M20C down in Wichita 3/18

[Yooper Rocketman]

On 3/20/2016 at 6:56 PM, Yooper Rocketman said:

I know how topics can drift, with no real intent to place blame, just hypothesizing, but this new Mooney pilot could be one of us in a few years.  I hate to have him stumble on this thread before even knowing any of us and see the direction it went.  Being part of the Lancair builders thread, I've seen some people alienated by a blog like this when the ultimate facts later revealed the pilot did an awesome job dealing with a failure beyond his control.  This may still be the case here too.

Tom

I guess we know who the optimist is...............

Disappointing discovery.

Tom

[MyNameIsNobody]

I feel bad for the owner of the plane.  I will wait to roast the young man, that is a licensed pilot, until the final report comes out.  It appears to be fuel mis-management.  Roast me if I ever bend a plane or injure others or their property due to NOT having adequate fuel for the flight.  CARDINAL SIN.  Don't be that guy or gal.

[ryoder]

I fly 125 mph and burn 6.5 gph or so leaned out.  20 gallons in a tank takes me three hours and almost 400 statute miles costing me $62 in fuel and a quart of oil.

[ryoder]

On March 21, 2016 at 3:32 PM, pinerunner said:

Hank,

A lot of folks say you can't do LOP with an M20C. Kudos for mastering your craft.

I fly ROR. Rich of rough.

[Hank]

Just now, ryoder said:

I fly ROR. Rich of rough.

Lean to rough, enrichen to smooth has worked well for thousands of planes for several decades. But since my (factory single) EGT has numbers, I use them.

[Andy95W]

2 hours ago, MyNameIsNobody said:

I feel bad for the owner of the plane.  I will wait to roast the young man, that is a licensed pilot, until the final report comes out.  It appears to be fuel mis-management.  Roast me if I ever bend a plane or injure others or their property due to NOT having adequate fuel for the flight.  CARDINAL SIN.  Don't be that guy or gal.

And he put his girlfriend's life at risk in exchange for a fuel stop and the opportunity to let her stretch her legs and go to the bathroom.  Cardinal sin, like you said Scott.

[gsxrpilot]

7 hours ago, bradp said:

 Correct me if I'm wrong C drivers but he presumably had 52 gal on departure with 48-51 usable at somewhere in the neighborhood of 43+ gallons required.  

Full tanks in my C is 52 useable. I've never run my tanks out, but I've run down to a single gallon in a tank without it quitting. I would not want to be making steep turns in the pattern on that last gallon. Better fuel management would have had him switching to a tank with the last 8 or so gallons before the approach or entering the pattern.

I recently did 5 hours non-stop in my C and burned 40.1 gallons doing it.

[Shadrach]

There is not a thing wrong with running a tank dry. I would argue (and have in a few threads on this board) that it's optimal. Arriving with all usable fuel in one place is preferable. 

[bonal]

28 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

There is not a thing wrong with running a tank dry. I would argue (and have in a few threads on this board) that it's optimal. Arriving with all usable fuel in one place is preferable. 

Definitely there is a long running debate on the best way to manage fuel but I think the first thing one must do is have the selector on the tank that has the fuel

[1524J]

Besides being very conservative with fuel planning, I like to have my remaining fuel in the right tank for left patterns. Keeps the fuel by the pickup tube for the downwind and base turns.

[M20S Driver]

 

10 hours ago, Shadrach said:

There is not a thing wrong with running a tank dry. I would argue (and have in a few threads on this board) that it's optimal. Arriving with all usable fuel in one place is preferable. 

Don Maxwell advises against running the tank dry.  He stated that a marginal "O"ring in the fuel selector will allow air to leak into the line and disrupt the fuel flow from the tank with fuel.  A couple of gallons in the tank will prevent the leak.

Not my opinion but I agree with Don.   I am not a Mooney mechanic,  I just drive them.

[Shadrach]

18 minutes ago, M20S Driver said:

 

Don Maxwell advises against running the tank dry.  He stated that a marginal "O"ring in the fuel selector will allow air to leak into the line and disrupt the fuel flow from the tank with fuel.  A couple of gallons in the tank will prevent the leak.

Not my opinion and I am not a Mooney mechanic.  I just drive them.

I appreciate Don's and other's opinion. I'd be even more open to this way of thinking if there's a report of it actually happening or causing an accident. Does this mean that he's suggesting that air in the line from a marginal O-ring will prevent the engine from restarting until the selector is serviced?   As it stands, there are plenty of accidents in the data base where airplanes made off airport landings (or worse) from fuel exhaustion with fuel on board. There are 3 mooney pilot's in my family with a collective 5000hrs in these planes. All of us consolidate fuel to a single tank on long XCs. Never has restart been an issue.  That's anecdotal to folks reading this but it's a pretty solid data set for the 3 of us. 

I could be totally wrong. Perhaps this kid switched tanks after running it dry, but an unknown air leak at the selector sealed their fate...

[Steve Dietrich]

I believe the NTSB says fuel exhaustion

[Shadrach]

3 minutes ago, Steve Dietrich said:

I believe the NTSB says fuel exhaustion

Yes that's been established. The NTSB report also stated that there was "some" fuel on board in the unselected tank. The previous posts were about fuel management. 

[DXB]

Discussion on running a tank dry is worthwhile for me  - I have not had guts to try, but wonder I'm being an irrational coward.  Running a tank dry would certainly have appeal to maximize range, assuming it's safe.  The closest I've come is waiting for the 5 gal remaining annunciation on my JPI (which has proven remarkably accurate), nervously burning off 1-2 more gallons, and then starting descent to land on 17 gallons left in the other tank with no worries.  

Would a small amount of air entry via the fuel selector make any difference to engine function?  In a float carb'd plane (like mine and the accident aircraft), it doesn't sound like an immediately threatening issue per my basic understanding of the system.  I don't know enough about fuel injection to even begin speculating.  If it's a large amount of leak from the other tank at the selector, then it could suck fuel dry in the near-empty tank and create the same air entry.

Related question- when I fill my bladders to the very top (waiting for it to settle between the chambers and then adding a bit more), then make a short hop home on one tank, the unused tank is down maybe half a gallon the next time I show up to fly.  I've never checked immediately after the flight, but I assumed this is simply evaporation through the tank vent.  Or could it be a leak at the fuel selector valve drawing from the un-selected tank?

[bonal]

With bladders you have to let it sit a few minutes for the fuel to transfer to the inner tank as long as the fuel rig isn't busy it gives you the needed time to let any water that might be present in the newly added fuel to reach the sump. A good practice to have.

[carl]

here is a great idea . a small 10 gallon reserve tank , it could be located right between the front seats , if you run out of fuel you could switch to it and then land right away. It could be clear , maybe glass, so you could see how much was left, then when you ran out of fuel, instead of landing right away, maybe you could stretch it a little further as you watch the fuel level drop.

zzzzzzzz sarcasm 

[N601RX]

The wing tank could be made with 2 pickups.  One placed some distance off the bottom so it would no longer pick up any fuel once the level was below say 10 gallons.  The second pickup would then be in the stock location and could provide an extra 8 gallons once the selector was switched to reserve.

[DonMuncy]

21 minutes ago, N601RX said:

The wing tank could be made with 2 pickups.  One placed some distance off the bottom so it would no longer pick up any fuel once the level was below say 10 gallons.  The second pickup would then be in the stock location and could provide an extra 8 gallons once the selector was switched to reserve.

This was the way it was done on Volkswagens way back when. You ran it until it faltered, then switched to the "reserve" tank. This was just a section of the tank that was accessed by the reserve valve lever (and refilled when you filled the tank). Some people still screwed it up by not switching back to the "regular" setting after filling the tank. Then, when it faltered, you were really out.