Empathy List Archives

Y

yourcaptain@earthlink.net

Tue, Apr 27, 1999 3:33 PM

At 10:59 AM 4/27/99 -0400, you wrote:

Does anyone have experience with getting a load of bad fuel from a normal
U.S. distributor? Bahamian? Did you figure out what caused it? Did it
contaminate more than one tank?

Tom

---====================
In 10's of thousands of cruising and deliveries I only received bad fuel
twice. Once gasoline in the Bahamas for my own outboard, 6 gallons, and
diesel with water in solution off of a truck delivery, 600 galloons.
Professionional fuel polishers could not clean it up, had to dump it.

AL

.
Captain Al Pilvinis "M/V Driftwood"--Prairie 47
2630 N.E. 41st Street
Lighthouse Point, Fl 33064-8064
Voice 954-941-2556 Fax 954 788-2666
Email - CaptainAl@Juno.com
Website http://home.earthlink.net/~yourcaptain

At 10:59 AM 4/27/99 -0400, you wrote: > >Does anyone have experience with getting a load of bad fuel from a normal >U.S. distributor? Bahamian? Did you figure out what caused it? Did it >contaminate more than one tank? > >Tom ===================================================== In 10's of thousands of cruising and deliveries I only received bad fuel twice. Once gasoline in the Bahamas for my own outboard, 6 gallons, and diesel with water in solution off of a truck delivery, 600 galloons. Professionional fuel polishers could not clean it up, had to dump it. AL . Captain Al Pilvinis "M/V Driftwood"--Prairie 47 2630 N.E. 41st Street Lighthouse Point, Fl 33064-8064 Voice 954-941-2556 Fax 954 788-2666 Email - CaptainAl@Juno.com Website http://home.earthlink.net/~yourcaptain

JD

jim_donohue@computer.org

Tue, Apr 27, 1999 4:36 PM

I of course agree - In my own mind I tend to classify light twins as those
twins which cannot maintain altitude under reasonably common configurations.
Your pilot credentials certain exceed mine though I know a good bit about
the subject from having spent five years as the maintenance VP in a 5
airplane flying club. There was always a contingent that wanted to swap the
Bonanza for a light twin. That club by the way had lost the engine on an
airplane 5 times I think in about 30 years. No fatalities though - even
though one fellow had to land in the middle of nowhere on a dark night with
virtually no visual clues. Airplane had some damage but flew again.

I think the neglected maintenace issue is pretty much a red herring. You do
a reasonable job on maintenance or you have problems - it is not really a
single versus twin issue. I think that fuel management is also not a
single/twin issue. Proper system setup will make it very unlikely that bad
fuel causes a problem in either configuration.

Jim

I of course agree - In my own mind I tend to classify light twins as those twins which cannot maintain altitude under reasonably common configurations. Your pilot credentials certain exceed mine though I know a good bit about the subject from having spent five years as the maintenance VP in a 5 airplane flying club. There was always a contingent that wanted to swap the Bonanza for a light twin. That club by the way had lost the engine on an airplane 5 times I think in about 30 years. No fatalities though - even though one fellow had to land in the middle of nowhere on a dark night with virtually no visual clues. Airplane had some damage but flew again. I think the neglected maintenace issue is pretty much a red herring. You do a reasonable job on maintenance or you have problems - it is not really a single versus twin issue. I think that fuel management is also not a single/twin issue. Proper system setup will make it very unlikely that bad fuel causes a problem in either configuration. Jim

P

pdenton@acpub.duke.edu

Tue, Apr 27, 1999 5:24 PM

Tom Clements wrote:

I am left with the feeling that the only factor apt to cause both engines to
go out at roughly the same time is fuel. I can see two ways in which fuel
can kill both engines. First, it may be too old, have too much water and/or
algae,

Hi Tom

This is my situation too. And here is my approach. Full redundancy from prop to
fuel tank. For each engine there are three tanks: 150 and 100 gal storage and 50
gal day tank. Hi capacity filter between storage tanks and day tanks and normal
filter system between day tank and engine. Two storage tanks for each engine
allow in most cases separate fueling stops. Each rudder is protected by a robust
skeg.
Peter Denton

Tom Clements wrote: > > > I am left with the feeling that the only factor apt to cause both engines to > go out at roughly the same time is fuel. I can see two ways in which fuel > can kill both engines. First, it may be too old, have too much water and/or > algae, Hi Tom This is my situation too. And here is my approach. Full redundancy from prop to fuel tank. For each engine there are three tanks: 150 and 100 gal storage and 50 gal day tank. Hi capacity filter between storage tanks and day tanks and normal filter system between day tank and engine. Two storage tanks for each engine allow in most cases separate fueling stops. Each rudder is protected by a robust skeg. Peter Denton

P

pdenton@acpub.duke.edu

Tue, Apr 27, 1999 6:23 PM

Peter Denton wrote:

Tom Clements wrote:

I am left with the feeling that the only factor apt to cause both engines to
go out at roughly the same time is fuel. I can see two ways in which fuel
can kill both engines. First, it may be too old, have too much water and/or
algae,

Hi Tom

This is my situation too. And here is my approach. Full redundancy from prop to
fuel tank. For each engine there are three tanks: 150 and 100 gal storage and 50
gal day tank. Hi capacity filter between storage tanks and day tanks and normal
filter system between day tank and engine. Two storage tanks for each engine
allow in most cases separate fueling stops. Each rudder is protected by a robust
skeg.
Peter Denton

Peter Denton wrote: > Tom Clements wrote: > > > > > > > I am left with the feeling that the only factor apt to cause both engines to > > go out at roughly the same time is fuel. I can see two ways in which fuel > > can kill both engines. First, it may be too old, have too much water and/or > > algae, > > Hi Tom > > This is my situation too. And here is my approach. Full redundancy from prop to > fuel tank. For each engine there are three tanks: 150 and 100 gal storage and 50 > gal day tank. Hi capacity filter between storage tanks and day tanks and normal > filter system between day tank and engine. Two storage tanks for each engine > allow in most cases separate fueling stops. Each rudder is protected by a robust > skeg. > Peter Denton

M

mknott@bcpl.net

Tue, Apr 27, 1999 9:50 PM

Morley and Tricia wrote:

I guess what you have to do is travel with a buddy trawler. Each with
single engine but two "truly independent" everything. Sounds like more fun
to me! :<)

I logged on this evening kinda hopin' that the group had moved off of
this thread, but I guess that horse ain't near dead yet. Anyway, I like
Morley's suggestion the best so far. :-)

Mel Knott
Sandpiper
West Indian 36 (single engine)
Annapolis, MD

Morley and Tricia wrote: > > I guess what you have to do is travel with a buddy trawler. Each with > single engine but two "truly independent" everything. Sounds like more fun > to me! :<) > I logged on this evening kinda hopin' that the group had moved off of this thread, but I guess that horse ain't near dead yet. Anyway, I like Morley's suggestion the best so far. :-) Mel Knott Sandpiper West Indian 36 (single engine) Annapolis, MD

JD

jim_donohue@computer.org

Wed, Apr 28, 1999 12:05 AM

I have been taken to task by folks who I respect for an overkill in a recent
response to Frank Lawlor. It was not, in any way, intended to be an attack
upon Frank personally - but rather a strong objection to a position that I
believe flies in the face of well known science.

Be that as it may - I apparently got carried away. I therefore apologize to
Frank and anyone else that I may have offended.

I would also observe that there sure are a lot of folks on this list that do
not understant the math underling failure calculations.

Jim

I have been taken to task by folks who I respect for an overkill in a recent response to Frank Lawlor. It was not, in any way, intended to be an attack upon Frank personally - but rather a strong objection to a position that I believe flies in the face of well known science. Be that as it may - I apparently got carried away. I therefore apologize to Frank and anyone else that I may have offended. I would also observe that there sure are a lot of folks on this list that do not understant the math underling failure calculations. Jim

trawlers@lists.trawlering.com

RE: Single vs Trwin