Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:17 AM - Re: Wet Wings (William Bernard)
2. 05:48 AM - Re: Wet Wings (Jerry Hey)
3. 06:55 AM - Re: Wet Wings (Phil Flaugher)
4. 10:21 AM - Re: Wet Wings (Richard Lamb)
5. 10:41 AM - Re: Wet Wings (Brian Alley)
6. 10:59 AM - Re: Wet Wings (DaveM)
7. 11:01 AM - Re: Wet Wings (Fred Weaver)
8. 11:51 AM - Re: Wet Wings (Fred Weaver)
9. 06:44 PM - Re: Aux Tank (George Turner)
10. 06:52 PM - Re: Wet Wings (Brian Alley)
11. 08:16 PM - Re: Wet Wings (Dave Conrad)
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 |
|
--> Tailwind-List message posted by: "William Bernard" <billbernard@worldnet.att.net>
Phil, I thought a lot about this when I was building my metal wing tailwind.
I eventually concluded that there would be a lot of unusable fuel in the
tank unless the plumbing went outside the bottom of the wing. This was
mainly due to the thin wing and the lack of dihedral.
With an average thickness of about 4 inches and a fuel pick-up in the bottom
of the tank, there would be about an inch of fuel still in the tank,
covering the entire bottom of the tank, when the pickup started to allow air
into the lines. Adding some dihedral would reduce this a bit, but not much.
I also didn't trust gravity to get the fuel up and out of the pickup tube so
felt a fuel pump in each wing would be required.
My conclusion was to build a 30 gallon fuselage tank. It gravity feeds with
no problem and virtually no unusable fuel.
Good luck on going 200 mph on 6 gph.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Flaugher" <phil.flaugher@charter.net>
Subject: Re: Tailwind-List: Wet Wings
> --> Tailwind-List message posted by: "Phil Flaugher"
<phil.flaugher@charter.net>
>
> Thanks for the replies, guys.
> I appreciate the precautions BUT my desire to build the Tailwind is
> to achieve high speed and altitude for long distance flight. I know
> I will need turbo-normalizing and additional fuel. I would prefer to
> keep the cg as close to a non-consideration as possible and I like
> the wood wing.
> I agree that composites are the way to go and we have the perfect
> man for the job (Brian Alley). I do not have plans yet but believe
> there is probably room for a total of twenty to thirty gallons of
> gravity fed fuel.
> Ultimate goal: 200 mph cruise, 18,000 ft+, 1,000 mile range without
> an auxiliary fuel tank. I believe a rotary turbo engine, wet wings
> and a TruTrac ap w/ IFR GPS will do that.
> Can anyone provide me a rough rib template and the distance from the
> first rib to the closest rib to the strut? I would use this info to
> calculate volume available......
> Thanks,
> Phil
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bruce E. Butts" <bbutts@columbus.rr.com>
> To: <tailwind-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 7:05 PM
> Subject: Re: Tailwind-List: Wet Wings
>
>
> > --> Tailwind-List message posted by: "Bruce E. Butts"
> <bbutts@columbus.rr.com>
> >
> > Earl Trimble has a metal winged Tailwind with wet wings. Met him
> at OSH
> > last year, hope your'e planning on coming again this year Earl.
> >
> > I am making a Tailwind with metal wet wings but I am still
> building
> > (making aluminum scrap is more like it).
> >
> > Bruce Butts
> >
> > Robert Ardis wrote:
> >
> > > --> Tailwind-List message posted by: "Robert Ardis"
> > > <ardis_rb@hotmail.com>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Phil, I don't think that is a big problem but gasoline leaking
> in a
> > > wooden wing has always
> > > been looked upon as not a good design. With the advent of
> composite
> > > tanks, it should not
> > > be a problem. Some Tailwinds are built with metal wings and the
> tanks
> > > are incorporated in
> > > the wings. Many years ago, there was a Tailwind here in North
> Texas
> > > that had the canted
> > > wing tip tanks. Seemed to work fine.
> > >
> > >> From: "Phil Flaugher" <phil.flaugher@charter.net>
> > >> Reply-To: tailwind-list@matronics.com
> > >> To: <tailwind-list@matronics.com>
> > >> Subject: Tailwind-List: Wet Wings
> > >> Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 08:27:31 -0500
> > >>
> > >> Question from a novice...
> > >> While viewing pictures it appeared to me that that the first
> five
> > >> inboard ribs could be modified to provide a fuel bay with a
> form
> > >> fitted tank between the front and rear spar.....
> > >> Am I nuts? Why hasn't this been done?
> > >>
> > >> Phil
> > >
> > >
> > >
> _________________________________________________________________
> > > Watch the online reality show Mixed Messages with a friend and
> enter
> > > to win a trip to NY
> > >
>
http://www.msnmessenger-download.click-url.com/go/onm00200497ave/direct/01/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ======
> >
> ======
> >
> ======
> http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Tailwind-List.htm
> >
> ======
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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 |
|
--> Tailwind-List message posted by: Jerry Hey <j-winddesigns@thegrid.net>
If wing tanks drain into the main tank it will not matter if some fuel
is initially left sloshing around in the wing tanks. Eventually as the
airplane is maneuvered, the tanks will drain. Earl Trimble who does
not have a fuselage tank, says that his wing tanks drain to nearly
empty. Jerry
On Tuesday, June 8, 2004, at 07:21 AM, William Bernard wrote:
> --> Tailwind-List message posted by: "William Bernard"
> <billbernard@worldnet.att.net>
>
> Phil, I thought a lot about this when I was building my metal wing
> tailwind.
> I eventually concluded that there would be a lot of unusable fuel in
> the
> tank unless the plumbing went outside the bottom of the wing. This was
> mainly due to the thin wing and the lack of dihedral.
>
> With an average thickness of about 4 inches and a fuel pick-up in the
> bottom
> of the tank, there would be about an inch of fuel still in the tank,
> covering the entire bottom of the tank, when the pickup started to
> allow air
> into the lines. Adding some dihedral would reduce this a bit, but not
> much.
>
> I also didn't trust gravity to get the fuel up and out of the pickup
> tube so
> felt a fuel pump in each wing would be required.
>
> My conclusion was to build a 30 gallon fuselage tank. It gravity feeds
> with
> no problem and virtually no unusable fuel.
>
> Good luck on going 200 mph on 6 gph.
>
> Bill
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Phil Flaugher" <phil.flaugher@charter.net>
> To: <tailwind-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 8:41 PM
> Subject: Re: Tailwind-List: Wet Wings
>
>
>> --> Tailwind-List message posted by: "Phil Flaugher"
> <phil.flaugher@charter.net>
>>
>> Thanks for the replies, guys.
>> I appreciate the precautions BUT my desire to build the Tailwind is
>> to achieve high speed and altitude for long distance flight. I know
>> I will need turbo-normalizing and additional fuel. I would prefer to
>> keep the cg as close to a non-consideration as possible and I like
>> the wood wing.
>> I agree that composites are the way to go and we have the perfect
>> man for the job (Brian Alley). I do not have plans yet but believe
>> there is probably room for a total of twenty to thirty gallons of
>> gravity fed fuel.
>> Ultimate goal: 200 mph cruise, 18,000 ft+, 1,000 mile range without
>> an auxiliary fuel tank. I believe a rotary turbo engine, wet wings
>> and a TruTrac ap w/ IFR GPS will do that.
>> Can anyone provide me a rough rib template and the distance from the
>> first rib to the closest rib to the strut? I would use this info to
>> calculate volume available......
>> Thanks,
>> Phil
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Bruce E. Butts" <bbutts@columbus.rr.com>
>> To: <tailwind-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 7:05 PM
>> Subject: Re: Tailwind-List: Wet Wings
>>
>>
>>> --> Tailwind-List message posted by: "Bruce E. Butts"
>> <bbutts@columbus.rr.com>
>>>
>>> Earl Trimble has a metal winged Tailwind with wet wings. Met him
>> at OSH
>>> last year, hope your'e planning on coming again this year Earl.
>>>
>>> I am making a Tailwind with metal wet wings but I am still
>> building
>>> (making aluminum scrap is more like it).
>>>
>>> Bruce Butts
>>>
>>> Robert Ardis wrote:
>>>
>>>> --> Tailwind-List message posted by: "Robert Ardis"
>>>> <ardis_rb@hotmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Phil, I don't think that is a big problem but gasoline leaking
>> in a
>>>> wooden wing has always
>>>> been looked upon as not a good design. With the advent of
>> composite
>>>> tanks, it should not
>>>> be a problem. Some Tailwinds are built with metal wings and the
>> tanks
>>>> are incorporated in
>>>> the wings. Many years ago, there was a Tailwind here in North
>> Texas
>>>> that had the canted
>>>> wing tip tanks. Seemed to work fine.
>>>>
>>>>> From: "Phil Flaugher" <phil.flaugher@charter.net>
>>>>> Reply-To: tailwind-list@matronics.com
>>>>> To: <tailwind-list@matronics.com>
>>>>> Subject: Tailwind-List: Wet Wings
>>>>> Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 08:27:31 -0500
>>>>>
>>>>> Question from a novice...
>>>>> While viewing pictures it appeared to me that that the first
>> five
>>>>> inboard ribs could be modified to provide a fuel bay with a
>> form
>>>>> fitted tank between the front and rear spar.....
>>>>> Am I nuts? Why hasn't this been done?
>>>>>
>>>>> Phil
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>> Watch the online reality show Mixed Messages with a friend and
>> enter
>>>> to win a trip to NY
>>>>
>>
> http://www.msnmessenger-download.click-url.com/go/onm00200497ave/
> direct/01/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ======
>>>
>> ======
>>>
>> ======
>> http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Tailwind-List.htm
>>>
>> ======
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _-
> =======================================================================
> > _-
> =======================================================================
> > _-
> =======================================================================
> > _-
> =======================================================================
> >
>
>
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 |
|
--> Tailwind-List message posted by: "Phil Flaugher" <phil.flaugher@charter.net>
Bill,
The wing tanks would drain to the main tank with one-way (check)
valves and "sloshing" should give me adequate drainage; air in the
lines going to the main tank should not be a problem but venting is
a consideration.......I definitely do not want the complexity and
failure potential of fuel pumps.
I may be wrong but I thought I saw up to 43 gallon main tanks being
used. If true, and there is 30 gallons available in the wings, a
total of 73 gallons (438 pounds).....thus 6 gallons an hour is not
the limiting factor. I am assuming an 11 gph burn.
You have evidently given this some thought and I respect your
opinion but will continue to pursue this thread.
Thanks,
Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Bernard" <billbernard@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Tailwind-List: Wet Wings
> --> Tailwind-List message posted by: "William Bernard"
<billbernard@worldnet.att.net>
>
> Phil, I thought a lot about this when I was building my metal wing
tailwind.
> I eventually concluded that there would be a lot of unusable fuel
in the
> tank unless the plumbing went outside the bottom of the wing. This
was
> mainly due to the thin wing and the lack of dihedral.
>
> With an average thickness of about 4 inches and a fuel pick-up in
the bottom
> of the tank, there would be about an inch of fuel still in the
tank,
> covering the entire bottom of the tank, when the pickup started to
allow air
> into the lines. Adding some dihedral would reduce this a bit, but
not much.
>
> I also didn't trust gravity to get the fuel up and out of the
pickup tube so
> felt a fuel pump in each wing would be required.
>
> My conclusion was to build a 30 gallon fuselage tank. It gravity
feeds with
> no problem and virtually no unusable fuel.
>
> Good luck on going 200 mph on 6 gph.
>
> Bill
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Phil Flaugher" <phil.flaugher@charter.net>
> To: <tailwind-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 8:41 PM
> Subject: Re: Tailwind-List: Wet Wings
>
>
> > --> Tailwind-List message posted by: "Phil Flaugher"
> <phil.flaugher@charter.net>
> >
> > Thanks for the replies, guys.
> > I appreciate the precautions BUT my desire to build the Tailwind
is
> > to achieve high speed and altitude for long distance flight. I
know
> > I will need turbo-normalizing and additional fuel. I would
prefer to
> > keep the cg as close to a non-consideration as possible and I
like
> > the wood wing.
> > I agree that composites are the way to go and we have the
perfect
> > man for the job (Brian Alley). I do not have plans yet but
believe
> > there is probably room for a total of twenty to thirty gallons
of
> > gravity fed fuel.
> > Ultimate goal: 200 mph cruise, 18,000 ft+, 1,000 mile range
without
> > an auxiliary fuel tank. I believe a rotary turbo engine, wet
wings
> > and a TruTrac ap w/ IFR GPS will do that.
> > Can anyone provide me a rough rib template and the distance from
the
> > first rib to the closest rib to the strut? I would use this info
to
> > calculate volume available......
> > Thanks,
> > Phil
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Bruce E. Butts" <bbutts@columbus.rr.com>
> > To: <tailwind-list@matronics.com>
> > Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 7:05 PM
> > Subject: Re: Tailwind-List: Wet Wings
> >
> >
> > > --> Tailwind-List message posted by: "Bruce E. Butts"
> > <bbutts@columbus.rr.com>
> > >
> > > Earl Trimble has a metal winged Tailwind with wet wings. Met
him
> > at OSH
> > > last year, hope your'e planning on coming again this year
Earl.
> > >
> > > I am making a Tailwind with metal wet wings but I am still
> > building
> > > (making aluminum scrap is more like it).
> > >
> > > Bruce Butts
> > >
> > > Robert Ardis wrote:
> > >
> > > > --> Tailwind-List message posted by: "Robert Ardis"
> > > > <ardis_rb@hotmail.com>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Phil, I don't think that is a big problem but gasoline
leaking
> > in a
> > > > wooden wing has always
> > > > been looked upon as not a good design. With the advent of
> > composite
> > > > tanks, it should not
> > > > be a problem. Some Tailwinds are built with metal wings and
the
> > tanks
> > > > are incorporated in
> > > > the wings. Many years ago, there was a Tailwind here in
North
> > Texas
> > > > that had the canted
> > > > wing tip tanks. Seemed to work fine.
> > > >
> > > >> From: "Phil Flaugher" <phil.flaugher@charter.net>
> > > >> Reply-To: tailwind-list@matronics.com
> > > >> To: <tailwind-list@matronics.com>
> > > >> Subject: Tailwind-List: Wet Wings
> > > >> Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 08:27:31 -0500
> > > >>
> > > >> Question from a novice...
> > > >> While viewing pictures it appeared to me that that the
first
> > five
> > > >> inboard ribs could be modified to provide a fuel bay with a
> > form
> > > >> fitted tank between the front and rear spar.....
> > > >> Am I nuts? Why hasn't this been done?
> > > >>
> > > >> Phil
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > > > Watch the online reality show Mixed Messages with a friend
and
> > enter
> > > > to win a trip to NY
> > > >
> >
>
http://www.msnmessenger-download.click-url.com/go/onm00200497ave/direct/01/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > ======
> > >
> > ======
> > >
> > ======
> > http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Tailwind-List.htm
> > >
> > ======
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
======
>
======
>
======
http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Tailwind-List.htm
>
======
>
>
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 |
|
--> Tailwind-List message posted by: Richard Lamb <n6228l@earthlink.net>
Might as well add another two cents to the discussion.
I had planned to add an aux tank under the baggage floor on the pilot
side. measuring and fiddling a bit, I determined I could get 12 gallons
(72 pounds) in there without too much trouble.
A simple transfer pump from the aux tank to the neck of the main tank
would suffice.
If the aux fuel line is visible somewhere (and transparent) it would be
obvious if fuel were being transferred properly.
That would add right near two hours endurance.
Six pounds for the tanks and pump?
Richard
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 |
|
--> Tailwind-List message posted by: Brian Alley <n320wt@yahoo.com>
I like many have given much thought to the range
issues of the modern Tailwind. Fuel in the wings is
possible. I personally would only consider this if the
wings were composite. A 35 gallon header tank with the
9 gallon aux tank I make would provide almost 5 hours
at 6.5 gallons an hour. An 0320 will cruise along at
200+ using 6.5 at 10,000'. I've designed a simple fill
system that drains from the main tank while it is
being filled and a Facuet pump transfers the fuel back
to the main tank in flight. This is the least
complicated system I could think of!!! There is much
to consider when adding that much weight to the
internal wing structure not to mention the potential
for structural damage due to improper sealing of the
fuel tanks.
=====
BRIAN ALLEY (N320WT)
CARBON FIBER COMPOSITES
304-872-7938 shop
304-562-6800 home
How are you going to win by a nose if you don't stick out your neck?
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 |
|
--> Tailwind-List message posted by: "DaveM" <dmagaw@att.net>
Richard:
Just a couple of thoughts on aux tanks behind the seat or in the baggage
compartment. The best thing to do is keep the fuel as close to the front of
the baggage area as possible--keep the moment arm of the fuel to a minimum.
It is not a good idea to have all the fuel on one side, especially the pilot
side. My W-8 leans to the left when I fly solo, and will lean to the right
when I have a heavy passenger. Best is a passenger about the same weight as
me, then it flies straight--yes I know I could put a trim system in, but it
only requires a slight pressure on the stick under the worst conditions.
When I fly solo I pile whatever baggage I have on the right side. 12
gallons with tank would add almost 80# and you will definitely notice that
amount of weight if placed on one side. Also that amount of weight in the
baggage area will significantly affect the W&B. I have an 8 gallon tank
crossways just behind the seat. It is only 5" wide, front to rear. The
difference in the pitch trim is very noticable as I pump the fuel to the
front tank. I have calculated the W&B under all fuel and loading
conditions, and while all are within the envelope, so long as the gross
weight is respected, the CG does vary quite a bit with various loading
conditions within the envelope.
FWIW
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Lamb" <n6228l@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Tailwind-List: Wet Wings
> --> Tailwind-List message posted by: Richard Lamb <n6228l@earthlink.net>
>
> Might as well add another two cents to the discussion.
>
> I had planned to add an aux tank under the baggage floor on the pilot
> side. measuring and fiddling a bit, I determined I could get 12 gallons
> (72 pounds) in there without too much trouble.
>
> A simple transfer pump from the aux tank to the neck of the main tank
> would suffice.
>
> If the aux fuel line is visible somewhere (and transparent) it would be
> obvious if fuel were being transferred properly.
>
> That would add right near two hours endurance.
>
> Six pounds for the tanks and pump?
>
>
> Richard
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 |
|
--> Tailwind-List message posted by: "Fred Weaver" <Mytyweav@earthlink.net>
Spinner Backplate......?
Weav
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Alley" <n320wt@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Tailwind-List: Wet Wings
> --> Tailwind-List message posted by: Brian Alley <n320wt@yahoo.com>
>
> I like many have given much thought to the range
> issues of the modern Tailwind. Fuel in the wings is
> possible. I personally would only consider this if the
> wings were composite. A 35 gallon header tank with the
> 9 gallon aux tank I make would provide almost 5 hours
> at 6.5 gallons an hour. An 0320 will cruise along at
> 200+ using 6.5 at 10,000'. I've designed a simple fill
> system that drains from the main tank while it is
> being filled and a Facuet pump transfers the fuel back
> to the main tank in flight. This is the least
> complicated system I could think of!!! There is much
> to consider when adding that much weight to the
> internal wing structure not to mention the potential
> for structural damage due to improper sealing of the
> fuel tanks.
>
> =====
> BRIAN ALLEY (N320WT)
> CARBON FIBER COMPOSITES
> 304-872-7938 shop
> 304-562-6800 home
>
> How are you going to win by a nose if you don't stick out your neck?
>
>
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 |
|
--> Tailwind-List message posted by: "Fred Weaver" <Mytyweav@earthlink.net>
Good input Dave... FWIW, Dave is providing real live experience with the
Tailwind. When I flew with an Aux tank a few years ago, I carried 12 gallons
in the baggage area. CG was ok but I was only able to load up all my stuff
and nothing for a passenger if I would have had one. This experiment was on
a trip to Baraboo/Oshkosh from San Jose, CA. At 18,000 ft cruise altitude
running the 0-300 Continental, I was burning less than 6 gph and zooming
across the landscape. RHV to Chadron, NE took 5.5 hours. That was 1055
Miles. I gotta tell you, I have a pretty damn good bladder but that was
stretching my "Pee" range... So, how much fuel did it take to do that
flight? 32.7 gallons. I quickly discovered that the only reason to carry
the extra fuel was for record setting flights. There is no need to fly
longer than 4 hours at a time in a Tailwind. The Tailwind is NOT a Long EZ
or a Berkut, etc etc... planes that have recliner type seating that you can
"Lay" in for hours at a time. After 4 hours in a "comfortable" Tailwind with
good seat cushions, etc, you will still be wanting to land and stretch your
legs a bit. Even if you are burning 7 GPH, a good 32 gallon tank will give
you plenty of range. AND you will still have the room for your passenger and
his/her baggage. BTW, the CG isn't as tweaky on the W10 as it was on the -8.
Last year when Terrible Tailwheel Ted and I flew out to Baraboo, we were
able to fly four hours on 29.0 gallons. That flight was 885 miles long from
Bonners Ferry, Idaho to Gwinner, North Dakota. I just have to say that's
Plenty of range for a tank of gas. Do you really think you need the extra
complexity and plumbing?
One of the reasons we have all wanted to try and get fuel up in the wings
was to allow for more interesting stuff in the panel without having to
modify the tank to provide all the room required. With the current trend in
Com/Nav equipment, the room issue is getting minimized. They don't require
the depth that once was an issue. Radios are still somewhat deep but they
fit pretty good over the top of the tank. I have to say that filling a
Tailwind is a piece of cake with the cap in the windshield. Having to fill
two wing tanks is a lot more hassle, especially for you guys running Mogas.
BTW, Bill was pretty close on his assessment of getting the fuel out of the
wings on a Tailwind. The bottom of the root rib tapers up somewhat from the
wing as it transitions to the cabin. My experience in the Fourunner was such
that I had to sorta slip it a little or fly "ball off center" to get the
last drops of fuel out of the wing tanks. Then had to close that ball valve
before returning to ball centered flight.
Flying with just the fuselage tank is easy, reliable and simple. AND if you
ever want to set a record or do something out of the ordinary, you can
always throw a 12 gallon "Boat Tank" in the baggage area and plumb in into
the filler neck. Only took an hour or so. That included hooking up a Facet
12 Volt pump with a switch to the cigarette lighter socket. Man, you better
have relief tubes that work or you have to have incredible holding power.
That flight will be a Loooooonnng one..
Have Fun,
Weav
----- Original Message -----
From: "DaveM" <dmagaw@att.net>
Subject: Re: Tailwind-List: Wet Wings
> --> Tailwind-List message posted by: "DaveM" <dmagaw@att.net>
>
> Richard:
> Just a couple of thoughts on aux tanks behind the seat or in the baggage
> compartment. The best thing to do is keep the fuel as close to the front
of
> the baggage area as possible--keep the moment arm of the fuel to a
minimum.
> It is not a good idea to have all the fuel on one side, especially the
pilot
> side. My W-8 leans to the left when I fly solo, and will lean to the
right
> when I have a heavy passenger. Best is a passenger about the same weight
as
> me, then it flies straight--yes I know I could put a trim system in, but
it
> only requires a slight pressure on the stick under the worst conditions.
> When I fly solo I pile whatever baggage I have on the right side. 12
> gallons with tank would add almost 80# and you will definitely notice that
> amount of weight if placed on one side. Also that amount of weight in the
> baggage area will significantly affect the W&B. I have an 8 gallon tank
> crossways just behind the seat. It is only 5" wide, front to rear. The
> difference in the pitch trim is very noticable as I pump the fuel to the
> front tank. I have calculated the W&B under all fuel and loading
> conditions, and while all are within the envelope, so long as the gross
> weight is respected, the CG does vary quite a bit with various loading
> conditions within the envelope.
> FWIW
> Dave
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard Lamb" <n6228l@earthlink.net>
> To: <tailwind-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 10:26 AM
> Subject: Re: Tailwind-List: Wet Wings
>
>
> > --> Tailwind-List message posted by: Richard Lamb <n6228l@earthlink.net>
> >
> > Might as well add another two cents to the discussion.
> >
> > I had planned to add an aux tank under the baggage floor on the pilot
> > side. measuring and fiddling a bit, I determined I could get 12 gallons
> > (72 pounds) in there without too much trouble.
> >
> > A simple transfer pump from the aux tank to the neck of the main tank
> > would suffice.
> >
> > If the aux fuel line is visible somewhere (and transparent) it would be
> > obvious if fuel were being transferred properly.
> >
> > That would add right near two hours endurance.
> >
> > Six pounds for the tanks and pump?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Richard
>
>
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 |
|
Richard:
I have had a rear tank in my last two Tailwinds. 25/ 15 in one and my present one
has 33 front and 10 under the baggage floor on the right side with a facet
pump to the front tank. Just like Wittmans set up on O&O.
I love to use it on trips out of Phoenix to Wi. so I don't have to land until I
get half way, in nice flat country. Also I use mogas and save a lot of money
on the trip by getting it at airports that charge less. Like St. John's Az now
at 185 per gal. I can fill up on the way back with that low price.
On my trip Monday to Baraboo, after filling up at St. John's, I flew 4 1/2 hours
into Ks. to an airport that had mogas at a good price. Then on to Wi. just
needed the 33 gal front tank to make.
It is also nice if you fly VFR on top and can't find a hole to descend where you
would like it to be.
I only need the rear tank occasionally, but I sure like it when needed.
If you don't use mogas, it wouldn't be as useful. George Phoenixboo
Richard Lamb <n6228l@earthlink.net> wrote:
--> Tailwind-List message posted by: Richard Lamb
Might as well add another two cents to the discussion.
I had planned to add an aux tank under the baggage floor on the pilot
side. measuring and fiddling a bit, I determined I could get 12 gallons
(72 pounds) in there without too much trouble.
A simple transfer pump from the aux tank to the neck of the main tank
would suffice.
If the aux fuel line is visible somewhere (and transparent) it would be
obvious if fuel were being transferred properly.
That would add right near two hours endurance.
Six pounds for the tanks and pump?
Richard
---------------------------------
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 |
|
--> Tailwind-List message posted by: Brian Alley <n320wt@yahoo.com>
Fred, I really enjoyed talking with you today. Your
insight is always interesting!!! Your backplate goes
in the mail tommorrow AM. If you can work out a visit
Monday, let me know and I'll be glad to give you a
tour of Carbon Fiber Composites skunk works/Lancair
build shop.
=====
BRIAN ALLEY (N320WT)
CARBON FIBER COMPOSITES
304-872-7938 shop
304-562-6800 home
How are you going to win by a nose if you don't stick out your neck?
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 |
|
--> Tailwind-List message posted by: Dave Conrad <dconrad@dwave.net>
Always great to hear your wisdom Weav. I think that fuel in the wing
probably isn't worth it either unless you build the metal wing.
Those of me north of Baraboo in wisconsin Look to you as the Tailwind
Tester! Dave Conrad
On Tuesday, June 8, 2004, at 01:50 PM, Fred Weaver wrote:
> --> Tailwind-List message posted by: "Fred Weaver"
> <Mytyweav@earthlink.net>
>
> Good input Dave... FWIW, Dave is providing real live experience with
> the
> Tailwind. When I flew with an Aux tank a few years ago, I carried 12
> gallons
> in the baggage area. CG was ok but I was only able to load up all my
> stuff
> and nothing for a passenger if I would have had one. This experiment
> was on
> a trip to Baraboo/Oshkosh from San Jose, CA. At 18,000 ft cruise
> altitude
> running the 0-300 Continental, I was burning less than 6 gph and
> zooming
> across the landscape. RHV to Chadron, NE took 5.5 hours. That was 1055
> Miles. I gotta tell you, I have a pretty damn good bladder but that was
> stretching my "Pee" range... So, how much fuel did it take to do that
> flight? 32.7 gallons. I quickly discovered that the only reason to
> carry
> the extra fuel was for record setting flights. There is no need to fly
> longer than 4 hours at a time in a Tailwind. The Tailwind is NOT a
> Long EZ
> or a Berkut, etc etc... planes that have recliner type seating that
> you can
> "Lay" in for hours at a time. After 4 hours in a "comfortable"
> Tailwind with
> good seat cushions, etc, you will still be wanting to land and stretch
> your
> legs a bit. Even if you are burning 7 GPH, a good 32 gallon tank will
> give
> you plenty of range. AND you will still have the room for your
> passenger and
> his/her baggage. BTW, the CG isn't as tweaky on the W10 as it was on
> the -8.
> Last year when Terrible Tailwheel Ted and I flew out to Baraboo, we
> were
> able to fly four hours on 29.0 gallons. That flight was 885 miles long
> from
> Bonners Ferry, Idaho to Gwinner, North Dakota. I just have to say
> that's
> Plenty of range for a tank of gas. Do you really think you need the
> extra
> complexity and plumbing?
>
> One of the reasons we have all wanted to try and get fuel up in the
> wings
> was to allow for more interesting stuff in the panel without having to
> modify the tank to provide all the room required. With the current
> trend in
> Com/Nav equipment, the room issue is getting minimized. They don't
> require
> the depth that once was an issue. Radios are still somewhat deep but
> they
> fit pretty good over the top of the tank. I have to say that filling a
> Tailwind is a piece of cake with the cap in the windshield. Having to
> fill
> two wing tanks is a lot more hassle, especially for you guys running
> Mogas.
> BTW, Bill was pretty close on his assessment of getting the fuel out
> of the
> wings on a Tailwind. The bottom of the root rib tapers up somewhat
> from the
> wing as it transitions to the cabin. My experience in the Fourunner
> was such
> that I had to sorta slip it a little or fly "ball off center" to get
> the
> last drops of fuel out of the wing tanks. Then had to close that ball
> valve
> before returning to ball centered flight.
> Flying with just the fuselage tank is easy, reliable and simple. AND
> if you
> ever want to set a record or do something out of the ordinary, you can
> always throw a 12 gallon "Boat Tank" in the baggage area and plumb in
> into
> the filler neck. Only took an hour or so. That included hooking up a
> Facet
> 12 Volt pump with a switch to the cigarette lighter socket. Man, you
> better
> have relief tubes that work or you have to have incredible holding
> power.
> That flight will be a Loooooonnng one..
> Have Fun,
> Weav
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "DaveM" <dmagaw@att.net>
> To: <tailwind-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 10:58 AM
> Subject: Re: Tailwind-List: Wet Wings
>
>
>> --> Tailwind-List message posted by: "DaveM" <dmagaw@att.net>
>>
>> Richard:
>> Just a couple of thoughts on aux tanks behind the seat or in the
>> baggage
>> compartment. The best thing to do is keep the fuel as close to the
>> front
> of
>> the baggage area as possible--keep the moment arm of the fuel to a
> minimum.
>> It is not a good idea to have all the fuel on one side, especially the
> pilot
>> side. My W-8 leans to the left when I fly solo, and will lean to the
> right
>> when I have a heavy passenger. Best is a passenger about the same
>> weight
> as
>> me, then it flies straight--yes I know I could put a trim system in,
>> but
> it
>> only requires a slight pressure on the stick under the worst
>> conditions.
>> When I fly solo I pile whatever baggage I have on the right side. 12
>> gallons with tank would add almost 80# and you will definitely notice
>> that
>> amount of weight if placed on one side. Also that amount of weight
>> in the
>> baggage area will significantly affect the W&B. I have an 8 gallon
>> tank
>> crossways just behind the seat. It is only 5" wide, front to rear.
>> The
>> difference in the pitch trim is very noticable as I pump the fuel to
>> the
>> front tank. I have calculated the W&B under all fuel and loading
>> conditions, and while all are within the envelope, so long as the
>> gross
>> weight is respected, the CG does vary quite a bit with various loading
>> conditions within the envelope.
>> FWIW
>> Dave
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Richard Lamb" <n6228l@earthlink.net>
>> To: <tailwind-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 10:26 AM
>> Subject: Re: Tailwind-List: Wet Wings
>>
>>
>>> --> Tailwind-List message posted by: Richard Lamb
>>> <n6228l@earthlink.net>
>>>
>>> Might as well add another two cents to the discussion.
>>>
>>> I had planned to add an aux tank under the baggage floor on the pilot
>>> side. measuring and fiddling a bit, I determined I could get 12
>>> gallons
>>> (72 pounds) in there without too much trouble.
>>>
>>> A simple transfer pump from the aux tank to the neck of the main tank
>>> would suffice.
>>>
>>> If the aux fuel line is visible somewhere (and transparent) it would
>>> be
>>> obvious if fuel were being transferred properly.
>>>
>>> That would add right near two hours endurance.
>>>
>>> Six pounds for the tanks and pump?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Richard
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _-
> =======================================================================
> > _-
> =======================================================================
> > _-
> =======================================================================
> > _-
> =======================================================================
> >
>
>
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! --
|