Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

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

Extra fuel
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

Kelly McMullen

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Posts: 1188
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 9:20 am Post subject: Extra fuel

A friend with a Lancair IVP has plumbed in a bladder in his baggage compartment that holds ~ 20 gal. He needs that for long range, as he has a turbo-prop up front.



The bladder is setup with quick disconnects so it can come out when load is more important than range.

 

Seems like that would be ideal for the -10, to have an extra 15-20 gal to not exceed baggage compartment loading, and to give you full IFR reserve over standard tank capacity, while not changing wing loading or bending moments. Don't recall if anyone has done baggage compartment tank of any kind. I know the couple options for extra wing tanks, but am not thrilled with having more wt further out the wing span. I suppose you could plumb in a transfer pump to move the fuel to a wing tank after using up 60-90 min fuel out of that tank.

 

  [quote][b]

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor
KCHD

flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 9:53 am Post subject: Extra fuel

I'm not fond of fuel in the cabin.  I'm also not fond of sitting       in an airplane and trying to relieve myself in a bottle while       flying the plane.  Ok, so I have an autopilot .......  I am really       fond of stopping at 3-4 hours to hit the head and stretch my legs.

       Linn

       

       On 6/25/2014 1:20 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:

     

     [quote]                           A friend with a Lancair IVP has plumbed in a bladder in             his baggage compartment that holds ~ 20 gal. He needs that             for long range, as he has a turbo-prop up front.

           

           The bladder is setup with quick disconnects so it can come out           when load is more important than range.

         

         Seems like that would be ideal for the -10, to have an extra         15-20 gal to not exceed baggage compartment loading, and to give         you full IFR reserve over standard tank capacity, while not         changing wing loading or bending moments. Don't recall if anyone         has done baggage compartment tank of any kind. I know the couple         options for extra wing tanks, but am not thrilled with having         more wt further out the wing span. I suppose you could plumb in         a transfer pump to move the fuel to a wing tank after using up         60-90 min fuel out of that tank.

       

        	  Quote: 	
		  

	
     [b]

Kelly McMullen

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Posts: 1188
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 10:40 am Post subject: Extra fuel

Unless you throttle back you aren't going to do 4 hours IFR and have required reserves. I understand the fuel in the cabin, although not sure it is much different than the fuel in the tunnel issue.



 



On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com (flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com)> wrote:

 [quote]                   

       I'm not fond of fuel in the cabin.  I'm also not fond of sitting       in an airplane and trying to relieve myself in a bottle while       flying the plane.  Ok, so I have an autopilot .......  I am really       fond of stopping at 3-4 hours to hit the head and stretch my legs.

       Linn

       

       On 6/25/2014 1:20 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:

     

      	  Quote: 	
		                             A friend with a Lancair IVP has plumbed in a bladder in             his baggage compartment that holds ~ 20 gal. He needs that             for long range, as he has a turbo-prop up front.

           

           The bladder is setup with quick disconnects so it can come out           when load is more important than range.

         

         Seems like that would be ideal for the -10, to have an extra         15-20 gal to not exceed baggage compartment loading, and to give         you full IFR reserve over standard tank capacity, while not         changing wing loading or bending moments. Don't recall if anyone         has done baggage compartment tank of any kind. I know the couple         options for extra wing tanks, but am not thrilled with having         more wt further out the wing span. I suppose you could plumb in         a transfer pump to move the fuel to a wing tank after using up         60-90 min fuel out of that tank.

       

        	  Quote: 	
		  

	
     



get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

tp://forums.matronics.com

_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution



	


[b]

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor
KCHD

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2872

Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 11:05 am Post subject: Extra fuel

That's not really true.  I've had numerous trips where my fuel burn

came out to 10.0gph for the entire flight.  That's 6 hours of

total range, and I've never landed with less than 10.2 in the

tanks...but that was nearly 5 hours of flying when I did it.

It's plenty possible to come in with 45 minute reserves after

a 4 hour flight.  The trip I just flew I averaged 9.2 to 9.8gph

once I reached cruise...so 4 hours very reasonable.



But, we do use the bottle.



Tim



On 6/25/2014 1:39 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Unless you throttle back you aren't going to do 4 hours IFR and have

 required reserves. I understand the fuel in the cabin, although not sure

 it is much different than the fuel in the tunnel issue.

jchang10

Joined: 05 Jul 2006
Posts: 227

Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 11:42 am Post subject: Extra fuel

I got tired of flying solo and looking at all the empty space. I decided 

to use the extra space and put a 32 gal aux fuel tank secured in a rear 

passenger seat. I can remove or install it empty in about 10 mins. Once 

you fly with the extra fuel, you will never ever want to go back! I was 

able to fly SFO to Kansas to JYO in 15 hours total time or in 13 hours 

of air time. I had some delays on my one planned fuel stop (actually 

ended up being 2 because an FBO was closed), so i know i can do even 

better next time. Even on shorter flights, it is nice not worrying about 

getting fuel all the time.



My only disappointment is knowing that Van will never consider 

engineering an extra fuel option. I would do that mod in a heartbeat!



Also, i considered keeping the extra fuel in the baggage compartment, 

but i think the rear seat is better. Access to the baggage area is more 

difficult for installing and removing. Also, it is potentially harder to 

add fuel in the baggage area. I can easily add fuel if i want through 

the big doors without much effort.



-- 

#40533 RV-10

First flight 10/19/2011

Phase 1 Done 11/26/2011

do not archive

_________________
#40533 RV-10
First flight 10/19/2011
Phase 1 Done 11/26/2011

Kellym

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1705
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 2:02 pm Post subject: Extra fuel

If you are burning 10 gph, you are not even close to 75%, i.e. you have 

throttled back or

gone higher than where 75% is available. LOP 10 gph=150 hp.

Even lean of peak, 75% is 13 gph or 195hp. That is 4.6 hrs of fuel, 

which is less than 4+45,

ignoring you also need fuel to go to alternate. No question you can 

extend range by going slower.

On 6/25/2014 12:04 PM, Tim Olson wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 That's not really true.  I've had numerous trips where my fuel burn

 came out to 10.0gph for the entire flight.  That's 6 hours of

 total range, and I've never landed with less than 10.2 in the

 tanks...but that was nearly 5 hours of flying when I did it.

 It's plenty possible to come in with 45 minute reserves after

 a 4 hour flight.  The trip I just flew I averaged 9.2 to 9.8gph

 once I reached cruise...so 4 hours very reasonable.

 But, we do use the bottle.

 Tim

 On 6/25/2014 1:39 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:

> Unless you throttle back you aren't going to do 4 hours IFR and have

> required reserves. I understand the fuel in the cabin, although not sure

> it is much different than the fuel in the tunnel issue.

>

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor # 5286
KCHD

Bob Turner

Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Posts: 885
Location: Castro Valley, CA

Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 4:15 pm Post subject: Re: Extra fuel

So the nice thing about EAB is you get to choose.

700 nm trip? Your choice: put in an extra 20 gal, run 75%, get there in 4 hours; or keep standard tanks, run 10 gal/hr, get there 20 minutes later and $75 richer.

If I did a lot of really long cross-countries, and was happy with the 'personal bladder' issues, an extra tank would look attractive if it could eliminate a fuel stop. Fuel stops never seem to take less than an hour.

But I think I'd draw the line at re-fueling inside the cabin. How do you keep from flooding the cabin with fuel vapor? In fact I see re-fueling and venting as major issues to be figured out with aux tanks-even more so if you want them removable.

_________________
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB

arplnplt(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 5:13 pm Post subject: Extra fuel

I don’t believe you need a vent with a bladder style tank that collapses as it empties.



Dave Leikam



On Jun 25, 2014, at 7:15 PM, Bob Turner <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu> wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 So the nice thing about EAB is you get to choose.

 700 nm trip? Your choice: put in an extra 20 gal, run 75%, get there in 4 hours; or keep standard tanks, run 10 gal/hr, get there 20 minutes later and $75 richer.

 If I did a lot of really long cross-countries, and was happy with the 'personal bladder' issues, an extra tank would look attractive if it could eliminate a fuel stop. Fuel stops never seem to take less than an hour.

 But I think I'd draw the line at re-fueling inside the cabin. How do you keep from flooding the cabin with fuel vapor? In fact I see re-fueling and venting as major issues to be figured out with aux tanks-even more so if you want them removable.

 

 --------

 Bob Turner

 RV-10 QB

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=425507#425507

partner14

Joined: 12 Jan 2008
Posts: 540
Location: Granbury Texas

Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 7:17 pm Post subject: Extra fuel

Got pictures?



Don McDonald



Sent from my iPad



 	  Quote: 	
		   On Jun 25, 2014, at 12:42 PM, Jae Chang <jc-matronics_rv10(at)jline.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 I got tired of flying solo and looking at all the empty space. I decided to use the extra space and put a 32 gal aux fuel tank secured in a rear passenger seat. I can remove or install it empty in about 10 mins. Once you fly with the extra fuel, you will never ever want to go back! I was able to fly SFO to Kansas to JYO in 15 hours total time or in 13 hours of air time. I had some delays on my one planned fuel stop (actually ended up being 2 because an FBO was closed), so i know i can do even better next time. Even on shorter flights, it is nice not worrying about getting fuel all the time.

 

 My only disappointment is knowing that Van will never consider engineering an extra fuel option. I would do that mod in a heartbeat!

 

 Also, i considered keeping the extra fuel in the baggage compartment, but i think the rear seat is better. Access to the baggage area is more difficult for installing and removing. Also, it is potentially harder to add fuel in the baggage area. I can easily add fuel if i want through the big doors without much effort.

 

 -- 

 #40533 RV-10

 First flight 10/19/2011

 Phase 1 Done 11/26/2011

 do not archive

_________________
Don A. McDonald
40636

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2872

Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 7:17 pm Post subject: Extra fuel

Actually that was WOT at 9,000 and 11,000'.

13.5 gph is what I may see if I were running ROP.

I almost never see flows over 11gph, and I definitely can count on being

under 12gph for any x/c trip unless I'm down low (under 7000) where

I don't generally fly LOP.  If you fly in the 13k-14K range you'll be 

more in the

8's for gph, and people like Jesse Saint have had flights in the 7's at 

higher

altitudes.   So no, that wasn't pulled back...but you're correct that it

was high enough to not be at 75%.  It's not really a matter of "going 

slower"

however.   Sure, we're not getting full speed since we're LOP, but we're 

cruising

in the mid 160's LOP.

Tim



On 6/25/2014 5:01 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 If you are burning 10 gph, you are not even close to 75%, i.e. you 

 have throttled back or

 gone higher than where 75% is available. LOP 10 gph=150 hp.

 Even lean of peak, 75% is 13 gph or 195hp. That is 4.6 hrs of fuel, 

 which is less than 4+45,

 ignoring you also need fuel to go to alternate. No question you can 

 extend range by going slower.

Kellym

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1705
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 7:38 pm Post subject: Extra fuel

Tim,

GAMI and others have shown that for normally aspirated engines in the 

compression range of the 260 hp IO-540, fuel flow times 15 equals 

horsepower. If you are flying at 10 gph, it is not possible to be 

generating over 150 hp. If you are ROP, it takes 10.8 to 11.0 gph to 

generate the same horsepower. Vans said the plane goes 153 kts at 55%, 

full gross, or 156 kts at 2200 lbs. 11gph would be 165 hp or 64% LOP.

So even though Van's does not give figures for 65% and you are running a 

bit less than that, you are at a more efficient power setting than 75%. 

You can generate 75% at upwards of 10,000 ft IF you choose to up engine 

speed to 2600 or 2700. Limiting rpm to 2300 or 2400 will also limit max 

power, and has the same effect as reducing throttle.

Generally one does better to run 75% IF flying into significant headwind.

On 6/25/2014 8:17 PM, Tim Olson wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 Actually that was WOT at 9,000 and 11,000'.

 13.5 gph is what I may see if I were running ROP.

 I almost never see flows over 11gph, and I definitely can count on being

 under 12gph for any x/c trip unless I'm down low (under 7000) where

 I don't generally fly LOP.  If you fly in the 13k-14K range you'll be 

 more in the

 8's for gph, and people like Jesse Saint have had flights in the 7's 

 at higher

 altitudes.   So no, that wasn't pulled back...but you're correct that it

 was high enough to not be at 75%.  It's not really a matter of "going 

 slower"

 however.   Sure, we're not getting full speed since we're LOP, but 

 we're cruising

 in the mid 160's LOP.

 Tim

 On 6/25/2014 5:01 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:

> 

>

> If you are burning 10 gph, you are not even close to 75%, i.e. you 

> have throttled back or

> gone higher than where 75% is available. LOP 10 gph=150 hp.

> Even lean of peak, 75% is 13 gph or 195hp. That is 4.6 hrs of fuel, 

> which is less than 4+45,

> ignoring you also need fuel to go to alternate. No question you can 

> extend range by going slower.

>

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor # 5286
KCHD

Bob Turner

Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Posts: 885
Location: Castro Valley, CA

Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 8:37 pm Post subject: Re: Extra fuel

 	  Kellym wrote: 	
		  Tim,



Generally one does better to run 75% IF flying into significant headwind.

	




If by better you mean less fuel burned, that's true - but only for headwinds over 100 knots!

_________________
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB

bill.peyton

Joined: 19 Sep 2010
Posts: 198
Location: St. Louis, MO

Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2014 5:36 am Post subject: Re: Extra fuel

Here are some actual numbers out of my Garmin logs.  All Ops LOP and WOT.



D-ALT	TAS	GPH	      OAT Â©	               % PWR

11K	       164	10.2         	-2.3	                   59

7K	       167	11.5	          -1	                   66

8K	       167	11.8   	 10.5	                   68

10K	       164	11	          9	                   63

In most cases I can gain 10kts running ROP, but the FF rate is in the 14 to 16GPH range.  I flight plan for 11 GPH.

10 more Gallons would make this plane a bit more useful for those flights that are right on the edge of it's IFR range.  But I am not willing to carry fuel in the cockpit to gain it.

Bill

_________________
Bill
WA0SYV
Aviation Partners, LLC

Last edited by bill.peyton on Fri Jun 27, 2014 2:53 am; edited 1 time in total

rv10flyer(at)live.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2014 3:08 pm Post subject: Extra fuel

just returned from a Fl to Ca trip. We did a 4.6 flight with 16 gallons 

remaining on the LA to TX leg. This was a headwind flight and would easily 

have made 1000 miles with a tail wind. 4 hours is very easy, but I have a my 

injectors tuned for LOP so seeing 9.6 GPH  at 12.5K is easily done.



--

johngoodman

Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 530
Location: GA

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:40 am Post subject: Re: Extra fuel

OK, I've got to ask...

When you have 10.2 gallons left in the tanks, are the Van's floats reading zero, but the totalizer shows that much left?

John

_________________
#40572 Phase One complete in 2011

Kelly McMullen

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Posts: 1188
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:56 am Post subject: Extra fuel

Or, when you get that low on fuel, do you want the fuel evenly divided between tanks, or all in one tank? Which option gives better indication of fuel remaining and is more likely to keep steady flow to engine?

 

On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 6:40 AM, johngoodman <johngoodman(at)earthlink.net (johngoodman(at)earthlink.net)> wrote:

 [quote]--> RV10-List message posted by: "johngoodman" <johngoodman(at)earthlink.net (johngoodman(at)earthlink.net)>

  

 OK, I've got to ask...

 When you have 10.2 gallons left in the tanks, are the Van's floats reading zero, but the totalizer shows that much left?

 John

 

 --------

 #40572 Phase One complete in 2011

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=425579#425579

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 ===========

 arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

 ===========

 http://forums.matronics.com

 ===========

 le, List Admin.

 ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

 ===========

 

 

 

 [b]

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor
KCHD

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2872

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:56 am Post subject: Extra fuel

Is this for me?



If so, then no.  My floats read very far down before they don't read 

anymore.  I would bet that the floats still bounce around with 1-2 

gallons left in the tanks.  I don't remember exactly how low.

I know mine read fine down under 5 gallons.  But, I would not

trust them to give exact readings that low.  The totalizer,

however, is very very accurate. I usually fill within a just a

couple tenths of a gallon to what I see on the totalizer as

fuel burned.



I have taken both fuel tanks up, one at a time, and flown at

5000' above the airport, and ran them dry, then landed on the

other full tank and sumped out what was left.  In the RV-10,

if you run the tanks dry in level flight, you'll only have

about 1-2 cups of fuel that you'll get out of the sumps.

So, most fuel is useable.....but that's level flight.

You may have worse luck with fuel unporting if you

are on descent as the fuel flows into the nose of the tank,

and you may unport quicker depending how you slip/skid

the ball.  That's why I don't bother landing with minimal

fuel.



If I were to try to stretch the fuel a little further,

I don't know that I'd go less than 6 gallons, and if I

were that low, I'd much rather have 6 + 0 than 3 + 3,

because my guess is that you could unport fuel pretty

easily at 3 gallons...so I'd rather have one tank much

more full so that unporting isn't a problem on the landing

tank.  But that would be more risk than I'd be happy to take,

so 5+5 is really more like what I'm comfortable with.



Tim

On 6/27/2014 8:40 AM, johngoodman wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 OK, I've got to ask...

 When you have 10.2 gallons left in the tanks, are the Van's floats reading zero, but the totalizer shows that much left?

 John



 --------

 #40572 Phase One complete in 2011





 Read this topic online here:



 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=425579#425579

Kelly McMullen

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Posts: 1188
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 6:21 am Post subject: Extra fuel

What is the alternative? 8^)

I agree with all your points. While I have landed a couple different planes a couple times with 30 min fuel remaining, it is no where near as comfortable as landing with 45 min to 60 min fuel remaining. Especially when some planes have explicit placards of no take-off with less than 1/4 tank. I have always assumed that also meant a significant risk if a go-around was necessary with less than 1/4 in that tank. Unporting is a real problem if close to the ground. Fuel injected engines generally want around 10 seconds to relight after fuel is restored, while carbureted engines usually will relight almost instantly when they get fuel.

 



On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 6:55 AM, Tim Olson <Tim(at)myrv10.com (Tim(at)myrv10.com)> wrote:

[quote] --> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim(at)myrv10.com (Tim(at)myrv10.com)>

 That's why I don't bother landing with minimal fuel.

 

   

 Tim

 

 

 

 

 

 

 On 6/27/2014 8:40 AM, johngoodman wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		   --> RV10-List message posted by: "johngoodman" <johngoodman(at)earthlink.net (johngoodman(at)earthlink.net)>

 

 OK, I've got to ask...

 When you have 10.2 gallons left in the tanks, are the Van's floats reading zero, but the totalizer shows that much left?

 John

 

 --------

 #40572 Phase One complete in 2011

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=425579#425579

 

 	
 

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

 arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

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

 http://forums.matronics.com

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

 le, List Admin.

 ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

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

 

 

 

 



[b]

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor
KCHD

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2872

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 6:39 am Post subject: Extra fuel

I guess you're right....there aren't many options OTHER than

landing. 



And I agree 100% with your comments.



I did find when I ran the tanks dry in flight that

the engine went from full power to idle and as fast

as I could turn the valve the power returned, so that

was a positive.  I think that with the prop windmilling

the mechanical pump sucked in the fuel pretty quickly.



Regarding the landing with 1 tank with all the fuel,

or landing with split fuel that is minimal in both,

personally while I don't like either option, I think the

safer option is to land with one tank more full. I think

the unporting is a larger risk than the risk of running

one tank dry and switching to the full one for the

remainder of the flight.  (as long as you've been

switching the tanks back and forth during the flight

so you know there isn't gunk or water that you're going

to get with that last switch)



If I were (and I won't) trying to go for max range,

I'd switch back and forth every x minutes during

the flight until I got to 10 gallons remaining in

one tank.  Then I'd burn the other tank dry, and switch

to that 10 gallon tank for the rest of the trip.

I keep that in my hat for an emergency situation, but

I'm not going to operate that way on a normal x/c

flight, that's for sure.



Tim



On 6/27/2014 9:21 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   What is the alternative? 8^)



 I agree with all your points. While I have landed a couple different

 planes a couple times with 30 min fuel remaining, it is no where near as

 comfortable as landing with 45 min to 60 min fuel remaining. Especially

 when some planes have explicit placards of no take-off with less than

 1/4 tank. I have always assumed that also meant a significant risk if a

 go-around was necessary with less than 1/4 in that tank. Unporting is a

 real problem if close to the ground. Fuel injected engines generally

 want around 10 seconds to relight after fuel is restored, while

 carbureted engines usually will relight almost instantly when they get fuel.

 On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 6:55 AM, Tim Olson <Tim(at)myrv10.com

 <mailto:Tim(at)myrv10.com>> wrote:



     

     <mailto:Tim(at)myrv10.com>>

     That's why I don't bother _landing_ with minimal fuel.

     Tim

jesse(at)saintaviation.co
Guest

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:29 am Post subject: Extra fuel

I'm with Tim on that. Also, when one tank is dry, I trim the ball to the empty side to reduce the risk if unporting the tank with fuel remaining. 



Jesse Saint

I-TEC, Inc.

jesse(at)itecusa.org

www.itecusa.org

www.mavericklsa.com

C: 352-427-0285

O: 352-465-4545

F: 815-377-3694



Sent from my iPhone



 	  Quote: 	
		   On Jun 27, 2014, at 10:39 AM, Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> wrote:

 

 

 

 I guess you're right....there aren't many options OTHER than

 landing. 

 

 And I agree 100% with your comments.

 

 I did find when I ran the tanks dry in flight that

 the engine went from full power to idle and as fast

 as I could turn the valve the power returned, so that

 was a positive.  I think that with the prop windmilling

 the mechanical pump sucked in the fuel pretty quickly.

 

 Regarding the landing with 1 tank with all the fuel,

 or landing with split fuel that is minimal in both,

 personally while I don't like either option, I think the

 safer option is to land with one tank more full. I think

 the unporting is a larger risk than the risk of running

 one tank dry and switching to the full one for the

 remainder of the flight.  (as long as you've been

 switching the tanks back and forth during the flight

 so you know there isn't gunk or water that you're going

 to get with that last switch)

 

 If I were (and I won't) trying to go for max range,

 I'd switch back and forth every x minutes during

 the flight until I got to 10 gallons remaining in

 one tank.  Then I'd burn the other tank dry, and switch

 to that 10 gallon tank for the rest of the trip.

 I keep that in my hat for an emergency situation, but

 I'm not going to operate that way on a normal x/c

 flight, that's for sure.

 

 Tim

 

> On 6/27/2014 9:21 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:

> What is the alternative? 8^)

> 

> I agree with all your points. While I have landed a couple different

> planes a couple times with 30 min fuel remaining, it is no where near as

> comfortable as landing with 45 min to 60 min fuel remaining. Especially

> when some planes have explicit placards of no take-off with less than

> 1/4 tank. I have always assumed that also meant a significant risk if a

> go-around was necessary with less than 1/4 in that tank. Unporting is a

> real problem if close to the ground. Fuel injected engines generally

> want around 10 seconds to relight after fuel is restored, while

> carbureted engines usually will relight almost instantly when they get fuel.

> 

> 

> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 6:55 AM, Tim Olson <Tim(at)myrv10.com

> <mailto:Tim(at)myrv10.com>> wrote:

> 

>    

>    <mailto:Tim(at)myrv10.com>>

>    That's why I don't bother _landing_ with minimal fuel.

> 

> 

>    Tim

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-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