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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
This is why you should never trust your fuel gages
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. -- Regards, Ross C-172F 180HP KSWI |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
This is why you should never trust your fuel gages
Ross wrote:
I like my engine performance tables and a stop watch, Pretty accurate. That only works if you truly know how many gallons were in the tank at takeoff. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
This is why you should never trust your fuel gages
Sam Spade wrote:
Ross wrote: I like my engine performance tables and a stop watch, Pretty accurate. That only works if you truly know how many gallons were in the tank at takeoff. Correct. also it is my plane so I know how long each trip was and I also have a conservative factor. I get a "reset" each time I fill up. On long trips I always start out with a full tank. -- Regards, Ross C-172F 180HP KSWI |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
This is why you should never trust your fuel gages
"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. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
This is why you should never trust your fuel gages
"Ross" wrote in message
news Sam Spade wrote: Ross wrote: I like my engine performance tables and a stop watch, Pretty accurate. That only works if you truly know how many gallons were in the tank at takeoff. Correct. also it is my plane so I know how long each trip was and I also have a conservative factor. I get a "reset" each time I fill up. On long trips I always start out with a full tank. Assuming you have long range tanks, using that method you could always just use your bladder which is going to tell you to land long before your tanks run dry. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
This is why you should never trust your fuel gages
On Dec 8, 8:35 am, Sam Spade wrote:
wrote: On Dec 7, 10:20 am, Sam Spade wrote: Ron Garret wrote: 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. You might want to change that to "gauge." Or not. Gage is a perfectly fine variant. Say what? gage [gayj] noun (plural gag·es) (archaic) 1.pledge: something that is given or left as security until a debt is paid or an obligation is fulfilled 2.token of challenge: a glove or other object that is thrown down or offered as a challenge to fight 3.challenge: a challenge to fight transitive verb (past gaged, past participle gaged, present participle gag·ing, 3rd person present singular gag·es) (archaic) 1.offer something as pledge: to offer something as security against a debt or other obligation 2.BETTING offer as stake in bet: to offer something as a stake in a bet A dictionary will help: From Merriam-Webster: Main Entry: gauge Variant(s): also gage \ˈgāj\ Function: noun 2: an instrument for or a means of measuring or testing: Furthermo Many Cessna Information Manuals also use this spelling. You can too. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
This is why you should never trust your fuel gages
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
This is why you should never trust your fuel gages
Mike wrote:
"Ross" wrote in message news Sam Spade wrote: Ross wrote: I like my engine performance tables and a stop watch, Pretty accurate. That only works if you truly know how many gallons were in the tank at takeoff. Correct. also it is my plane so I know how long each trip was and I also have a conservative factor. I get a "reset" each time I fill up. On long trips I always start out with a full tank. Assuming you have long range tanks, using that method you could always just use your bladder which is going to tell you to land long before your tanks run dry. No I do not have long range tanks, but I know what you mean. I am ready to set down after 2.5 hours anyway. I have a friend that tanks up and can go 8 hours in his A36 with tip tanks. -- Regards, Ross C-172F 180HP KSWI |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
This is why you should never trust your fuel gages
On Dec 9, 1:07 am, Sam Spade wrote:
wrote: A dictionary will help: From Merriam-Webster: Main Entry: gauge Variant(s): also gage \ˈgāj\ Function: noun 2: an instrument for or a means of measuring or testing: Furthermo Many Cessna Information Manuals also use this spelling. You can too. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gage Dude! Give it up: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gauge%5B1%5D Also, have you ever flown a Cessna? Open the POH for crying out loud. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
This is why you should never trust your fuel gages
wrote in message
... On Dec 9, 1:07 am, Sam Spade wrote: wrote: A dictionary will help: From Merriam-Webster: Main Entry: gauge Variant(s): also gage \ˈgāj\ Function: noun 2: an instrument for or a means of measuring or testing: Furthermo Many Cessna Information Manuals also use this spelling. You can too. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gage Dude! Give it up: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gauge%5B1%5D Also, have you ever flown a Cessna? Open the POH for crying out loud. I just checked a few of mine. Back in the 60's when they were known as "Owner's Manual" the word "gage" is used. As late as the 80's, they were still using "gage" in the POH. I have a very recent one, but it's for a G1000, so no gauges (or gages), just "indicators". |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Trust those intruments Trust those instruments | A Lieberman | Instrument Flight Rules | 5 | May 3rd 06 01:26 AM |
Trust those Instruments.... Trust those Instruments..... | A Lieberman | Instrument Flight Rules | 1 | May 2nd 06 03:54 PM |
lighting for fuel gage, oil gages, etc. on 172N | scott moore | Owning | 0 | March 3rd 06 12:34 AM |
Trust But Verify ... | Tamas Feher | Military Aviation | 2 | June 30th 04 03:17 PM |
Gyros - which do you trust? | Julian Scarfe | Instrument Flight Rules | 6 | July 27th 03 09:36 AM |