NW_Pilot's Trans-Atlantic Flight -- All the scary details...

congrats on a successful flight NW... half of me is really jealous and
the other half thinks it'd be too scared to try that even if given the
chance. loved the story though...

i was curious about cessna's explanation of the airspeed problems - you
said "the loss of the airspeed indicator was caused by fuel vapors
entering the pitot tube". how did it get in there? the wing vent is
well behind the pitot, right? i see the picture with fuel on the
nosewheel, did that come ouf of one of the drains under the fuselage?
did you lose both the G1000 and steam gauge indications or did one keep
working (accurately?)

thanks,

todd.

Your noble attempt to champion the timid reflects your view of what
Usenet should be: a place to kibitz with friends. Although many
newsgroups have degenerated to that level, thankfully this one hasn't
yet. That's what makes it attractive and useful. When it becomes a
bunch of grandmas chatting over the back fence, you will not see me
posting any longer.

What you fail to see is that your harsh criticism of anything you find
less than worthy is keeping many educated, experienced airmen from
posting. Your verbal barbs, meant to be smart bombs, are actually
closer to carpet bombing in their effect. And the resulting collateral
damage is killing our allies as well as the enemy.

Please, let's not welcome those comments that would cause the lay
public think we airmen are a bunch of vulgar simpletons and
Philistines who lack critical thinking skills.

First you do everything you can to keep people -- especially the lay
public -- from posting here. In the next breath you're worried about
what they might think of us?

Obviously we are at opposite ends of the spectrum on this issue. I
have history on my side.

I, unlike you, enjoy posts of all sorts in this group, but (in case you
haven't noticed) the posting group has recently shrunk to historically
low numbers. There seems to be about 20 regular posters left here,
which is down considerably from past years. I attribute this to a
number of things, but one major reason is the harsh slap-downs that
many new posters have received when they stuck their toe in the
rec.aviation waters...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 01:40:46 GMT, "Allen"
wrote in :

I should have said the "tip tank" Twin Cessnas. Cessna designed it that
way. If you wanted to return the excess fuel to the same tank it was drawn
from you would need two sets of directional valves; one on the supply line
and another on the return line that were synched to each other.

What would prevent plumbing the fuel return line into the top of all
fuel tanks above the fuel level, so that the returning fuel would be
able to fill whatever tank space was available at the time? There
would be the added cost of labor and materials, and the added weight,
but the hidden hazard would be eliminated.

It is much easier just to tell the pilot to burn 90
minutes out of the mains before switching to the aux's.

It would seem a placard would be more prudent.

"NW_Pilot" wrote in message
. ..
I myself prefer the turtlepac bag systems (Used Them A Few Times) they are
set up to transfer fuel form a fuel bag to a main aircraft tank they are
really simple and work great! http://www.turtlepac.com/collapsibleair.htm
and http://www.turtlepac.com/aircraftferry.htm

There's something to be said for a company that has photos like this on
their company's website...
http://www.turtlepac.com/gallery/mermaid.jpg

Larry Dighera schrieb:

What would prevent plumbing the fuel return line into the top of all
fuel tanks above the fuel level, so that the returning fuel would be
able to fill whatever tank space was available at the time?

This would prevent an informed tank management.

It is much easier just to tell the pilot to burn 90
minutes out of the mains before switching to the aux's.

It would seem a placard would be more prudent.

If this simple instruction is already too complicated for a pilot...

Stefan

Larry Dighera wrote in
:

snip

I'd buy all that if your very last post on this board wasn't...


"Have you ever taxied a high wing in 55 knot winds?"

What useful INFORMATION did that provide?

On 2006-10-01, Jay Honeck wrote:
http://www.alexisparkinn.com/nwpilot's_tranatlantic_flight.htm

Bah, he should have dropped into Ronaldsway, Isle of Man - for a quick
visit. His flight path took him very close to where I live.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

On 2006-10-01, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 16:20:18 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote in :

NW-Pilot, would you have gone with 55 knot tailwinds?

Why not? 55 knot headwinds cut into your fuel reserve, 55 knot tail winds
help it. I've flown with a 70 knot tail wind

Have you ever attempted to taxi a high-wing aircraft in 55 knot winds?

I flew a long trip in a Bonanza in 55 knot tail winds (it cut out one
refuelling stop, too). The SURFACE winds were under 15 knots. The wind
at 9000 feet can be much stronger than at near sea level.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

On 2006-10-02, Jay Honeck wrote:
Funny as that may be, Steven *was* very cognizant of how he wrote this
story up, for fear of being flamed by certain members of this group.

Ever since Steven Ames got flamed to a charbroiled crisp over a loose
formation flight (with a CFI as the wing man), I've always had to resist
the temptation to post about the flight of four we did consisting of a
Cessna 140, Cessna 170, Grumman Tiger and Beech Bonanza. So far I've
resisted because I think I'd be trolling if I did that :-)

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

On 2006-10-02, John Theune wrote:
The modified fuel system caused the problem and those additions are
outside the design envelop of the garmin system.

But a fuel sensor out of range SHOULD NOT CAUSE THE SYSTEM TO BOOT LOOP.
Why should a fuel sensor out of range deprive you of your EHSI and
attitude indicator? The read outs for the instruments out of range
should be flagged and a suitable warning message generated - not the
loss of your entire IFR panel.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de