Lugging fuel to your deserted airfield……

[skippydiesel]

41 minutes ago, danny_galaga said:

I'll just add that if you have the room, old fashioned plastic jerry cans are a LOT lighter than the collapsible ones. And a lot cheaper too. I loved the idea of them and looked into it and decided I had plenty of room in my plane. There are two weight and balance luggage spaces in my plane, two empty plastic jerry cans fit in  the rearwards one no worries.

 

I imagine a solid can would be easier to lug around than a collapsible one too.

I will weigh my two collapsible jerry cans/bladders (& my plastic rigid Jerrys) & get back to you however I will be very surprised that there is much difference either way.

[danny_galaga]

6 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

I will weigh my two collapsible jerry cans/bladders (& my plastic rigid Jerrys) & get back to you however I will be very surprised that there is much difference either way.

Yeah, I'm wondering if when I looked at the weights I saw the weight for a FOOD grade can, which I note is only 900 grams.

[skippydiesel]

4 minutes ago, danny_galaga said:

 

If pouring, I imagine solid will be easier. 

 

 

You are correct - they are more difficult to pour. Mine have an extra handle to help control the "floppiness" but even so not as easy as a rigid.

 

No diffrent to carry when full of fuel.

 

My 2 x 20L roll up into a space, very roughly, similar to a 10L rigid.

 

They came with securing straps, I guess, for when they are transported full, something I have never done.

 

When deciding between collapsable & rigid, it's not just weight that should be considered but also volume ie space occupied. If you have plenty of space I would recomend rigid but if your aircraft is like mine where space is very limited ,collapsable may be the only way to go.

 

One other point: Leave space for the containers to expand, with altitude/heat or (less desirable) leave the cap slightly open to allow for expanding gas/air to escape.

[turboplanner]

11 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

Where do you get this stuff from?

 

PL Cases originally where being sued, and after I got smart and started to read cases, from the outcomes.

 

I already mentioned we have cases you can read on this site, and see for yourself that what you just posted is not really relative to your advice when it comes to PL.

If you read the cases you can see for yourself.

These days its your advice, your problem.

 

[danny_galaga]

7 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

You are correct - they are more difficult to pour. Mine have an extra handle to help control the "floppiness" but even so not as easy as a rigid.

 

No diffrent to carry when full of fuel.

 

My 2 x 20L roll up into a space, very roughly, similar to a 10L rigid.

 

They came with securing straps, I guess, for when they are transported full, something I have never done.

 

When deciding between collapsable & rigid, it's not just weight that should be considered but also volume ie space occupied. If you have plenty of space I would recomend rigid but if your aircraft is like mine where space is very limited ,collapsable may be the only way to go.

 

One other point: Leave space for the containers to expand, with altitude/heat or (less desirable) leave the cap slightly open to allow for expanding gas/air to escape.

Oh yes. Expansion! Thanks for the tip. Another plus for collapsible. Mine is high wing so I'll probably stick with solid. That's already an adventure when pouring 😄. Which reminds me I should find a tiny stool or something to stand on when away.

[sfGnome]

Just make sure that the cap is tight when the Good Samaritan is taking you back to the field from the servo. Don’t ask me how I know… 😳

[skippydiesel]

16 minutes ago, danny_galaga said:

Oh yes. Expansion! Thanks for the tip. Another plus for collapsible. Mine is high wing so I'll probably stick with solid. That's already an adventure when pouring 😄. Which reminds me I should find a tiny stool or something to stand on when away.

Or a 12V pump, that can be powered from the aircraft battery.

[skippydiesel]

27 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

 

PL Cases originally where being sued, and after I got smart and started to read cases, from the outcomes.

 

I already mentioned we have cases you can read on this site, and see for yourself that what you just posted is not really relative to your advice when it comes to PL.

If you read the cases you can see for yourself.

These days its your advice, your problem.

 

Ye Gads! - It must be terrifying to be you. How do you get outside your front door, let alone drive/walk on the public thorougfare?

 

My (not yours) reality is that we live in a litigious society (courtesy of the Yanks, whom we so slavishly follow).

Seems ever few people, take responsibility for their actions, so look to blame someone else for every misstep, that they or others may make. 

Urbane scutlbut would have us belive, that we are all in danger of being sued for every sneeze, trip, decision that effects us or others. True or false, I choose to lead my life as a responsible adult, the decision I make are mine and for the most part are with due consideration to the law/regulation, moderated by a big dollop of common sense - I sleep well and my conscience is clear.

 

Contacting the manufacturers of your aircraft, to request a letter of authorisation, for a proposed modification/change (could be change of battery make or a replacement tyre, propeller, etc) is both normal, accepted and if granted, sufficient approval to carry out the mods - this has nothing to do with how its registered, or how it may be used.

[Freizeitpilot]

32 minutes ago, danny_galaga said:

Oh yes. Expansion! Thanks for the tip. Another plus for collapsible. Mine is high wing so I'll probably stick with solid. That's already an adventure when pouring 😄. Which reminds me I should find a tiny stool or something to stand on when away.

Coming from a vertically challenged family, I already have a collapsible stool, and yes it would be ideal for filling a high wing while away. The tallest I’ve seen is approx 40cm, but that should be enough, unless you’re flying a Cessna Caravan or something.

 

https://amzn.asia/d/4kzRF62

 

 

[turboplanner]

10 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

Ye Gads! - It must be terrifying to be you. How do you get outside your front door, let alone drive/walk on the public thorougfare?

I was responsible for over 1,000 lives in a high risk sport.

 

10 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

My (not yours) reality is that we live in a litigious society (courtesy of the Yanks, whom we so slavishly follow).

Nothing to do with the Yanks, our Precedent is Scottish 1932. Read the cases.

 

10 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

Seems ever few people, take responsibility for their actions, so look to blame someone else for every misstep, that they or others may make. 

Urbane scutlbut would have us belive, that we are all in danger of being sued for every sneeze, trip, decision that effects us or others. True or false, I choose to lead my life as a responsible adult, the decision I make are mine and for the most part are with due consideration to the law/regulation, moderated by a big dollop of common sense - I sleep well and my conscience is clear.

Not correct; the principles are easy to understand, which is why I posted the cases. 

 

10 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

Contacting the manufacturers of your aircraft, to request a letter of authorisation, for a proposed modification/change (could be change of battery make or a replacement tyre, propeller, etc) is both normal, accepted and if granted, sufficient approval to carry out the mods - this has nothing to do with how its registered, or how it may be used.

What you base your responsibility on is up to you.

[Garfly]

2 hours ago, Freizeitpilot said:

 I’m just interested in how people  get fuel from a servo to an airfield if thumbing a ride gets tricky.

Well, even at places like Armidale (YARM) and Taree (YTRE) where servos are just outside the airport fence, you could still have maybe 200 metres, or more, to lug your 40 L of fuel.  So , yes, it seems some solution is needed.

I've been nutting out a system for long trips which includes one - or two - 20L bladders plus one rigid 10L plastic can (which I think I just have room for).

I'll use one of those small 6v transfer pumps (4XAA cells) to decant into the 10L can for pouring down the aircraft's filler throat (up on the turtle deck) via Mr. Funnel.

I'll do it that way because I have an aversion to wrangling any 20L fuel container atop a ladder - especially a bladder which may well gush forth at the slightest slip.

Anyway, 20L bladders are easier to handle, when full, than I'd imagined (down on the ground, that is); even sort of standing up by themselves. 

And I've found that if they're set down and lashed to the lift strut they're just as secure as rigid ones during transfer pumping

The small battery powered pump routine is slower than just pouring but I find it a calmer, less accident prone method.

And you might only have to use it once since a half empty 20 is but a 10 by default  ;- )

 

 

Anyway, spurred by your scenario, Freizy, I've now gone for one of these Samsonites on Amazon. Wheels are a bit bigger and it looks a bit tougher than the other one.

 

Edited April 12 by Garfly

[FlyBoy1960]

2 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

 

 

One other point: Leave space for the containers to expand, with altitude/heat or (less desirable) leave the cap slightly open to allow for expanding gas/air to escape.

No, No, No.  the best way to transport the fuel blader is with zero air in the system,  it is the air that expands at altitude or heat.

 

They recommend to fill the bladder up to the required level and then expel all of the air before sealing airtight.

 

Then you can do anything with it because unless it gets frozen there is negligible expansion of a fluid.  As you use the fuel from the bladder if it is plumbed into the aircraft system it just the deflates the bladder, if you use it to pour fuel over the wing then it will get air into it but it doesn't matter

[danny_galaga]

14 minutes ago, FlyBoy1960 said:

No, No, No.  the best way to transport the fuel blader is with zero air in the system,  it is the air that expands at altitude or heat.

 

They recommend to fill the bladder up to the required level and then expel all of the air before sealing airtight.

 

Then you can do anything with it because unless it gets frozen there is negligible expansion of a fluid.  As you use the fuel from the bladder if it is plumbed into the aircraft system it just the deflates the bladder, if you use it to pour fuel over the wing then it will get air into it but it doesn't matter

I think he's referring to solid cans.

[FlyBoy1960]

1 hour ago, danny_galaga said:

I think he's referring to solid cans.

If he is then i am WAY off the track (again)  Sorry

[BrendAn]

21 hours ago, Freizeitpilot said:

…….and for a 24 registered aircraft ?

Why wouldn't you carry a couple of jerry. And if fuel with you. If your on your own they are the passenger. I guess it might be hard in a single seater.

 

[danny_galaga]

its all going to depend isnt it? if theres a passenger then 40 litres of fuel in the back might seriously effect your weight and balance. In my plane, it would almost definitely be out, besides its just a light mesh carrier for most rear luggage, strong enough for two empty jerrys, but not full thats for sure. 

 

If two place and you are on your own, there are ferry tanks (made like those collapsible jerry cans) that you can put in the front seat. If not plumbed in, then use it as a large jerry can. Then you would definitely also want the electric transfer pump skippy was talking about to fill the main tanks when on the ground.

[skippydiesel]

Trying to understand the problem -

 

It's all about duration (time in the air, with a reserve of course).

 

My point is, with the exception of the ultra slow, most Jabs/Rotax powered aircraft, should have sufficient range to get to a fuel source IF you flight plan to do so (this may not be the shortest/direct route) 

 

[Area-51]

Carry a carboard box on board; unfold it; stick the bladder in there, close the top, wait for uber or duber driver to arrive; remember to smile 👍

[Garfly]

3 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

Trying to understand the problem -

 

It's all about duration (time in the air, with a reserve of course).

 

My point is, with the exception of the ultra slow, most Jabs/Rotax powered aircraft, should have sufficient range to get to a fuel source IF you flight plan to do so (this may not be the shortest/direct route) 

 

On-airport fuel sources are plentiful, Mogas 95/98 sources not so much. 

The problem is easier to understand when it involves flyers keen to keep their 912s lead free.  (Cue THAT debate.   ;- )

[Freizeitpilot]

Actually, I’d argue that on airfield fuel sources are not necessarily plentiful…and possibly getting rarer.

In my (brief) experience flying around western NSW, almost the first item on the flight plan was where can I get (avgas) fuel ? ….and then potentially changing the route to suit the fuel sources, rather than simply enjoying playing tourist.

However, almost every one horse town in Australia has a mogas bowser, which opens up a world of flying possibilities which is a key attraction of RA-Aus to me. The challenge is that quite often the servo is a solid walk from the airfield, but not if you’re lugging 40L of fuel…….and if you’re flying with a pax you may be fuel limited.

 

I’m not tempted to go down the rabbit hole of avgas vs mogas and the freshness of that mogas from the one horse town bowser, etc, etc)…but I’ve appreciated the debate and I reckon Garfly has potentially nailed the solution anyhow.

 

[facthunter]

To get the whole picture you Do have to consider the prospect of fuel contamination. "AT THE ENQUIRY" your dead or injured  passengers family or friends will have no trouble Proving you didn't take due Care IF you Haven't. IF your engine is approved to run on mogas that doesn't mean  just ANY Mogas.  Nev

[Garfly]

3 minutes ago, facthunter said:

To get the whole picture you Do have to consider the prospect of fuel contamination. "AT THE ENQUIRY" your dead or injured  passengers family or friends will have no trouble Proving you didn't take due Care IF you Haven't. IF your engine is approved to run on mogas that doesn't mean  just ANY Mogas.  Nev

AT THE ENQUIRY the law would SEEM the least of my problems. 

Like Jimmy Stewart in Flight of the Phoenix, I'd be overwhelmed with guilt.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Freizeitpilot]

10 minutes ago, facthunter said:

To get the whole picture you Do have to consider the prospect of fuel contamination. "AT THE ENQUIRY" your dead or injured  passengers family or friends will have no trouble Proving you didn't take due Care IF you Haven't. IF your engine is approved to run on mogas that doesn't mean  just ANY Mogas.  Nev

Yes, you should consider the quality of fuel thing, but how much due diligence can you realistically do ? You go to a country servo and fill up, behind a number of other vehicles,  you filter it through a Mr funnel into your plane, you do the mandatory fuel drain check, what else is due care ?

 

Anyhow, I can now see a thumping great large rabbit hole, so here is a picture instead.

 

1.8kg and can carry 70kg

$44.87 delivered.

[spacesailor]

I often wonder ! ,about the ' airfield bowser ' , sitting up in the open , & out in all

weathers , Do those bowsers have a ' water drain ' or have rust inside .

The outside are not painted on many , so,  what would the I side look like. 

spacesailor

[facthunter]

Hardly ideal and small turn over rate. Just what you are told to avoid on the roadside if you are getting it there. Nev