Idiot Pilot Runs Out of Gas - Lands Cessna on I-81 - CAN'T BECHARGED!!

On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 18:53:19 -0400, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com wrote:

wrote:
Many (locals and newsgroups) give me a hard time as I almost always
fly with full fuel, but I'm paranoid about fuel.


Don't let them beat you down. I'd rather fly overgrossed than out of fuel. My

Three, reasonable luggage, and full fuel @ 100 gallons for the Deb is
not over gross. The 30 gallons in the tips doesn't count. I get that
as added gross but only if it's in the tips.

personal fuel rule has become: if I'm worried about it, I don't have enough. I
think it's a fine rule of thumb. I hate flying worried.
Roger (K8RI) ARRL Life Member
N833R (World's oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 20:36:32 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote:


wrote

Put this whole chain of things together, the leaky caps emptied the

I popped the caps off my tip tanks on takeoff. The tanks were empty
by the time I could do a tight pattern. 30 gallons gone in just a
couple minutes. At today's $5 a gallon that's kinda steep.

tanks in less than an hour, they couldn't believe they were out of
fuel yet, Stalled while trying for a restart, ended up in a flat spin
all the way to the ground. No survivors. The largest piece was what
was left of the engine.

BTW even the engine was damaged beyond repair.

Was that the cotton candy pink airplane?

Yup, I shot a photo of Cotton Candy at the pancake breakfast and
headed home. They augured in less than an hour later.

The photo of Jack doing an EAA advisor sign off of some of my work was
taken just two days before.


Nice plane, and a real pity to go that way. I had talked with him for a
while at one OSH. I was sad to hear of that, even though I did not know him
well.
Roger (K8RI) ARRL Life Member
N833R (World's oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Apr 5, 4:16 pm, Jay Maynard wrote:
While this is my philosophy as well, I do have to wonder: if an aircraft is
designed for a particualr gross weight, does consistently flying it over
gross put stress on the airframe that will, in the long term, weaken the
structure?

My guess is that if the additional weight is carried in the wings then
it should have no long-term adverse effects.

On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 00:30:17 GMT, "Mike Isaksen"
Interesting thread direction. Does anyone know what is usually the limiting
performance element the manufacturer runs up against to determine Gross
Weight Limits?

A thread on this a while back concluded that "go-around performance in the
landing configuration" was usually the determining factor. Another poster
cited service ceiling as being limiting. Anyone point to a researchable doc?

It could be any of a number of things. It could be go-around
performance. Service ceiling is unlikely, as AFAIK there's no
regulatory requirement for that. More often it's structural,
determined by airframe stresses at the the limit load factors. For
the new LSA class it's an arbitrary limit of 1320 lbs.

-Dana

--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The lion and the lamb may lie down together, but the lamb won't get much sleep.

On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 20:44:33 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote:

From the reading that I have done, the air loads for an over gross airplane
are less than a plane that is light. This is from the idea that calculated
maneuvering speeds (speeds allowed in turbulence) are allowed to be higher
with a heavy airplane.

From a simplified point of view, the highly loaded wing will slip (mushing
instead of grabbing a good bite of the air) when loaded, producing less G
than a light airplane with the wing grabbing the air easily, and changing
directions quickly, producing more G's.

Taking off on a rough field while heavy or landing heavy could still hurt
the airplane, I guess, though.

What do you all think? Is this a valid line of thought?

No.

The maneuvering speed is the speed at which the wing at CLmax (just
before it stalls, talking accelerated stall here) won't exceed the
design load factor.

It isn't really about the G's... the aircraft's structure is designed
to not fail at the design load factor (e.g. +4.4 for utility category,
etc.). A lightly loaded aircraft can actually safely pull more G's
than a heavily loaded aircraft while not exceeding the structural
limits, but the speed at which the structure can be overloaded is the
same.

If all the variable load was carried in the fuselage (i.e. no wing
tanks) then the maneuvering speed would be the same regardless of
loading. Moving the weight outboard in the wings would change the
stress distribution and, depending on the design, could well increase
the acceptable maneuvering speed, but it's not a blanket statement...
nor is it a matter of a "highly loaded wing slipping".

-Dana
--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The lion and the lamb may lie down together, but the lamb won't get much sleep.

On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 18:49:49 -0400, B A R R Y
wrote:

On a side note...

Dana, My plane has been grounded since Jan. 20, due to a bad jump
start by my co-owner... Airworthy soon!

Eek! What happened? Sounds like he shoulda used the "Armstrong"
starter!

My plane's at Goodspeed now, until my name makes it to the top of the
list at Chester.

-Dana

--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The lion and the lamb may lie down together, but the lamb won't get much sleep.

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 22:51:20 -0400, Dana M. Hague
d(dash)m(dash)hague(at)comcast(dot)net wrote:

On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 00:30:17 GMT, "Mike Isaksen"
Interesting thread direction. Does anyone know what is usually the limiting
performance element the manufacturer runs up against to determine Gross
Weight Limits?

A thread on this a while back concluded that "go-around performance in the
landing configuration" was usually the determining factor. Another poster
cited service ceiling as being limiting. Anyone point to a researchable doc?


I think you will find both the go around and service ceiling only
reflect the max gross for a particular flight.

If you are into math then
http://www.auf.asn.au/scratchbuilder/far23.htm should give far more
than any of us really want to know about limiting factors.

It could be any of a number of things. It could be go-around
performance. Service ceiling is unlikely, as AFAIK there's no
regulatory requirement for that. More often it's structural,
determined by airframe stresses at the the limit load factors. For
the new LSA class it's an arbitrary limit of 1320 lbs.

-Dana

--
Roger (K8RI) ARRL Life Member
N833R (World's oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On 2008-04-08, Dana M Hague wrote:
It could be any of a number of things. It could be go-around
performance. Service ceiling is unlikely, as AFAIK there's no
regulatory requirement for that. More often it's structural,
determined by airframe stresses at the the limit load factors. For
the new LSA class it's an arbitrary limit of 1320 lbs.

Well, it was set arbitrarily by the FAA, but for aircraft designed to that
limit (such as the Zodiac XL), how much effect does it have on the
structural design?
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

Dana M. Hague wrote:
On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 18:49:49 -0400, B A R R Y
wrote:

On a side note...

Dana, My plane has been grounded since Jan. 20, due to a bad jump
start by my co-owner... Airworthy soon!

Eek! What happened? Sounds like he shoulda used the "Armstrong"
starter!

A jump start with the alternator switch ON. He got an $800 checklist
usage lesson. There's a specific "external power" checklist in the POH
that he didn't use. He had jumped it before, using his F150 for power
with no issues. This time, it was an FBO tug capable of much more juice
than the pickup. As soon as he turned the key, every breaker in the
plane tripped. Inline fuses in the tail and tip strobes also blew.
Fortunately, we have an avionics master, and it was off!

The $800 came into play when the 2x fuel qty, oil temp, ammeter, and oil
pressure strip got fried and needed to be rebuilt. The oil pressure
gauge was OK, but the other four were cooked. He used a rebuilder in
Lock Haven, PA. It all works fine, now, but the fuel gauges aren't any
more accurate than they weren't before.

We finally got it back in the air last night for six instrument
approaches, three for each of us.

I got to the airport to do the post-annual flight. My first takeoff was
interesting, as the trim indicator must have gotten whacked when the
seats went back in. It appeared to function normally, but was WAY OFF
the actual position, reading way aft of actual setting. Talk about an
"Armstrong" takeoff!


My plane's at Goodspeed now, until my name makes it to the top of the
list at Chester.

Cool! I thought you were only doing the powered parasail thing. My pal
at Windham bent the gear on his T-Craft, landing in his "yard", but it
was repairable.

I always get a kick out of the fact that Goodspeed Airport has a huge
exit sign on Rt. 9, for all the automobile traffic it attracts! ;^)

In article ,
B A R R Y wrote:

I got to the airport to do the post-annual flight. My first takeoff was
interesting, as the trim indicator must have gotten whacked when the
seats went back in. It appeared to function normally, but was WAY OFF
the actual position, reading way aft of actual setting. Talk about an
"Armstrong" takeoff!

I always visually check the trim mechanism. Set the trim wheel in the
cockpit to the neutral position. Then, during the walk-around, hold the
elevator parallel with the longitudinal axis of the airplane and observe
that the anti-servo tab is fair with the main elevator surface. If the
trim indicator is "whacked", it will be immediately obvious that the trim
tab isn't in the right place.

You didn't say what kind of plane you've got, so you may or may not be able
to do this. For example, on a V-tail, there's no obvious reference plane
to hold the rudervators parallel to (and pushing them around by hand may
not be good for them). But on many types, it's a trivial check.