----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any advice in this forum.]----
Ercoupers: I feel compelled to reply to to this. William R. Bayne said: "Are we as good as they were? Probably not, which is one of my recurring points. We should be." I agree that in many respects the earlier pilots, some of them our fathers and grandfathers were perhaps better in many respects - stick and rudder skills, tailwheels and off-field landings in a farmer's field being routine operations. But flying GA today is different animal in so many respects that I don't feel it is an apples to apples comparison. Case and point is my flight today. To fly a "simple" 60nm flight up the Socal coast at or below 1,500 feet, I had to depart a class "D" field, trasition through a military Class "D", transition a Class "B", remain below another Class "B" corridor, trasition another Class "D", remain outside a military restricted area and MOA, not linger in the vicinity of a nuclear power plant, fly a specified route to comply with noise abatement as I arrived and departed another airport, do it all again on the return trip, navigate precisely over a specified taxiway of Lindbergh Field as I transitioned that Class "B", remain clear of a parachute drop zone adjacent my home field, expedite my landing for a G-V on a 10 mile final and reply/conform to hold short instructions as I taxied back to my hangar. Whew!!! All of this is "Ops Normal" for us "less proficient", "modern" pilots. In the innocent days of the past, there were few worries of airspace, regulations etc. It was just you and the airplane, the sky and the weather. A different set of skills is needed to fly these days that demand high levels of proficiency and headwork to be safe and not violate the plethora of regulations. At my local EAA chapter, I have the pleasure of flying some of the gents in their 70's and 80's. Many have lost their medicals but flew "back in the day". They all love the Ercoupe and all seem to have a story from their past involving an Ercoupe. All enjoy taking the controls, but most want nothing to do with talking on the radios. I really think we shouldn't underestimate the demands of modern GA flying. We have so much to contend with today that they didn't back then... Tim 1950 Erco 415G N94413 -----Original Message----- From: William R. Bayne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 8:32 PM To: COUPERS-FLYIN Subject: Re: [COUPERS-FLYIN] fuel ----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any advice in this forum.]---- Hi Cyrus, I earlier replied to you directly, not the list. Here's ALL of what I said (for the others). In the "old days", Erco recommended 10% fuel as a reserve. The first Ercoupes had only a header tank and one wing tank, total 14 gallons. 1.4 gallons flying conservatively with the 65hp gave one about 35 miles to set down when things didn't work out as planned. There were a lot fewer airfields in those days, but pilots were much more familiar with how to land off-airport without damage. They had to be. Are we as good as they were? Probably not, which is one of my recurring points. We should be. Today, a half-hour is considered minimum "reserve" (2-1/2-3 gallons) and 45 minutes more conservative. Adopting either figure as your "no matter what" retains identical discipline and wisdom. If you are reasonably proficient and truly aware of your burn rate and progress aloft, either is equally prudent. On the other hand, no sane person would want to contemplate putting a Duke down in a pasture. Apples and oranges! Regards, William R. Bayne <____|-(o)-|____> (Copyright 2004) P.S. On your latest example: The totalizer is like any computer. Garbage in, garbage out. As Ronald Regan said, "trust, but verify"! When I spoke of being "...truly aware of your burn rate and progress aloft..." I referred to calibrating each Ercoupe to the "real world" (per my TECH emails of 10/02/04 2:11am and 6:44pm) so one may remain aware of the truth from progressive review of available REAL information. -- On Nov 28, 2004, at 8:32 PM, Dr. Cyrus Wood-Thomas wrote: > An old Duke pilot once said to me that he never cut into his last 60 > minutes of fuel no matter what. If he were 15 minutes from home he > would stop for fuel rather than ending up with only 45 minutes left. > I now understand the wisdom of this discipline which appears silly at > first. Sooner or later you'll take 20 minutes, then 30, then > silence. So much for utility at that point. Cyrus On Nov 28, 2004, at 9:44 PM, Dr. Cyrus Wood-Thomas wrote: > William R. Bayne said: Today, a half-hour is considered minimum > "reserve" > (2-1/2-3 gallons) and 45 minutes more conservative. Adopting either > figure as your "no matter what" retains identical discipline and > wisdom. > If you are reasonably proficient and truly aware of your burn > rate and progress aloft, either is equally prudent. > > Cyrus says: BUT, S___T happens. I was flying a Lake and put 20 > gallons in at Gallup NM. I didn't watch the young man who did the > fueling because it was raining and I wanted some coffee and a dougnut > and the men's room! I heard him call in "20 gallons" to the desk > clerk and paid my bill. Got in the plane quickly in the rain, added > 20 gallons to my fuel totalizer and took off. On final for Cal Black > up at Bull Frog with 6.8 gallons showing on the totalizer we ran out > of gas and ruined the aircraft. did the the fellow fueling the > plane put 5 gallons in his truck? Cyrus > ps. now I use a dip stick and not a totalizer. ========================================================================== == == To leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm Search the archives on http://escribe.com/aviation/coupers/ ========================================================================== ==== To leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm Search the archives on http://escribe.com/aviation/coupers/
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
