M20F Fuel Stick - I know I know

[MyNameIsNobody]

1 hour ago, Browncbr1 said:

  

There isn't a dichotomy, so no reason to trigger so easily..    I just thought targeting kids is lacks decency..   wrongs don't make rights and truth is truth..   let it go..    you and I are not his customers anyway...  we hold on to our dollars for something we want more, as such the free market works...  I don't like adware, but at least he's not like the last guy that came on here with his first post asking for dip stick measurements so that he could go make a plastic one to sell online...    

No question I have a thin skin.  THAT is a know entity, right?  I think the kids are darling.  I shot a photo of my “at home” kids, now sadly only one remains not as a slight, but to have fun.  Was that mean?  I was a supporter until the other “get the ads” option came up.  I just ignore them, unless it’s...Oh never mind.  I obviously enjoy Mooneyspace, but equally obvious is that I like to debate and debating is taking an opposing viewpoint.  When somebody calls me old and set in my ways they are going to get both barrels.  I am not trying to win hearts and minds with FuelLevel.  Just callin’ it like I see it...

Regardless I enjoy your posts ALWAYS and my comments to you about you “at you” are just words.  Easily ignored (by most here).

I will continue to “stick it” where the sun don’t shine...(in my two tanks)

[gsxrpilot]

4 hours ago, Hephaestus said:

Nah, just comes across spammy... 

Which comes across as a poor marketing choice in my eyes, but everyone has their own beliefs. 

Not how'd I'd want to market a product myself, generally doesn't lend itself to building a positive brand image - but what do I know 

And mynameisnobody did explain he was having a rough week. We've all had those, threads drift - no issue, but a better choice would have been to create his own thread not to hijack another only semi related thread for his own marketing. 

We're happy to have you here... but maybe tread softly until you've been here awhile and sorta learn the lay of the land. @fuellevel is a welcome supporter around here. He supports the site financially, has started several of his own threads with lots of very useful data previously unknown. Many of us started out a bit skeptical but with enough good data, now have CiES senders installed in our Mooneys. In fact, arguably the best maintained/upgraded vintage Mooneys on this site and in North America, are running CiES senders. E.g. @Marauder M20F and @Bob_Belville M20E just to name a couple.

Just saying... and again welcome aboard. I think you'll find our little group very helpful in your search for the perfect Mooney and then ongoing as you fall in love with the breed like the rest of us have.

[MyNameIsNobody]

2 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

We're happy to have you here... but maybe tread softly until you've been here awhile and sorta learn the lay of the land. @fuellevel is a welcome supporter around here. He supports the site financially, has started several of his own threads with lots of very useful data previously unknown. Many of us started out a bit skeptical but with enough good data, now have CiES senders installed in our Mooneys. In fact, arguably the best maintained/upgraded vintage Mooneys on this site and in North America, are running CiES senders. E.g. @Marauder M20F and @Bob_Belville M20E just to name a couple.

Just saying... and again welcome aboard. I think you'll find our little group very helpful in your search for the perfect Mooney and then ongoing as you fall in love with the breed like the rest of us have.

You have been warned....Ominous music.  Tread lightly...One guy needed shunning and it wasn’t a financial supporter.  Two rules on MooneySpace.  Really more like guidelines as a goofy thread on covers for fuel caps breaks one of them: Individual attacks.  The other is No politics.  Mild profanity is also frowned upon as there are a lot of Engineers and Professionals that become offended by words.  Regardless, My Name is Nobody is NOT the guy you want to follow/quote etc...It will get the “legit” real members in the church of Mooneyspace ruffled.

[bonal]

33 minutes ago, MyNameIsNobody said:

You have been warned....Ominous music.  Tread lightly...One guy needed shunning and it wasn’t a financial supporter.  Two rules on MooneySpace.  Really more like guidelines as a goofy thread on covers for fuel caps breaks one of them: Individual attacks.  The other is No politics.  Mild profanity is also frowned upon as there are a lot of Engineers and Professionals that become offended by words.  Regardless, My Name is Nobody is NOT the guy you want to follow/quote etc...It will get the “legit” real members in the church of Mooneyspace ruffled.

Ah come on, yours are some of my favorite posts. 

[GDGR]

Who would’ve thought.....

someone goes, and asks in public, for another man to measure his stick and post the photo.... and it goes sideways! 

The post went sideways.... not the stick. 

[Stephen]

 

On 10/2/2018 at 4:54 PM, gsxrpilot said:

@fuellevel is a welcome supporter around here. He supports the site financially, has started several of his own threads with lots of very useful data previously unknown. Many of us started out a bit skeptical but with enough good data, now have CiES senders installed in our Mooneys.

This ^

 

Don't have LED's, do have EDM 900. Don't have aspen or G5 (for now ). Do have IPAD/Foreflight, don't have Garmin EFB. Do have CIES, would buy them again. At the end of the day it is a buffet of feature/function/style and personal choices. ... and we are lucky to have them. I have founded quite a few startup businesses (12 at last count). What I have learned is that it is very **hard**, exhausting in every sense and (statistically) far more likely to be financially disastrous than a big lottery payday. Business that survive  are like those few turtles that hatch and actually avoid being eaten and make the ocean and even fewer survive the ocean to grow to adults. Businesses, particularly technology product businesses that target aviation,  are pretty dang brave and put their (_!_) on the line to bring products. They are not pariahs or leeches, they are taking a personally very high stakes bet that they have researched, considered, planned and worked hard enough to bring a product package that a certain and substantial subset of the of the market will voluntarily value more than the product's price sitting in their bank account. The Mooney aircraft is a technology platform of parts... products like these. So, for my part, I say bring on the innovators and vendors. Drive up the functionality, options, safety, choices and drive down the price. Most products will fail, it is the price of the ones that succeed and we all rely on. 

[Cyril Gibb]

On 9/30/2018 at 11:50 AM, Browncbr1 said:

Here is my stick for 67 F without bladders.  

Just beginning to wet the bottom of the stick is 7 gallons.   25gallons is at the bottom of the tiny hole in the tab.  

 

Only intended to give approximate idea...   always use conservative reserves.   

Another data point from my 75 F with 32 gal tanks.  I thought they'd be a closer match.

[Browncbr1]

3 hours ago, Cyril Gibb said:

Another data point from my 75 F with 32 gal tanks.  I thought they'd be a closer match.

Mine is measured so the end of the stick is just in front of the spar flange directly on the bottom skin, no sealant.   My 32 Gallon mark is exactly at the aft gas cap flange edge.   It could be yours was measured with stick end on top of the spar flange.   It’s about 1/4” difference and if any sealant on it, then more.      Otherwise, I don’t know why the difference would be so big. 

Edited October 6, 2018 by Browncbr1

[Cyril Gibb]

On 10/5/2018 at 8:54 PM, Browncbr1 said:

Mine is measured so the end of the stick is just in front of the spar flange directly on the bottom skin, no sealant.   My 32 Gallon mark is exactly at the aft gas cap flange edge.   It could be yours was measured with stick end on top of the spar flange.   It’s about 1/4” difference and if any sealant on it, then more.      Otherwise, I don’t know why the difference would be so big. 

I don’t think it’s a big deal anyway. The differences are only about a gallon or so.  I never fly so close to the margins that 5-10 minutes of fuel matters or that more precision matters.  I stick to the IFR legal minimums of destination + approach/miss + alternate + 45 minutes.  That still gives me more than 4 hours flying time to the initial destination which is more time than the girlfriend or my bladder wants on a single leg. 

I have a fuel totalizer that is well within 1/10 of a gallon accuracy.  I’ve also run each tank dry to see where the old gauges indicate empty and I stick and sump before every flight.  I may have issues while flying, but running out of gas ain’t one of them.  Barring sudden unexpected and unseen fuel leaks, running out of gas is stupid.

[MBDiagMan]

Great looking kids fuellevel!  We appreciate your support!

[MBDiagMan]

I won’t weigh in on what fuel level measurement I prefer or what is best.  I have used sticks, factory guages some of which were meaningful and some not and now have a JPI with precision sensors..

My comment has to do with the attitude or mindset applied to fuel amangement.  Regardless of how you monitor fuel level both on the ground and the air, if you have a lackadaisical attitude or don’t allow enough margin, that is much more dangerous than which approach you use.  If you are checking fuel with a stick or all the latest fuel management technologies, it won’t matter which you use of you are not allowing enough safety margin and not paying enough attention.

As an example of what I am trying to articulate, I recall a fatal accident several years ago.  A college bound young man on the brink of his manhood died in an accident in which his Dad was the pilot.  I don’t recall details,  but it was a very long IFR flight and ended in a crash due to fuel exhaustion.  The numbers were very close, but this young mans Dad had chosen to stretch the long flight into one without a fuel stop.  Upon reading this you might think,  well maybe it could happen to anyone, but here is the rest of the story as Paul Harvey used to say: The young mans Dad had done the very same thing when he was very small and his mother had been killed.

I think a big part of proper fuel management is realizing that it can be life and death stuff.

[Hammbone]

Please do not use a wooden dowel. The fuel will rapidly wick up the side of the dowel and give abnormally high reading. Sporty's sell one { plastic, 1" increments} and has a chart you fill out for your aircraft. These are accurate to within a gallon or less.

[Cyril Gibb]

19 hours ago, Hammbone said:

Please do not use a wooden dowel. The fuel will rapidly wick up the side of the dowel and give abnormally high reading. Sporty's sell one { plastic, 1" increments} and has a chart you fill out for your aircraft. These are accurate to within a gallon or less.

I did a quick check.  If I leave a wooden stir stick in gasoline for a full 5 seconds, it wicks about 1/8" for the first 5 second dip and then 3/16" if I repeat immediately.  I dip in less than a second, so the wicking error is less than 1/8".  Doesn't seem like an issue to me.

Secondly,  I can't image a scenario where 1 gallon plus or minus would make any difference.  If I'm that uncertain about being close to a go/nogo decision, I'll add fuel. 

[Yetti]

20 hours ago, Hammbone said:

Please do not use a wooden dowel. The fuel will rapidly wick up the side of the dowel and give abnormally high reading. Sporty's sell one { plastic, 1" increments} and has a chart you fill out for your aircraft. These are accurate to within a gallon or less.

Depends on the wood.  And if you think about it.  If you dip it in and then draw the line, it will be the same level each time you dip it into the the tank.   Hardwoods wick less.

[fuellevel]

Well depending on location the 1/8 can translate to 2 to 3 gallons.  Combine that with a slight occilation of the fuel surface and the error may increase.     I can share some data to show that.    The plastic pipette method controls that to a large extent.    

So is the stick perpendicular to level,  and is it in  the same location on the tank floor , and is the aircraft level.   All of these add up to slight errors in observed level.

So we plan for a reserve 1 hr is typical.    It appears looking at starvation data that sometimes the errors both on the ground and in the air  add up.

I know this as the only scientific research performed on GA pilots showed  a staggeringly high number of pilots preflight with an assisted visual inspection.    Stick, tab or other mechanical method.   The most obscure FAA funded aviation research nobody points to in my opinion.   

So using starting assumptions that are close to accurate,  combined with in-flight hard/fast and published  rules are again close to accurate but are not always.   The idea of a starting fuel level being the be all end all method of evaluating fuel in flight is slightly flawed.

As I also point out that fuel totalizers did not change the starvation exhaustion statistic   In other words pilots with fuel totalizers run out of fuel.  This is born out in reviewing accident data.

 So the systems we use, to historically “work-around” what is considered to be traditionally flawed in-flight cockpit indication,  are not entirely effective. 

It seems very plain to me now,   it was not always that way.   And I know that some of you will believe this to be marketing or sales, but the fortunate or unfortunate situation of having my career go down this path has immersed me in this little niche with hourly conversations with pilots like yourselves and situations that came very close or resulted in an off field and never reported or categorized .    I have talked to the father and son of the previous poster  and have found the similarity of circumstance is not congenital personality traits, it is a system design issue.   Long ago in the start of Lean Manufacturing/TOYOTA way  I learned that  it wasn’t bad personalities causing issues,  it was placing people in situations where success was not assured.   

 

 

 

 

[Yetti]

It's simpler than that, it just about paying attention it could be the weather or it could be fuel in the tank.   I have seen a pipeline almost run a storage field in the NE out of gas in the winter.    You don't want to know what happens when natural gas flow stops to nursing homes and schools.    The reports were being generated and people were not paying attention to them.  Realize people were getting paid to schedule gas, it was their job.   but somehow it was overlooked.   If you stick the tanks you are paying attention, since it is a deliberate act.   That's why they still stick the tanks at gasoline stations.    funny enough there is a refinery that has someone still tape the tanks even though their automatic metering has proven successful over the years.

[Cyril Gibb]

17 hours ago, fuellevel said:

Well depending on location the 1/8 can translate to 2 to 3 gallons. 

We'll have to agree to disagree about that.  It is inconceivable that 1/8" on a dipstick would result in a 3 gallon measuring error.

I concede that I'd love to have your fuel senders, but it's not highest on my limited budget maintenance/enhancement priority list.

Unfortunately, people will ALWAYS run out of fuel.  However (barring a massive inflight fuel leak) can you provide even one example of fuel exhaustion that wasn't stupidity?  I chose that word carefully.  It is so easy to avoid fuel exhaustion, that stupidity is the only suitable term.  I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

[RLCarter]

231 cubic inches in a gallon, so a tank 43.0" x 43.0" x 0.125" would be roughly 1 gallon. 

[Cyril Gibb]

1 hour ago, RLCarter said:

231 cubic inches in a gallon, so a tank 43.0" x 43.0" x 0.125" would be roughly 1 gallon. 

That's assuming a tank with a depth of 4".  Our wet wings are approximately 8" deep, hence less area than 43" x 43".  1 USG is about 1/4" by both logic: 1/32 of 8"  = 1/4", and by measurement >= 1/4" (see 2 sample sticks above).

[Andy95W]

3 hours ago, Cyril Gibb said:

We'll have to agree to disagree about that.  It is inconceivable that 1/8" on a dipstick would result in a 3 gallon measuring error.

I concede that I'd love to have your fuel senders, but it's not highest on my limited budget maintenance/enhancement priority list.

Unfortunately, people will ALWAYS run out of fuel.  However (barring a massive inflight fuel leak) can you provide even one example of fuel exhaustion that wasn't stupidity?  I chose that word carefully.  It is so easy to avoid fuel exhaustion, that stupidity is the only suitable term.  I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

It is unfortunate that I could only "Like" this post once.  I agree 100% with Cyril, to include that I would love to have the Cies fuel senders.

[fuellevel]

So I have one statistic and two examples on the “stupidity” issue.     I also realize I am swimming upstream to conventional aviation alphabet group pundit thought and FAA safety guidance.    Statistically pilots with higher ratings CFII, Commercial, ATP are more susceptible to fuel accidents.    Statistically,  there is a histogram cloud of accidents at approx 3000 hrs of total time.    Stupidity should show up as lower rated and lower time pilots if I believed that argument.   

2 examples - both PA 28    

First one the head of an aviation school in Ohio ex Air Force Colonel.   A by the book preflight known as a pilots pilot and a strong role model for all aviators.    This pilot plans a trip of nearly 4 hrs and in front of a group of colleagues (who regularly hang around the airport) preflight and fuels the club aircraft.    He departs for a funeral of a friend in Kentucky or Tennessee.    He tells 3 to 4 miles out he tells ATC he is short on fuel,    2 miles short of the destination runway he puts the aircraft into a row of trees above a small creek.    He breaks his back and has a severe head trauma, he has no cognitive memory of the accident or events.   He has flown an aircraft with a 5 hr maximum flight time that he departed with full fuel.   The FAA handed down the rubber stamp “failure to plan.....”.  As the investigation was cursory which is the rule of a fuel related accidents as the current thought is that they are caused by “stupidity”.   His friends, wife and congressman appeal the NTSB ruling - this goes nowhere.    INTERESTING they did take pictures of the fuel senders.   They are crudely rebuilt from my eyes, nothing was said about the fuel qty system in the report.    I did go to Wash DC to illustrate that there should be more comprehensive investigations of fuel accident aircraft using this as an example.  This to, went no where

Second  a pilot and his future son in law take of in Texas for a planned flight near Corpus Christi for some fishing together time.  The flight plan is for slightly under 4 hrs.   Interesting is that this pilot is slightly deviating his flight to place his flight path over an airport at every cardinal hr in the flight plan and he is keeping tabs on fuel consumption utilizing his fuel gauges.   ( I googled his aircraft it was 200% better than any PA 28 I ever flew in).   This is strange that fuel gauges are mentioned.    Everything is good at hr 3 and he presses on to his destination as  3 hrs was a go no go decision point in his plan.   Any deviation and he would land at this cardinal airport.   This is all in the pilots comprehensive flight notes.  Everything going to plan.    3/4 of the way to his destination the aircraft hiccups despite showing fuel in the tank.  He switches tanks and hits a little turbulence and the selected tank goes to zero. In fact both tanks now indicate zero. This and he notes is not to plan as there should be 13 or so gallons remaining, and mysteriously 5 just disappeared to the hesitation tank and now the drawn tank is showing no fuel which by plan should have an equivalent amount.   At this point the destination airport is in visual sight and the closest airport so by switching tanks and applying a little rudder pressure  he milks both tanks completely dry and he is aligned and straight in on approach.   His sight line is a little low and to preserve his future son in law from a potential clipping of the airport perimeter fence with his gear he elects to turn slightly and land in a field.  By gauges his fuel consumption goes from 10 gal/hr , 8, 8 to 30 at the end.   The FAA shows up rubber stamps the “failure to plan....”.  He protests that he has planned illustrating his fuel receipt and comprehensive notes.   No aircraft investigation takes place, other than the cursory examination of the tanks, by the FAA yes both are bone dry.     So this pilot talks to me, and I learn that he too is ex Air Force and retired as the lead  flight instructor for all domestic and foreign C130 flight engineers.   This is the reason for the comprehensive flight notes, strange  noting of  all gauge readings against a plan  as this was ingrained.   Even the cardinal go no go flight plan.   The NTSB investigation blames him for paying attention to his fuel gauges which the FAA Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge tells you, you should never trust.    

Yes you can blame stupidity, I don’t anymore., this is now two examples out of hundreds.   You basically  can’t find what you are not looking for. .   Blaming stupidity and not actually looking for a root cause  is one of many things the exercise of Lean Manufacturing has schooled my thinking. 

[Andy95W]

Is your assertion that these two ex-Air Force pilots did nothing wrong either in their preflight planning or in the conduct of their flight?

With the exception of a fuel leak that began mid-flight, I fail to see how that could be true.

[Andy95W]

I am not saying that your Cies fuel senders and better gauges wouldn't have prevented at least one of those accidents.  Particularly in the second example, the flight engineer would have diverted.  

Modern airliners (and Air Force aircraft) have incredibly reliable and accurate fuel gauges.  Perhaps these Air Force trained pilots relied on our crude and ancient gauges more than they should have.

[jaylw314]

47 minutes ago, fuellevel said:

So I have one statistic and two examples on the “stupidity” issue.     I also realize I am swimming upstream to conventional aviation alphabet group pundit thought and FAA safety guidance.    Statistically pilots with higher ratings CFII, Commercial, ATP are more susceptible to fuel accidents.    Statistically,  there is a histogram cloud of accidents at approx 3000 hrs of total time.    Stupidity should show up as lower rated and lower time pilots if I believed that argument.   

I think @Cyril Gibb might have been using "stupidity" as an synonym for "complacency."  The data that there is a blip later in one's flying career rather than at the beginning suggests that complacency is more likely to be a factor than inexperience.

[Cyril Gibb]

23 minutes ago, fuellevel said:

Stupidity should show up as lower rated and lower time pilots if I believed that argument.  

Your assumption of the demographic associated with stupidity doesn't match mine.  Perhaps it's an age and stage thing due to my advancing years, but I've seen stupidity spread quite evenly throughout society.  Socioeconomic status, age, sex, experience ...etc etc have little to do with it.

In the first example a pilot runs out of fuel after 4 hours in an aircraft with an endurance of 5 hours.  Mysterious.  His call to ATC demonstrated that he was aware in the last two minutes of his flight that he's got a fuel problem.  I doubt very much that he thought everything was o.k. for 3:57 and then realized at 3:58 there was an issue.  There's lots of airports in that area.  A precautionary landing would have been more prudent.

The second example a pilot runs out of gas 3/4 the way into a four hour flight, 3 hours flying in a 5 hour endurance aircraft.  Mysterious.

What we don't know is if the pilots were familiar with those aircraft.  If they were familiar and knew the fuel burn, that was just bad planning. Stupid.

If they weren't familiar with those planes and were counting on the potentially inaccurate fuel gauges to keep them safe... stupid.

Even with your accurate gauges, I wouldn't count on the calibration of a new-to-me plane to be correct on a long cross country.