Jump to content
ibjet

Engine quit in flight

Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, Warmi said:

I am pretty sure the skyview system can do fuel flow which is not just a computation but actual measurement . . . . . 

Nope, for Flight Design CT airplanes, Duane is correct.

Skyview has a fuel transducer (the Red Cube) in the fuel line, which counts fuel flow. But the tanks are void of any actual measuring device, except the visual sight tubes.

Once Skyview fuel computer is calibrated, fuel consumption/range/endurance is calculated, based upon onboard fuel quantity, which is entered by the pilot before each flight.

It works great!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I bought the plane, FD-NA told me exactly that (what WmInce said).  There are no physical sending units in the tanks themselves.  I have found that the fuel computer is amazingly accurate however... in relation to the physical "sticking" of the tanks pre-flight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would really like to modify my CTSW to a fuel selector system with a both,  left and right capability. I’m hoping the new GT will offer this system that I can modify my Ct to! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, AGLyme said:

When I bought the plane, FD-NA told me exactly that (what WmInce said).  There are no physical sending units in the tanks themselves.  I have found that the fuel computer is amazingly accurate however... in relation to the physical "sticking" of the tanks pre-flight.

That’s because it is not a computer estimating flow based on some generic fuel usage  but a physical unit measuring flow of the fuel to the engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Warmi said:

That’s because it is not a computer estimating flow based on some generic fuel usage  but a physical unit measuring flow of the fuel to the engine.

These make believe so called information systems are totally useless in my opinion! If fact they could be dangerous used by the novice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I find the fuel management in the CT well done.  Put gas in the tank, turn on the Master, add the fuel gallonage just added into the "computer" (on top of the fuel that was in the tanks prior to filling)... this is where I compare the sticking of the tank during pre-flight with the fuel quantity remaining figure... again, amazingly accurate.  During flight, I check the digital fuel remaining readout and I check the clear tubes in the wing root.  

Based on my 50 hours of flying the CT (I consider myself a novice), the fuel computer has been a solid source of fuel remaining information building my confidence in the system.  I still check the site tubes anyway, it's good practice.

In the 'iS" model (fuel injected version of the Rotax), another line of defense is the Header Tank warning light on the panel near the Lane A and B warning lamps.  Basically, it is a "gas aint coming in from the wings anymore" warning.  The header tank, which is located in the baggage compartment, has about 1.8 gallons of usable fuel.  Good feature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/10/2019 at 5:59 AM, Ed Cesnalis said:

Actually you can't prevent it. 8 1/2 gallons is enough where you can't slosh it outboard and it will self balance unless you fight it.

When 8 1/2 changes to 2 1/2 I prefer to keep it on one side to better keep it visible longer

Do you actually run one tank dry and the other down to 2.5 gallons?  If so, why?  I have never landed with less than about six gallons, and I don't really see the need to with the big tanks we have, even on very long trips.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FlyingMonkey said:

Do you actually run one tank dry and the other down to 2.5 gallons?  If so, why?

Some of my best photo shoots are within 5 miles but above 13,000'.  There's virtually no danger that I won't get back and being extremely light gives me good climb rates right up to target altitude.  I even lost my engine once but that was from slipping along a very long 13,000' high ridge to keep my wing out of the shot.  I got it back very quickly and landed under power.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Ed Cesnalis said:

Some of my best photo shoots are within 5 miles but above 13,000'.  There's virtually no danger that I won't get back and being extremely light gives me good climb rates right up to target altitude.  I even lost my engine once but that was from slipping along a very long 13,000' high ridge to keep my wing out of the shot.  I got it back very quickly and landed under power.

Hoping you get back in the air soon - looking forward to more amazing shots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2019 at 7:22 PM, Warmi said:

That’s because it is not a computer estimating flow based on some generic fuel usage  but a physical unit measuring flow of the fuel to the engine.

These make believe so called information systems are totally useless in my opinion! If fact they could be dangerous used by the novice. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
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...