Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Recently completed Fuel Gauge Question

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Recently completed Fuel Gauge Question
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith601-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

vvkidd(at)mindspring.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 3:53 am Post subject: Recently completed Fuel Gauge Question

This is my first visit to the site.



Recently completed my 601.  During the fuel gauge calibration, using Blue Mtn EFIS Lite G4, I encountered a problem.  After adding 9 gals to each tank the gauge reads full.  I suspect that the float is topped out against the top of the tank.  I checked all resistances both empty and full and noted the change in resistance as the float moves up and down, all appears OK there.  Contacted Zenith and they said no one else had reported a problem like this. I have the long range 15 gal tanks. I bent the float 'Z' shape that Zenith described in there literature.



Anyone else having this problem?



Victor Kidd

Charleston, WV

N922VK

vvkidd(at)mindspring.com

psm(at)att.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 4:17 am Post subject: Recently completed Fuel Gauge Question

Hi Victor,



Resistance fuel senders are notoriously inaccurate.



You should adjust your float so it is reasonably accurate when 

showing the tank is empty.  A full indication with this adjustment 

(and the wing dihedral) should not be taken seriously.  It is 

standard practice to visually check your fuel level in your preflight 

inspection.  This, along with fuel burn planning should be used for 

every flight.



If you want a more accurate fuel gauge you should consider installing 

capacitance senders.  These are inherently more accurate.  However, 

still your flight planning should include planning for fuel burn and 

visual inspection of fuel levels before flight.



Paul

XL nearly done

do not archive

At 04:53 AM 9/10/2008, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  Recently completed my 601.  During the fuel gauge calibration, using 

Blue Mtn EFIS Lite G4, I encountered a problem.  After adding 9 gals 

to each tank the gauge reads full.  I suspect that the float is 

topped out against the top of the tank.  I checked all resistances 

both empty and full and noted the change in resistance as the float 

moves up and down, all appears OK there.  Contacted Zenith and they 

said no one else had reported a problem like this. I have the long 

range 15 gal tanks. I bent the float 'Z' shape that Zenith described 

in there literature.

floyd wilkes

Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 39
Location: spring branch, tx

Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 4:35 am Post subject: Recently completed Fuel Gauge Question

Victor,



I had the same problem.  I have the Dynon system.  After adding 10.8 gal, 

the float hits the top of the tank.



The problem is the 15 gal tanks are longer then the standard tanks and with 

the angle of the wing the float hits the top before the tank is full..  I 

believe the Z bend probably works for the standard tank.



I made a dip stick to check the tanks.  Any gas visible through the filler 

port is about 6 gallons in the tank.



Floyd Wilkes

601XL O-200

Phase 1 complete!!

---

_________________
Floyd Wilkes

Trainnut01(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 4:48 am Post subject: Recently completed Fuel Gauge Question

Victor

 That's just the nature of the beast. Because of the length of the tank and the dihedral of the wing you cannot prevent the float from topping out. It does not matter where in the tank you place the float it will not be able to monitor the full range of fuel levels. The FAA only requires that the float shows empty correctly.

 Carroll Jernigan

 Lenoir City TN

 601XL Working on cockpit and Corvair.



Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog, plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.

  [quote][b]

Gig Giacona

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1416
Location: El Dorado Arkansas USA

Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 5:56 am Post subject: Re: Recently completed Fuel Gauge Question

This is why I'm considering pulling the VDO senders and replacing them with capacitance senders before I mount the wings.



While proper planning, preflight and fuel management is still required it seems kinda cheesy that we can't make the fuel gauge read something close to right especially when we are using something like a Dynon or Blue Mountain.

_________________
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR

Trainnut01(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 6:16 am Post subject: Recently completed Fuel Gauge Question

To be accurate a capacitance sender for 601XL would have to be long enough to extend diagonally from the outbord top to the inboard bottom of the tank. That's close to five feet on a 15 gallon tank. I think I'll buy a flow meter.

 Carroll

  

 do not archive



Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog, plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.

  [quote][b]

jmaynard

Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 394
Location: Fairmont, MN (FRM)

Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 6:32 am Post subject: Recently completed Fuel Gauge Question

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:16:05AM -0400, Trainnut01(at)aol.com wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   I think I'll buy a flow meter.


	


Do that anyway. It's more useful than I thought to know just how much fuel

you're burning in any given flight regime.



FWIW, I don't know which senders AMD uses, but I do know the gauge is quite

accurate from 9 down to 1 gallon. Above that, as others have noted, the

shape and angle of the tank gets in the way. I haven't found that not being

as accurate aobve 9 gallons has been any real issue.

-- 

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

_________________
Jay Maynard, K5ZC
AMD Zodiac XLi N55ZC

ideaz1(at)sbcglobal.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 6:55 am Post subject: Recently completed Fuel Gauge Question

You could also put in 2 senders (with switches)  one at each end  of the tank, but I too think the full indication is not nearly as important as  the E, so I just wouldn't bother. 

 Dirk

   [quote][b]

Mitch Hodges

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 45
Location: Powder Springs, GA

Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 6:58 am Post subject: Re: Recently completed Fuel Gauge Question

 	  jmaynard wrote: 	
		  ... but I do know the gauge is quite

accurate from 9 down to 1 gallon. Above that, as others have noted, the

shape and angle of the tank gets in the way. I haven't found that not being

as accurate aobve 9 gallons has been any real issue.

	




Maybe I'm missing something (or the vehicles I drive/fly/float with are of the too cheap to be accurate class) but I don't recall ever having a vehicle of any sort that was very accurate at the "full" end of the tank.  I guess I've always assumed that was normal due to the sender/float drawbacks.  



As far as the FAA/FAR regulations, I also think there must be some requirement other than "accurate at Empty" otherwise, wouldn't just a placard that says "Fuel = Empty" be sufficient! (Sorry, couldn't resist).

_________________
Mitch Hodges
N601MH (Zenith 601HDS)
Builder Log at http://www.hodges.aero
Wings Under Perpetual Construction

z601(at)anemicaardvark.co
Guest

Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 7:18 am Post subject: Recently completed Fuel Gauge Question

On Wednesday 10 September 2008 09:58, Mitch Hodges wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   As far as the FAA/FAR regulations, I also think there must be some

 requirement other than "accurate at Empty" otherwise, wouldn't just a

 placard that says "Fuel = Empty" be sufficient! (Sorry, couldn't resist).


	


No, that was even one of the questions on the A&P written - "when must a fuel 

measuring system be accurate?" Ans: When it shows empty.



I find this less than satisifying, although I conceed it is likely to be more 

important to know when the tank is empty than when it is full. A lot of stuff 

in certification requirements dates back to when the earth was cooling, and 

instrumentation was not always that accurate.



Despite the physical limitations of installation in the Zenith, of the 

solutions that come to mind, I find the capacitive probe the most likely to 

give me results I could rely upon at all fuel levels. But I'd like (expense 

and weight ignored) to have a fuel flow meter also, so I could see just how 

much my actions were influencing fuel burn.



I don't personally find a fuel flow gauge the sole answer. While it gives you 

a feeling about how much fuel you are burning, and a totalizer can give you a 

pretty good idea when the tank is empty, there is nothing in the tank itself 

measuring the present value. In other words, if the thing breaks, you may not 

know it until you run out of fuel.



==============================================

Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.

=================================================

               Jim B. Belcher

    BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science

                  A&P/IA

           Instrument Rated Pilot

     General Radio Telephone Certificate

=================================================

Mitch Hodges

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 45
Location: Powder Springs, GA

Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 7:42 am Post subject: Re: Recently completed Fuel Gauge Question

 	  z601(at)anemicaardvark.co wrote: 	
		  No, that was even one of the questions on the A&P written - "when must a fuel 

measuring system be accurate?" Ans: When it shows empty. 	




I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek with my comment, but your point is well taken.  I do understand that this is the only requirement for accuracy.  I also understand there is a requirement that it actually be attempting to make a measurement leading up to empty. 



I'll just be happy to get to the point that my Volkswagen senders have an opportunity to measure something!

_________________
Mitch Hodges
N601MH (Zenith 601HDS)
Builder Log at http://www.hodges.aero
Wings Under Perpetual Construction

Gig Giacona

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1416
Location: El Dorado Arkansas USA

Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 8:29 am Post subject: Re: Recently completed Fuel Gauge Question

Let's keep one thing in mind. The regulation 91.205(b)9 reads...



"(9) Fuel gauge indicating the quantity

of fuel in each tank."



The must read empty correctly comes from 23.1337



(1) Each fuel quantity indicator must

be calibrated to read ‘‘zero’’ during

level flight when the quantity of fuel

remaining in the tank is equal to the

unusable fuel supply determined under

§ 23.959(a);



Please note that the word "ONLY" doesn't appear in that paragraph. It is an FAA interpretation and subject to re-interpretation at the whim of the administrator who, at best, is going to change every 8 years or so.

I won't get into the issue about if Part 23 even applies to us...



§ 23.1 Applicability.

(a) This part prescribes airworthiness

standards for the issue of type certificates,

and changes to those certificates,

for airplanes in the normal, utility,

acrobatic, and commuter categories.

_________________
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR

ggower_99(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 10:42 am Post subject: Recently completed Fuel Gauge Question

Hello Jim,

  

 The normal way to do the fuel management in a airplane.  is the Flight Plan.  

  

 There, with the fuel rate of the engine, the amount of gasoline in the tank(s) before take off (fisical messure),  the distance to fly in the chart (remember before GPS), the wind direction and speed,  we have to estimate (less reserve) the distance to fly and/or  time in the air.

  

 In case there is something wrong on our estimate or find any headwind, etc.  then we need an accurate "empty gauge" to see if we can get to the alternate landing strip we previosly chosed in our flight plan.. 

  

 Is better to be conservative and fly less diatance/time before refuels than wait until the air conditioning of the plane (propeller)  stops and we beguin to sweat...   

  

 Saludos

 Gary Gower

 Flying from Chapala, Mexico.

 "Old pilots I had the honor to know, planned more than 45 minutes reserve in all their flights"

   



--- On Wed, 9/10/08, Jim Belcher <z601(at)anemicaardvark.com> wrote:



  	  Quote: 	
		  From: Jim Belcher <z601(at)anemicaardvark.com>

Subject: Re: Re: Recently completed Fuel Gauge Question

To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com

Date: Wednesday, September 10, 2008, 11:22 AM



 	  Quote: 	
		  --> Zenith601-List message posted by: Jim Belcher

<z601(at)anemicaardvark.com>



On Wednesday 10 September 2008 09:58, Mitch Hodges wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   As far as the FAA/FAR regulations, I also think there must be some

 requirement other than "accurate at Empty" otherwise,

wouldn't just a
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   placard that says "Fuel = Empty" be sufficient! (Sorry,

couldn't resist).
	




No, that was even one of the questions on the A&P written - "when must

a fuel 

measuring system be accurate?" Ans: When it shows empty.



I find this less than satisifying, although I conceed it is likely to be more 

important to know when the tank is empty than when it is full. A lot of stuff 

in certification requirements dates back to when the earth was cooling, and 

instrumentation was not always that accurate.



Despite the physical limitations of installation in the Zenith, of the 

solutions that come to mind, I find the capacitive probe the most likely to 

give me results I could rely upon at all fuel levels. But I'd like (expense



and weight ignored) to have a fuel flow meter also, so I could see just how 

much my actions were influencing fuel burn.



I don't personally find a fuel flow gauge the sole answer. While it gives

you 

a feeling about how much fuel you are burning, and a totalizer can give you a 

pretty good idea when the tank is empty, there is nothing in the tank itself 

measuring the present value. In other words, if the thing breaks, you may not 

know it until you run out of fuel.



==============================================

Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.

=================================================

               Jim B. Belcher

    BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science

                  A&P/IA

           Instrument Rated Pilot

     General Radio Telephone Certificate

=================================================





	
	


         [quote][b]

DaveG601XL

Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 351
Location: Cincinnati, Oh

Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 4:32 am Post subject: Re: Recently completed Fuel Gauge Question

Victor,



I have the 12 gallon tanks with the Zenith fuel senders and I too read full at anything 9 gallons and above.

_________________
David Gallagher
Cincinnati, OH area

z601(at)anemicaardvark.co
Guest

Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 12:49 pm Post subject: Recently completed Fuel Gauge Question

I couldn't agree more. The best insurance against running out of fuel is to 

plan the amount of fuel required for the flight in advance. That would 

include planning how much fuel should remain at each checkpoint (on longer 

flights). 



The fuel gauges should give some indication as to whether the plan is being 

met or not, and whether or not it's necessary to land for fuel earlier than 

planned.



But the fuel gauges on everything I've ever flown have left a lot to be 

desired in terms of accuracy, and really were only fully accurate when they 

said the tank was empty.



On Wednesday 10 September 2008 13:42, Gary Gower wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Hello Jim,

  

 The normal way to do the fuel management in a airplane.  is the Flight

 Plan.   

 There, with the fuel rate of the engine, the amount of gasoline in the

 tank(s) before take off (fisical messure),  the distance to fly in the

 chart (remember before GPS), the wind direction and speed,  we have to

 estimate (less reserve) the distance to fly and/or  time in the air. 

 In case there is something wrong on our estimate or find any headwind, etc.

  then we need an accurate "empty gauge" to see if we can get to the

 alternate landing strip we previosly chosed in our flight plan..  

 Is better to be conservative and fly less diatance/time before refuels than

 wait until the air conditioning of the plane (propeller)  stops and we

 beguin to sweat...   

 Saludos

 Gary Gower

 Flying from Chapala, Mexico.

 "Old pilots I had the honor to know, planned more than 45 minutes reserve

 in all their flights" 



 --- On Wed, 9/10/08, Jim Belcher <z601(at)anemicaardvark.com> wrote:



 From: Jim Belcher <z601(at)anemicaardvark.com>

 Subject: Re: Re: Recently completed Fuel Gauge Question

 To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com

 Date: Wednesday, September 10, 2008, 11:22 AM



 

 <z601(at)anemicaardvark.com>



 On Wednesday 10 September 2008 09:58, Mitch Hodges wrote:

 > As far as the FAA/FAR regulations, I also think there must be some

 > requirement other than "accurate at Empty" otherwise,



 wouldn't just a



 > placard that says "Fuel = Empty" be sufficient! (Sorry,



 couldn't resist).



 No, that was even one of the questions on the A&P written - "when must

 a fuel

 measuring system be accurate?" Ans: When it shows empty.



 I find this less than satisifying, although I conceed it is likely to be

 more important to know when the tank is empty than when it is full. A lot

 of stuff in certification requirements dates back to when the earth was

 cooling, and instrumentation was not always that accurate.



 Despite the physical limitations of installation in the Zenith, of the

 solutions that come to mind, I find the capacitive probe the most likely to

 give me results I could rely upon at all fuel levels. But I'd like (expense



 and weight ignored) to have a fuel flow meter also, so I could see just how

 much my actions were influencing fuel burn.



 I don't personally find a fuel flow gauge the sole answer. While it gives

 you

 a feeling about how much fuel you are burning, and a totalizer can give you

 a pretty good idea when the tank is empty, there is nothing in the tank

 itself measuring the present value. In other words, if the thing breaks,

 you may not know it until you run out of fuel.



 =====================

 Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.

 ========================

                Jim B. Belcher

     BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science

                   A&P/IA

            Instrument Rated Pilot

      General Radio Telephone Certificate

 ========================


	


-- 

==============================================

Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.

=================================================

               Jim B. Belcher

    BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science

                  A&P/IA

           Instrument Rated Pilot

     General Radio Telephone Certificate

=================================================

z601(at)anemicaardvark.co
Guest

Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 1:17 pm Post subject: Recently completed Fuel Gauge Question

I've spent several days researching these issues. I've been involved in 

aircraft certification in the past, and it is not a simple issue. I once got 

stuck with trying to explain certification issues to the upper management of 

an aerospace company, an experience I do not recommend to the faint of heart.



It is simply not possible to tie FAR23.959(a) to 91.205(b)9 for all aircraft. 

It applies ONLY to those aircraft certified under FAR23, and there aren't 

that many. Most of the light aircraft flying today are designs originally 

certified under CAR3, and must meet a different set of requirements.



FAR23 is the certification basis for new design, type-certificated light 

aircraft, like the Cirrus. Most of our general aviation fleet, such as The 

Piper Cherokee, the Cessna 172, and the Cessna 150, were all certified under 

CAR3. Things like their fuel gauge accuracy meet the CAR3 standard, not the 

FAR23 standard.



As I understand it, there are three possible ways to establish the 

airworthiness of a design like the 601/650, which was designed with the 

intent of being a light sport aircraft. The first, for factory manufactured 

aircraft, is to meet the concensus standards. 



The second, the E-LSA, according to FAR21.193, is



"(e) In the case of a light-sport aircraft assembled from a kit to be 

certificated in accordance with para 21.191(i)(2), an applicant must provide 

the following:

(1) Evidence that an aircraft of the same make and model was manufactured and 

assembled by the aircraft kit manufacturer and issued a special airworthiness 

certificate in the light-sport category.

(2) The aircraft's operating instructions.

(3) The aircraft's maintenance and inspection procedures.

(4) The manufacturer's statement of compliance for the aircraft kit used in 

the aircraft assembly that meets para 21.190(c), except that instead of 

meeting para 21.190(c)(7), the statement must identify assembly instructions 

for the aircraft that meet an applicable consensus standard......"



In other words, the 601/650 has been demonstrated to meet the concensus 

standards. The fuel gauge accuracy requirements for a 601/650 are still  

whatever are specified in the concensus standards, provided it was built from 

a kit. How far one may deviate from the kit and still have E-LSA 

certification is a question whose answer I'd love to know, but I am reluctant 

to ask the FAA, because I might not like the answer I would get.



If one does not build from a kit, or partly uses a kit, and fabricates a 

significant part of the aircraft from scratch, then one is building an 

experimental aircraft, which will be treated like any other experimental 

aircraft. There is no standard for fuel gauge accuracy on experimental 

aircraft, of which I am aware. 



As Gig Giacona pointed out, FAR 91, which is an operating FAR applicable to 

all light aircraft, will require that the experimental aircraft have fuel 

gauges. But it doesn't, and can't, state the accuracy requirements, because 

there are at least four other specifications which give different accuracies 

for different categories of aircraft.



On Wednesday 10 September 2008 11:29, Gig Giacona wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 Let's keep one thing in mind. The regulation 91.205(b)9 reads...



 "(9) Fuel gauge indicating the quantity

 of fuel in each tank."



 The must read empty correctly comes from 23.1337



 (1) Each fuel quantity indicator must

 be calibrated to read ‘‘zero’’ during

 level flight when the quantity of fuel

 remaining in the tank is equal to the

 unusable fuel supply determined under

 § 23.959(a);



 Please note that the word "ONLY" doesn't appear in that paragraph. It is an

 FAA interpretation and subject to re-interpretation at the whim of the

 administrator who, at best, is going to change every 8 years or so.

 I won't get into the issue about if Part 23 even applies to us...



 § 23.1 Applicability.

 (a) This part prescribes airworthiness

 standards for the issue of type certificates,

 and changes to those certificates,

 for airplanes in the normal, utility,

 acrobatic, and commuter categories.



 --------

 W.R. &quot;Gig&quot; Giacona

 601XL Under Construction

 See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR





 Read this topic online here:



 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 3624#203624




	


-- 

==============================================

Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.

=================================================

               Jim B. Belcher

    BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science

                  A&P/IA

           Instrument Rated Pilot

     General Radio Telephone Certificate

=================================================

Gig Giacona

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1416
Location: El Dorado Arkansas USA

Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 4:24 pm Post subject: Re: Recently completed Fuel Gauge Question

Unless something has changed there are no E-LSA 601/650 at this time except the ones that received AW prior to the deadline for certifying non-conforming "Fat Ultralights."



The reason for this is the mfg of the kit must also be the mfg of the conforming factory built S-LSA.



For there to be a an E-LSA of the Zenith line then AMD is going to have to offer a kit or ZAC is going to have to offer a complete airplane.



That said the builder of a conforming E-LSA has almost no leeway. They must follow the instruction pretty much to the letter. 

 	  z601(at)anemicaardvark.co wrote: 	
		  

...



In other words, the 601/650 has been demonstrated to meet the concensus 

standards. The fuel gauge accuracy requirements for a 601/650 are still  

whatever are specified in the concensus standards, provided it was built from 

a kit. How far one may deviate from the kit and still have E-LSA 

certification is a question whose answer I'd love to know, but I am reluctant 

to ask the FAA, because I might not like the answer I would get.

...

_________________
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR

z601(at)anemicaardvark.co
Guest

Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2008 6:27 am Post subject: Recently completed Fuel Gauge Question

On Sunday 14 September 2008 19:24, Gig Giacona wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 Unless something has changed there are no E-LSA 601/650 at this time except

 the ones that received AW prior to the deadline for certifying

 non-conforming "Fat Ultralights."



 The reason for this is the mfg of the kit must also be the mfg of the

 conforming factory built S-LSA.



 For there to be a an E-LSA of the Zenith line then AMD is going to have to

 offer a kit or ZAC is going to have to offer a complete airplane.



 That said the builder of a conforming E-LSA has almost no leeway. They must

 follow the instruction pretty much to the letter.


	


That is pretty much what I would have expected, but I wasn't sure about the 

status of the 601/650 as far as ELSA is concerned. The business relationship 

of AMD/Zenith is a bit fuzzy to me. Thanks for that clarification. 



It means that the 601/650 being built are experimental, and there is 

considerable leeway in how fuel measurement is done. 



Someone mentioned the problems on gauging the amount of fuel in the 15 gallon 

tanks. I note that the AMD version has 15 gallon tanks. I wonder how they did 

the measurement, and how accurate their indication of fuel level is?



==============================================

Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.

=================================================

               Jim B. Belcher

    BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science

                  A&P/IA

           Instrument Rated Pilot

     General Radio Telephone Certificate

=================================================

fderfler(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2008 5:21 am Post subject: Recently completed Fuel Gauge Question

Jim Belcher wrote:  "Someone mentioned the problems on gauging the amount of fuel in the 15 gallon

tanks. I note that the AMD version has 15 gallon tanks. I wonder how they did

the measurement, and how accurate their indication of fuel level is?"

   

 Jim..  It's exactly as described.. in AMD's version of the 601 the emphasis is on knowing about the bottom of the tank, not the top.  Once the tank is down to about half full, the level indications are quite accurate. When I first got the plane I got all ambitious and made a dip stick calibrated separately for each tank.  I never use it anymore.  

   

 I have a fuel flow device installed that feeds information to the Dynon.  THAT is valuable!  After 200 hours I have a sort of "leaning table" built into my head.  At about 5500', for example, 5.7 gph is about leaned out about right.  (Yes, there is a leaning computer in the Dynon too.. and it's dandy if you use it at least once a week so you remember how the heck to use it!  .. otherwise it's just another darn thing to play with)  

 I always take off with full tanks.  How long you going to sit in that airplane anyway? 

  

 Frank Derfler

 Islamorada, FL  (The Florida Keys) 

-- 

Twitter! Follow me at http://Twitter.com/Fderfler



See my new Novel, "A Glint in Time" at http://GreatGuyBooks.com. 

 

See my discussion of  All the Guy Toys that aren't (clearly) illegal or (blatantly) immoral at http://mostlyflying.com  



Anybody who READS (anybody out there?) See www.greatguybooks.com 

  [quote][b]

fderfler(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2008 5:21 am Post subject: Recently completed Fuel Gauge Question

Jim Belcher wrote:  "Someone mentioned the problems on gauging the amount of fuel in the 15 gallon

tanks. I note that the AMD version has 15 gallon tanks. I wonder how they did

the measurement, and how accurate their indication of fuel level is?"

   

 Jim..  It's exactly as described.. in AMD's version of the 601 the emphasis is on knowing about the bottom of the tank, not the top.  Once the tank is down to about half full, the level indications are quite accurate. When I first got the plane I got all ambitious and made a dip stick calibrated separately for each tank.  I never use it anymore.  

   

 I have a fuel flow device installed that feeds information to the Dynon.  THAT is valuable!  After 200 hours I have a sort of "leaning table" built into my head.  At about 5500', for example, 5.7 gph is about leaned out about right.  (Yes, there is a leaning computer in the Dynon too.. and it's dandy if you use it at least once a week so you remember how the heck to use it!  .. otherwise it's just another darn thing to play with)  

 I always take off with full tanks.  How long you going to sit in that airplane anyway? 

  

 Frank Derfler

 Islamorada, FL  (The Florida Keys) 

-- 

Twitter! Follow me at http://Twitter.com/Fderfler



See my new Novel, "A Glint in Time" at http://GreatGuyBooks.com. 

 

See my discussion of  All the Guy Toys that aren't (clearly) illegal or (blatantly) immoral at http://mostlyflying.com  



Anybody who READS (anybody out there?) See www.greatguybooks.com 

  [quote][b]

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith601-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum