The International Cessna^® 170 Association

I like the fuel flow gizmo even for local flying. Flying with my student pilot son, we do a lot of takeoffs and landings and other non-cruise power operations. It's good to know my fuel status at all times to within a gallon. I don't waste time pre-flight topping off or adding a few gallons "just to be sure". I think more clearly not stressing about fuel, and knowing our true fuel consumption increases the educational value of fuel planning. So I guess that means the FF gauge has also made my fuel consumption estimates more accurate!

<facetious sarcasm ON>

I waste time preflighting my airplane and always know how much fuel is available by using this expensive toy:

George, you're missing the point.

This one goes up to 11.

Ryan Smith wrote:George, you're missing the point.
...

What? AGAIN?

dang.

gahorn wrote:<facetious sarcasm ON>

I waste time preflighting my airplane and always know how much fuel is available by using this expensive toy:

jar1001.jpg

translate:
"When I was a boy, we didn't have computers. We had to calculate everything in our heads while walking uphill in the snow to school both ways. And we liked it! Now get off my lawn"

But George, I just can't seem to get a good reading on the fuel stick while in flight.

But to Bruce's point -- I don't think many people just suddenly decide they need one of those all-in-one instruments. It builds slowly, starting with wanting an engine monitor, then an erratic gauge or two to annoy you, and then add the need for more space in the panel for a different upgrade. It's worse on later model airplanes that are required to have working CHT and fuel gauges . Throw in a major overhaul to re-calibrate your notion of spending money, and voila! Suddenly it looks like the perfect solution. That's sort of how I ended up with my engine monitor and fuel flow gizmo.

This brings us back to the original theme, " how big is your bank?" Well fuel is getting expensive and hard to get ,so we have to spend a little to save a little . So I look for a saving in every drop and make sure each drop used is used efficiently . As it has been stated before ," Air is free until you try to move it "

At $6 a gallon that $3548 come to 608 gallons you would have to save to pay for the instrument. At say a 1/2 gallon saved an hour which I think might be a stretch it would take 1216hrs.

When I first saw it I thought cool and it is STC'd for a 170 which is a pleasant change. Then I saw the list price and they had the gull to say it won't brake the bank. It will brake my bank. (Didn't help I'd just read the EAA will just pay the FAA ATC fee rather than fight as if we all just have lots of cash floating around - but this is another story)

Bruce Fenstermacher wrote:...At $6 a gallon that $3548 come to 608 gallons you would have to save to pay for the instrument. At say a 1/2 gallon saved an hour which I think might be a stretch it would take 1216hrs.

When I first saw it I thought cool and it is STC'd for a 170 which is a pleasant change. Then I saw the list price and they had the gull to say it won't brake the bank. It will brake my bank. (Didn't help I'd just read the EAA will just pay the FAA ATC fee rather than fight as if we all just have lots of cash floating around - but this is another story)

Aren't you the guy who supported giving billions to NASA to see what water does without gravity and develop supertechnology stuff the average person never needs?

gahorn wrote:Aren't you the guy who supported giving billions to NASA to see what water does without gravity and develop supertechnology stuff the average person never needs?

No, I'm the guy who supported giving billions to NASA to see what water does without gravity and develop supertechnology stuff the average person never knows they need but benefit from daily?

Bruce Fenstermacher wrote:... (Didn't help I'd just read the EAA will just pay the FAA ATC fee rather than fight as if we all just have lots of cash floating around - but this is another story)

Sorry my previous post wasn't clearer....:

I was only amused you were apparently unhappy about which pocket your money came out of.... your EAA dues paying ATC??...or your tax dollars paying them.

I think it's the combination of my fuel tax along with my EAA dues paying for them.

bagarre wrote:I think it's the combination of my fuel tax along with my EAA dues paying for them.

If EAA pays them, then ATC doesn't have to use as many tax dollars for the purpose, is the presumption. It's called "new user fees"

Hmm, so if EAA is going to pay them I can expect a reduction in my fuel tax?
No, they will spend my tax money in other places AND charge EAA AND introduce user fees.

I don't mind paying for the things I use but please, charge me once based on what I use.

bagarre wrote:Hmm, so if EAA is going to pay them I can expect a reduction in my fuel tax?
No, they will spend my tax money in other places AND charge EAA AND introduce user fees.

I don't mind paying for the things I use but please, charge me once based on what I use.

UH-OH!
Don't go there!
That's what the current administration has been proposing! User fees!