I used land on frontage roads and get auto gas in spray planes on the great plains. I would push up to the pump. The co-op guys would ask why I didn't taxi up. Engines didn't lead foul plugs like pipeline plane engines on 100LL.

courierguy wrote:The above unporting issues, and how they relate to which tank, both or single, is selected, is why I went with a header tank on my experimental. Any "drama" up at the mains is settled down by the time the fuel flows out the bottom of the 3 gallon header tank.

On this whole fuel issue, since I have not been to Oshkosh since 1988 (lots of reasons why, didn't miss it for one) and I have relatives back east, I am starting to ponder going this year. IF I do, I will make the entire flight there and back on mo gas. Now that's no big deal, as the suitability of mo gas, even E-10 mo gas, and the Rotax is a no brainer, everyone I know that flies with a Rotax uses mogas, though many draw the line at E-10. But when they go XC, they revert to buying av gas, but I have the means to get my own mo gas, using my electric bike, trailer, and fuel bladders. Anyone know of others making the trip all on mo gas? Sure, it can be a PITA, if you're in a hurry, I won't be, or I won't go. It will for sure add to the challenge, and in fact that challenge is the main reason I would make the trip. There, I said it, now the pressure is on to do it! On the other hand, I have not worn out Wyoming, Utah, Montana, or my home state of Idaho yet, I still am not bored flying "local," so it's hard to go elsewhere.

Put Mobridge, SD and Waseca, MN on your list of stops. Both have auto gas on the field, and 24 hour gas....though at Waseca you have to read all the signs to get gas....

MTV

No ones yet mentioned getting pump gas in Yellowpine. I'll do that on occasion and even just 10 gallons at a time can keep me flying out of Johnson Creek for extended periods if I make a trip to YP every day and fly every other. West Fork Lodge is also a good fuel stop on the Montana side.

Blowing a tank dry was SOP flying Beavers, always done at cruise. Some had a low pressure light that would come on that would give you 10 seconds to switch tanks before the engine quit. You used every drop you had and didn't want to run one dry at a bad time landing or taking off. Same concept others are using here on other airplanes.

[imgcaption][/imgcaption]

Karmutzen wrote:Blowing a tank dry was SOP flying Beavers, always done at cruise. Some had a low pressure light that would come on that would give you 10 seconds to switch tanks before the engine quit. You used every drop you had and didn't want to run one dry at a bad time landing or taking off. Same concept others are using here on other airplanes.

+1

When I checked out in the Beaver I was taught the same thing. Fuel pressure light let me down once when the light bulb gave up during flight.... . The sound of a suddenly silent -985 is deafening.

After that, when running a tank dry, I kept an eye on the fuel pressure gauge. When it started to fluctuate, switch tanks.

Running a tank dry, you know exactly how much gas is left in that tank, and you're not going back there.

MTV

mtv wrote:Running a tank dry, you know exactly how much gas is left in that tank, and you're not going back there.

Yep. I managed the fuel in the Luscombe in similar fashion. Right tank for 30 min, switch to left tank till dry then back to right tank. I liked that method because I knew exactly how much fuel was in the left tank (zero) and had a really good idea how much fuel was remaining in the right tank (time flown on left tank minus 30min). Typically I couldn't stand sitting in the plane long enough to run out of fuel.

I understand running one tank dry as a way of compensating for inaccurate fuel gages, but with a fuel flow meter telling you exactly how much gas you have, I don't see any point in the practice. If anything, I think you're exacerbating the chances of "running out of fuel with gas on board".

While not particularly likely or common, there are numerous things that can go wrong while switching tanks which won't go wrong flying on Both. Both the fuel valve and the linkage to the selector handle are moving parts and not immune to failure. So if switching tanks doesn't buy you anything of actual value, it's a poor practice... especially over unforgiving terrain.

As far as unporting the fuel line...I get the theory, but in practice I've never had an engine sputter and catch, turbulent air or not. When a tank runs dry the engine just stops. I don't believe you get ten seconds more power by running one tank dry then switching to the other tank.

I could be wrong of course, but that's my experience.

Hammer wrote:I understand running one tank dry as a way of compensating for inaccurate fuel gages, but with a fuel flow meter telling you exactly how much gas you have, I don't see any point in the practice. If anything, I think you're exacerbating the chances of "running out of fuel with gas on board".

While not particularly likely or common, there are numerous things that can go wrong while switching tanks which won't go wrong flying on Both. Both the fuel valve and the linkage to the selector handle are moving parts and not immune to failure. So if switching tanks doesn't buy you anything of actual value, it's a poor practice... especially over unforgiving terrain.

As far as unporting the fuel line...I get the theory, but in practice I've never had an engine sputter and catch, turbulent air or not. When a tank runs dry the engine just stops. I don't believe you get ten seconds more power by running one tank dry then switching to the other tank.

I could be wrong of course, but that's my experience.

Ummm, the Beaver has three belly tanks, and most also have wing tip tanks. No "All" position.

In my experience, the fuel selector valves that haven't been moved in a year are the scary ones, not the ones that are managed every flight. If your selector is prone to failure, get it fixed....not using it for fear it'll fail makes no sense to me.

Lots of planes out there that do not have a "Both" position....Cubs, C 206, Beaver, etc.

If your selector does have a "Both" position, there are still valid reasons to operate on one or the other tank at times.

MTV

I barked up this tree a while back. Good discussion.

https://www.backcountrypilot.org/forum/ ... both-17574

Hammer wrote:

colopilot wrote:

glacier wrote:...
If you fly on Both tanks and see that one fuel gage isn't moving, that's a pretty good indication that you don't have access to that fuel, maybe because of ice or some other blockage.

Or you're just in a Cessna with their magic vents. Due to cross-tank vent placement and wing dihedral, they have a tendency to suck the fuel from one tank to the other as it's consumed for a good while, until you finally get the fuel level low enough in the feeder side to break the suction. You still have all of the fuel available in flight, you just effectively draw most of it from one side as it transfers from the other. Other than alternating tanks or flying cockeyed, there's also not much you can really do about it. The newer models have an updated design that greatly lessens this phenomenon.

Interesting...I've never flown a Cessna that does that, though I don't doubt some do. Maybe Monarch caps help?

What helps is to make sure the right cap is on the right wing and the left cap on the left wing, on Cessnas with only one tank vent on the left wing behind the strut. They're 2 different part numbers, for a reason. The left one isn't vented; the right one is vented. But often they get reversed, or they're both the same. Hooked up wrong, and it's easy to see why some don't draw evenly.

Cary

Wow this thread sled from fuel in out back into fuel in which tank which always is a good discussion subject. Have had experiences with all the above. Over the years had 5 fuel exhaustion events all which ended successfully First was C185 on floats picking up load of hunters made a left step turn take off in a marginal lake with fuel tank on right tank just cleared shore line and engine quit 30 feet.
switch tanks hit boost pump...wrooom my fault Boss said no way can't happen. Cessna added to flight manual a few yrs later don't do that.

A similar event a few years later doing a step turn take out of Bulchitna Lk in C206 same condition as before..Guess I am a slow learner .left turn on right tank airborne above the trees at end of lake
silence switch tanks and boost pump wroom...Mormon guy from Idaho in right seat said I was using a lot of 4 letter words in the process

Taking a load of sight sightseers from Lake Hood to McNeal River bear viewing area in C185 on floats. Told bosses daughter, gas person to give me 30 gal a side. Some how I got less We were using dip sticks to measure fuel all the time. Since ele gas gauges were broke and I told boss several times to no avail. getting close to destination rt tank went dry Recalculate Dropped pax at river.
Figured I had fuel to get to Homer across cook inlet to refuel at Bleuga Lake. Flew boat to boat towards Homer. No problem crossed highway east bound downwind for the lake turned base reached up to reduce power right then engine quit ...not a problem got lake made easy turned onto final and the prop stopped little nervous then Landed safe But all is not done. Sitting in middle of lake with west wind with no gas and floating away from the road and docks. Had to call flight service to request fuel. He said no problem pull up to dock and he would send fuel truck........... Had to admit I could not do that and needed fuel brought out in a boat. He said your shi... me right...I said no

Back at Lake Hood boss chewed me out for taking so long. He would not admit that his daughter short sticked me.. Gauges got fixed 2 days later

So, Don, you didn't break out the trusty paddle and row your way to the fuel dock?

Had a seaplane student in his Luscomb 8E on floats wanting an SES. We were trying to do it legal, and he was fueling the plane. He had >200 hours in that plane on wheels, so I figured he could manage gas.

Coming in to FAI float pond, he flared, engine quit and prop stopped. Fortunately, it was a good landing, but now we're in channel of busy float pond with no power, and tower would prefer we exit the channel.

Student asked "What do we do now?" I said "You paddle and I'll talk to tower." Fortunately no wind so we made his parking spot.

Got a load of grief from tower chief later....after which he cracked up laughing..... .
Next flight, we may have been a couple ounces over GW.

MTV

Thanks for the thread link Z...good stuff, though I haven't read through all four pages yet.

MTV, I don't dispute that there are good reasons to run off of one tank or the other. But the context of this discussion is stretching fuel endurance...

I use to subscribe to the "run one tank dry" philosophy, but the more I thought about it, the less sense it made, at least for an aircraft that can run off both tanks and has a accurate way of measuring the remaining fuel without a dying engine signifying the half way point.

If you cannot run off both tanks, then running one tank bone dry at altitude makes good sense. But if you can run off both tanks, I don't think it does. I think it's a poor choice.

I'm not untrustworthy of my fuel selector. But from a procedural point of view, anything that risks catastrophic failure (like the engine shutting down while you're still in the air) must have a corresponding benefit that compensates for that risk, no matter how small it is. Otherwise it's a bad procedure. Flying one tank dry in an aircraft that can draw off both tanks, for no other reason than it feels better to have all your fuel in one tank rather than split between the two, strikes me as bad procedure... Especially bad if you believe (as I do) that there is a greater risk of turbulence or out-of-trim related fuel starvation if all the fuel is in one wing tank or another. I'm open to learning why this isn't so, but my flight experience supports that belief.

Moving parts fail...there's no getting around that. Most airplanes are utilizing the original fuel selector linkage and valve. That's both a testament to their reliability, and a caution that they're closer to failure than they were when the airplane rolled out the factory door. The chance is small, but so is winning the lottery, and yet someone always does.

Other than specific and rare circumstances, my fuel selector is always on Off or Both. That makes the most sense to me...everyone else can come to their own conclusion. But it's a point worth pondering, at least to me. It might be a small point, but the consequences of doing it wrong could be rather dramatic.

All this L-R tank selecting logic sounds great in theory, and it used to be the SOP for most aircraft. These days, not so much. If I was brought up flying that way, maybe I wouldn't think about the risk so much.

Running one tank dry should definitely work out safely 100% of the time during cruise flight, when everything is happening in a planned manner, pilot workload is low, the situation is under control, and provided you're not prone to making silly mistakes. That said, not many accidents happen during those prevailing circumstances. I bet very few "starvation with fuel on-board" accidents play out under those conditions. Not all backcountry flying involves extended boring cruise flights with nothing better to do than manage fuel, either.

It seems safe to presume that it was dedicated air safety professionals with extensive knowledge who recommended the both tanks operational procedure. Probably after a focussed study. It would be great to have an expert opinion on such things, and if humans weren't prone to make mistakes. But its likely the recommended practice is the safest operational procedure, if your aircraft has the "both" option.

Personally, I select L or R tanks during some flights but I never without setting a timed reminder in my EFIS. I have forgotten to change tanks before.. and I will forget again, if I fly long enough. One day it could catch me out. If I forget and the engine starved at exactly the wrong moment, or I didn't realise what had happened fast enough, perhaps due to other distractions, well... it would be bad. So I prefer both tanks as my default position. If I am dangerously low on fuel I will be selecting both tanks. If there is even a chance that a drop of fuel remains in either tank, then I want access to it. Writing-off a tank which you believe to be empty, well, that sounds like a risk which I would prefer to avoid.

The fact is selecting both tanks is normally the safer option, particularly when you are stretching your fuel endurance. Noting not every aircraft has this option, the fact remains.

My experience, other than my flakiness, supports Batson's conclusion. I didn't check to be sure a student changed tanks on Billy Howell's super cub. It went bang and stopped coming our of a practice spray run. I took the controls, turned to a parallel field, and was about to touch down when he got the engine going. I pulled power and landed.

I poisoned myself with Parathion and messed up a forced landing while spraying onions. I cartwheeled a fine $12,500 CallAir with five gallons in the left wing tank.

I let a creeping forward throttle and squared power setting run a Cardinal out at 200' on a pipeline. I turned to a parallel field and set up a fine approach.I turned the boost pump on which started the engine for a few seconds and I overflew my desired touchdown point the long way on an eighty. I made another energy management then to make the same eighty crosswise.

I had mouse hair completely clog a carb about halfway down a four thousand foot runway. I was still in low ground effect. I landed straight ahead.

On none of those, or any of my forced landings did I do anything except maneuver and land.

mtv wrote:.... Even suggesting that an off airport forced landing due to fuel exhaustion is a viable option is a fool's game.

I know at least three guys who've ran their airplanes out of gas & had to do a forced landing.
One guy did just fine.
Another put his supercub on it's back -- totalled it, and screwed up his neck in the process.
The third guy ran his turbine Bonanza dry and ended up running into an embankment when he overran his landing site. Killed him, and his son that was aboard got beat up pretty bad. Pretty damn dumb way to die IMHO.

I agree with Hotrod180 that forced landing in a light airplane is a dumb way to die. Except at night or over cold water, it should result in an embarrassing incident. If it doesn't, in my opinion, something bad happened in the last six seconds to cause the pilot to quit flying and do something else. From 200' down is six seconds. For those who fly low, engine failure emergency procedure is: maneuver to a landing site and land. Doing anything else could be fatal.

I really think flying low all my life was a big advantage. I never had to make the decision when to stop trying to restart and concentrate just on landing.

contactflying wrote:I agree with Hotrod180 that forced landing in a light airplane is a dumb way to die. Except at night or over cold water, it should result in an embarrassing incident. If it doesn't, in my opinion, something bad happened in the last six seconds to cause the pilot to quit flying and do something else. From 200' down is six seconds. For those who fly low, engine failure emergency procedure is: maneuver to a landing site and land. Doing anything else could be fatal.

I really think flying low all my life was a big advantage. I never had to make the decision when to stop trying to restart and concentrate just on landing.

Well you certainly have a lot more experience in dead stick landings than I do, but there is a LOT of terrain in the backcountry where I just don't believe that is true. I always play the "where you going to land" game when I fly, and it's not uncommon to go 30 minutes without a single option that doesn't guarantee complete destruction of the aircraft and "who knows" for the people inside.

No matter how good a stick you are, putting down in timber or rocks at high DA is a crap shoot at best.

You are right, Hammer. I should have said use the last six seconds to maneuver to the best survivable spot and land or crash as appropriate. My point was not to delay putting full concentration outside the cockpit and onto that spot. We can roll the dice on a continued restart attempt, multitask, or put all into making a survivable landing or crash. I have found the latter to work well. I have found, over many iterations, that the sooner I accepted that I was surely going to land or crash the better things went.

Hammer wrote:... there is a LOT of terrain in the backcountry where I just don't believe that is true. I always play the "where you going to land" game when I fly, and it's not uncommon to go 30 minutes without a single option that doesn't guarantee complete destruction of the aircraft and "who knows" for the people inside.....

Doesn't even have to really be in the back country.
I live in rural western Washington, and while we do have some areas with a lot of open farm fields, in a lot of other areas the cash crop (and usual ground cover) is timber. Not too many suitable places to land in forestland, even clear-cuts are usually full of stumps & other bad stuff.