"Dale Scroggins" wrote in message
...

"Mike" nospam @ aol.com wrote in message
...
"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...
http://ronsvideos.fliggo.com/video/uIgc0dP9

This video was shot in a Cessna 206 taking us to a game reserve in South
Africa. Watch the fuel gage in the upper right corner.

This is typical for a Cessna and a few others where the fuel gauge uses
the same technology as a toilet tank float.

A fuel totalizer is a very nice thing to have.

Float-type sending units are, in fact, simpler than toilet tank float
valves, and more reliable. They work reliably for decades. However, many
have been in service nearly forty years. Eventually the resistance
winding will develop spots where the wiper doesn't make good contact, and
the gauge (U.S.) or gage (Brit.) will fluctuate wildly for a few minutes,
until fuel is burned off and the wiper moves to a new location, then the
gauge works normally again. Simple and relatively simple to fix.

If what you say is true, why do quite a few relatively new planes exhibit
the same symptoms?


Do you believe fuel totalizers are more reliable? Or capacitance systems?
Do you trust totalizers totally?

I've flown lots of planes with totalizers and never seen a failure. I've
also seen lots of failures and gross errors in float type systems (new and
old), so in my experience, yes they are more reliable.

As far as your last question it appears to be argumentative. I could just
as easily ask you if you trust the standard Cessna fuel gauge totally, but
neither really deserves an answer.