• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

Fill the seats and the tanks????

aalexander

Registered User
Anchorage
This is one of those things that you hear frequently. I wish I had a nickel for each time I've heard someone say, “well, if you put an adult in each seat, you can't legally take off with full tanks”. But when you actually think about it, it doesn't make any sense at all. I was reminded of it just the other day at the Alaska Airman's Association Trade Show. There was an airplane on display with a big sign that said something along the lines of “full seats and full tanks”. The reality is that an airplane for which this is true is unnecessarily compromised and less versatile than it could be. In a sense, an inferior airplane, one in which poor design choices have been made. Before anyone gets hot under the collar, let's think this through:

A given airplane has a max takeoff weight and an empty weight. What you can carry is determined by this. Empty weight subtracted from max takeoff weight is useful load. Simple stuff, and I know everyone know this, but I'm repeating it so we're all on the same page. So, lets say you have an airplane, a 4 place airplane. It's the R-100 model, It's max gross take off weight is 2500 lb, and the empty weight is 1500 lb, so you can carry 1000 lb of fuel and people and other stuff. Now, lets say that you could choose the size of the fuel tanks, with no weight change for any size tank. What size tank would you put in it? If you'd like to fill the seats and fill the tanks, like a lot of folks seem to, here's what you do: There's a whole bunch of folks who weigh over 200 lb, so lets pick that for the size of our “real” adult. Average is likely lower, but, you aren't always going to have average or lighter friends. So, 4 X 200 is 800 lb, that leaves 200 lb of fuel load. Avgas is 6 lb/gallon so, you'd install tanks with 33 gallons total capacity. So you if put in 4 adults you fill the tanks, and you can legally take off. That's important, right? Where can you go? Well the R-100 cruises 150 mph and consumes 12 gal/hr, so full tanks with VFR reserves will give about 300 miles range, or roughly from Anchorage to Fairbanks. (actually, a little farther) OK, so you can take 4 adults (including yourself) to Fairbanks. But what if you're not carrying 3 of your friends? What if you're by yourself? How far can you go? Still just to Fairbanks. What if you want to fly to Bethel? Can't do it, non-stop, gotta stop in Aniak for fuel. What if you want to drop off your buddy and 150 lb of his gear on a mine strip 30 miles west of Sparrevohn, then fly back to Anchorage? can't do it. You'd have to go on to Aniak to refuel, which would add 200 miles to your day, plus avgas in Aniak is not cheap (and you'd just make it into Aniak on fumes).

But, if we dropped the silly notion that you should be able to fill the seats and the tanks in an airplane. and installed bigger tanks, we could do more things.

Same airframe, but we put in 80 gallons of tanks; now, with 4 people, the range hasn't changed, we can still go to Fairbanks, and that's about it with 4 adults, but you can drop of your buddy and gear and make it back to Anchorage nonstop, plus a little contingency fuel. Or, you can fly out to Bethel yourself, and fly back without buying fuel at Bethel prices. Obviously this is a more versatile, useful and practical airplane, merely because it has larger tanks, but you can't “fill the seats and the tanks”, so a lot of folks will lose sight of the fact that it's a more capable airplane, and complain because you can't “fill the seats and the tanks”.

I suppose that the reason folks buy into this, is because they look at the R-100 with it's 500 mile range and 4 seats and wish that they could fly 4 people 500 miles. That's the catch, if you need to fly 4 people 500 miles non-stop, you shouldn't have bought the R-100, because it can't do it. You should have bought the R-200, The R-200 has a max t/o weight of 3500 lb, and weighs 2000 lb empty, it can fly 4 people 500 miles. But, its more expensive to buy and operate, and the thing is, the R-200, has 6 seats and a 700 mile range, and you'll have the same folks complaining because you can't load up 6 adults and fill all the tanks.

If you're not satisfied that you can't “fill the seats and the tanks” in your airplane, there's a simple solution. Tear out the fuel tanks and replace them with smaller tanks. If this sounds silly, it is, but it's no sillier than wanting to “fill the seats and fill the tanks”
 
I can't tell you how many times I run up against this very argument in my line of work. A Malibu has a full fuel range of close to six hours if managed properly, but you're only carrying 2-3 people doing it. Fill it up with a full compliment of pax and your down to about two hours, which is about how long you can guarantee until one of those pax has to take a leak.

Everything in aviation is a compromise...as it should be.
 
So this sounds mostly like a case of being a skin flint at the fuel pump.

We can fill up the tanks on the 206 (yes it's an old one with the standard 60 gallons) and put six 180 pounders in it and still be legal as far as gross weight is concerned. Got a couple of kids and a couple of us are under 180, so that is not really an issue. Sure not going to fly for 6 hours, but like Clay says, somebody usually has to pee after a couple anyway.

Living in SE, we're used to getting abused for fuel. I cringe to think about all the people running around on fumes because they're too cheap to make that extra stop. We all know what fuel costs, if we can't afford it then stay home.

gb
 
GB,

did you get a '6?????

Remember the 310 that landed in icy straits because they were in a hurry to get to juneau, and Aerro was closed in Ktn?

Or last year the guys that said no fuel was available at your home airport and crashed 20 miles from sitka?

It is great to have limited fuel, if you just fly around the patch or to the fishing hole. But beware the one time you want to fly somewhere else.
 
gbflyer said:
So this sounds mostly like a case of being a skin flint at the fuel pump.

No, you've missed the point entirely. I tossed in the fuel prices as an aside, but they are not at all essential to the point. In the drop off example, the point was that with larger tanks, you could make the round trip, without, you had to make a deviation that would add a couple hundred miles to the trip. the principle would be identical even if the gas was the same price.

Your really stretching to turn that into a negative commentary on my flying habits.
 
Take a look at the early Meridians for a great example of this taken to the extreme, though.

The first Meridians that came out were essentially a single seat turbine powered airplane with full fuel. And, in that case, full fuel wasn't that much, like less than four hours with IFR reserve (going anywhere in a Meridian NOT IFR?). Download on fuel to fill all seats, and you would have had a 1.0 hour airplane or less.

I understand that New Piper has now improved this somewhat in the Meridian, but the point is, there are airplanes out there which are simply BEGGING to be flown well over gross weight. The Meridian is/was one of them. There are plenty others.

If the pilot acts professionally, and loads the airplane within it's tested limits.....no problem.

The real problem is when a pilot starts cheating, and gets away with it for a while. Sometime later, he/she meets his/her maker because they pushed it just a little too far once in the wrong kind of weather.....

I'm not disagreeing with you. My point is simply that many pilots are not professional enough in their behavior to be able to make that trade off.
'
The accident record is full of them.

MTV
 
Wasn't picking on you personally a bit, aalexander. I thought it was all hypothetical since you were inventing airplanes, talking R-100's and the like. I don't care how much fuel anyone else carries, I like to run on the top half, but without operating over gross. As George mentioned, we have had a couple of fuel shortage fatalities right here in river city in the last couple of years, a lot of it cost driven, pure and simple. Any time anyone mentions what fuel costs, the gain on my RADAR goes way up, as I am usually one of the dummy volunteers out looking when someone too frugal to fill the tanks is treading water in Icy Strait.

Sorry if I headed in the wrong direction with your story there. You are right, it's all in the marketing. Be nice if there was something out there turbine powered and affordable with lots of useful and range. But alas, litigation saw to the demise of that idea years ago...

Oh yeah aktango58, I found a 206 I could live with. Picked it up in CO, got home last Saturday. It's an old one, small tail, learning how to fly a nose dragger again has been interesting.:D


gb
 
Be nice if there was something out there turbine powered and affordable with lots of useful and range. But alas, litigation saw to the demise of that idea years ago...

Actually, if you'd accept three out of four, the TBM 700/850 meets that test, with the single exception of the affordable part.... :lol:

MTV
 
The problem is an airplane in which a pilot cannot fly alone with full fuel as were every supercub with Wipaire amphibs before the 2000 pound upgross mod became available.

So too, I have even seen a PA-12 with an empty weight of over 1300 pounds. Sadly, the owner went to the time and expense to install Atlee's 60 gal. tanks which he could never full use legally even with no baggage whatsoever.

To be practical, if we want to go as far as those big tanks can get us, it is unlikely that we want to get there without anything but the shirt on our backs. My standard target for a desirable useful load would be full fuel and pax plus 50 pounds per pax for gear. Strip the plane 'til you get there.
 
My Smith Cub has a GW of 2300#. Add 2 big boys @200#ea, 70gals fuel and you can take 160#of baggage.

Lou
 
gbflyer said:
As George mentioned, we have had a couple of fuel shortage fatalities right here in river city in the last couple of years, a lot of it cost driven, pure and simple.

Yep, both of those had me shaking my head. Nether wound up saving much money.
 
Back
Top