The Cellar - fuel calculations aren't this hard.

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Home Base (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=2)

- - fuel calculations aren't this hard. (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=9134)

ahhhhh verrrrrry cool! :thumb:

Quote:

Originally Posted by plthijinx

... was told that a dude that i'd been bitching about for the last 2 weeks give or take ran out of fuel. ... just a severe case of rectal cranial disorder, i counted 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - FIVE safer places to land than what he chose. 1 highway, 1 country road (paved) 2 dirt roads and the beach.

I believe this is the NTSB report (MIA05LA155) on what happened:
NTSB report on 13 Sept 2005 landing

Quote:

The pilot stated that he had no recollection of the accident. ... about 10 to 15 gallons of fuel was removed from the right wing. No fuel was found in the left wing. The inspector further stated that the fuel selector had been set to the left tank position

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw

I believe this is the NTSB report (MIA05LA155) on what happened:
NTSB report on 13 Sept 2005 landing

:redface:

all comments about his intelligence aside, that dude must feel pretty dumb at the moment.

Steve

Been over 40 years since I have flown a Cessna 150, But I seem to rermember that you set the mags. to both. Didn't the fuel also set to both?? Maybe the 150 only had 1 tank??

Quote:

Originally Posted by busterb

Been over 40 years since I have flown a Cessna 150, But I seem to rermember that you set the mags. to both. Didn't the fuel also set to both?? Maybe the 150 only had 1 tank??

150s have wing tanks; there had better be two.

I'm pretty sure I recall that the 150 tank selector has a "both" position...I *know* that the 152 does. But when parked on a sloping ramp it's common to set one tank only to prevent crossfeeding and fuel loss though the tank vent

Quote:

Originally Posted by marichiko

Hey! Don't they put gas guages on those things?

Yes, but they're fairly unreliable. They also don't work if you don't look at them. Also, having fuel in one tank doesn't help if you're only feeding from the empty one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad

How many minutes is 5000 feet if you know what you're doing? The glider pilots can stay up all day...

A 152 has something like a 6:1 glide ratio, so at 5,000 this guy had maybe a four to five mile radius to work from (depending on terrain elevation; altitudes are measured in feet above sea level) . Working against that is how much time/altitude he lost to bargaining, denial and other stages of grief before trimming for best glide speed (full nose up trim, in a 152) and picking a good spot to aim for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianR

LOL I remember those gauges. Accurate to within 1/2 tank.

The only actual requirement for certification is that they read "empty" when empty.

The only actual requirement for certification is that they read "empty" when empty.

NO WAY !!!! There HAS to be SOME kind of standerd for accuarcy !!
Not just "some, uhh maybe " then EMPTY !!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by zippyt

The only actual requirement for certification is that they read "empty" when empty.
NO WAY !!!! There HAS to be SOME kind of standerd for accuarcy !!
Not just "some, uhh maybe " then EMPTY !!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Federal AIr Regulations Part 23 Subpart F: Equipment

...
Sec. 23.1337 Powerplant instruments installation.
(b) Fuel quantity indication. There must be a means to indicate to
the flightcrew members the quantity of usable fuel in each tank during
flight. An indicator calibrated in appropriate units and clearly marked
to indicate those units must be used. In addition:

(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 Sec. 23.959(a);

(2) Each exposed sight gauge used as a fuel quantity indicator must
be protected against damage;

(3) Each sight gauge that forms a trap in which water can collect
and freeze must have means to allow drainage on the ground;

(4) There must be a means to indicate the amount of usable fuel in
each tank when the airplane is on the ground (such as by a stick gauge);

(5) Tanks with interconnected outlets and airspaces may be
considered as one tank and need not have separate indicators; and

(6) No fuel quantity indicator is required for an auxiliary tank
that is used only to transfer fuel to other tanks if the relative size
of the tank,
...
Sec. 23.1553 Fuel quantity indicator.
A red radial line must be marked on each indicator at the calibrated
zero reading, as specified in Sec. 23.1337(b)(1).

You see any accuracy standard there?

These are typical:
http://f3c.yahoofs.com/auc/000116360...AmqsLBuhRdcAfT
http://f3c.yahoofs.com/auc/000114710...AmqsLBCSkXLEuK

An indicator calibrated in appropriate units and clearly marked
to indicate those units must be used

But there HAS to be a stanrard SOME where !!!

Are you telling me that all those Big Air liners are just winging around off of Jethro Bodeen "Naught +naught =Naught " ???

big airliners have capacitve FQ measurements, working with quantities of fuel up around 50,000 pounds and higher. They are more accurate mostly because it's more dangerous to have a big plane go empty and more inmportantly, passengers have survivors who sue.

Big airlines also cost considerably more than the 152 trainer in question. And have fuel flow sensors that feed the flight management system with minute by minute accurate fuel consumption data...which is why one transatlantic flight got in trouble after a last minute engine change. A fuel leak developed that dumped increasing amounts of (uncounted) fuel overboard...they ended up dead-sticking in.

[pathological need to belong]

my dad was a pilot in the navy and, once a civvie, he became a small engine pilot, was one for years; a founding member of the Dayton Airport and an official there. (ok, no one has heard of it) and I recall this:

Flying with dad and him having to do an emergency landing (much to Control's disbelief) because I puked. Apparently I puked a LOT.

[end pathological need to belong]

So. flying isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brianna

So. flying isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Flying's wonderful.

It's puking that sucks.

The best cure for airsickness is taking the controls...he should have let you fly it.