Jim Meade Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 Do any stock CTs have fuel valves that enable left/right/both or something similar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anticept Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 On the injected, but not any of the other models that I know of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbigs Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 Do any stock CTs have fuel valves that enable left/right/both or something similar? The CTLSi has a fuel switch with L/Both/R and a header tank with 1.3 usable and audibles to warn you if you are in the header tank (which should never happen unless you are doing pattern work and forgot to fuel beforehand). As I mentioned before, I have NEVER taken the switch off Both. All I do is make sure the wings don't fall below 5 gallons before any flight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WmInce Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 Dear Roger, I Drain it out on the ground from drain hole (not by engine running)... Fuel in left wing going empty first, then other. how about it? regards Try the same test with both fuel caps removed. If one tank drains before the other, then there is a restriction with a tank line. If both tanks empty at the same time, then check the fuel cap vents. One fuel cap vent may be more restricted than the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Meade Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 On the injected, but not any of the other models that I know of. So, FD used to have fuel valves, then got rid of them, now has them back on some models. This does not make it obvious to me that FD designers have decided pilots can't be trusted to use fuel valves. One could as easily make the case that fuel valves are an expense and raise the price of the plane and are undesirable for that reason. There may be other explanations, as well. It seems like we don't have enough information to come to a conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 They put the fuel selectors back in to help people control fuel use from wing to wing if needed, but they installed a low level fuel alarm as a safety feature. Too many pilots of CT's and GA aircraft have had too many incidents over the years for forgetting to switch fuel tanks. Some factory add ons over the years have been safety driven and some to better engineer the aircraft, but many things that have been installed in CT's since 2004 have been driven by the customers in the US. We want more. All that comes with a price. Now we have $170K SLSA. I guess you have to toss inflation in there too, but we lost the $105K-$125K SLSA because we wanted more. Bottom line is we can always want more and more and be careful what you wish for because only the rich will be able to afford it. The header tank with a low fuel level alarm is a good common since approach and a nice safety feature for the user. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 All that comes with a price. Now we have $170K SLSA. With 450-480lb useful load. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Meade Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 I've yet to see any documentation supporting any of the theories on this thread of why FD did or did not install fuel tank switches. It would seem that FD is not opposed to fuel tank valves in at least some conditions, no matter what their reasoning is. Thus, it would seem they don't see it as a safety issue that they can't defend in court. Maybe because many, many airplanes have had fuel switch valves for decades and still do. So - absent documentation from FD, it's all conjecture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacques Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 Not having a fuel selector was one of my complaints when I was buying my SW in 2004. My dealer told me that the 2K ans CT180 in Europe had the selector and some ' accidents' happenend because of bad fuel management from the pilots . Because of that , FD decided ( or were pushed by regulation ) (not sure) to eliminate the selector. On mine, I'm planning to install a valve for the right wing..to keep the fuel there longer.. as I don't have aileron trim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WmInce Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 The CTLSi has a fuel switch with L/Both/R and a header tank with 1.3 usable and audibles to warn you if you are in the header tank (which should never happen unless you are doing pattern work and forgot to fuel beforehand). As I mentioned before, I have NEVER taken the switch off Both. All I do is make sure the wings don't fall below 5 gallons before any flight. You are the last guy in the world that should be lecturing anyone on fuel management. Need I mention why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbigs Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 With 450-480lb useful load. And a fuel burn four times less than a plane with a 1000lb useful. No need to fill the tanks to go the same distance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbigs Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 You are the last guy in the world that should be lecturing anyone on fuel management. Need I mention why? I was not PIC when the header tank was entered. The header tank in the CTLSi btw is something you may want to try and retro into your SW Ince, you may need it someday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin2 Posted March 18, 2015 Report Share Posted March 18, 2015 Some may be awful close to taking a forum vacation !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anticept Posted March 19, 2015 Report Share Posted March 19, 2015 Some may be awful close to taking a forum vacation !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Did someone say vacation? How about to the Bahamas?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted March 19, 2015 Report Share Posted March 19, 2015 And a fuel burn four times less than a plane with a 1000lb useful. No need to fill the tanks to go the same distance. But even with empty tanks, you will never have 1000lb useful in a CT. The other hypothetical airplane can haul more than twice the gear the same distance... And I defy you to find a single common piston single with 1000lb useful load that burns four times the fuel as the CT (16-24gph). More like twice (8-12). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anticept Posted March 19, 2015 Report Share Posted March 19, 2015 But even with empty tanks, you will never have 1000lb useful in a CT. The other hypothetical airplane can haul more than twice the gear the same distance... And I defy you to find a single common piston single with 1000lb useful load that burns four times the fuel as the CT (16-24gph). More like twice (8-12). Twins But my mooney does have a 921 useful load that at peak fuel usage, is 18 gph. But that's with take off power . Cruise, when going the same speed as my CT, is around 7-8 gph. However, I don't think it's a fair comparison either since mooneys are retracts with constant speed props. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted March 19, 2015 Report Share Posted March 19, 2015 "Did someone say vacation? How about to the Bahamas?!" One week in May for me for more school. Then something new to announce. My wife will call it a vacation because she doesn't have to sit in class all day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted March 19, 2015 Report Share Posted March 19, 2015 Twins But my mooney does have a 921 useful load that at peak fuel usage, is 18 gph. But that's with take off power . Cruise, when going the same speed as my CT, is around 7-8 gph. However, I don't think it's a fair comparison either since mooneys are retracts with constant speed props. That's why I said "piston single"...to exclude jets, turboprops, and twins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted March 19, 2015 Report Share Posted March 19, 2015 One week in may for me for more school. Then something new to announce. Is it a bolt-on kit for the 912ULS to give us an additional 25hp?!? One can dream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbigs Posted March 19, 2015 Report Share Posted March 19, 2015 But even with empty tanks, you will never have 1000lb useful in a CT. The other hypothetical airplane can haul more than twice the gear the same distance... And I defy you to find a single common piston single with 1000lb useful load that burns four times the fuel as the CT (16-24gph). More like twice (8-12). The 1000 lb useful at 22gph cruise with 100LL ($6 x 22 = $132). The FD has half that useful, but flys the hour at 4gph of Mogas ($2.50 x 4 = $10). So the extra 500lbs useful costs 13x more for fuel. The total cost of ownership is also warped badly taking into account purchase 8x higher, annuals 4x higher and insurance 3x higher. The four seater has a range of 1000nm the FD has a range of 1200nm. I plan to own a four seater, but I also know the cost jump is absurd to get the extra two seats and added useful load. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted March 19, 2015 Report Share Posted March 19, 2015 The 1000 lb useful at 22gph cruise with 100LL ($6 x 22 = $132). The FD has half that useful, but flys the hour at 4gph of Mogas ($2.50 x 4 = $10). So the extra 500lbs useful costs 13x more for fuel. The total cost of ownership is also warped badly taking into account purchase 8x higher, annuals 4x higher and insurance 3x higher. The four seater has a range of 1000nm the FD has a range of 1200nm. I plan to own a four seater, but I also know the cost jump is absurd to get the extra two seats and added useful load. Again...which piston singles is this cruising at 22gph??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted March 19, 2015 Report Share Posted March 19, 2015 Again...which piston singles is this cruising at 22gph??? Once again someone on this forum is talking complete nonsense. For years I flew a Cherokee 6 (a six seater for those who don't know the aeroplane) and it cruised at 60 litres per hour (very convenient for mental arithmetic - a litre a minute!) - converting that to US Gallons gives 15.85 gallons per hour. Mr Morden I think you may rest your case! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted March 19, 2015 Report Share Posted March 19, 2015 I typically leaned my Cirrus SR22 to 13.5 gph (or less in the teens). Still got around 170k. The turbo leans to 17.5 gph in cruise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted March 19, 2015 Report Share Posted March 19, 2015 As a benchmark, what is probably the thirstiest mainstream single, the Cessna Corvalis 400 TT, sucks 18.5gph in top cruise at low level...but at 235 knots! It has almost exactly 1000lb useful load, which translates to 430lb with full fuel. But that is a balls-to-the-wall, no compromise performance airplane, designed for top speed from A to B. I'm sure you could get even the 400 TT to something like 12gph at some pokey speed like 190kt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WmInce Posted March 19, 2015 Report Share Posted March 19, 2015 As a benchmark, what is probably the thirstiest mainstream single, the Cessna Corvalis 400 TT, sucks 18.5gph in top cruise at low level...but at 235 knots! It has almost exactly 1000lb useful load, which translates to 430lb with full fuel. But that is a balls-to-the-wall, no compromise performance airplane, designed for top speed from A to B. I'm sure you could get even the 400 TT to something like 12gph at some pokey speed like 190kt. Andy, Saw one down at Ft. Myers . . . what a helluva' airplane. Looked like it was doing 200 kts., sitting there on the ramp. Was also packed with great avionics and a pristine finish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.