Fun weekend buying an Arrow (long)

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

Both? Must be talking about Cessna.


Navions only has a "ON (both) - OFF" selector (unless they have optional
tanks).

Well, their point is that, by changing from the setting you flew in on,
you may introduce the possibility of failure. Namely, if you fly in on
the left tank and take off on both, the water in the right tank may ruin
your day. Also, if the fuel selector malfunctions, you may be between
settings and have "neither". I am not familiar with the specific designs
of these valves, so this may not be an issue. Anyway, many of us dont't
have a "both" setting. So, that introduces other possible failures like
the tank you switched to is empty.

Thanks for pointing out the "both" setting. As I said, some of us don't
have one.

As I said, opinions on this one vary greatly.

Good luck
Mike

Mike Spera wrote:

One well known aviation university teaches you to "fly out on the tank
you flew in on".


I take off on "both." If either one works, I have gas.



__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

"Mike Spera" wrote in message
...
Well, their point is that, by changing from the setting you flew in on,
you may introduce the possibility of failure. Namely, if you fly in on the
left tank and take off on both, the water in the right tank may ruin your
day.

True. But how often does an engine fail due to fuel exhaustion, versus fuel
contamination? Seems like procedure should take into account the most
common failure mode.

Also, consider that on most flights, you would have had a chance to use both
tanks. By the time of your second departure, you should know whether either
tank is contaminated.

A corallary to all of the above is that if the flight was too short to check
both tanks, it was probably also too short for a fuel shortage to be a
problem. So, one could rationally worry more about contamination after a
second departure following a very short flight.

Also, if the fuel selector malfunctions, you may be between settings and
have "neither".

Better for that to happen on the ground than in the air, right?

Pete

George Patterson wrote:
Mike Spera wrote:

One well known aviation university teaches you to "fly out on the tank
you flew in on".


I take off on "both." If either one works, I have gas.

Doesn't that also mean that if one of the tanks is contaminated, you're going to
draw the contamination into the engine, with no option of switching to a good
tank (or, at least, you don't know which tank to switch to).

Easy for you, George. The Archer doesn't have that position on the valve
:-(

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)


"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:beF7e.5519$4v3.1682@trndny03...
Mike Spera wrote:
One well known aviation university teaches you to "fly out on the tank
you flew in on".

I take off on "both." If either one works, I have gas.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

One helpful point:

When changing fuel tanks, keep your hand on the fuel selector valve for
about 30 more seconds and monitor the fuel pressure gauge.

If the fuel pressure drops or the engine quits your hand will already be on
the valve to re-select the good tank.

In my childhood I flew a Beaver amphibian out of King Salmon. The procedure
to maximize the available fuel was to run the tanks dry from the rear to the
front. A beaver has fuel in the belly in two tanks (a bad place and most
Beaver crashes involve fire.)
I could rest my hand on the fuel selector valve and watch the fuel pressure
gauge. Once the fuel pressure just started to drop the tank could be
switched quickly without the engine quitting.



Karl
"Curator"
N185KG

Mike Spera wrote in message ...
One well known aviation university teaches you to "fly out on the tank
you flew in on". The theory being that takeoff is not the time to "test"
whether a tank you just switched to is blocked, the fuel valve
malfunctioned, a tank is empty (cuz you forgot to check it), a tank you
just switched to is full of water, etc.

Pretty poor theory. It's a haphazardway of avoiding actually managing
your fuel. I'm more of a measure, calculate type of guy myself. I keep
a log of the tanks in flight in my Mooney (I don't have a "both"
selector).
I also don't buy into the "fill the tanks before take off" B.S. You
should know how much fuel you need and how much extra you'll need. I
just don't see putting 8 hours of fuel in my Mooney and pushing around
like an over stuffed whale.
All this reminds me of the Bonanza pilot who declared a fuel emergency
only to discover he had another 3 hours of fuel. He always put 5 hours
in it, but never let it go below 2 hours, he burned 12gal/hr but
caluclated it as 15 gal/hr, etc, etc. All this "extra safety buffer"
just meant he had NO idea how much fuel he had.


-Robert, CFI

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
om...
Mike Spera wrote in message
...
One well known aviation university teaches you to "fly out on the tank
you flew in on". The theory being that takeoff is not the time to "test"
whether a tank you just switched to is blocked, the fuel valve
malfunctioned, a tank is empty (cuz you forgot to check it), a tank you
just switched to is full of water, etc.

Pretty poor theory. It's a haphazardway of avoiding actually managing
your fuel. I'm more of a measure, calculate type of guy myself. I keep
a log of the tanks in flight in my Mooney (I don't have a "both"
selector).
I also don't buy into the "fill the tanks before take off" B.S. You
should know how much fuel you need and how much extra you'll need. I
just don't see putting 8 hours of fuel in my Mooney and pushing around
like an over stuffed whale.
All this reminds me of the Bonanza pilot who declared a fuel emergency
only to discover he had another 3 hours of fuel. He always put 5 hours
in it, but never let it go below 2 hours, he burned 12gal/hr but
caluclated it as 15 gal/hr, etc, etc. All this "extra safety buffer"
just meant he had NO idea how much fuel he had.

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182044-1.html
August 9, 1998

Pelican's Perch #7:
Run That Fuel Tank Dry!

AVweb's John Deakin takes aim at yet another OWT (Old Wive's Tale). While
running a fuel tank dry in your recip powered plane may serve to increase
your heart rate, John explains why it's not such a bad thing at all, and it
is probably a really good idea for most of us. In fact, John explains why
it's one of the first things you ought to do with a new plane and how it
could save your life someday.

Matt Barrow wrote:
AVweb's John Deakin takes aim at yet another OWT (Old Wive's Tale). While
running a fuel tank dry in your recip powered plane may serve to increase
your heart rate, John explains why it's not such a bad thing at all, and it
is probably a really good idea for most of us. In fact, John explains why
it's one of the first things you ought to do with a new plane and how it
could save your life someday.


Flying the old Cherokee Six with four fuel tanks, you'd end up with almost 10
gallons unusable if you didn't run a tank dry occasionally. I tried to never
let it happen with passengers on board. Screwed up once though... probably
scared the hell out of them though nobody said anything about it once I'd
explained what had happened. Mea culpa.


--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote in message
. com...
Matt Barrow wrote:
AVweb's John Deakin takes aim at yet another OWT (Old Wive's Tale). While
running a fuel tank dry in your recip powered plane may serve to increase
your heart rate, John explains why it's not such a bad thing at all, and
it
is probably a really good idea for most of us. In fact, John explains why
it's one of the first things you ought to do with a new plane and how it
could save your life someday.


Flying the old Cherokee Six with four fuel tanks, you'd end up with almost
10 gallons unusable if you didn't run a tank dry occasionally. I tried to
never let it happen with passengers on board. Screwed up once though...
probably scared the hell out of them though nobody said anything about it
once I'd explained what had happened. Mea culpa.


--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

I remember one time in a light twin. I decided to run the auxilliary tanks
dry before returning to the mains so that I would have all of my remaining
fuel in the mains for the approach and landing. I flew an hour on the mains
to get some dump space for the overflow from the injectors and then switched
to the aux tanks. After churning along on the auxs for some little time the
right engine quit. As I was reaching for the fuel selector to switch it
back to the main the left engine quit. The sudden total cessation of engine
noise in midtrip got my passengers rather upset until I got them both making
appropriate noises again and explained to them what had happened and why I
did it that way. :-) Mea Maxima Culpa ...

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )



VE