If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"zatatime" wrote in message
I think that there's a certain measure of hyperbole involved. This has happened plenty of times and the fuel doesn't drain at that rate. But I don't doubt that it was a sobering experience. No hyperbole at all. Since it's usenet, of course you're entitled to your opinion, but what I saw was not part of usenet, nor were any of the other witnesses. I'm sure each airplane is different due to the amount of lift generated, and other factors. This airplane lost most of its fuel once around the patch. Not each 185. This doesn't come even close to the incidents I'm familiar with. But I don't mean to downplay the seriousness of this mistake. It can easily have fatal consequences. moo |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Happy Dog wrote: I think that there's a certain measure of hyperbole involved. This has happened plenty of times and the fuel doesn't drain at that rate. It happened to a friend of mine in a Grumman. The fuel *does* drain at that rate. He lost five gallons out of one tank and never reached pattern altitude (did a fast 360 at about 400'). George Patterson The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
Happy Dog wrote: I think that there's a certain measure of hyperbole involved. This has happened plenty of times and the fuel doesn't drain at that rate. It happened to a friend of mine in a Grumman. The fuel *does* drain at that rate. He lost five gallons out of one tank and never reached pattern altitude (did a fast 360 at about 400'). I was speaking only of a 185. I'm not trying to make light of this error. moo |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 16:10:04 -0500, "Happy Dog"
wrote: "zatatime" wrote in message I think that there's a certain measure of hyperbole involved. This has happened plenty of times and the fuel doesn't drain at that rate. But I don't doubt that it was a sobering experience. No hyperbole at all. Since it's usenet, of course you're entitled to your opinion, but what I saw was not part of usenet, nor were any of the other witnesses. I'm sure each airplane is different due to the amount of lift generated, and other factors. This airplane lost most of its fuel once around the patch. Not each 185. Correct. I was thinking about 152 vs 172 vs 206, etc. What was in my head was not transferred to "paper." This doesn't come even close to the incidents I'm familiar with. But I don't mean to downplay the seriousness of this mistake. It can easily have fatal consequences. Agreed. z |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Calm down. Nobody's calling you a liar. It can happen lke you said,
especially, as I said, with bladder tanks, since the bladder collapses under the lower pressure and squeezes the fuel out. The dumb thing was not getting the bladders checked before filling up and flying again. Those bladders are held in place against the top and bottom wing skins with snaps like you see on some jackets, and they come undone under no-cap conditions. You're left with a partially-collapsed tank. Dan |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message
Calm down. Nobody's calling you a liar. It can happen lke you said, especially, as I said, with bladder tanks, since the bladder collapses under the lower pressure and squeezes the fuel out. Lower pressure where? "Squeezing" implies higher pressure surrounding the bladder. Is that what you meant to say? This happens just fine with metal tanks too. moo |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Happy Dog" wrote in message ... wrote in message Calm down. Nobody's calling you a liar. It can happen lke you said, especially, as I said, with bladder tanks, since the bladder collapses under the lower pressure and squeezes the fuel out. Lower pressure where? "Squeezing" implies higher pressure surrounding the bladder. Is that what you meant to say? This happens just fine with metal tanks too. moo Low pressure at the cap means low pressure in the bladder. Regular pressure outside the wing means squeeze is pretty accurate. -- Jim in NC |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
The wing root ventilation tubes on a 172 can cause a very strange noise if they are pulled most of the way out. I aborted a take off one time because of it. They noise was low frequency and oscillating, following the throttle and acceleration of the airplane. - Carl - |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Carl Ellis wrote: The wing root ventilation tubes on a 172 can cause a very strange noise if they are pulled most of the way out. I aborted a take off one time because of it. They noise was low frequency and oscillating, following the throttle and acceleration of the airplane. A real hard pushover will cause the vent tubes to "scream". -- Dale L. Falk There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing as simply messing around with airplanes. http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Small plane noise is destroying my life | Robert Morien | General Aviation | 5 | December 1st 04 05:01 PM |
Cherokee Strobe Noise | Jonathan Goodish | Owning | 20 | November 2nd 04 02:42 AM |
Funny noise update | Peter Duniho | Piloting | 1 | July 1st 04 02:58 PM |
Ear plugs and noise filtering | Top Spin | Piloting | 12 | January 16th 04 04:52 AM |
Prop noise vs. engine noise | Morgans | Piloting | 8 | December 24th 03 03:24 AM |