"Ross" wrote in message
...
Mike wrote:
"Dale Scroggins" wrote in message
...

"Mike" nospam @ aol.com wrote in message
...
"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.
I doubt my experiences are typical. Most of the fuel quantity and
totalizer systems I saw over thirty years weren't operating correctly,
and I was being paid to repair them. Age makes most indicating systems
untrustworthy. Having multiple systems is good, if they aren't
interdependent.

Agreed, and the best way to check them is simply to stick the tanks both
before and after a flight.

Even float rods on Piper Cubs and others hang occasional, or the floats
saturate and sink. Direct-reading sight tubes are probably the most
reliable indicators, but even those can become difficult to read with
age.

I don't trust any fuel indication system.

There is one fuel indication system that's reasonably accurate, and that
is the prop which quits turning when you run out. Where many people get
into trouble is they DON'T trust their fuel indication system until the
aforementioned one indicates zero. I use mine to cross check my flight
planning, and if they don't agree it's time to do something different.

I like my engine performance tables and a stop watch, Pretty accurate.

And if you're flying a 172, there's no reason not to like using that method
as it's pretty simple and relatively foolproof.

However, when you're flying an aircraft that has a much wider variance in
fuel burn rates depending on how it's configured, those figures get a bit
more complicated and it's nice to have some cross checking abilities.