Engine failure today and forced landing.

[CT4ME]

Left or right... from pilot position?  Mine feeds more readily from the right tank (from seated perspective)

[FlyingMonkey]

I would rather have 5 gallons split between the tanks than in one tank.  In that state, I know that at least one pickup will be receiving fuel in any flight condition, which is not true of five gallons in a single tank.  When below 10-15 gallons total fuel, I want my tanks to stay roughly equal.  That is my preference, I'm not faulting anybody who feels differently.

BTW, my airplane feeds faster from the left in general.

[Ed Cesnalis]

When I'm down to 5 gallons I prefer all in one tank.  Easier to keep track of that way.  You can generally see a wrong side crosswind landing coming and avoid landing in a direction where a sideslip might unport your remain fuel.  Crabbing the approach is generally all you need

I don't try to transfer in flight much but I do try to fly coordinated to allow my fuel to balance because I mostly fill one wing and take off unbalanced.  I have no preference I will fill either wing, whichever is more convenient at the moment.

I don't worry about uneven drain because my tanks tend to equalize in flight until I get down to 1 hour remaining or so and at that point I easily lose my balanced condition and finish up with last few gallons of fuel on one side. I then use rudder trim to keep it at the root till I land.

 

 

[Buckaroo]

2 hours ago, Flying Bozo said:

The comments here are only my opinion and should be taken as such. Remember opinions are like certain body parts, everyone has one.

First, I think every CTSW airplane feeds fuel more readily from the left tank than from the right tank. Seems like everyone is sort of in agreement on that and my CTSW is no different. For a while I was gassing only the left tank because the right tank always had a lot more in it than the left on. Then I thought that maybe the gas in the right tank was getting stale so I changed my priorities, fill the right tank first. My opinion on the dissimilar fuel flow has something to do with the venting. I had a similar problem with a Cessna 182 where the right tank would actually stay full until the left tank got considerably lower when fuel selector was in "BOTH" as in the CTSW. The venting on the CTSW must be different causing a lower pressure in the right tank allowing the engine to feed from the left tank.

Question?? if you only had 5 gallons remaining in the tanks, (a totally legal condition as only 30 minutes required by FAA reg daytime) where would you want the 5 gallons to be??      2 1/2 in each tank or all 5 gallons in one tank? Personally I would vote for all 5 gallons in one tank, and it would probably be the right tank. If you would rather have 2 1/2 in each tank then you might be sloshing fuel around unventing either or both of the pickups alternatively and sending some air down to the fuel pump. Even if you held the plane perfectly level ( an impossibility with any turbulence at all) then the fuel would move back and forth on the bottom of the tank. But, with all 5 gallons in one tank I could keep the fuel at the pickup with a slight slip providing positive fuel flow to the engine.

Consequently I never try to transfer fuel..(.that is just my personal preference.).. but when getting low on fuel really pay attention to where the fuel is located. Again my opinion when there is plenty of fuel I just don't care if the tanks are not equally level.

Ask yourself where you would like the remaining fuel to be when you are low and that is when most attention has to be paid to keeping it showing in the sight tube with a slight forward slip.

Larry

 

With critically low fuel in say the right tank and none in the left can you walk me through rudder work, ball position and include a forward slip at the end to make the field? Say ATC directed you to make left turns to the field. Say you were high and had to slip it in.

[FlyingMonkey]

40 minutes ago, Buckaroo said:

With critically low fuel in say the right tank and none in the left can you walk me through rudder work, ball position and include a forward slip at the end to make the field? Say ATC directed you to make left turns to the field. Say you were high and had to slip it in.

I think what it comes down to is to keep the wing with fuel in a higher position than the wing without fuel, and keep the ball as centered as possible.  Again, it comes down to "if you can see fuel in either sight tube, so can your engine"...keeping the full side higher will keep that fuel up against the sight tube and pickup (if you stay coordinated).  If that wing is high and you are skidding badly enough, you can still slosh fuel outboard and unport it, which is why the coordination part matters.

This is why I like fuel in *both* tanks, less hassle and less to remember.

[Buckaroo]

It's kind of a tricky business if one thought well I want fuel in the right tank so I'll just push left rudder and move the ball right of center to insure fuels in the right tank. Doing that could actually push fuel too far right and air the pick ups. The other thought is to push right tank low fuel left to the empty tank with right rudder so you feed some into the left tank and hopefully show some in both. The last thought is to fly coordinated as possible and hope the right site tube indicates some fuel throughout the turbulence and pilot rudder deficiency. For me flying with less than 10 gallons and running one dry is risky business reserved for only the best CT fuel handlers! 

This exact scenario is what I got myself into the other day!?

[Flying Bozo]

2 hours ago, FlyingMonkey said:

I think what it comes down to is to keep the wing with fuel in a higher position than the wing without fuel, and keep the ball as centered as possible.  Again, it comes down to "if you can see fuel in either sight tube, so can your engine"...keeping the full side higher will keep that fuel up against the sight tube and pickup (if you stay coordinated).  If that wing is high and you are skidding badly enough, you can still slosh fuel outboard and unport it, which is why the coordination part matters.

This is why I like fuel in *both* tanks, less hassle and less to remember.

I have a problem with this statement above "to keep the wing with the fuel in a higher position than the wing without the fuel and keep the ball centered." The only way you can have a wing high with the ball centered is to be in a coordinated turn. Otherwise a wing high in straight flight is usually called a forward slip and the ball will be deflected to one side. Therefore in a coordinated turn the fuel doesn't know any different than it would in wings level coordinated flight. As long as you stay coordinated there is no force to cause the fuel to remain inboard against the either sight tube where the fuel tank outlet drain is located just like in wings level flight.

Further, the statement "keeping the full side higher will keep that fuel up against the sight tube and pickup (if you stay coordinated)." is incorrect because if you stay coordinated with a wing high you are in a turn. It is impossible to center the ball with a wing high without that resulting-in a coordinated turn.

Lets admit that with the ball centered there is no force to move the fuel either inboard or outboard in any bank position, zero to 60 degrees. With the ball centered you are neither skidding nor slipping so there is no side force of any kind. However with the ball away from the fuel will keep the fuel inboard on the high side against the sight tube where the fuel tank drain is located and the engine fed.

Consequently, I still am a fan of the last 5 gallons being in one tank only and easily managed with a forward slip, ball away from the fuel.

Larry

 

 

[Ed Cesnalis]

6 hours ago, Buckaroo said:

With critically low fuel in say the right tank and none in the left can you walk me through rudder work, ball position and include a forward slip at the end to make the field? Say ATC directed you to make left turns to the field. Say you were high and had to slip it in.

At this point think fuel follows ball and keep the fuel visible with rudder trim.  You can flow to the high wing when turning which you will be doing when critically low so use the ball not a low wing.

Left turns vs right turns makes no difference.  Stay near coordinated and keep the fuel visible and your engine will see fuel as well.

If your high and need to slip to get down (think flaps first) just remember there is no aerodynamic difference between a side slip and a forward slip. If you believe you need to slip then lose altitude with a slip that keeps your remaining fuel visible. When your back on just transition to a crab and maintain view of your remaining fuel.

In each step along the way when critically low keep the fuel visible and land before it is 100% consumed.

Your ball cannot lie and remaining fuel maintained at the root can only flow towards the engine.

[FlyingMonkey]

18 hours ago, Flying Bozo said:

I have a problem with this statement above "to keep the wing with the fuel in a higher position than the wing without the fuel and keep the ball centered." The only way you can have a wing high with the ball centered is to be in a coordinated turn. Otherwise a wing high in straight flight is usually called a forward slip and the ball will be deflected to one side. Therefore in a coordinated turn the fuel doesn't know any different than it would in wings level coordinated flight. As long as you stay coordinated there is no force to cause the fuel to remain inboard against the either sight tube where the fuel tank outlet drain is located just like in wings level flight.

Further, the statement "keeping the full side higher will keep that fuel up against the sight tube and pickup (if you stay coordinated)." is incorrect because if you stay coordinated with a wing high you are in a turn. It is impossible to center the ball with a wing high without that resulting-in a coordinated turn.

Lets admit that with the ball centered there is no force to move the fuel either inboard or outboard in any bank position, zero to 60 degrees. With the ball centered you are neither skidding nor slipping so there is no side force of any kind. However with the ball away from the fuel will keep the fuel inboard on the high side against the sight tube where the fuel tank drain is located and the engine fed.

Consequently, I still am a fan of the last 5 gallons being in one tank only and easily managed with a forward slip, ball away from the fuel.

Larry

 

 

You are correct Larry.  What I was really getting at was "don't be skidding".  But my "keep the full wing higher" comment stands.  Just don't skid while doing it.

[Ed Cesnalis]

51 minutes ago, FlyingMonkey said:

You are correct Larry.  What I was really getting at was "don't be skidding".  But my "keep the full wing higher" comment stands.  Just don't skid while doing it.

Keeping the wing with fuel high and 'don't skid' doesn't work as well as 'follow the ball' because you have no instrument to tell you when you are skidding except the ball.

My record was landing with less than a gallon.  I was fully prepared to land on a road but by keeping my last bit of fuel visible at my sight tube I was able to pass landing out opportunities and see I had the runway made.

Follow the ball works all the way to the last drop and with wings level. It works with rudder trim followed by normal mostly coordinated turns but off by a certain amount. The technique to keep the ball off center and the fuel at the sight tube is the same technique you use to do fully coordinated turns but probably atr\ a different position then ball centered.

[FlyingMonkey]

36 minutes ago, Ed Cesnalis said:

Keeping the wing with fuel high and 'don't skid' doesn't work as well as 'follow the ball' because you have no instrument to tell you when you are skidding except the ball.

Well, as you said following the ball is a prerequisite to not skidding, so...

[procharger]

I keep plenty of fuel at all times so I don't have to worry about it nuff said I

don't want to rain on anyone's parade.

[Buckaroo]

1 hour ago, procharger said:

I keep plenty of fuel at all times so I don't have to worry about it nuff said I

don't want to rain on anyone's parade.

Yup, I'm with you! I'm running 25 gallons as a starter for local runs. For my confidence and experience I practice flowing fuel to the lower tank. It's starting to make sense now and I'm feeling more at ease with the process. 

My goal is to run with no more than 6 gallons of fuel total on 45 minute flight to keep the weight down!?

JUST KIDDING!??

[FlyingMonkey]

3 hours ago, procharger said:

I keep plenty of fuel at all times so I don't have to worry about it nuff said I

don't want to rain on anyone's parade.

As do most of us.  How much is plenty?  You can starve the engine with one full 17 gallon tank, which is over three hours of fuel and to me is plenty.  The issue here is fuel distribution and management, not carrying enough fuel.  Buckaroo had sufficient fuel.  Many airplanes of all types have off airport landings with plenty of fuel in their tanks, but not feeding the engine.

Your comment seems a bit uneccesarily judgmental.

[procharger]

How many people you know have starved a engine with17 gallons of fuel, plenty

means you don't run out of fuel period. I didn't judge anyone. If he had sufficient

fuel we would not be talking about it .

[ls6pilot]

On 5/29/2017 at 8:12 PM, FlyingMonkey said:

As do most of us.  How much is plenty?  You can starve the engine with one full 17 gallon tank, which is over three hours of fuel and to me is plenty.  The issue here is fuel distribution and management, not carrying enough fuel.  Buckaroo had sufficient fuel.  Many airplanes of all types have off airport landings with plenty of fuel in their tanks, but not feeding the engine.

Your comment seems a bit uneccesarily judgmental.

Andy,

Is this really true? With one tank full with 17 gallons you could unport the 1 empty tank but not both. Seems like you would not starve the engine skidding slipping etc.? I still may be confused.

thanks for everyones help 

 

Rich

 

[FlyingMonkey]

1 hour ago, procharger said:

How many people you know have starved a engine with17 gallons of fuel, plenty

means you don't run out of fuel period. I didn't judge anyone. If he had sufficient

fuel we would not be talking about it .

We are not talking about running out of fuel, that is "fuel exhaustion".  We are talking about "fuel starvation" where there is sufficient fuel for the flight and it is mismanaged and not getting to the engine.  Early Bellanca Vikings have five fuel tanks and two fuel tank selectors, with eight possible fuel flow combinations.  It was not uncommon for them to have engine stoppages with over 60 gallons onboard.  This is similar to what happened to Buckaroo...he had two hours of fuel onboard when he landed in the field..."plenty".

The CT *requires* fuel management, unless you are planning to never fly a leg greater than 200 miles and never take off with less than 30 gallons.  Buckaroo did *not* run out of fuel, and he had "plenty" to complete his flight.  The fuel he had was in the wrong place at the wrong time, due to simple inexperience with the CT fuel system quirks, which are UNDOCUMENTED.  I don't think any of us should act like we're so much smarter than he is because of it.     

[Buckaroo]

2 hours ago, procharger said:

How many people you know have starved a engine with17 gallons of fuel, plenty

means you don't run out of fuel period. I didn't judge anyone. If he had sufficient

fuel we would not be talking about it .

I had 8 or 9 gallons of fuel 5 minutes away from my airport. My mistake was when I noticed the left dry and the right with 8 logically I proceeded to bank left in a attempt to flow fuel to the low wing tank. After the 180 degree turn both tanks were empty and the engine immediately quit. In the field my right tank again showed 8 gallons. What happened?? I must of pushed hard left rudder in my left turn and pushed all the fuel out to the tip of the right tank. 

Lessons learned! You can have 2 or 3 hours of fuel on board but poor fuel management can cause a starvation! 

FD needs a chapter on fuel management! 

This is obvious with 300 comments and 11 pages on my post. I now feel a little stupid for my little episode and not real stupid!?

[Doug G.]

I (we?) are glad you posted this. In my years on here I don't remember an incident quite like this. Last month, however, I went out and spent some time practicing maneuvers and T&G, and was surprised how much difference there was in the tanks when I got back. They were close to even when I took off. 

Last week I flew a normal 3.7 hour cross country flight and the tanks were even when I landed.

This has made me more aware of the possibility of fuel starvation. Thanks.

[robjahnke]

On 5/31/2017 at 7:59 AM, Buckaroo said:

I had 8 or 9 gallons of fuel 5 minutes away from my airport. My mistake was when I noticed the left dry and the right with 8 logically I proceeded to bank left in a attempt to flow fuel to the low wing tank. After the 180 degree turn both tanks were empty and the engine immediately quit. In the field my right tank again showed 8 gallons. What happened?? I must of pushed hard left rudder in my left turn and pushed all the fuel out to the tip of the right tank. 

Lessons learned! You can have 2 or 3 hours of fuel on board but poor fuel management can cause a starvation! 

FD needs a chapter on fuel management! 

This is obvious with 300 comments and 11 pages on my post. I now feel a little stupid for my little episode and not real stupid!?

Buckaroo, you have been very thoughtful about how you have approached finding the root cause of the problem. I recognize that as "wise", and not even a "little stupid".  I have read all of the posts on your thread which have been very helpful. In this last post you said "After the 180 degree turn ....". I am thinking that at the time you may have confused "banking" to transfer fuel with "slipping" to transfer fuel. If you banked and turned, but kept the ball centered, then you would not have transferred any fuel from the right tank to the left tank. Then if you rolled out and happened to have the right wing slightly low with just a touch of left rudder, the fuel would have "disappeared" having moved to the outboard portion of the right tank, with nothing showing in either site gauge. Since the left tank was empty, and right tank intake unported, your engine was  starved for fuel.

It appears that you have now figured out the fuel system and have practiced moving fuel by slipping. Congratulations and thanks for helping all of us.

Rob

[Buckaroo]

5 minutes ago, robjahnke said:

Buckaroo, you have been very thoughtful about how you have approached finding the root cause of the problem. I recognize that as "wise", and not even a "little stupid".  I have read all of the posts on your thread which have been very helpful. In this last post you said "After the 180 degree turn ....". I am thinking that at the time you may have confused "banking" to transfer fuel with "slipping" to transfer fuel. If you banked and turned, but kept the ball centered, then you would not have transferred any fuel from the right tank to the left tank. Then if you rolled out and happened to have the right wing slightly low with just a touch of left rudder, the fuel would have "disappeared" having moved to the outboard portion of the right tank, with nothing showing in either site gauge. Since the left tank was empty, and right tank intake unported, your engine was  starved for fuel.

It appears that you have now figured out the fuel system and have practiced moving fuel by slipping. Congratulations and thanks for helping all of us.

Rob

Well thanks Rob for the kind words! Flight Design is now building all their aircraft with header tanks and fuel selectors. I soon learned to cruise slipped etc to transfer fuel but really never felt comfortable with the concept. I sold the CTSW and bought a 2017 Aerotrek A240 with a header tank and back up fuel pump. The FD line of aircraft are beautifully built and I had a blast putting over 200 hours on my CTSW. 
 

Here’s a few pics of my Aerotrek. It’s basically a Kit Fox Design but Aerotrek came out with these first in the late 90’s. 
 

Thanks again and fly safe!

[Buckaroo]

I’m now based at U56 and living in Idaho Falls. Lots of Light Sport folks in the area and Rotax experts as well. Joel Millaway out of Blackfoot in particular!

[AGLyme]

I like the Aerotrek very much.  When I got back into the plane thing after a 36 years absence from flying, and after I stopped dreaming about a used 182, etc... I shopped for a new plane at Sun n Fun '18 and looked at the Aerotrek hard.  The guy who imports them is a great and knowledgeable guy.  I was a high wing guy and never looked at the jillions of other low wing LSA's.  Settled on the FD when I took a ride with Tom P and loved the visibility and technology.

This thread was helpful.  When I flew to the Virginia/W. Virginia border last May, I noted tons of gas in my left wing via the site gauge and no gas in my right.  Intellectually, I knew I was ok because of the header tank, etc... but I was rattled.  So, I landed in Maryland to check things out.  By the time I entered the pattern, landed and sticked the tanks, they both had the same gallonage.  I spoke with FD Woodstock and another CT pilot and yes the slipping technique does work from a gas transfer perspective.  I had a cross wind and the way I trimmed the plane pushed all the gas into the other wing.  I also learned in the review process that one check in the CT positive column is that our CG is little changed from not much gas to full tanks in CT because of the way the fuel tanks are shaped.  

Good post and have fun in that beautiful plane.

[sandpiper]

Just remember one simple thing - the fuel follows the ball

[robjahnke]

Very Nice airplane .  I have been enamored with the KitFox ever since it came out. But now I have the CTSW and thanks to all of the info on this forum, I think I am going to enjoy it. Thanks for all of your help with the CTSW. I have just converted my 2006 CTSW to  Experimental and I'm working on a design for a header tank. The BRS weighs about 32 lb. The volume of the canister is about 4.5 gal which would weigh 27lb full of fuel. The tank would probably weigh 2 or 3 pounds,  and maybe a couple lb max for an AUX fuel pump. So for essentially the same weight (and therefore the same CG) I could have about an hour of flight time in reserve AFTER the wings were dry. That means I could use all of the fuel in the wings, and even if both tanks read empty for whatever reason, I would still have 1hr to land and fuss with extracting every last drop out to the wings if I wanted to. Putting a fuel level gauge in the header tank would allow very accurate measurement of that last 4.5 gal. To me, the header tank would be WAY more valuable as a safety feature than the BRS which is VERY unlikely to be used.

Rob