WardHolbrook

Just plan on landing with minimum fuel. You'd be talking 8 to 10 gallons and it would probably be more hassle than it's worth.

Quote: Ksaunders Like the idea about the tail number whisper to get their attention. They forgot to turn me base to final in Savannah last Thursday and it seems in Atlanta they are always holding me up high when I need to get my bird LOW and SLOW when coming home to the roost. Try this simple formula for getting back down to earth: Altitude = Drop the Zero's and multiply by 3 (Gives you when to begin descent). 1/2 ground speed and add a zero. (Gives you your necessary rate of descent). Example. 9,000 feet and 160 kts. 9 x 3 = 27. Begin your descent 27 miles out. 160 KTS ground speed = 160/2 = 80 then add a zero = 800 fpm descent. Not absolutely perfect but works out pretty good. And....most will probably not need to remove their shoes or a wiz-wheel to calculate this.

Quote: GeorgePerry your re-plowing ground that's been covered more than a few times. Yep bladders do ad 30 lbs to you empty wt. but that's the only drawback. I'd suggest using the search funtion to see why the rest of your argument doesn't hold up. It's all been said before. Bottom line is what I stated earlier: Owners who've had O&N's for decades have not encountered any of these mythical issues. The people who poo-poo bladders are the people who don't have them.

I have two issues with bladders. First is the increased weight which equates to 30+ minutes fuel and second, you really should keep them topped off with fuel to minimize the problems with them drying out over time. I fuel for the trip and seldom, if ever, top the tanks off as a matter of course, after a flight - it facilitates loading and fueling for the next flight. Long-term, sealed wet-wings are better for than that than bladders.

Quote: bd32322 thanks for the responses - what about if i want to maintain full throttle at say 4500. Seems like I lean more until CHTs are acceptable and I can find out power from 15 times fuel flow as you say. Its probably going to be less than 75% if I want CHTs around 360 I think - I'll have to try it. But there is nothing stopping me from having 75 or greater % power as long as CHTs are okay... I like this simple way of managing the engine rather than finding peak - I feel like I am staring at the JPI a lot more then - which makes me nervous - instead of looking out.

Quote: RJBrown Unlike our piston singles I thought the pilots were included in the empty weight of most jets. Anyone know for sure?

Quote: KSMooniac Even more puzzling is the fact that many of the Acclaims were delivered with 130 g fuel tanks, TKS, and air-conditioning. I remember looking at the useful load on one particular example and calculated a full-fuel payload of only 70 lbs, without the TKS tank filled! Absolutely mind-boggling IMO... anyone bigger than an elementary school kid would be over gross. EDIT: To expand on a bit of Ward's wisdom... as you move up the equipment food chain, it is somewhat silly to look at full-fuel payload since speeds, fuel burns, and fuel capacity are different with every plane. Saying you can put 4 folks in the Arrow and "fill the tanks" where you might not be able to do so in a Mooney is pointless. My M20J has 1025 of useful load, but carries up to 64 gallons of gas and burns 9 GPH or less at cruise (145-150 KTAS). I could likely carry the same payload as your Arrow, but a longer distance, even if I can't top off my tanks for that mission. You need to think in terms of carrying XXX pounds of butts or bags over XXX miles.

Quote: Shadrach

Quote: jetdriven the benefit is 1. you can calibrate your fuel tank capacity and your totalizer. Or if you have no totalizer, you know exactly how long the engine has ran from that tank, by carefully setting power and timing the tanks. Doing so allows you accurately estimate your fuel burn and your time remaining in the other tank. 2. You can extend the range of your aircraft safely. You use all the fuel on one side, and maybe get a couple free gallons of unusable fuel as well. 10 gallons is a reasonable reserve, but fuel guages arent accurate and they will not accurately account for what fuel is in which tank. if it is in one tank you know how much you got, and even better, its all in one place. No hoping there is 6 gallons in the left it might actually be 3. 10 gallons reserve both sides is a waste of utility (ours only holds 57 gallons). We can only take 37 gallons wth 4 in our 201, and if you are going to fly further than 300 miles, you need to manage fuel carefully. You can also plan your tank to run empty near top of descent, then one fuel tank change then and you are done with the system. Messing with the fuel selector at low altitude (or on the ground) can get you killed. Most engine failures are fuel related. So thats the best represntation I can give, I think Ross and Ward are better than me with words perhaps they can add some.

When it comes to flight planning, why not use a program like Flitesoft or any of the others like it out there? They're not that expensive and are bang on accurate. It's what I use whether I'm flying a piston single or one of the company's Falcon 900s. Once you get it "dialed in" for your airplane and the way you fly it (very easy to do) it's as accurace as the winds aloft forecasts allow it to be - in other words - bang on. In the Falcon, it's normally within a minute or two on the time and within 100 pounds (15 gallons) on a non-stop, coast-to-coast trip. On piston aircraft it's within a gallon or so on just about any given trip. Optimized route and altitude selection are a piece of cake. (The altitude you use really does make a difference and rules of thumb are often wrong.) You can do "what if's" all day long. Additionally, it does a progressive weight and balance calculation so you can safely load right up to the max.

Quote: astelmaszek Basically, my mission profile calls for between 3% to 5% overgross on take off, zero on landing. In a Bravo, it should be a non-event from what I gathered. Most older airplanes are usually 50 to 100 heavier than what the W&B says vs putting the airplane on the scale anyways. I know that because I've seen so many "less than 1lb, no W&B" entries from mechanics it's almost funny. Funny thing is if Mooney would have just for once in its company's life hired an engineer (that's a problem with a lot of american and european companies, too many lawyers around not enough engineers), all it had to do what put some vortex generators on a bravo and redesign the gear a bit and it could have created a full fuel and 4 seats bravo and it would still be in business. Oh yeah, and not dropped the TBM design...

Quote: johnggreen Gentlemen, Are some of you wearing your headphones to tight? Not meaning to insult, but SOME OF YOU GUYS SCARE THE CRAP OUT OF ME. For anyone, and I mean ANYONE, of whatever experience and education, to pontificate on what is the "safe" max gross of the Bravo without the reams of design and test data that went into that determination is sheer folly. There is a plethora of factors that go into the determination of an aircraft's gross weight; about which none of you has even the faintest of knowledge. Perhaps the silliest conclusion is that the manufacturer limited the gross weight and thereby the useful load for some minor, easily overcome parameter that can safely be ignored in the "real world". Really? Mooney limited the gross weight of the Bravo because they wanted to limit its usefulness and appeal to buyers. I don't think so. There is a good reason that general aviation is five times more likely to kill you than an automobile and fifty times more likely than an airliner; poor pilotage. That according to statistics is responsible for 80-85% of general aviation accidents and this blog removes all doubt in my mind as to why. The FAA lists five HAZARDOUS ATTITUDES that contribute to poor pilot judgement and the first is: ANTIAUTHORITY: THE RULES DON'T APPLY TO ME. The first thing I tell a student is DON'T LISTEN TO HANGAR TALK. The ones that do the most talking almost always know the least. What has been written in this thread has contributed much to the lackadaisical attitude that is so dangerous to resposible pilotage. If the gross weight doesn't "really" mean anything, then what about maneuvering speed in turbulent weather, or air speed limitations, or c.g., or weather minimums, icing forecasts, fuel reserves since really they are just all arbitrary rules put in place to limit your enjoyment of flying. Now, don't get the idea that I care whether you go out and kill yourself. I assure you I do not. I do care about the guys who are trying to become responsible, safe pilots and who are looking, IN THIS BLOG, for the accepted methods of behavior, conduct, and pilotage in that regard, who might mistakingly believe that YOU ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALING ABOUT? When I joined this blog, I put as my signature "Even a fool says something right some of the time." Sorry, but I'm beginning to wonder. My name is always available in my signature, but just for the point of it, here it is again. John G. Green CFII #1763946

Are we advocating that it’s OK to operate “a bit” over gross here? How much is too much? Where do you draw the line? A long time ago, most aircraft manufacturers adopted the principle of "loading flexibility” - in other words, Mooney, Piper, Cessna and Beech have made aircraft that provide us with one or two more seats than can be used if topped off with fuel or a couple of hundred pounds of fuel capacity that must remain unused it you’ve filled all of the seats. You can have it one way or the other, but you usually can’t have your cake and eat it too. I’ve got PIC time in 105 different makes and models of aircraft, from gliders to jets, and I can count on one hand the number of them that you could honestly load up and go without regard to loading. It's a legitimate approach; but history has shown us time and time again that there are many of us out there who have no idea of how the concept works. Silly pilots, many of us think that if we've got 4 seats we can top off, load up, and go. However, if you're willing to ignore the aircraft limitations, legalities, and insurance ramifications involved, you pretty much can because there is nothing magical about that max gross weight number – the airplane will continue to fly. Bottom line, in all but a very few cases, if you want to carry 4 people, baggage and full fuel you’re going to need something with 6 seats.

Here's a question for you experienced guys... How do you test your "fuel continuity" from each tank prior to each takeoff?

Quote: carusoam Anybody see a fuel pressure gage in an Ovation?

Quote: jetdriven Perhaps the unfamiliarity and uncomfortableness of running a tank dry to extend range is part of the cause of fuel mismanagement? And if it does happen, its an event becuase they dont know how to handle it. Inadvertenlty running a tank dry is different than doing it on purpose. Same with Stalls. The reason we practice stalls, for example is not to stall the airplane, but to recognize the conditions, symptoms, and to deal with the situation and recover from it. One could make a point that doing full stalls in a Mooney is risky, as a spin can cause a crash. But we do them anyway because a pilot needs to experience it.

Quote: GeorgePerry Enclosed is what the MAPA pilot proficiency program has to say about fuel missmanagment. I submit those who think letting a tank run dry are the future 7 percenters...

Quote: DaV8or So, what's so bad about 3 in one and 5 in the other? If you're truley getting that close to fuel exhaustion, then run the tank with 5 in it dry and then switch to the one with 3. We already established that running a tank dry is a non-event and the fuel system is super reliable, right? IMO, if you're down to the last 3 gallons, that is an emergency. What I like about splitting the gallons up, is it can be a wake up call to when really decide it is an emergency. When the tank with 5 runs dry, that's a strong reminder from the plane that you're about to become a glider. If you drain a tank as a matter of routine, you're not going to get that reminder.

There are some caveats associated with the operation of singles and twins. The big thing to remember when it comes to singles is that when the engine quits on you, you will be landing shortly. Hopefully, as a result of dumb luck or good judgment, you will be VFR over survivable terrain because you'll be “up close and personal” with it shortly. The big caveat when it comes to flying a twin is that when an engine quits on you, you had better have made the required investment in training and have the prerequisite level of skill to avoid turning the airplane into little more than a lawn dart. A properly flown twin operated by a proficient pilot within its limitations is inherently safer than a single; but that's the kicker - most aren't. I'd guess that the majority of the non-professional light twin drivers and many of the "pros" would be safer in a single. It takes a lot of effort to gain the necessary proficiency and even more to maintain it. That's dang tough to do when your recurrent training involves little more than a flight review with a CFI every couple of years and you’re only flying a 100 - 200 hours a year. That is simply not enough and the accident record proves it. Our airline and corporate pilot brothers fly up to about 1000 hours a year and they get frequent recurrent training. I guess we really are better than they are, because evidently we don't need as much recurrent training as they do to stay sharp. In my mind, the issue boils down to knowledge, skill, discipline, and judgement. You need to have a thorough understanding of what the airplane you're flying is capable of and not capable of doing in any given set of conditions. You also need to know how to achieve maximum performance. You need to have the skill and proficiency necessary to achieve that performance level. Finally, you need to have the discipline to avoid flying your light twin in those conditions/situations where the outcome would be questionable or worse. A review of the accident records clearly demonstrates the folly of those light twin pilots who fail to do what is required to achieve and then maintain the required levels of knowledge, skill and proficiency to fly a light twin.

Quote: Shadrach The earliest I've caught it is a needle diversion and then another in 10 sec then another in 5 sec soon followed by 2 or 3 needle fluctuations over ~3 second period and then it starts to sputter. When I see a diversion, I get ready to switch tanks, when I see the next diversion I switch tanks and hit the boost pump (it will restart without the boost pump even if the fire's out, but it will take longer). No pucker necessary...

Single vs twin and piston vs turbine arguements are starting to get boring. It seems as though everyone has made up their minds on the subject and converting a devotee from one camp into the other is pretty much a futile exercise. Regardless of your personal opinion, the original question revolved around ditching and preparation. This much hopefully we can all agree on, if you're in a single and for what ever reason the engine quits and you happen to be out of gliding distance from land you will be getting wet. A prepared pilot will have jackets on board and if the water's not too cold you shoulld be able to get through it assuming you can be found and rescued before hypothermia sets in and runs its course. If your really well prepared you will have a raft and you'll be able to await rescue "in style ". Or so that's the way most folks think. Rafts are a nice idea and they might give you a warm fuzzy feelings regarding your preparations, but have you ever tried to climb into the one you'll be using in the open water? Or even in a swimming pool? I've been to some ditching courses and getting 50 or 60-something year old guys up onto and into the raft can be problematic when you're in dressed in street clothes and fighting the swells in cold water. Add an injury or two and it's probably not going to happen. It's a fools errand to use statistical probabilities as justification as to how, where and when you fly any airplane - piston or turbine, single or multi. It also doesn't matter why the engine lost power. The airframe doesn't care why the engine decided to stop pulling. Using statistics is one thing, but as the accident record demonstrates, what really matters is when is it going to happen to me? The only answer a person can honestly give is "Sooner or Later". Since we can't pick the time or the place of the event, I believe it's wise to limit limit our exposure to those places and conditions where one has little or no control over the outcome. A successful outcome - no injuries, not necessarily no aircraft damage - under those situations requires luck. I choose to limit my dependency upon luck. Hence, you won't find me flying singles - piston or turboprop - at night, LIFR, or anywhere - hostile terrain or open water - that I don't have someplace to put it down safely IF/WHEN the engine quits. You have to be able to see. In a twin, you've got to fly the airplane at appropriate weights and maintain sufficient proficiency to deal with the performance and handling issues that arise during OEI operations. It requires discipline to operate these airplanes safely, because our equipment is so reliable and because engines really do seldom quit and there is a temptation to say think along the lines of... "I've been doing it this way for umpteen hundreds or thousands of hours and it's never happened before, it won't happen this time either therefore it must be safe." But engines can and do quit or lose power - for many reasons - and if you allow yourself to operate "outside the box" sooner or later you run the risk of getting bit.

Double post

Quote: jetdriven For the people who say "I'll never fly into my reserve fuel" it can all change with one missed approach, or holding into your destination. Especially out west or in Canada, where the nearest airport with a low enough approach might be an hour away or more.

Quote: DaV8or Avoid the whole problem and get a fuel totalizer system of some kind. I have one and it is reasonable accurate, therefore no reason to ever run tank dry. Keep some of your researve in each tank.

Quote: thinwing I have noticed that every post on this subject assumes the engine completely quits...that is rarely the case...just run the tank down that you want and as your tank gets close to empty start monitoring fuel pressure.As the fuel level gets close to empty /usable fuel it will unport the fuel pickup but not totally...you will have plenty of warning by monitoring your fuel pressure guage...it will start to flicker and the engine will start to run rough if you wait to long,switch tanks at first fuel pressure fluctuation and with boostpump on the engine never quits completely...kpc