CT4ME Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 I feel SO SPECIAL..... I got TWO of the letters, one with an Oregon return address, and one with a California address. tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anticept Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 jadams1363, May I recommend that you remove any statements stating "he is nuts" and only stick to proven facts? I would hate to see anyone get a lawsuit in their lap for "defamation" or "slander". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted January 9, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 They bashed him for 37 pages worth over on Pilots of America. Not one supporter. It got so out of hand admin stepped in and shut it down and that's saying a lot because on that website it is an anything goes place. I know a little more than I can repeat, but in the end I think he will get more than he can handle. He may wish he never started this. Be careful when you grab a tiger by it's tail because you better have a plan to deal with the other end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT4ME Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 As mentioned in the FD response letter, all CTs have baffles. The design has become more sophisticated over time. Each and every one of us, every time we fill the tanks, know that there is some difference in fuel flow. Sometimes it's exact, but more often it's a couple gallons of difference. It was the same when I flew a C152. FWIW - Mr. Bernath has sent me an email, with more "evidence" of the "deadly design defect". In this case, another CTsw owner flew their plane with low fuel, and very un-coordinated (due to a rigging problem). The flight ended on a road, with everyone safe, due to an 89 year old pilot with a lot of flying experience. Great Flying Victor! The full letter was posted on Pilot's of America forum but, after a flurry of posts pounding Mr. B, the whole thread was killed. I will not post the letter. It is to the FAA, trying to explain the situation, attempting to avoiding any further scrutiny by the FAA. Nowhere in the letter is any insinuation that there is a "deadly design defect". There is no NTSB record of the incident, presumably because there were no injuries or damage. So, again... don't fly if you don't have fuel! Be aware of your fuel status, especially when you have very little, and are flying uncoordinated! In the interest of avoiding or feeding the litigation and not feeding the troll, I suggest that there be no further posts on this subject, unless it is news, after-the-fact, about the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT4ME Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 from page 6-26 of Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge. "Regardless of the type of fuel selector in use, fuel consumption should be monitored closely to ensure that a tank does not run completely out of fuel. Running a fuel tank dry will not only cause the engine to stop, but running for prolonged periods on one tank causes an unbalanced fuel load between tanks. Running a tank completely dry may allow air to enter the fuel system and cause vapor lock, which makes it difficult to restart the engine." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.