Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:28 AM - Re: Unuseable Full (Linn Walters)
2. 05:51 AM - Re: Unuseable Full (Don McDonald)
3. 05:51 AM - Spider Identification (Vernon Franklin)
4. 06:20 AM - Re: Unuseable Full (Tim Olson)
5. 07:08 AM - Re: Spider Identification (David Saylor)
6. 07:17 AM - Re: Spider Identification (Lenny Iszak)
7. 08:21 AM - Re: Unuseable Full (Kelly McMullen)
8. 08:25 AM - Re: Re: Spider Identification (Don Orrick)
9. 08:35 AM - Re: Unuseable Full (Tim Olson)
10. 08:35 AM - Re: Unuseable Full (John Cox)
11. 08:56 AM - Re: Unuseable Full (Rene)
12. 09:13 AM - Re: Unuseable Full (Tim Olson)
13. 09:25 AM - Re: Unuseable Full (Berck E. Nash)
14. 09:29 AM - Slips and full flaps (Kelly McMullen)
15. 09:54 AM - Re: Unuseable Full (Kelly McMullen)
16. 10:02 AM - Re: Spider Identification (Bob Turner)
17. 10:13 AM - Re: Re: Spider Identification (Tim Olson)
18. 01:10 PM - Re: Unuseable Full (Linn Walters)
19. 02:31 PM - Re: Re: Spider Identification (John MacCallum)
20. 02:38 PM - Re: Unuseable Full (Bob Turner)
21. 05:51 PM - Re: Re: Unuseable Full (John MacCallum)
22. 06:19 PM - Re: Re: Unuseable Full (Marcus Cooper)
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: Unuseable Full |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=
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: Unuseable Full |
Hopefully, if you're, for whatever reason, running right down to the last d
rop, you won't=C2-be doing anything wierd, other than landing the airplan
e. =C2-I purposely ran a tank dry, at very low time, for 2 reasons, one,
to find the usable fuel, the other to insure the engine would refire. The r
esults were very comforting; =C2-could barely fill 1/4 of the plastic fue
l tester, and the engine fired back up immediately, with no boost pump nece
ssary.Although we tend to flight plan longer legs than most of our RV frien
ds, it's still nowhere near 55 gallons. =C2-Usually use 4 hours, and, if
necessary, slightly longer, but only if there is/are other fuel choices clo
ser in case fuel burn is higher and/or speed is much slower. =C2-We are v
ery blessed to be flying a fast and efficient plane, which makes flight pla
nning a whole lot easier.I usually start the flight planning at around 600n
m..... looking for the cheapest fuel, at the highest possible airport. =C2
-You'll save fuel and time being able to decend and climb out 5,000' inst
ead of 10,000'.=C2-Don McDonaldComing up on 1,000 hours and still enjoyin
g every damn minute.In an attempt to share the fun, I now have had over 275
"different" passengers.
From: Jim Beyer <fehdxlbb@gmail.com>
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 12:52 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Unuseable Full
How much is unusable in a takeoff/go-around attitude?=C2- Or a cross-wind
slip to landing?=C2- That's the value we all should really be seeking an
d using to flight plan.
Fly safe,
Jim
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 28, 2017, at 00:23, Albert <ibspud@roadrunner.com> wrote:
>
>
> I have 8 oz in one tank and 9 in the other of unusable full when tanks we
re
> drained while sitting on the ramp. Aircraft was in level cruise flight an
d
> tank was used in flight until fuel pressure started to drop. Switched tan
ks,
> landed and drained tank. Very small amount of unusable fuel=C2- but mak
es me
> aware of the need to frequently check tanks for water/other contamination
.
> Anyone else have numbers?
> Albert Gardner
> RV-10 N991RV
> Yuma, AZ
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
S -
WIKI -
-
=C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
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: | Spider Identification |
Could someone help me identify what this GAGE connection is? How should I
terminate it?
Is this an overflow?
Thanks!
[image: Inline image 1]
--
Vernon Franklin
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: Unuseable Full |
I somewhat agree. I think Jim's general concept is correct...you
wouldn't want to flight plan with an amount of fuel that is
expected to be available but may not be under certain conditions.
But, at the same time, you can't really try to simulate the
most extreme situations and come up with a reliable number.
First, let me say that when I did my test, I got maybe a
pop-can's worth of fuel out after flying them empty.
That was in level flight. Also, I just saw someone posted
on the RV-14 forum that they got between .1 and .2 gallons
remaining doing the same thing. A pop can is 12oz, which
is also .1 gallons. So, we can basically know that
there is almost zero unusable fuel in the RV-10/14 design
of wing tanks. 12oz isn't enough for me to say counts
for anything. I certainly can't top my tanks off to within
12oz every time, given uneven pavement and such.
So in the RV-10, I just consider all fuel to be
labeled "useable".
But, the other thing we know about the RV-10 tanks is that
the fuel port is just a couple inches from the aft portion
of the tank near the spar, and it's on the flatter area of
the tank, not on the curved airfoil. So where Jim
says in a "takeoff/go-around situation", in the RV-10,
that is actually not where I would have my worry.
I think you could actually tap into that last little
bit of fuel better in climb-out, especially if you
mis-applied rudder enough to keep the fuel forced against
the bulkhead.
My big worry, and the reason I really don't fly it down
to less than 5 gallons per tank, has a few reasons:
1) with float error and such, I don't want to count on the
accuracy that low.
2) I have fuel low warnings that come on around 6-7
gallons (each side) if I remember right. If I go below
that, I'm going to be hitting mute a lot.
3) During landing, if you don't keep the rudder pressure
right, or have a crosswind that you have to correct for,
you could easily un-port that fuel port even with a couple
gallons in there.
4) This is the big one... In landing configuration, the
RV-10 tips quite a bit nose down if you are landing
with full flaps. (I almost always do) and you are far
more likely to un-port the fuel inlet when it all
sloshes forward in the tank.
So I really don't like the idea of trying to bring a plane
in at low fuel levels.
In teaching landings, BTW, we all know that there
are 2 ways to do the crosswind correction. I've been
teaching them a bunch lately. You can crab to landing
and then kick the rudder in just before you touch down,
or you can hold the slip correction all the way down final.
Another instructor I know does not even TEACH the former
method, and I am not thrilled by this. I specifically
teach my students that although the slip to final is
easier for initial learning, they will absolutely
want to work to perfect the crab and kick-in the rudder
method. It will be really the only way to help
guard against fuel un-porting in lower fuel situations,
and there are planes like one I used to own, that
are placarded "slips with flaps prohibited". So I
see this as a very necessary skill for pilots.
Taking into consideration the above, that's how I
came to my personal minimum of 10 gallons remaining
for the RV-10. In fact, I think my lowest was 10.2,
and that only happened one time. If I were even
to want to stretch my fuel burn lower, the only way
I would do it is to fly one tank empty, and land
with 5 gallons in the remaining tank....but take this
with a grain of salt because that would violate
the FAR's...the RV-10 in cruise (low-altitude
such as going to an alternate airport) will generally
burn more than 10gph (usually 14 or so), and
that puts you below the 30 minute fuel reserve
minimums. I myself would only use that method
in the most extreme fuel emergency, but it is
a tool to keep in your back pocket.
Hopefully by reading the above, if you weren't already
thinking of fuel minimums for yourself, you can at
least have some food for thought when you develop
your own personal fuel minimums.
Tim
On 03/28/2017 07:24 AM, Linn Walters wrote:
> That might be good info but useless. If you depart or land with that
> little fuel then you're obviously suicidal and in need of professional help.
> IMHO of course!!!!
> Linn
>
>
> Sent from Samsung tablet cruising on the Oasis Of The Seas.
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From Jim Beyer <fehdxlbb@gmail.com>
> Date: 03/28/2017 1:41 AM (GMT-05:00)
> To rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject Re: RV10-List: Unuseable Full
>
>
>
> How much is unusable in a takeoff/go-around attitude? Or a cross-wind
> slip to landing? That's the value we all should really be seeking and
> using to flight plan.
>
> Fly safe,
> Jim
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Mar 28, 2017, at 00:23, Albert <ibspud@roadrunner.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I have 8 oz in one tank and 9 in the other of unusable full when tanks
> were
>> drained while sitting on the ramp. Aircraft was in level cruise flight and
>> tank was used in flight until fuel pressure started to drop. Switched
> tanks,
>> landed and drained tank. Very small amount of unusable fuel but makes me
>> aware of the need to frequently check tanks for water/other contamination.
>> Anyone else have numbers?
>> Albert Gardner
>> RV-10 N991RV
>> Yuma, AZ
>>
>>
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: | Re: Spider Identification |
If you have a fuel flow sensor like the red cube, etc., you can just cap
it. It's used by some installations to display fuel pressure (often
converted to fuel flow) in the cockpit.--Dave
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 5:50 AM, Vernon Franklin <vernon.franklin@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Could someone help me identify what this GAGE connection is? How should I
> terminate it?
> Is this an overflow?
>
> Thanks!
>
> [image: Inline image 1]
>
>
> --
> Vernon Franklin
>
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: | Re: Spider Identification |
I plugged it. Here's a picture of my spider and a diagram from the Silverhawk manual.
vernon.franklin(at)gmail. wrote:
> Could someone help me identify what this GAGE connection is? How should I terminate
it?
> Is this an overflow?
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> [img]cid:ii_15b14f6755030dab[/img]
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Vernon Franklin
--------
Lenny
N311LZ
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467736#467736
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/silverhawk_189.png
http://forums.matronics.com//files/spider_181.png
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: Unuseable Full |
Just a couple points. Most single engine Cessnas have some
recommendation against slipping with full flaps. However, I don't recall
any that prohibited it, and certainly not slips for crosswind landing.
Second, the FAR fuel requirements for VFR and IFR are "planning"
requirements, not a requirement to land with that much fuel. For VFR it
is only a "planned" 30 minutes, which I guess would be about 7-8 gal.
For IFR if no alternate is required, 45 min. If alternate is needed,
then fuel to that alternate plus 45 min.
That said, I too am very uncomfortable with less than 5 gal per tank, or
10 gal all in one tank, and I prefer to plan for 15 gal on board at
landing. Likewise, if it looks like I am burning more than planned by
1/2 way distance, I will start evaluating alternates to at least get 15
gal extra.
As a controller, I once worked a DC-8-63 that landed without enough fuel
to even make a go around to a less suitable airport 7 miles away. They
had an enroute alternate, passed that when destination was still above
minimums, and then destination and nearby alternates went below
minimums. Forced them to fly an extra 300 nm to nearest suitable
airport, which fortunately for them was clear and 80 nm vis.
I can't imagine the pressure of being committed to a single shot at
landing a large jet from 300 nm out, knowing that any delay, any miscalc
and you would crash.
On 3/28/2017 6:19 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
> My big worry, and the reason I really don't fly it down
> to less than 5 gallons per tank, has a few reasons:
>
> 1) with float error and such, I don't want to count on the
> accuracy that low.
It will be really the only way to help
> guard against fuel un-porting in lower fuel situations,
> and there are planes like one I used to own, that
> are placarded "slips with flaps prohibited". So I
> see this as a very necessary skill for pilots.
>
> Taking into consideration the above, that's how I
> came to my personal minimum of 10 gallons remaining
> for the RV-10. In fact, I think my lowest was 10.2,
> and that only happened one time. If I were even
> to want to stretch my fuel burn lower, the only way
> I would do it is to fly one tank empty, and land
> with 5 gallons in the remaining tank....but take this
> with a grain of salt because that would violate
> the FAR's...the RV-10 in cruise (low-altitude
> such as going to an alternate airport) will generally
> burn more than 10gph (usually 14 or so), and
> that puts you below the 30 minute fuel reserve
> minimums. I myself would only use that method
> in the most extreme fuel emergency, but it is
> a tool to keep in your back pocket.
>
> Hopefully by reading the above, if you weren't already
> thinking of fuel minimums for yourself, you can at
> least have some food for thought when you develop
> your own personal fuel minimums.
>
> Tim
Message 8
| 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: Spider Identification |
Yes, plug it or it will leak fuel. I thought it was a bleeder but it isn't and
won't leak anytime fuel pressure is applied. Only I Kept finding fuel stains on
the spyder and finally figured it out.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 28, 2017, at 9:16 AM, Lenny Iszak <lenard@rapiddecision.com> wrote:
>
>
> I plugged it. Here's a picture of my spider and a diagram from the Silverhawk
manual.
>
>
>
>
> vernon.franklin(at)gmail. wrote:
>> Could someone help me identify what this GAGE connection is? How should I terminate
it?
>> Is this an overflow?
>>
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>> [img]cid:ii_15b14f6755030dab[/img]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Vernon Franklin
>
>
> --------
> Lenny
> N311LZ
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467736#467736
>
>
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/silverhawk_189.png
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/spider_181.png
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 9
| 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: Unuseable Full |
Yeah, my Sundowner was one of them that was "Slips with flaps
prohibited". I was told a week or so ago that the
flight training cessna locally (M model) was no slips with
full flaps, but as you said, that may be that it was
just advice, not a real prohibition. Still, my main point
was that I think a pilot should absolutely learn both
methods and then try to perfect the no-slip landing so
that they can avoid fuel issues easiest. The same thing
with fuel minimums...may as well not go with the letter of the
law minimums when a prudent amount will be more. For my
students who solo, I will tell them they must land with
10 gallons or 1 hour as an absolute minimum for solo
requirements.
The worst I ever personally saw was an airplane that
landed on a direct flight from the east coast, who
landed straight in, and as they were taxiing to the ramp,
the prop quit about 100 yards away and they rolled to the
pump....bone dry. That was way too closet.
Tim
On 3/28/2017 10:20 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> Just a couple points. Most single engine Cessnas have some
> recommendation against slipping with full flaps. However, I don't recall
> any that prohibited it, and certainly not slips for crosswind landing.
> Second, the FAR fuel requirements for VFR and IFR are "planning"
> requirements, not a requirement to land with that much fuel. For VFR it
> is only a "planned" 30 minutes, which I guess would be about 7-8 gal.
> For IFR if no alternate is required, 45 min. If alternate is needed,
> then fuel to that alternate plus 45 min.
>
> That said, I too am very uncomfortable with less than 5 gal per tank, or
> 10 gal all in one tank, and I prefer to plan for 15 gal on board at
> landing. Likewise, if it looks like I am burning more than planned by
> 1/2 way distance, I will start evaluating alternates to at least get 15
> gal extra.
> As a controller, I once worked a DC-8-63 that landed without enough fuel
> to even make a go around to a less suitable airport 7 miles away. They
> had an enroute alternate, passed that when destination was still above
> minimums, and then destination and nearby alternates went below
> minimums. Forced them to fly an extra 300 nm to nearest suitable
> airport, which fortunately for them was clear and 80 nm vis.
> I can't imagine the pressure of being committed to a single shot at
> landing a large jet from 300 nm out, knowing that any delay, any miscalc
> and you would crash.
>
Message 10
| 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: Unuseable Full |
In January 1981,Portland had a DC-8 which circled multiple times during a
mechanical issue until both turbines went silent. 11 soles were lost when
the pilot made a choice to continue flight. The landing was on 162nd and
Stark in SE PDX.
The FAA developed Cockpit Resource Management as a result. Discussions
were held of the independent streak of post war fighter pilots in the
decision making process.. CRM morphed into Crew Resourse Management which
places the responsibility of the newer pilots to reach out and consult
every available resource. As a result the safety record continues to
improve.
John
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com> wrote:
>
> Just a couple points. Most single engine Cessnas have some recommendation
> against slipping with full flaps. However, I don't recall any that
> prohibited it, and certainly not slips for crosswind landing.
> Second, the FAR fuel requirements for VFR and IFR are "planning"
> requirements, not a requirement to land with that much fuel. For VFR it is
> only a "planned" 30 minutes, which I guess would be about 7-8 gal.
> For IFR if no alternate is required, 45 min. If alternate is needed, then
> fuel to that alternate plus 45 min.
>
> That said, I too am very uncomfortable with less than 5 gal per tank, or
> 10 gal all in one tank, and I prefer to plan for 15 gal on board at
> landing. Likewise, if it looks like I am burning more than planned by 1/2
> way distance, I will start evaluating alternates to at least get 15 gal
> extra.
> As a controller, I once worked a DC-8-63 that landed without enough fuel
> to even make a go around to a less suitable airport 7 miles away. They had
> an enroute alternate, passed that when destination was still above
> minimums, and then destination and nearby alternates went below minimums.
> Forced them to fly an extra 300 nm to nearest suitable airport, which
> fortunately for them was clear and 80 nm vis.
> I can't imagine the pressure of being committed to a single shot at
> landing a large jet from 300 nm out, knowing that any delay, any miscalc
> and you would crash.
>
> On 3/28/2017 6:19 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
>>
>
> My big worry, and the reason I really don't fly it down
>> to less than 5 gallons per tank, has a few reasons:
>>
>> 1) with float error and such, I don't want to count on the
>> accuracy that low.
>>
>
> It will be really the only way to help
>
>> guard against fuel un-porting in lower fuel situations,
>> and there are planes like one I used to own, that
>> are placarded "slips with flaps prohibited". So I
>> see this as a very necessary skill for pilots.
>>
>> Taking into consideration the above, that's how I
>> came to my personal minimum of 10 gallons remaining
>> for the RV-10. In fact, I think my lowest was 10.2,
>> and that only happened one time. If I were even
>> to want to stretch my fuel burn lower, the only way
>> I would do it is to fly one tank empty, and land
>> with 5 gallons in the remaining tank....but take this
>> with a grain of salt because that would violate
>> the FAR's...the RV-10 in cruise (low-altitude
>> such as going to an alternate airport) will generally
>> burn more than 10gph (usually 14 or so), and
>> that puts you below the 30 minute fuel reserve
>> minimums. I myself would only use that method
>> in the most extreme fuel emergency, but it is
>> a tool to keep in your back pocket.
>>
>> Hopefully by reading the above, if you weren't already
>> thinking of fuel minimums for yourself, you can at
>> least have some food for thought when you develop
>> your own personal fuel minimums.
>>
>> Tim
>>
>
>
Message 11
| 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 |
|
Not to start another discussion....but why not. I thought the no slip with full
flips on some aircraft, t-tail in particular, had to do with blanking out the
tail. I know is some Cessna in my past, it had a time limit and I assume that
was a fuel issue.
Rene'
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: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Unuseable Full
Yeah, my Sundowner was one of them that was "Slips with flaps prohibited". I was
told a week or so ago that the flight training cessna locally (M model) was
no slips with full flaps, but as you said, that may be that it was just advice,
not a real prohibition. Still, my main point was that I think a pilot should
absolutely learn both methods and then try to perfect the no-slip landing so
that they can avoid fuel issues easiest. The same thing with fuel minimums...may
as well not go with the letter of the law minimums when a prudent amount
will be more. For my students who solo, I will tell them they must land with
10 gallons or 1 hour as an absolute minimum for solo requirements.
The worst I ever personally saw was an airplane that landed on a direct flight
from the east coast, who landed straight in, and as they were taxiing to the ramp,
the prop quit about 100 yards away and they rolled to the pump....bone dry.
That was way too closet.
Tim
On 3/28/2017 10:20 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> Just a couple points. Most single engine Cessnas have some
> recommendation against slipping with full flaps. However, I don't
> recall any that prohibited it, and certainly not slips for crosswind landing.
> Second, the FAR fuel requirements for VFR and IFR are "planning"
> requirements, not a requirement to land with that much fuel. For VFR
> it is only a "planned" 30 minutes, which I guess would be about 7-8 gal.
> For IFR if no alternate is required, 45 min. If alternate is needed,
> then fuel to that alternate plus 45 min.
>
> That said, I too am very uncomfortable with less than 5 gal per tank,
> or
> 10 gal all in one tank, and I prefer to plan for 15 gal on board at
> landing. Likewise, if it looks like I am burning more than planned by
> 1/2 way distance, I will start evaluating alternates to at least get
> 15 gal extra.
> As a controller, I once worked a DC-8-63 that landed without enough
> fuel to even make a go around to a less suitable airport 7 miles away.
> They had an enroute alternate, passed that when destination was still
> above minimums, and then destination and nearby alternates went below
> minimums. Forced them to fly an extra 300 nm to nearest suitable
> airport, which fortunately for them was clear and 80 nm vis.
> I can't imagine the pressure of being committed to a single shot at
> landing a large jet from 300 nm out, knowing that any delay, any
> miscalc and you would crash.
>
Message 12
| 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: Unuseable Full |
Sadly I personally haven't heard the "why" but just see the placards
or notes in the POH. I guess they aren't expected to tell us
the details but only give us the prohibition... I can only
assume that in some cases it's aerodynamic and other cases it's
fuel or systems related. There are probably far better
sources than myself who could speak to the why on various
airplanes.
Tim
On 03/28/2017 10:55 AM, Rene wrote:
>
> Not to start another discussion....but why not. I thought the no slip with full
flips on some aircraft, t-tail in particular, had to do with blanking out the
tail. I know is some Cessna in my past, it had a time limit and I assume that
was a fuel issue.
>
> Rene'
> 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: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 9:35 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Unuseable Full
>
>
> Yeah, my Sundowner was one of them that was "Slips with flaps prohibited". I
was told a week or so ago that the flight training cessna locally (M model) was
no slips with full flaps, but as you said, that may be that it was just advice,
not a real prohibition. Still, my main point was that I think a pilot should
absolutely learn both methods and then try to perfect the no-slip landing
so that they can avoid fuel issues easiest. The same thing with fuel minimums...may
as well not go with the letter of the law minimums when a prudent amount
will be more. For my students who solo, I will tell them they must land with
> 10 gallons or 1 hour as an absolute minimum for solo requirements.
>
> The worst I ever personally saw was an airplane that landed on a direct flight
from the east coast, who landed straight in, and as they were taxiing to the
ramp, the prop quit about 100 yards away and they rolled to the pump....bone
dry. That was way too closet.
>
> Tim
>
>
> On 3/28/2017 10:20 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>>
>> Just a couple points. Most single engine Cessnas have some
>> recommendation against slipping with full flaps. However, I don't
>> recall any that prohibited it, and certainly not slips for crosswind landing.
>> Second, the FAR fuel requirements for VFR and IFR are "planning"
>> requirements, not a requirement to land with that much fuel. For VFR
>> it is only a "planned" 30 minutes, which I guess would be about 7-8 gal.
>> For IFR if no alternate is required, 45 min. If alternate is needed,
>> then fuel to that alternate plus 45 min.
>>
>> That said, I too am very uncomfortable with less than 5 gal per tank,
>> or
>> 10 gal all in one tank, and I prefer to plan for 15 gal on board at
>> landing. Likewise, if it looks like I am burning more than planned by
>> 1/2 way distance, I will start evaluating alternates to at least get
>> 15 gal extra.
>> As a controller, I once worked a DC-8-63 that landed without enough
>> fuel to even make a go around to a less suitable airport 7 miles away.
>> They had an enroute alternate, passed that when destination was still
>> above minimums, and then destination and nearby alternates went below
>> minimums. Forced them to fly an extra 300 nm to nearest suitable
>> airport, which fortunately for them was clear and 80 nm vis.
>> I can't imagine the pressure of being committed to a single shot at
>> landing a large jet from 300 nm out, knowing that any delay, any
>> miscalc and you would crash.
>>
>
>
Message 13
| 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: Unuseable Full |
The older 172s (40 degrees of flaps), will sometimes, after prolonged slips
with full flaps, unexpectedly and sharply drop the nose because of blocked
airflow over the tail. It's easy to recover, but it's scary. The newer,
30 degree flapped 172s will not do this (I beleive this s why flaps were
limited to 30 degrees), but will do some pretty odd buffeting in prolonged
slips with full flaps. Fuel supply is not a problem as long as you've got
some fuel in both tanks and the selector on both.
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com> wrote:
>
> Sadly I personally haven't heard the "why" but just see the placards
> or notes in the POH. I guess they aren't expected to tell us
> the details but only give us the prohibition... I can only
> assume that in some cases it's aerodynamic and other cases it's
> fuel or systems related. There are probably far better
> sources than myself who could speak to the why on various
> airplanes.
>
> Tim
>
>
> On 03/28/2017 10:55 AM, Rene wrote:
>
>>
>> Not to start another discussion....but why not. I thought the no slip
>> with full flips on some aircraft, t-tail in particular, had to do with
>> blanking out the tail. I know is some Cessna in my past, it had a time
>> limit and I assume that was a fuel issue.
>>
>> Rene'
>> 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: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 9:35 AM
>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Unuseable Full
>>
>>
>> Yeah, my Sundowner was one of them that was "Slips with flaps
>> prohibited". I was told a week or so ago that the flight training cessna
>> locally (M model) was no slips with full flaps, but as you said, that may
>> be that it was just advice, not a real prohibition. Still, my main point
>> was that I think a pilot should absolutely learn both methods and then try
>> to perfect the no-slip landing so that they can avoid fuel issues easiest.
>> The same thing with fuel minimums...may as well not go with the letter of
>> the law minimums when a prudent amount will be more. For my students who
>> solo, I will tell them they must land with
>> 10 gallons or 1 hour as an absolute minimum for solo requirements.
>>
>> The worst I ever personally saw was an airplane that landed on a direct
>> flight from the east coast, who landed straight in, and as they were
>> taxiing to the ramp, the prop quit about 100 yards away and they rolled to
>> the pump....bone dry. That was way too closet.
>>
>> Tim
>>
>>
>> On 3/28/2017 10:20 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Just a couple points. Most single engine Cessnas have some
>>> recommendation against slipping with full flaps. However, I don't
>>> recall any that prohibited it, and certainly not slips for crosswind
>>> landing.
>>> Second, the FAR fuel requirements for VFR and IFR are "planning"
>>> requirements, not a requirement to land with that much fuel. For VFR
>>> it is only a "planned" 30 minutes, which I guess would be about 7-8 gal.
>>> For IFR if no alternate is required, 45 min. If alternate is needed,
>>> then fuel to that alternate plus 45 min.
>>>
>>> That said, I too am very uncomfortable with less than 5 gal per tank,
>>> or
>>> 10 gal all in one tank, and I prefer to plan for 15 gal on board at
>>> landing. Likewise, if it looks like I am burning more than planned by
>>> 1/2 way distance, I will start evaluating alternates to at least get
>>> 15 gal extra.
>>> As a controller, I once worked a DC-8-63 that landed without enough
>>> fuel to even make a go around to a less suitable airport 7 miles away.
>>> They had an enroute alternate, passed that when destination was still
>>> above minimums, and then destination and nearby alternates went below
>>> minimums. Forced them to fly an extra 300 nm to nearest suitable
>>> airport, which fortunately for them was clear and 80 nm vis.
>>> I can't imagine the pressure of being committed to a single shot at
>>> landing a large jet from 300 nm out, knowing that any delay, any
>>> miscalc and you would crash.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Message 14
| 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: | Slips and full flaps |
In the Cessnas, it does go back to blanking the tail. I explored that a
fair amount in C170B I used to own. Under the right conditions, full
flaps and full slip would result in nose falling through with loss of a
couple hundred feet. Just how the placard read varied from year to year.
Not sure, but they may have made changes to later 172s to reduce the
hazard. I got a strong burble a few weeks ago on my -10 when approaching
hot and high. Full flaps and a lot of slip felt real uncomfortable and
so backed off on the slip. I was around 95 mph at the time, just slow
enough to get full flaps out and trying to lose excess altitude.
On 3/28/2017 9:13 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
> Sadly I personally haven't heard the "why" but just see the placards
> or notes in the POH. I guess they aren't expected to tell us
> the details but only give us the prohibition... I can only
> assume that in some cases it's aerodynamic and other cases it's
> fuel or systems related. There are probably far better
> sources than myself who could speak to the why on various
> airplanes.
>
> Tim
>
>
> On 03/28/2017 10:55 AM, Rene wrote:
>>
>> Not to start another discussion....but why not. I thought the no slip
>> with full flips on some aircraft, t-tail in particular, had to do with
>> blanking out the tail. I know is some Cessna in my past, it had a
>> time limit and I assume that was a fuel issue.
>>
>> Rene'
>> 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: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 9:35 AM
>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Unuseable Full
>>
>>
>> Yeah, my Sundowner was one of them that was "Slips with flaps
>> prohibited". I was told a week or so ago that the flight training
>> cessna locally (M model) was no slips with full flaps, but as you
>> said, that may be that it was just advice, not a real prohibition.
>> Still, my main point was that I think a pilot should absolutely learn
>> both methods and then try to perfect the no-slip landing so that they
>> can avoid fuel issues easiest. The same thing with fuel
>> minimums...may as well not go with the letter of the law minimums when
>> a prudent amount will be more. For my students who solo, I will tell
>> them they must land with
>> 10 gallons or 1 hour as an absolute minimum for solo requirements.
>>
>> The worst I ever personally saw was an airplane that landed on a
>> direct flight from the east coast, who landed straight in, and as they
>> were taxiing to the ramp, the prop quit about 100 yards away and they
>> rolled to the pump....bone dry. That was way too closet.
>>
>> Tim
>>
>>
>> On 3/28/2017 10:20 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>>>
>>> Just a couple points. Most single engine Cessnas have some
>>> recommendation against slipping with full flaps. However, I don't
>>> recall any that prohibited it, and certainly not slips for crosswind
>>> landing.
>>> Second, the FAR fuel requirements for VFR and IFR are "planning"
>>> requirements, not a requirement to land with that much fuel. For VFR
>>> it is only a "planned" 30 minutes, which I guess would be about 7-8 gal.
>>> For IFR if no alternate is required, 45 min. If alternate is needed,
>>> then fuel to that alternate plus 45 min.
>>>
>>> That said, I too am very uncomfortable with less than 5 gal per tank,
>>> or
>>> 10 gal all in one tank, and I prefer to plan for 15 gal on board at
>>> landing. Likewise, if it looks like I am burning more than planned by
>>> 1/2 way distance, I will start evaluating alternates to at least get
>>> 15 gal extra.
>>> As a controller, I once worked a DC-8-63 that landed without enough
>>> fuel to even make a go around to a less suitable airport 7 miles away.
>>> They had an enroute alternate, passed that when destination was still
>>> above minimums, and then destination and nearby alternates went below
>>> minimums. Forced them to fly an extra 300 nm to nearest suitable
>>> airport, which fortunately for them was clear and 80 nm vis.
>>> I can't imagine the pressure of being committed to a single shot at
>>> landing a large jet from 300 nm out, knowing that any delay, any
>>> miscalc and you would crash.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 15
| 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: Unuseable Full |
Fuel supply is a problem with the older Cessnas. I don't recall when or
if they got rid of the placard which required 1/4 tank for takeoff or go
around. the pickup was somewhere near the middle of the tank, (fore and
aft axis) and would unport with nose up attitude used on takeoff climb.
On 3/28/2017 9:24 AM, Berck E. Nash wrote:
> The older 172s (40 degrees of flaps), will sometimes, after prolonged
> slips with full flaps, unexpectedly and sharply drop the nose because of
> blocked airflow over the tail. It's easy to recover, but it's scary.
> The newer, 30 degree flapped 172s will not do this (I beleive this s why
> flaps were limited to 30 degrees), but will do some pretty odd buffeting
> in prolonged slips with full flaps. Fuel supply is not a problem as
> long as you've got some fuel in both tanks and the selector on both.
>
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com
> <mailto:Tim@myrv10.com>> wrote:
>
>
> Sadly I personally haven't heard the "why" but just see the placards
> or notes in the POH. I guess they aren't expected to tell us
> the details but only give us the prohibition... I can only
> assume that in some cases it's aerodynamic and other cases it's
> fuel or systems related. There are probably far better
> sources than myself who could speak to the why on various
> airplanes.
>
> Tim
>
>
> On 03/28/2017 10:55 AM, Rene wrote:
>
> <mailto:rene@felker.com>>
>
> Not to start another discussion....but why not. I thought the no
> slip with full flips on some aircraft, t-tail in particular, had
> to do with blanking out the tail. I know is some Cessna in my
> past, it had a time limit and I assume that was a fuel issue.
>
> Rene'
> 801-721-6080 <tel:801-721-6080>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> <mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com>
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> <mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com>] On Behalf Of Tim
> Olson
> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 9:35 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv10-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Unuseable Full
>
>
> Yeah, my Sundowner was one of them that was "Slips with flaps
> prohibited". I was told a week or so ago that the flight
> training cessna locally (M model) was no slips with full flaps,
> but as you said, that may be that it was just advice, not a real
> prohibition. Still, my main point was that I think a pilot
> should absolutely learn both methods and then try to perfect the
> no-slip landing so that they can avoid fuel issues easiest. The
> same thing with fuel minimums...may as well not go with the
> letter of the law minimums when a prudent amount will be more.
> For my students who solo, I will tell them they must land with
> 10 gallons or 1 hour as an absolute minimum for solo requirements.
>
> The worst I ever personally saw was an airplane that landed on a
> direct flight from the east coast, who landed straight in, and
> as they were taxiing to the ramp, the prop quit about 100 yards
> away and they rolled to the pump....bone dry. That was way too
> closet.
>
> Tim
>
>
> On 3/28/2017 10:20 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> <kellym@aviating.com <mailto:kellym@aviating.com>>
>
> Just a couple points. Most single engine Cessnas have some
> recommendation against slipping with full flaps. However, I
> don't
> recall any that prohibited it, and certainly not slips for
> crosswind landing.
> Second, the FAR fuel requirements for VFR and IFR are "planning"
> requirements, not a requirement to land with that much fuel.
> For VFR
> it is only a "planned" 30 minutes, which I guess would be
> about 7-8 gal.
> For IFR if no alternate is required, 45 min. If alternate is
> needed,
> then fuel to that alternate plus 45 min.
>
> That said, I too am very uncomfortable with less than 5 gal
> per tank,
> or
> 10 gal all in one tank, and I prefer to plan for 15 gal on
> board at
> landing. Likewise, if it looks like I am burning more than
> planned by
> 1/2 way distance, I will start evaluating alternates to at
> least get
> 15 gal extra.
> As a controller, I once worked a DC-8-63 that landed without
> enough
> fuel to even make a go around to a less suitable airport 7
> miles away.
> They had an enroute alternate, passed that when destination
> was still
> above minimums, and then destination and nearby alternates
> went below
> minimums. Forced them to fly an extra 300 nm to nearest suitable
> airport, which fortunately for them was clear and 80 nm vis.
> I can't imagine the pressure of being committed to a single
> shot at
> landing a large jet from 300 nm out, knowing that any delay, any
> miscalc and you would crash.
>
>
> ===================================
> -List" rel="noreferrer"
> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> ===================================
> FORUMS -
> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
> ===================================
> WIKI -
> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
> ===================================
> b Site -
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ===================================
>
>
Message 16
| 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: Spider Identification |
You can find the fitting you need to cap it off at places like Aircraft Spruce.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467755#467755
Message 17
| 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: Spider Identification |
I think I used a 1/8" NPT plug from something else...they're
available all over the place but something tells me we even
got some extras either with the kit or with something
that I bought for the engine or avionics.
Tim
On 03/28/2017 12:02 PM, Bob Turner wrote:
>
> You can find the fitting you need to cap it off at places like Aircraft Spruce.
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467755#467755
>
>
Message 18
| 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: Unuseable Full |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=
Message 19
| 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: Spider Identification |
Yes I had the same issue as mentioned. Fuel staining the crankcase because of a
small leak from the fitting. There were some spare 1/8 NPT plugs in the Fire
Wall forward kit and I used one of those to plug it.
Cheers John MacCallum
RV10 41016
VH-DUU
> On 29 Mar 2017, at 4:13 am, Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> wrote:
>
>
> I think I used a 1/8" NPT plug from something else...they're
> available all over the place but something tells me we even
> got some extras either with the kit or with something
> that I bought for the engine or avionics.
>
> Tim
>
>> On 03/28/2017 12:02 PM, Bob Turner wrote:
>>
>> You can find the fitting you need to cap it off at places like Aircraft Spruce.
>>
>> --------
>> Bob Turner
>> RV-10 QB
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467755#467755
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 20
| 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: Unuseable Full |
flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com wrote:
> The flap change was done for certification .... has something to do with ability
to climb with full flaps during a go around.
> Linn
>
>
> --
yes, it was done in conjunction with an increase in gross weight. There's an STC
available for older 172s.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467767#467767
Message 21
| 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: Unuseable Full |
Well I ran my Right tank empty accidentally in purpose while in the Circuit at
Bathurst, NSW Aus. When I checked how much there was left in the tank I got 120
ml out of it. But I also had the engine die on me when doing a big side slip
in level flight for an extended time. The tank was indicating 17 ltrs at the
time. It certainly got my attention real quick as I was only 700 ft agl at the
time. Anyway from that event I made a note to myself to not go below 20 ltrs
(5.2 Galls US) on any tank while in flight.
Cheers John MacCalum
RV10 41016
VH-DUU
> On 29 Mar 2017, at 8:38 am, Bob Turner <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com wrote:
>> The flap change was done for certification .... has something to do with ability
to climb with full flaps during a go around.
>> Linn
>>
>>
>> --
>
>
> yes, it was done in conjunction with an increase in gross weight. There's an
STC available for older 172s.
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467767#467767
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 22
| 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: Unuseable Full |
I too strive to always land with at least 10 gallons, roughly an hour of cruise
burn. However, if I'm going to be even close I burn most of the left tank out,
not enough to go quiet, so the majority is in the right tank to minimize any
chance of the fuel pickup becoming uncovered with fuel during approach and landing.
Just a technique.
Marcus
> On Mar 28, 2017, at 8:49 PM, John MacCallum <john.maccallum@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>
> Well I ran my Right tank empty accidentally in purpose while in the Circuit at
Bathurst, NSW Aus. When I checked how much there was left in the tank I got
120 ml out of it. But I also had the engine die on me when doing a big side slip
in level flight for an extended time. The tank was indicating 17 ltrs at the
time. It certainly got my attention real quick as I was only 700 ft agl at the
time. Anyway from that event I made a note to myself to not go below 20 ltrs
(5.2 Galls US) on any tank while in flight.
>
> Cheers John MacCalum
> RV10 41016
> VH-DUU
>
>
>> On 29 Mar 2017, at 8:38 am, Bob Turner <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com wrote:
>>> The flap change was done for certification .... has something to do with ability
to climb with full flaps during a go around.
>>> Linn
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>
>>
>> yes, it was done in conjunction with an increase in gross weight. There's an
STC available for older 172s.
>>
>> --------
>> Bob Turner
>> RV-10 QB
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=467767#467767
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
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! --
|