on one side, switch& burn
>>> down to 10 on the other, then switch. Only on a long trip where
>>> I may be down to reserve do I do as I suggested. I personally
>>> think making minimum fuel of 7 per side too much. That's 46 gal
>>> useable. If it's a trip that would need 92 gallons, I would
>>> split it in half. If it's a 52-gallon flight, I would not split
>>> it up. Then I would burn down one tank dry or almost so, then
>>> fly my last stretch only on the other. I would much rather be
>>> flying with 8 gallons in one tank than 4 gallons in each. I
>>> think that's the issue.
>>>
>>> I agree that fuel alarms are good and important, but they are
>>> there to remind you in case you forget. On a long flight (like
>>> my nonstop from FL to WI for OSH), my main task is to let my
>>> autopilot fly the plane while I monitor my fuel, using the fuel
>>> computer& winds aloft info along my route to estimate fuel at
>>> destination. I then decide how close to minimum fuel I will be
>>> flying& burn accordingly. On a flight like that, the last
>>> thing I need is a low fuel alarm. Also, I have noticed with
>>> several systems that if I set an alarm at 5 gallons, I need to
>>> keep the tank well above that or well below it to not have the
>>> alarm constantly going off as the float bounces when the fuel
>>> sloshes. Once down to 2-3 gallons, a 5-gal alarm will seldom go
>>> off after the first time. Once acknowledged& noted on the
>>> kneeboard, it's known& that tank not used again.
>>>
>>> Another thing I do is switch to the full tank one or twice for a
>>> minute or two before I go "dry" on one side to verify fuel supply
>>> is good& no flow restrictions.
>>>
>>> As you said, everybody will have their own way. This is the way
>>> that makes me feel the most comfortable.
>>>
>>> Jesse Saint I-TEC, Inc. jesse@itecusa.org www.itecusa.org
>>> www.mavericklsa.com C: 352-427-0285 O: 352-465-4545 F:
>>> 815-377-3694
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Aug 22, 2010, at 10:28 PM, Tim Olson<Tim@myrv10.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson<Tim@myrv10.com>
>>>>
>>>> You know, I somewhat feel the same regarding fuel, that I like
>>>> to burn a lot off one tank and then I know if my other tank is
>>>> plenty full I'm doing great, but...I don't know that I'd take
>>>> it quite as far as you do with it. I agree with Jim, I think 5
>>>> gallons remaining is a good bottom limit for most of the time.
>>>> Here's why...
>>>>
>>>> First, if you run a tank to the very end, you're going to have
>>>> a little more chance to get all the gunk and water that may be
>>>> at that low spot in the tank. Granted that since our inlet is
>>>> obviously REALLY close to the low spot, it probably doesn't
>>>> matter much, but just in concept, I don't know that bottom
>>>> feeding on the tank is such a great normal routine.
>>>>
>>>> Second, at least on my EFIS I have each tank set to alarm below
>>>> a certain point. If I flew one to empty as a routine, I'd have
>>>> to silence an alarm, and I don't want to get in the habit of
>>>> routinely silencing something like that if I can avoid it.
>>>>
>>>> Third, like Jim mentioned, it's nice to have a few gallons in
>>>> that tank that you just don't use, because those can be used to
>>>> fall back on later. What if suddenly your 2nd and final tank
>>>> swallows a gob of water that won't run through and your engine
>>>> dies? If you have even a couple gallons available, you can
>>>> make it quite a few more miles to get to an airport. I'd
>>>> always leave 5 gallons just so you have an "out".
>>>>
>>>> And last, I did a write up once, but on one IFR flight in IMC,
>>>> I noticed my tank was using fuel faster than normal. Stupid
>>>> me, I switched to the OTHER tank, well...it wasn't stupid
>>>> exactly, but that helped me identify that indeed with the tank
>>>> shut off I was draining fuel still. But what I SHOULD have
>>>> done is after verifying, switched back to that tank and used it
>>>> up...rather than waste all that fuel. I had sumped the tanks
>>>> in the rain and with all the rain coming down, didn't notice
>>>> the sump was still dripping and wasn't sealed well. If I would
>>>> have been using my opposite tank, and I used it to empty, I
>>>> could have put myself into a situation where I had one empty
>>>> tank and a problem (leak) with the other.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, not really wanting to nit pick on a procedure, since
>>>> everyone can have their own, but I thought I'd point out a
>>>> couple of things on it as to why it's probably best to keep a
>>>> few gallons in there.
>>>>
>>>> I do know what you mean though. I know people that religiously
>>>> switch tanks every 30 minutes. That's fine, no problem there,
>>>> but I myself would rather maybe burn the top 10 gallons off one
>>>> tank, then suck 23 gallons out of the 2nd tank, and then burn
>>>> my last 13 gallons off the original tank. Less switching, and
>>>> like you, I like to burn a pile of my fuel off and then have a
>>>> good amount in my final tank so I can easily figure that I'll
>>>> make my home stretch without needing to swap back to that lower
>>>> tank again.
>>>>
>>>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD do not archive
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 8/22/2010 8:33 AM, Jesse Saint wrote:
>>>>> --> RV10-List message posted by: Jesse
>>>>> Saint<jesse@saintaviation.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think each person probably has their personal limit on
>>>>> this. Personally, I would much rather have 14 gallons in one
>>>>> tank than 7 gallons in each, maybe unless conditions are
>>>>> perfectly smooth. Even when flying a 172, on a long trip,
>>>>> I'll burn out of both tanks to verify everything is working
>>>>> in the system, but will burn one tank down until I start
>>>>> losing fuel pressure and then switch so I know all of my fuel
>>>>> is available from the current tank (and it also helps to
>>>>> verify how much fuel I have - see if my calculations are
>>>>> correct, which isn't as much of an issue in the -10). I do
>>>>> this at altitude so, if there's some kind of hickup, there
>>>>> would be plenty of time to get it worked out. I don't think
>>>>> I've ever taken the -10 to the point of losing fuel pressure,
>>>>> but I've taken it to the point where the float reads zero and
>>>>> the flow meter agrees.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's just the way I do it, and I don't like to get on the
>>>>> ground with less than 10 gallons, but all of that on one side
>>>>> if I do get that low.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse@saintaviation.com C:
>>>>> 352-427-0285 F: 815-377-3694
>>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 22, 2010, at 2:37 AM, AirMike wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> --> RV10-List message posted by:
>>>>>> "AirMike"<Mikeabel@Pacbell.net>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In re-analyzing my numbers from my trip to OSH - felt that
>>>>>> it is best to be on the ground when you have less than 7
>>>>>> gallons in each tank. I have very accurate readings from my
>>>>>> tank floats and fuel scan is right on the money. Since a
>>>>>> big percentage of accidents are from just running out of
>>>>>> gas, I'd like any input on minimum usable fuel in the std
>>>>>> tanks so that we can all keep a comfortable safety zone.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I also need this info as I fit out my 90 gallon internal
>>>>>> tank for the round-the-poles flight - ok just
>>>>>> kidding.......
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -------- OSH '10 or Bust Q/B - finally done
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> do not archive
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=309710#309710
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Miniumum fuel comfort zone |
While practicing slips..........un-ported with 12 gallons in the offending
tank. Be very careful doing slips to landing/off field practice, make sure
you are on the correct tank for the slip direction you have chosen.
I have my alarm set at 5 gallons, and stop using the tank when it hits 3
gallons. Never fly with less than 10 gallons total except when I was
getting ready for my annual (condition inspection) and tried to burn off
some fuel (excuse to fly) before I drained the tanks to reweight the plane.
Rene' Felker
N423CF
801-721-6080
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 10:53 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Miniumum fuel comfort zone
You're right on that, which is why I like having one fuller
tank like you do. That's why I've used 7 as a yellow
caution and 5 as a red on my float levels....it keeps
me well above any unporting that should happen for normal
flight. But you're right, if I were stretching my
reserves to the minimum, I'd rather have plenty in
one tank so that unporting wasn't an issue.
The Sundowner I used to fly, I think was placarded to
no takeoffs with less than 11 gallons in a tank (if I
remember right) solely because of the unporting issue.
I figured if that tank can unport at 11 gallons,
and I didn't have any data on the RV-10 unporting,
I should either test it or keep enough in there
that I'm comfortable with it based on useable fuel.
I think that plane had like 2 gallons unusable though,
too, so it wasn't an apples to apples comparison.
I do smell the fuel, myself. I also if I have reason
to suspect water, feel the fuel between my fingers
and smell them too. You can tell if it's fuel
or water that way. I've rarely had water in the
RV-10 tanks though, except when outside in the
rain BEFORE I lubed and cleaned my fuel cap
orings (both of them). I used to get fuel leakage
on climbout from the stem oring, and that stem also
let in water during rain. Now though, it doesn't
do that anymore...and I haven't had water since.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
do not archive
On 8/23/2010 11:28 AM, Jesse Saint wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Jesse
> Saint<jesse@saintaviation.com>
>
> I agree that it would be great to have someone test the descent angle
> with low fuel. However, if it does prove to unport at 2 gallons,
> then my 8/0 would be much better than 6/2, because I would have
> access to 6 gallons instead of 4, and much less chance of unporting
> in rough air, especially if I can trim or hold rudder a little bit to
> keep the fueled side high. As you said, the most important thing is
> that people have a system that works for them and that they are
> comfortable with. For me, it's having all of my fuel in the active
> tank. For others it may be having access to both tanks.
>
> On the water issue, does everybody smell their fuel after they sump
> to verify that it isn't all water? I have heard of cases where
> someone sumped, didn't see the "bubble" of water, and went on their
> way, not realizing that the whole sump was full of water, not fuel.
> I always smell it. Is that an accurate way of determining that it's
> fuel, or does water that has been in the fuel tank also smell like
> fuel in the cup?
>
> Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse@saintaviation.com C:
> 352-427-0285 F: 815-377-3694
>
> On Aug 23, 2010, at 9:32 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
>> --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson<Tim@myrv10.com>
>>
>> "I would much rather be flying with 8 gallons in one tank than 4
>> gallons in each. I think that's the issue."
>>
>> I kind of agree with that statement, mainly from the standpoint of
>> fuel unporting during landing. I don't know that the best balance
>> would be 8/0 as opposed to 4/4, but I agree with your point.
>> Actually, when I do land with less fuel, it's usually 7/5 or
>> something of that nature, so in theory I agree...I only want one
>> tank to be near the bottom. Our comfort with "bottom" is just a
>> little different. With the totalizers and the high accuracy we
>> have though, it's probably practical to be able to go 6/2 on that
>> split that you mention...that way there's enough to finish a
>> landing if needed, with bare minimum fuel, but still plan to finish
>> the flight with 6 gallons in the active tank.
>>
>> I probably, considering the accuracy of my totalizer, take
>> conservative fuel planning a little far in that I don't think I've
>> ever landed with less than 10 gallons in the RV-10, but I suppose
>> if you're going to err, the high side is probably good. Not that
>> what you're doing is an err. :) There are more airports in your
>> neck of the woods than mine, too, to use as alternates. And, I
>> feel MUCH better about cutting fuel close on my trip to my home
>> airport than I do when I'm landing at somewhere unfamiliar. I
>> know how quick I can get on the ground at my home base.
>>
>> The one point I made about useable fuel though that I think is real
>> important is the one about tank angle and useable fuel. I know my
>> floats drop maybe 2-3 gallons or so when I transition from cruise
>> to descent with lower fuel levels. I think it would be a good test
>> if someone burned a tank down to, say 4 gallons, and then did a
>> series of climbs to 10,000 AGL and switched to that tank and did a
>> descent, and waited for the fuel to run out. It may take a while
>> to burn 4 gallons at descent power, but some day one of us should
>> find out what minimum fuel is at descent angle. Knowing where the
>> fuel pickup is, I can see that perhaps minimum fuel may be a gallon
>> or as much as 2 gallons, depending on the angle. I could be wrong.
>> Many of us have tested it in level flight though with the same
>> results....so I'd assume that one good test in descent would let us
>> know.
>>
>> Regardless of fuel management procedure, what's important is that
>> people have a procedure and plan that works for them. It would be
>> nice to be able to look back in a few years and say "in the last 10
>> years, never has an RV-10 been lost to fuel exhaustion". It's one
>> of those things that just shouldn't happen to people unless they do
>> something stupid.
>>
>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8/22/2010 10:23 PM, Jesse Saint wrote:
>>> --> RV10-List message posted by: Jesse
>>> Saint<jesse@saintaviation.com>
>>>
>>> I think the issue is more of a minimum fuel& where to have it.
>>> In normal practice, I burn down 10-15 on one side, switch& burn
>>> down to 10 on the other, then switch. Only on a long trip where
>>> I may be down to reserve do I do as I suggested. I personally
>>> think making minimum fuel of 7 per side too much. That's 46 gal
>>> useable. If it's a trip that would need 92 gallons, I would
>>> split it in half. If it's a 52-gallon flight, I would not split
>>> it up. Then I would burn down one tank dry or almost so, then
>>> fly my last stretch only on the other. I would much rather be
>>> flying with 8 gallons in one tank than 4 gallons in each. I
>>> think that's the issue.
>>>
>>> I agree that fuel alarms are good and important, but they are
>>> there to remind you in case you forget. On a long flight (like
>>> my nonstop from FL to WI for OSH), my main task is to let my
>>> autopilot fly the plane while I monitor my fuel, using the fuel
>>> computer& winds aloft info along my route to estimate fuel at
>>> destination. I then decide how close to minimum fuel I will be
>>> flying& burn accordingly. On a flight like that, the last
>>> thing I need is a low fuel alarm. Also, I have noticed with
>>> several systems that if I set an alarm at 5 gallons, I need to
>>> keep the tank well above that or well below it to not have the
>>> alarm constantly going off as the float bounces when the fuel
>>> sloshes. Once down to 2-3 gallons, a 5-gal alarm will seldom go
>>> off after the first time. Once acknowledged& noted on the
>>> kneeboard, it's known& that tank not used again.
>>>
>>> Another thing I do is switch to the full tank one or twice for a
>>> minute or two before I go "dry" on one side to verify fuel supply
>>> is good& no flow restrictions.
>>>
>>> As you said, everybody will have their own way. This is the way
>>> that makes me feel the most comfortable.
>>>
>>> Jesse Saint I-TEC, Inc. jesse@itecusa.org www.itecusa.org
>>> www.mavericklsa.com C: 352-427-0285 O: 352-465-4545 F:
>>> 815-377-3694
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Aug 22, 2010, at 10:28 PM, Tim Olson<Tim@myrv10.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson<Tim@myrv10.com>
>>>>
>>>> You know, I somewhat feel the same regarding fuel, that I like
>>>> to burn a lot off one tank and then I know if my other tank is
>>>> plenty full I'm doing great, but...I don't know that I'd take
>>>> it quite as far as you do with it. I agree with Jim, I think 5
>>>> gallons remaining is a good bottom limit for most of the time.
>>>> Here's why...
>>>>
>>>> First, if you run a tank to the very end, you're going to have
>>>> a little more chance to get all the gunk and water that may be
>>>> at that low spot in the tank. Granted that since our inlet is
>>>> obviously REALLY close to the low spot, it probably doesn't
>>>> matter much, but just in concept, I don't know that bottom
>>>> feeding on the tank is such a great normal routine.
>>>>
>>>> Second, at least on my EFIS I have each tank set to alarm below
>>>> a certain point. If I flew one to empty as a routine, I'd have
>>>> to silence an alarm, and I don't want to get in the habit of
>>>> routinely silencing something like that if I can avoid it.
>>>>
>>>> Third, like Jim mentioned, it's nice to have a few gallons in
>>>> that tank that you just don't use, because those can be used to
>>>> fall back on later. What if suddenly your 2nd and final tank
>>>> swallows a gob of water that won't run through and your engine
>>>> dies? If you have even a couple gallons available, you can
>>>> make it quite a few more miles to get to an airport. I'd
>>>> always leave 5 gallons just so you have an "out".
>>>>
>>>> And last, I did a write up once, but on one IFR flight in IMC,
>>>> I noticed my tank was using fuel faster than normal. Stupid
>>>> me, I switched to the OTHER tank, well...it wasn't stupid
>>>> exactly, but that helped me identify that indeed with the tank
>>>> shut off I was draining fuel still. But what I SHOULD have
>>>> done is after verifying, switched back to that tank and used it
>>>> up...rather than waste all that fuel. I had sumped the tanks
>>>> in the rain and with all the rain coming down, didn't notice
>>>> the sump was still dripping and wasn't sealed well. If I would
>>>> have been using my opposite tank, and I used it to empty, I
>>>> could have put myself into a situation where I had one empty
>>>> tank and a problem (leak) with the other.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, not really wanting to nit pick on a procedure, since
>>>> everyone can have their own, but I thought I'd point out a
>>>> couple of things on it as to why it's probably best to keep a
>>>> few gallons in there.
>>>>
>>>> I do know what you mean though. I know people that religiously
>>>> switch tanks every 30 minutes. That's fine, no problem there,
>>>> but I myself would rather maybe burn the top 10 gallons off one
>>>> tank, then suck 23 gallons out of the 2nd tank, and then burn
>>>> my last 13 gallons off the original tank. Less switching, and
>>>> like you, I like to burn a pile of my fuel off and then have a
>>>> good amount in my final tank so I can easily figure that I'll
>>>> make my home stretch without needing to swap back to that lower
>>>> tank again.
>>>>
>>>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD do not archive
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 8/22/2010 8:33 AM, Jesse Saint wrote:
>>>>> --> RV10-List message posted by: Jesse
>>>>> Saint<jesse@saintaviation.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think each person probably has their personal limit on
>>>>> this. Personally, I would much rather have 14 gallons in one
>>>>> tank than 7 gallons in each, maybe unless conditions are
>>>>> perfectly smooth. Even when flying a 172, on a long trip,
>>>>> I'll burn out of both tanks to verify everything is working
>>>>> in the system, but will burn one tank down until I start
>>>>> losing fuel pressure and then switch so I know all of my fuel
>>>>> is available from the current tank (and it also helps to
>>>>> verify how much fuel I have - see if my calculations are
>>>>> correct, which isn't as much of an issue in the -10). I do
>>>>> this at altitude so, if there's some kind of hickup, there
>>>>> would be plenty of time to get it worked out. I don't think
>>>>> I've ever taken the -10 to the point of losing fuel pressure,
>>>>> but I've taken it to the point where the float reads zero and
>>>>> the flow meter agrees.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's just the way I do it, and I don't like to get on the
>>>>> ground with less than 10 gallons, but all of that on one side
>>>>> if I do get that low.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse@saintaviation.com C:
>>>>> 352-427-0285 F: 815-377-3694
>>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 22, 2010, at 2:37 AM, AirMike wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> --> RV10-List message posted by:
>>>>>> "AirMike"<Mikeabel@Pacbell.net>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In re-analyzing my numbers from my trip to OSH - felt that
>>>>>> it is best to be on the ground when you have less than 7
>>>>>> gallons in each tank. I have very accurate readings from my
>>>>>> tank floats and fuel scan is right on the money. Since a
>>>>>> big percentage of accidents are from just running out of
>>>>>> gas, I'd like any input on minimum usable fuel in the std
>>>>>> tanks so that we can all keep a comfortable safety zone.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I also need this info as I fit out my 90 gallon internal
>>>>>> tank for the round-the-poles flight - ok just
>>>>>> kidding.......
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -------- OSH '10 or Bust Q/B - finally done
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> do not archive
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=309710#309710
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Miniumum fuel comfort zone |
I do not think it will be blue if it is just water, but I do smell it if it
is not blue enough. I also drain both tanks into the same bottle and pour
it back in the tank and watch it go in. As long as the fuel level is high
enough in the tank you will be able to tell if you poured water back in the
tank.
Rene' Felker
N423CF
801-721-6080
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Miniumum fuel comfort zone
I agree that it would be great to have someone test the descent angle with
low fuel. However, if it does prove to unport at 2 gallons, then my 8/0
would be much better than 6/2, because I would have access to 6 gallons
instead of 4, and much less chance of unporting in rough air, especially if
I can trim or hold rudder a little bit to keep the fueled side high. As you
said, the most important thing is that people have a system that works for
them and that they are comfortable with. For me, it's having all of my fuel
in the active tank. For others it may be having access to both tanks.
On the water issue, does everybody smell their fuel after they sump to
verify that it isn't all water? I have heard of cases where someone sumped,
didn't see the "bubble" of water, and went on their way, not realizing that
the whole sump was full of water, not fuel. I always smell it. Is that an
accurate way of determining that it's fuel, or does water that has been in
the fuel tank also smell like fuel in the cup?
Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation, Inc.
jesse@saintaviation.com
C: 352-427-0285
F: 815-377-3694
On Aug 23, 2010, at 9:32 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
> "I would much rather be flying with 8 gallons in one tank than
> 4 gallons in each. I think that's the issue."
>
> I kind of agree with that statement, mainly from the standpoint
> of fuel unporting during landing. I don't know that the best
> balance would be 8/0 as opposed to 4/4, but I agree with your
> point. Actually, when I do land with less fuel, it's usually
> 7/5 or something of that nature, so in theory I agree...I only
> want one tank to be near the bottom. Our comfort with "bottom"
> is just a little different. With the totalizers and the high
> accuracy we have though, it's probably practical to be able
> to go 6/2 on that split that you mention...that way there's
> enough to finish a landing if needed, with bare minimum fuel,
> but still plan to finish the flight with 6 gallons in the
> active tank.
>
> I probably, considering the accuracy of my totalizer, take
> conservative fuel planning a little far in that I don't think
> I've ever landed with less than 10 gallons in the RV-10,
> but I suppose if you're going to err, the high side is
> probably good. Not that what you're doing is an err. :)
> There are more airports in your neck of the woods than mine,
> too, to use as alternates. And, I feel MUCH better about
> cutting fuel close on my trip to my home airport than
> I do when I'm landing at somewhere unfamiliar. I know
> how quick I can get on the ground at my home base.
>
> The one point I made about useable fuel though that I think
> is real important is the one about tank angle and useable
> fuel. I know my floats drop maybe 2-3 gallons or so when I
> transition from cruise to descent with lower fuel levels.
> I think it would be a good test if someone burned a tank down
> to, say 4 gallons, and then did a series of climbs to
> 10,000 AGL and switched to that tank and did a descent,
> and waited for the fuel to run out. It may take a while to
> burn 4 gallons at descent power, but some day one of us
> should find out what minimum fuel is at descent angle.
> Knowing where the fuel pickup is, I can see that perhaps
> minimum fuel may be a gallon or as much as 2 gallons,
> depending on the angle. I could be wrong. Many of
> us have tested it in level flight though with the same
> results....so I'd assume that one good test in descent
> would let us know.
>
> Regardless of fuel management procedure, what's important is
> that people have a procedure and plan that works for them.
> It would be nice to be able to look back in a few years and
> say "in the last 10 years, never has an RV-10 been lost to
> fuel exhaustion". It's one of those things that just shouldn't
> happen to people unless they do something stupid.
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
>
>
>
> On 8/22/2010 10:23 PM, Jesse Saint wrote:
>> --> RV10-List message posted by: Jesse
>> Saint<jesse@saintaviation.com>
>>
>> I think the issue is more of a minimum fuel& where to have it. In
>> normal practice, I burn down 10-15 on one side, switch& burn down to
>> 10 on the other, then switch. Only on a long trip where I may be
>> down to reserve do I do as I suggested. I personally think making
>> minimum fuel of 7 per side too much. That's 46 gal useable. If it's
>> a trip that would need 92 gallons, I would split it in half. If it's
>> a 52-gallon flight, I would not split it up. Then I would burn down
>> one tank dry or almost so, then fly my last stretch only on the
>> other. I would much rather be flying with 8 gallons in one tank than
>> 4 gallons in each. I think that's the issue.
>>
>> I agree that fuel alarms are good and important, but they are there
>> to remind you in case you forget. On a long flight (like my nonstop
>> from FL to WI for OSH), my main task is to let my autopilot fly the
>> plane while I monitor my fuel, using the fuel computer& winds aloft
>> info along my route to estimate fuel at destination. I then decide
>> how close to minimum fuel I will be flying& burn accordingly. On a
>> flight like that, the last thing I need is a low fuel alarm. Also, I
>> have noticed with several systems that if I set an alarm at 5
>> gallons, I need to keep the tank well above that or well below it to
>> not have the alarm constantly going off as the float bounces when the
>> fuel sloshes. Once down to 2-3 gallons, a 5-gal alarm will seldom go
>> off after the first time. Once acknowledged& noted on the
>> kneeboard, it's known& that tank not used again.
>>
>> Another thing I do is switch to the full tank one or twice for a
>> minute or two before I go "dry" on one side to verify fuel supply is
>> good& no flow restrictions.
>>
>> As you said, everybody will have their own way. This is the way that
>> makes me feel the most comfortable.
>>
>> Jesse Saint I-TEC, Inc. jesse@itecusa.org www.itecusa.org
>> www.mavericklsa.com C: 352-427-0285 O: 352-465-4545 F: 815-377-3694
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Aug 22, 2010, at 10:28 PM, Tim Olson<Tim@myrv10.com> wrote:
>>
>>> --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson<Tim@myrv10.com>
>>>
>>> You know, I somewhat feel the same regarding fuel, that I like to
>>> burn a lot off one tank and then I know if my other tank is plenty
>>> full I'm doing great, but...I don't know that I'd take it quite as
>>> far as you do with it. I agree with Jim, I think 5 gallons
>>> remaining is a good bottom limit for most of the time. Here's
>>> why...
>>>
>>> First, if you run a tank to the very end, you're going to have a
>>> little more chance to get all the gunk and water that may be at
>>> that low spot in the tank. Granted that since our inlet is
>>> obviously REALLY close to the low spot, it probably doesn't matter
>>> much, but just in concept, I don't know that bottom feeding on the
>>> tank is such a great normal routine.
>>>
>>> Second, at least on my EFIS I have each tank set to alarm below a
>>> certain point. If I flew one to empty as a routine, I'd have to
>>> silence an alarm, and I don't want to get in the habit of
>>> routinely silencing something like that if I can avoid it.
>>>
>>> Third, like Jim mentioned, it's nice to have a few gallons in that
>>> tank that you just don't use, because those can be used to fall
>>> back on later. What if suddenly your 2nd and final tank swallows a
>>> gob of water that won't run through and your engine dies? If you
>>> have even a couple gallons available, you can make it quite a few
>>> more miles to get to an airport. I'd always leave 5 gallons just
>>> so you have an "out".
>>>
>>> And last, I did a write up once, but on one IFR flight in IMC, I
>>> noticed my tank was using fuel faster than normal. Stupid me, I
>>> switched to the OTHER tank, well...it wasn't stupid exactly, but
>>> that helped me identify that indeed with the tank shut off I was
>>> draining fuel still. But what I SHOULD have done is after
>>> verifying, switched back to that tank and used it up...rather than
>>> waste all that fuel. I had sumped the tanks in the rain and with
>>> all the rain coming down, didn't notice the sump was still
>>> dripping and wasn't sealed well. If I would have been using my
>>> opposite tank, and I used it to empty, I could have put myself into
>>> a situation where I had one empty tank and a problem (leak) with
>>> the other.
>>>
>>> Anyway, not really wanting to nit pick on a procedure, since
>>> everyone can have their own, but I thought I'd point out a couple
>>> of things on it as to why it's probably best to keep a few gallons
>>> in there.
>>>
>>> I do know what you mean though. I know people that religiously
>>> switch tanks every 30 minutes. That's fine, no problem there, but I
>>> myself would rather maybe burn the top 10 gallons off one tank,
>>> then suck 23 gallons out of the 2nd tank, and then burn my last 13
>>> gallons off the original tank. Less switching, and like you, I
>>> like to burn a pile of my fuel off and then have a good amount in
>>> my final tank so I can easily figure that I'll make my home stretch
>>> without needing to swap back to that lower tank again.
>>>
>>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD do not archive
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/22/2010 8:33 AM, Jesse Saint wrote:
>>>> --> RV10-List message posted by: Jesse
>>>> Saint<jesse@saintaviation.com>
>>>>
>>>> I think each person probably has their personal limit on this.
>>>> Personally, I would much rather have 14 gallons in one tank than
>>>> 7 gallons in each, maybe unless conditions are perfectly smooth.
>>>> Even when flying a 172, on a long trip, I'll burn out of both
>>>> tanks to verify everything is working in the system, but will
>>>> burn one tank down until I start losing fuel pressure and then
>>>> switch so I know all of my fuel is available from the current
>>>> tank (and it also helps to verify how much fuel I have - see if
>>>> my calculations are correct, which isn't as much of an issue in
>>>> the -10). I do this at altitude so, if there's some kind of
>>>> hickup, there would be plenty of time to get it worked out. I
>>>> don't think I've ever taken the -10 to the point of losing fuel
>>>> pressure, but I've taken it to the point where the float reads
>>>> zero and the flow meter agrees.
>>>>
>>>> That's just the way I do it, and I don't like to get on the
>>>> ground with less than 10 gallons, but all of that on one side if
>>>> I do get that low.
>>>>
>>>> Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse@saintaviation.com C:
>>>> 352-427-0285 F: 815-377-3694
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 22, 2010, at 2:37 AM, AirMike wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> --> RV10-List message posted by:
>>>>> "AirMike"<Mikeabel@Pacbell.net>
>>>>>
>>>>> In re-analyzing my numbers from my trip to OSH - felt that it
>>>>> is best to be on the ground when you have less than 7 gallons
>>>>> in each tank. I have very accurate readings from my tank floats
>>>>> and fuel scan is right on the money. Since a big percentage of
>>>>> accidents are from just running out of gas, I'd like any input
>>>>> on minimum usable fuel in the std tanks so that we can all keep
>>>>> a comfortable safety zone.
>>>>
>>>>> I also need this info as I fit out my 90 gallon internal tank
>>>>> for the round-the-poles flight - ok just kidding.......
>>>>>
>>>>> -------- OSH '10 or Bust Q/B - finally done
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> do not archive
>>>>>
>>>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=309710#309710
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Miniumum fuel comfort zone |
My experience is water does pick up some of the blue dye and smell. I
feel it, pour a little on the pavement. If it bubbles on the surface, it
is water, if it sinks in it is likely gas.
On 8/23/2010 11:12 AM, Rene Felker wrote:
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Rene Felker"<rene@felker.com>
>
> I do not think it will be blue if it is just water, but I do smell it if it
> is not blue enough. I also drain both tanks into the same bottle and pour
> it back in the tank and watch it go in. As long as the fuel level is high
> enough in the tank you will be able to tell if you poured water back in the
> tank.
>
> Rene' Felker
> N423CF
> 801-721-6080
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
> Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 10:29 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Miniumum fuel comfort zone
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: Jesse Saint<jesse@saintaviation.com>
>
> I agree that it would be great to have someone test the descent angle with
> low fuel. However, if it does prove to unport at 2 gallons, then my 8/0
> would be much better than 6/2, because I would have access to 6 gallons
> instead of 4, and much less chance of unporting in rough air, especially if
> I can trim or hold rudder a little bit to keep the fueled side high. As you
> said, the most important thing is that people have a system that works for
> them and that they are comfortable with. For me, it's having all of my fuel
> in the active tank. For others it may be having access to both tanks.
>
> On the water issue, does everybody smell their fuel after they sump to
> verify that it isn't all water? I have heard of cases where someone sumped,
> didn't see the "bubble" of water, and went on their way, not realizing that
> the whole sump was full of water, not fuel. I always smell it. Is that an
> accurate way of determining that it's fuel, or does water that has been in
> the fuel tank also smell like fuel in the cup?
>
> Jesse Saint
> Saint Aviation, Inc.
> jesse@saintaviation.com
> C: 352-427-0285
> F: 815-377-3694
>
> On Aug 23, 2010, at 9:32 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
>> --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson<Tim@myrv10.com>
>>
>> "I would much rather be flying with 8 gallons in one tank than
>> 4 gallons in each. I think that's the issue."
>>
>> I kind of agree with that statement, mainly from the standpoint
>> of fuel unporting during landing. I don't know that the best
>> balance would be 8/0 as opposed to 4/4, but I agree with your
>> point. Actually, when I do land with less fuel, it's usually
>> 7/5 or something of that nature, so in theory I agree...I only
>> want one tank to be near the bottom. Our comfort with "bottom"
>> is just a little different. With the totalizers and the high
>> accuracy we have though, it's probably practical to be able
>> to go 6/2 on that split that you mention...that way there's
>> enough to finish a landing if needed, with bare minimum fuel,
>> but still plan to finish the flight with 6 gallons in the
>> active tank.
>>
>> I probably, considering the accuracy of my totalizer, take
>> conservative fuel planning a little far in that I don't think
>> I've ever landed with less than 10 gallons in the RV-10,
>> but I suppose if you're going to err, the high side is
>> probably good. Not that what you're doing is an err. :)
>> There are more airports in your neck of the woods than mine,
>> too, to use as alternates. And, I feel MUCH better about
>> cutting fuel close on my trip to my home airport than
>> I do when I'm landing at somewhere unfamiliar. I know
>> how quick I can get on the ground at my home base.
>>
>> The one point I made about useable fuel though that I think
>> is real important is the one about tank angle and useable
>> fuel. I know my floats drop maybe 2-3 gallons or so when I
>> transition from cruise to descent with lower fuel levels.
>> I think it would be a good test if someone burned a tank down
>> to, say 4 gallons, and then did a series of climbs to
>> 10,000 AGL and switched to that tank and did a descent,
>> and waited for the fuel to run out. It may take a while to
>> burn 4 gallons at descent power, but some day one of us
>> should find out what minimum fuel is at descent angle.
>> Knowing where the fuel pickup is, I can see that perhaps
>> minimum fuel may be a gallon or as much as 2 gallons,
>> depending on the angle. I could be wrong. Many of
>> us have tested it in level flight though with the same
>> results....so I'd assume that one good test in descent
>> would let us know.
>>
>> Regardless of fuel management procedure, what's important is
>> that people have a procedure and plan that works for them.
>> It would be nice to be able to look back in a few years and
>> say "in the last 10 years, never has an RV-10 been lost to
>> fuel exhaustion". It's one of those things that just shouldn't
>> happen to people unless they do something stupid.
>>
>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8/22/2010 10:23 PM, Jesse Saint wrote:
>>> --> RV10-List message posted by: Jesse
>>> Saint<jesse@saintaviation.com>
>>>
>>> I think the issue is more of a minimum fuel& where to have it. In
>>> normal practice, I burn down 10-15 on one side, switch& burn down to
>>> 10 on the other, then switch. Only on a long trip where I may be
>>> down to reserve do I do as I suggested. I personally think making
>>> minimum fuel of 7 per side too much. That's 46 gal useable. If it's
>>> a trip that would need 92 gallons, I would split it in half. If it's
>>> a 52-gallon flight, I would not split it up. Then I would burn down
>>> one tank dry or almost so, then fly my last stretch only on the
>>> other. I would much rather be flying with 8 gallons in one tank than
>>> 4 gallons in each. I think that's the issue.
>>>
>>> I agree that fuel alarms are good and important, but they are there
>>> to remind you in case you forget. On a long flight (like my nonstop
>>> from FL to WI for OSH), my main task is to let my autopilot fly the
>>> plane while I monitor my fuel, using the fuel computer& winds aloft
>>> info along my route to estimate fuel at destination. I then decide
>>> how close to minimum fuel I will be flying& burn accordingly. On a
>>> flight like that, the last thing I need is a low fuel alarm. Also, I
>>> have noticed with several systems that if I set an alarm at 5
>>> gallons, I need to keep the tank well above that or well below it to
>>> not have the alarm constantly going off as the float bounces when the
>>> fuel sloshes. Once down to 2-3 gallons, a 5-gal alarm will seldom go
>>> off after the first time. Once acknowledged& noted on the
>>> kneeboard, it's known& that tank not used again.
>>>
>>> Another thing I do is switch to the full tank one or twice for a
>>> minute or two before I go "dry" on one side to verify fuel supply is
>>> good& no flow restrictions.
>>>
>>> As you said, everybody will have their own way. This is the way that
>>> makes me feel the most comfortable.
>>>
>>> Jesse Saint I-TEC, Inc. jesse@itecusa.org www.itecusa.org
>>> www.mavericklsa.com C: 352-427-0285 O: 352-465-4545 F: 815-377-3694
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Aug 22, 2010, at 10:28 PM, Tim Olson<Tim@myrv10.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson<Tim@myrv10.com>
>>>>
>>>> You know, I somewhat feel the same regarding fuel, that I like to
>>>> burn a lot off one tank and then I know if my other tank is plenty
>>>> full I'm doing great, but...I don't know that I'd take it quite as
>>>> far as you do with it. I agree with Jim, I think 5 gallons
>>>> remaining is a good bottom limit for most of the time. Here's
>>>> why...
>>>>
>>>> First, if you run a tank to the very end, you're going to have a
>>>> little more chance to get all the gunk and water that may be at
>>>> that low spot in the tank. Granted that since our inlet is
>>>> obviously REALLY close to the low spot, it probably doesn't matter
>>>> much, but just in concept, I don't know that bottom feeding on the
>>>> tank is such a great normal routine.
>>>>
>>>> Second, at least on my EFIS I have each tank set to alarm below a
>>>> certain point. If I flew one to empty as a routine, I'd have to
>>>> silence an alarm, and I don't want to get in the habit of
>>>> routinely silencing something like that if I can avoid it.
>>>>
>>>> Third, like Jim mentioned, it's nice to have a few gallons in that
>>>> tank that you just don't use, because those can be used to fall
>>>> back on later. What if suddenly your 2nd and final tank swallows a
>>>> gob of water that won't run through and your engine dies? If you
>>>> have even a couple gallons available, you can make it quite a few
>>>> more miles to get to an airport. I'd always leave 5 gallons just
>>>> so you have an "out".
>>>>
>>>> And last, I did a write up once, but on one IFR flight in IMC, I
>>>> noticed my tank was using fuel faster than normal. Stupid me, I
>>>> switched to the OTHER tank, well...it wasn't stupid exactly, but
>>>> that helped me identify that indeed with the tank shut off I was
>>>> draining fuel still. But what I SHOULD have done is after
>>>> verifying, switched back to that tank and used it up...rather than
>>>> waste all that fuel. I had sumped the tanks in the rain and with
>>>> all the rain coming down, didn't notice the sump was still
>>>> dripping and wasn't sealed well. If I would have been using my
>>>> opposite tank, and I used it to empty, I could have put myself into
>>>> a situation where I had one empty tank and a problem (leak) with
>>>> the other.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, not really wanting to nit pick on a procedure, since
>>>> everyone can have their own, but I thought I'd point out a couple
>>>> of things on it as to why it's probably best to keep a few gallons
>>>> in there.
>>>>
>>>> I do know what you mean though. I know people that religiously
>>>> switch tanks every 30 minutes. That's fine, no problem there, but I
>>>> myself would rather maybe burn the top 10 gallons off one tank,
>>>> then suck 23 gallons out of the 2nd tank, and then burn my last 13
>>>> gallons off the original tank. Less switching, and like you, I
>>>> like to burn a pile of my fuel off and then have a good amount in
>>>> my final tank so I can easily figure that I'll make my home stretch
>>>> without needing to swap back to that lower tank again.
>>>>
>>>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD do not archive
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 8/22/2010 8:33 AM, Jesse Saint wrote:
>>>>> --> RV10-List message posted by: Jesse
>>>>> Saint<jesse@saintaviation.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think each person probably has their personal limit on this.
>>>>> Personally, I would much rather have 14 gallons in one tank than
>>>>> 7 gallons in each, maybe unless conditions are perfectly smooth.
>>>>> Even when flying a 172, on a long trip, I'll burn out of both
>>>>> tanks to verify everything is working in the system, but will
>>>>> burn one tank down until I start losing fuel pressure and then
>>>>> switch so I know all of my fuel is available from the current
>>>>> tank (and it also helps to verify how much fuel I have - see if
>>>>> my calculations are correct, which isn't as much of an issue in
>>>>> the -10). I do this at altitude so, if there's some kind of
>>>>> hickup, there would be plenty of time to get it worked out. I
>>>>> don't think I've ever taken the -10 to the point of losing fuel
>>>>> pressure, but I've taken it to the point where the float reads
>>>>> zero and the flow meter agrees.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's just the way I do it, and I don't like to get on the
>>>>> ground with less than 10 gallons, but all of that on one side if
>>>>> I do get that low.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jesse Saint Saint Aviation, Inc. jesse@saintaviation.com C:
>>>>> 352-427-0285 F: 815-377-3694
>>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 22, 2010, at 2:37 AM, AirMike wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> --> RV10-List message posted by:
>>>>>> "AirMike"<Mikeabel@Pacbell.net>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In re-analyzing my numbers from my trip to OSH - felt that it
>>>>>> is best to be on the ground when you have less than 7 gallons
>>>>>> in each tank. I have very accurate readings from my tank floats
>>>>>> and fuel scan is right on the money. Since a big percentage of
>>>>>> accidents are from just running out of gas, I'd like any input
>>>>>> on minimum usable fuel in the std tanks so that we can all keep
>>>>>> a comfortable safety zone.
>>>>>> I also need this info as I fit out my 90 gallon internal tank
>>>>>> for the round-the-poles flight - ok just kidding.......
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -------- OSH '10 or Bust Q/B - finally done
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> do not archive
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=309710#309710
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|