Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:49 PM - Re: Re: Recently completed Fuel Gauge Question (Jim Belcher)
2. 02:17 PM - Re: Re: Recently completed Fuel Gauge Question (Jim Belcher)
3. 05:25 PM - Re: Recently completed Fuel Gauge Question (Gig Giacona)
4. 05:50 PM - Rear Spar attachment (Tim Juhl)
5. 06:10 PM - Re: Rear Spar attachment (Craig Payne)
6. 06:10 PM - Re: Rear Spar attachment (jaybannist@cs.com)
7. 06:56 PM - Re: Rear Spar attachment (Tim Juhl)
8. 11:31 PM - Re: Rear Spar attachment (Thruster87)
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: Recently completed Fuel Gauge Question |
I couldn't agree more. The best insurance against running out of fuel is to
plan the amount of fuel required for the flight in advance. That would
include planning how much fuel should remain at each checkpoint (on longer
flights).
The fuel gauges should give some indication as to whether the plan is being
met or not, and whether or not it's necessary to land for fuel earlier than
planned.
But the fuel gauges on everything I've ever flown have left a lot to be
desired in terms of accuracy, and really were only fully accurate when they
said the tank was empty.
On Wednesday 10 September 2008 13:42, Gary Gower wrote:
> Hello Jim,
>
> The normal way to do the fuel management in a airplane. is the Flight
> Plan.
> There, with the fuel rate of the engine, the amount of gasoline in the
> tank(s) before take off (fisical messure), the distanceto fly in the
> chart (remember before GPS),the wind direction and speed, we have to
> estimate (less reserve) the distance to fly and/or time in the air.
> In case there is something wrong on our estimate or find any headwind, etc.
> then we need an accurate "empty gauge" to see if we can get to the
> alternate landing strip we previosly chosed in our flight plan..
> Isbetter to be conservative and fly less diatance/time before refuels than
> wait until the air conditioning of the plane (propeller) stops and we
> beguin to sweat... :-)
> Saludos
> Gary Gower
> Flying from Chapala, Mexico.
> "Old pilots I had the honor to know, planned more than 45 minutes reserve
> in all their flights"
>
> --- On Wed, 9/10/08, Jim Belcher <z601@anemicaardvark.com> wrote:
>
> From: Jim Belcher <z601@anemicaardvark.com>
> Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: Recently completed Fuel Gauge Question
> To: zenith601-list@matronics.com
> Date: Wednesday, September 10, 2008, 11:22 AM
>
> <z601@anemicaardvark.com>
>
> On Wednesday 10 September 2008 09:58, Mitch Hodges wrote:
> > As far as the FAA/FAR regulations, I also think there must be some
> > requirement other than "accurate at Empty" otherwise,
>
> wouldn't just a
>
> > placard that says "Fuel = Empty" be sufficient! (Sorry,
>
> couldn't resist).
>
> No, that was even one of the questions on the A&P written - "when must
> a fuel
> measuring system be accurate?" Ans: When it shows empty.
>
> I find this less than satisifying, although I conceed it is likely to be
> more important to know when the tank is empty than when it is full. A lot
> of stuff in certification requirements dates back to when the earth was
> cooling, and instrumentation was not always that accurate.
>
> Despite the physical limitations of installation in the Zenith, of the
> solutions that come to mind, I find the capacitive probe the most likely to
> give me results I could rely upon at all fuel levels. But I'd like (expense
>
> and weight ignored) to have a fuel flow meter also, so I could see just how
> much my actions were influencing fuel burn.
>
> I don't personally find a fuel flow gauge the sole answer. While it gives
> you
> a feeling about how much fuel you are burning, and a totalizer can give you
> a pretty good idea when the tank is empty, there is nothing in the tank
> itself measuring the present value. In other words, if the thing breaks,
> you may not know it until you run out of fuel.
>
> ====================
> Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
> =======================
> Jim B. Belcher
> BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science
> A&P/IA
> Instrument Rated Pilot
> General Radio Telephone Certificate
> =======================
--
=============================================
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
================================================
Jim B. Belcher
BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Instrument Rated Pilot
General Radio Telephone Certificate
================================================
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: Recently completed Fuel Gauge Question |
I've spent several days researching these issues. I've been involved in
aircraft certification in the past, and it is not a simple issue. I once got
stuck with trying to explain certification issues to the upper management of
an aerospace company, an experience I do not recommend to the faint of heart.
It is simply not possible to tie FAR23.959(a) to 91.205(b)9 for all aircraft.
It applies ONLY to those aircraft certified under FAR23, and there aren't
that many. Most of the light aircraft flying today are designs originally
certified under CAR3, and must meet a different set of requirements.
FAR23 is the certification basis for new design, type-certificated light
aircraft, like the Cirrus. Most of our general aviation fleet, such as The
Piper Cherokee, the Cessna 172, and the Cessna 150, were all certified under
CAR3. Things like their fuel gauge accuracy meet the CAR3 standard, not the
FAR23 standard.
As I understand it, there are three possible ways to establish the
airworthiness of a design like the 601/650, which was designed with the
intent of being a light sport aircraft. The first, for factory manufactured
aircraft, is to meet the concensus standards.
The second, the E-LSA, according to FAR21.193, is
"(e) In the case of a light-sport aircraft assembled from a kit to be
certificated in accordance with para 21.191(i)(2), an applicant must provide
the following:
(1) Evidence that an aircraft of the same make and model was manufactured and
assembled by the aircraft kit manufacturer and issued a special airworthiness
certificate in the light-sport category.
(2) The aircraft's operating instructions.
(3) The aircraft's maintenance and inspection procedures.
(4) The manufacturer's statement of compliance for the aircraft kit used in
the aircraft assembly that meets para 21.190(c), except that instead of
meeting para 21.190(c)(7), the statement must identify assembly instructions
for the aircraft that meet an applicable consensus standard......"
In other words, the 601/650 has been demonstrated to meet the concensus
standards. The fuel gauge accuracy requirements for a 601/650 are still
whatever are specified in the concensus standards, provided it was built from
a kit. How far one may deviate from the kit and still have E-LSA
certification is a question whose answer I'd love to know, but I am reluctant
to ask the FAA, because I might not like the answer I would get.
If one does not build from a kit, or partly uses a kit, and fabricates a
significant part of the aircraft from scratch, then one is building an
experimental aircraft, which will be treated like any other experimental
aircraft. There is no standard for fuel gauge accuracy on experimental
aircraft, of which I am aware.
As Gig Giacona pointed out, FAR 91, which is an operating FAR applicable to
all light aircraft, will require that the experimental aircraft have fuel
gauges. But it doesn't, and can't, state the accuracy requirements, because
there are at least four other specifications which give different accuracies
for different categories of aircraft.
On Wednesday 10 September 2008 11:29, Gig Giacona wrote:
>
> Let's keep one thing in mind. The regulation 91.205(b)9 reads...
>
> "(9) Fuel gauge indicating the quantity
> of fuel in each tank."
>
> The must read empty correctly comes from 23.1337
>
> (1) Each fuel quantity indicator must
> be calibrated to read zero during
> level flight when the quantity of fuel
> remaining in the tank is equal to the
> unusable fuel supply determined under
> 23.959(a);
>
> Please note that the word "ONLY" doesn't appear in that paragraph. It is an
> FAA interpretation and subject to re-interpretation at the whim of the
> administrator who, at best, is going to change every 8 years or so.
>
>
> I won't get into the issue about if Part 23 even applies to us...
>
> 23.1 Applicability.
> (a) This part prescribes airworthiness
> standards for the issue of type certificates,
> and changes to those certificates,
> for airplanes in the normal, utility,
> acrobatic, and commuter categories.
>
> --------
> W.R. "Gig" Giacona
> 601XL Under Construction
> See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 3624#203624
>
>
--
=============================================
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
================================================
Jim B. Belcher
BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Instrument Rated Pilot
General Radio Telephone Certificate
================================================
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: Recently completed Fuel Gauge Question |
Unless something has changed there are no E-LSA 601/650 at this time except the
ones that received AW prior to the deadline for certifying non-conforming "Fat
Ultralights."
The reason for this is the mfg of the kit must also be the mfg of the conforming
factory built S-LSA.
For there to be a an E-LSA of the Zenith line then AMD is going to have to offer
a kit or ZAC is going to have to offer a complete airplane.
That said the builder of a conforming E-LSA has almost no leeway. They must follow
the instruction pretty much to the letter.
z601(at)anemicaardvark.co wrote:
>
> ...
>
> In other words, the 601/650 has been demonstrated to meet the concensus
> standards. The fuel gauge accuracy requirements for a 601/650 are still
> whatever are specified in the concensus standards, provided it was built from
> a kit. How far one may deviate from the kit and still have E-LSA
> certification is a question whose answer I'd love to know, but I am reluctant
> to ask the FAA, because I might not like the answer I would get.
> ...
>
--------
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 4312#204312
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: | Rear Spar attachment |
I get the impression that the rear spar attachment bracket on the 650 is made out
of thicker material. Can anyone confirm that? If it has been beefed up is
the new one adaptable to the XL? I'm at the point where I'll be installing mine
soon.
Tim
--------
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Working on fuselage
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 4317#204317
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: | Rear Spar attachment |
Roger was asked about that at OSH. It is thicker but only because it is
narrower on the 650 as compared to the 601XL.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith601-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Juhl
Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2008 6:50 PM
Subject: Zenith601-List: Rear Spar attachment
I get the impression that the rear spar attachment bracket on the 650 is
made out of thicker material. Can anyone confirm that? If it has been
beefed up is the new one adaptable to the XL? I'm at the point where I'll
be installing mine soon.
Tim
--------
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Working on fuselage
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 4317#204317
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: Rear Spar attachment |
Tim,
I'm quite sure you know this, but the rear spar attach plate is .063".
It bolts to the rear wing spar which is .025" with a .063" doubler. It
is riveted to the rear frame channel that is .032". What would be
gained with a thicker attach plate?
Respectfully, "because the 650 has one" is not a very good answer ;-)
Jay in Dallas
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Juhl <juhl@avci.net>
Sent: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 7:50 pm
Subject: Zenith601-List: Rear Spar attachment
I get the impression that the rear spar attachment bracket on the 650
is made
out of thicker material. Can anyone confirm that? If it has been
beefed up is
the new one adaptable to the XL? I'm at the point where I'll be
installing mine
soon.
Tim
--------
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Working on fuselage
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 4317#204317
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
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: Rear Spar attachment |
Jay,
If it was confirmed that the bracket had been beefed up then my next question would
have been to ask what had been done to the attaching structure.
I'm not trying to add to the hysteria about the wing safety, but I have always
considered the rear attachment to be a potential weak point. Since I will be
working on that section soon I thought it would be good to investigate whether
or not major changes had been made in that area that were adaptable to my XL.
I've been away from building since early June so I am not as up to date on current
events as I would like to be. Since I plan to get back to building soon I'm
just trying to get up to speed.
Tim
--------
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Working on fuselage
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 4326#204326
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: Rear Spar attachment |
A reason for beefing up the rear spar plate to say 0.090" would be if you intend
to take the wing off/on on a regular bases.This would minimize elongation/wear
on the attach holes. Cheers T87
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 4336#204336
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! --
|