Running dry?

George Patterson wrote:

john smith wrote:


Have you ever looked inside an old, straight-backed Cessna 182
jumpship? I would wager that they have 1600 pound useful load EASY!


Max gross - 2,950. Empty weight - 1,595.


There's no straight tails that have a 2950 gross weight, they're either
2550 or 2650.

"Mark T. Dame" wrote in message
...
Thomas Borchert wrote:

refueling adds an hour to your trip and the break to stretch your legs
helps prevent fatigue on really long trips.

IF there is an airfield with fuel along the route. Which often isn't the
case.

In my flying experience (admittedly east of the Mississippi is different
than flying out west) it's rare to not be able to reach an airport in less
than 15 minutes from wherever you are in the sky. But, regardless, I fly
a Cherokee Six for anything longer than two hours, which gives me,
conservatively, over five and half hours of gas. Since I don't fly longer
than four hours at a stretch (see above), I always have at least 1.5 hours
reserve planned in. Sure that's more conservative than a lot of people,
but it's just not worth it to me to stretch it. An hour out of my way to
refuel is not that big of a deal. Trying to stretch my range to save an
hour, in my mind doesn't get me anything.


Also, consider an airplane with 4 or even 6 fuel tanks, not at all
uncommon. Leaving, say, 5 gallons sloshing around in each robs you of 25
gallons of fuel - which is at least 1.5 hours flying time. That is quite
a lot. In fact, it could be considered a really good reserve. Except for
that, you'd want it all in one tank.

....
Basically, I fly with the attitude that no matter what happens, I will
have another option. In practice that's virtually impossible to do (what
option do you have if a Canadian goose flies through your windscreen?) but
somethings are easy. Fuel is one of the easy ones.

No, I won't go so far as saying that those that run tanks dry as part of
their fuel management system are dumb, but I will say that I feel that
they are taking an unnecessary risk. That's not a personal attack, just
my opinion of the practice. There are a lot of things I do that other
people consider taking unnecessary risks (and therefore a foolish thing to
do), like riding a motorcycle without a helmet. But, it's my choice to do
so.


Is this thread (and Mr. Deakin) forgetting that almost no accident is the
result of any single issue?

Running a tank dry by itself is not likely to be fatal, as many in this
thread have so vigorously pointed out quite rightly.

But if it gets coupled with some other condition, the restart may not be
that automatic. Since running a tank dry in the air is optional, why add an
item purposely to a possible chain that may already be there inadvertently?

So if you are *absolutely* sure that no other impediment to a restart
exists, go ahead and run the tank dry. Obviously, in the overwhelming
number of cases, no such impediment will exist and the world will proceed as
it should.

How sure am I that *this* time, that is still the case?

I think that I am with Jay on this one.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:2ZwOe.299657$xm3.285691@attbi_s21...

Who the heck flies a plane without visually examining their fuel supply
before each flight?

Oh, wait -- I forgot about those silly *high wings* and that whole "find a
ladder" thing.

Sorry, man.

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Flying can be such a bother. First you have to check the fuel, how much,
what color, no water. Then you have to see if there is air in the tires.
Then make sure all the flappy things are attached so they don't fall off and
hurt someone. No nicks in the prop? Good. And don't get me started about
engine run-ups; they're the worst. By the time I'm ready to fly I am
usually to tired and just put it back in the hangar. (This is not at you
Jay, just seems to be the trend of this thread).

allen

In article , Newps wrote:

This assumes you are stupid enough to set your totalizer based on what
the Line Goober said rather than checking the tanks yourself.

Line goobers and tank checking are irrelavant. You check the pump or
your receipt and that is what you enter into your totalizer.

And if the Goober forgot to reset the pump? Good cross check though...

Hi Jay

You missed #5 and #6

#5. check the fuel level before every flight. with a little research I
bet I could find the NTSB report where the Arrow crashed on its 2nd
time around the pattern after being refueled the night before. NTSB
report doesn't say, but sounds like fuel was stolen or leaked out
overnight.

#6 Drain excess fuel becuase you have been reading the Do you fly over
Gross Thread.

Just a quick note. I agree that running tanks dry on a regular basis is
a very bad idea. However I think running tank dry under controlled
conditions can be very educational and safe. BTW. That is all that John
D was proposing in his artical as well.

You would be surprised at how many students have been taught to
simulate trying the starter after an engine failure and how many don't
switch fuel tanks at the 1st sign of an engine failure.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

I fly an airplane with a 1633 pound useful load and I find quite an
advantage to being light on fuel.

Holy cow. What GA plane has that kind of a useful load? A Caravan?

Have you ever looked inside an old, straight-backed Cessna 182
jumpship? I would wager that they have 1600 pound useful load EASY!

Nope, not even close. The old 182's had the least useful. The newest
182's had almost 1400 pounds useful but that was a marketing ploy.
Cessna just raised the gross weight. The newer 182's(thru 1986) perform
the worst.

On cool days we put five jumpers with gear, a pilot and an hours fuel
into one and operated off a 2200 foot strip. The only "interior" in the
aircraft was the pilot's seat.

You would be surprised at how many students have been taught to
simulate trying the starter after an engine failure and how many don't
switch fuel tanks at the 1st sign of an engine failure.

I had a tank run dry unexpectedly on me; I've never seen myself hit the
mixture, carb heat, fuel selector, fuel pump, and have my hand on the
mags so fast! It was =way= different from the simulations my CFI pulled.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Icebound wrote:

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...

On 2005-08-21, Roy Smith wrote:

Carb ice isn't going to form in a few seconds.

It's even less likely to form if there's no fuel!



Oh?

Carb ice forms because the reduction of pressure in the intake, causes the
air to cool below freezing, and if moist enough, the moisture condenses and
freezes onto the butterfly.

If there is no fuel but the motor continues to be turned by the prop, does
not carb suction (reduction in pressure ) still exist to some extent?

Yes, but the temperature reduction due to the loss of pressure is fairly
miniscule compared to the temperature reduction due to the evaporation
of the fuel.

Matt

Icebound,

Since running a tank dry in the air is optional,


Flying itself is optional...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Dale wrote:
Have you ever looked inside an old, straight-backed Cessna 182 jumpship?
I would wager that they have 1600 pound useful load EASY!

Not even close. More like 950-1000.


He probably confused the useful load with what they usually carry.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE