Jump to content

CTSW Fuel Tank Vent Design


Recommended Posts

 

6 hours ago, Tom Baker said:

I don't think anyone would plan on flying hard IFR with a CT, but filing a flight plan to go up or descend down through a layer on a cross country is doable. It could be the difference between making a trip or not.

Agreed. 

image.png.d13fdf4793f804e04766c453d59be9aa.png

 

I found this sweet little check valve, If the vent where to get iced up, the check valve would be the secondary inlet. 

 

image.thumb.png.84f11c30eaafc8c5482d9887310df479.png

8 hours ago, Anticept said:

I've had fun blowing out the pitot tubes many times. They trap water like crazy.

I think the FD heated Pitot has drains, Maybe some one can comment?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Tom Baker said:

I don't think anyone would plan on flying hard IFR with a CT, but filing a flight plan to go up or descend down through a layer on a cross country is doable. It could be the difference between making a trip or not.

Just IMO, but if you have to file to complete a trip, you should probably stay on the ground in a CT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Skunkworks85 said:

Why?

Because it's not really an airplane built for flying in marginal conditions where icing, lightning, or other serious weather hazards can occur.  If that's the kind of flying you are doing, then something like a 182 might be more suitable.  Again, just IMO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andy, IFR is not about flying in serious weather hazards, and that would be foolish even in a 182. How about this scenario, you are based at an airport in a river valley. The weather is 500 foot overcast with 2 miles visibility. The cloud layer is 1500 feet thick and clear on top. The temperature is 50°F, and not raining. It is clear on top, and at your departure or destination. You file IFR to get either in or out of the airport to make an otherwise trip in clear weather. This is the type of IFR that most private pilots do, and I think the CT would be well suited for this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody in a small airplane likes flying through 10,000 ft thick soup for most of a trip as tom points out. Usually such weather is dangerous anyways. They teach IFR like that, but what tom says is the reality. The thickest layer I have seen is 2,800 feet.

Just about the only people who regularly stay current without additional simulated training are airline pilots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone with an instrument ticket is required to maintain currency per FAR's if you use it. Tom is right, most light IFR is a non event. Most small GA aircraft are not suitable for hard IFR . It takes a lot of practice if you don't do it all the time and required data can be expensive. The CT would require a lot more attention than the C 310 I had due to light wing loading. Probably not worth the expense and time for the minimal benefit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand light IFR, what I was responding to was the comment about the weather being such that filing was the difference being able to make the trip or not.  I’ve flown in some pretty marginal weather, and I always regret it.  That thin layer is no problem, until it’s not as thin as expected/reported.
 

But what do I know…I’m a VFR guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back when I first became a regular on the internet, this would have been in the late 80's when CompuServe was one of my favorite sites, there was a great enthusiasm about the concept that as ideas became discussed they would be tagged as FAQs (frequently asked questions) so that subsequent readers need not post the same question; rather, then could check a FAQ and get their answer readily.

Since then, I've spent overt 30 years an an online forum moderator.  This thread is an excellent example of why the populist FAQ never developed.  It starts with a simple topic - the design of a air vent - and morphs into a discussion of how and under what conditions the vent design is an issue.  Two totally separate issues, thus muddying the selection of the thread for a FAQ for either issue.

This is simply an observation, not a judgment.  Call it a ghost from the past appearing to remind me of how concepts evolve and devolve in unexpected ways.  So much for participant developed FAQs absent a very active and strong moderator.

Further, given that this site and most sites have a pathetic search facility, it insures that the same question will be asked anytime someone new has an inquiry.  So much for efficiency.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've got 10 years on me, but I too have been around a long long time :).

Even with FAQ's, next to nobody reads them. They're a great *technical* answer base for STEM types as part of a procedure, but not so great for natural discussion and inquisitiveness. It's also not compatible with some personality types, where the interaction with peers is as important as the material being discussed for the learning process.

There are forum softwares that have nested threads, which allow a topic to branch out into many discussions. They're a little more difficult to use, but allow for tangents such as this without mod intervention.

You are right though, that these posts could be branched into their own topic rather than continuing to be dropped in a topic about engineering of the intakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A subjective conclusion I've developed over the years is that some people in a thread have a need to continue it, and if they have nothing to say on the OP they will pick some facet not entirely germane to expound on just to keep the conversation rolling.

Anyway, I sure wish we had better forum search engines.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jim Meade said:

A subjective conclusion I've developed over the years is that some people in a thread have a need to continue it, and if they have nothing to say on the OP they will pick some facet not entirely germane to expound on just to keep the conversation rolling.

Anyway, I sure wish we had better forum search engines.

 

Jim, 

 

Valid point, If I remember correctly, you have a FD Heated Pitot? If so, can you confirm or deny the existence of a drain on that style?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Anticept said:

Agreed, but you can work around it by searching on google or bing with your choice of search terms, and also including "site:ctflier.com"

This will only return ctflier.com posts.

Ex:

 

Good point.  I know that but seldom remember to do it.  Thanks for the reminder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...