Jeff...

I have had similar experiences with the twin and single Comanches as you did...with regards to DCF on long flights in level flight with the A* I usually revert to single cross feed when the gauges show about 10 gallons in the wings.

Walter

Jeff,

It became SOP because I read to much.
Back then I was part of the Aerostar Owners Association; and a couple of the pilots who did the types of missions I thought I would do, used DCF and advocated it.
My PPL, IR, and recurrent training was with airline and charter pilots. All of whom pushed on using standard procedures and on knowing why you did things in a specific way. The result was I consciously decided that I would use DCF in cruise as SOP so i did not need to adjust habits if I was going on a short hop with minimal fuel or a fully gassed up long range flight.

After the previously mentioned incidents, I looked at the human factors, and how I actually was flying the A*. I maintained coordinated flight, I did not do extreme descents or bank angles. These are the primary items where you can "unport" and eventually starve the sump from fuel left in the wing tanks.

The end result, I considered the chance of some issue in cruise while running DCF a greater risk than the chance I would be flying extreme maneuvers where I kept a wing tank um-ported for so long an engine would be starved of fuel.

Tim

I always thought "human factors" was blaming my crappy landing on have to piss really bad...

In all seriousness, as an engineer I have always been disappointed in how many "gotchas" are seemingly designed into something as attention demanding as an aircraft. For example, scattering instruments and controls in a seemingly random and often conflicting manner from one brand or model to another for decades. Imagine if the auto industry had taken as long to standardize the orientation for things like the throttle and brake as aircraft manufactures have for stuff like the throttle and propeller, or how the brakes are actuated. Or even steering on the ground; the A* use use a rocker switch, with the wrong hand no less (I moved mine), the Commander you steer by literately curling you toes, and most other planes you just simply push on the rudder... Yes, all work just fine once you are accustomed to them, but perhaps a bit more thought on the unwanted effects of negative transference should have been given.

The above is one of the reasons when I did a re-do the dash in my plane I wanted all the old analog gauges to go by-by. Before the first indication of a pressure pump failure, at least the one I typically noticed, was when the door seal would whistle at low RPM, which would prompt me to check the gauge way over on the right confirming that yes, a pump had crapped out. Now I get a Master Caution annunciation in front of my nose. Same with the baggage door, X-feed, and so on.

Yea I know "real" pilots scan all that stuff all the time, while landing on the centerline... I on the other hand ascribe that the real definition of multi-tasking is doing multiple thing all at the same time, and doing them all poorly.

Jeff

Jeff, the “up to 22 gallons unusable 14 degrees nose down” represents a pretty extreme flight condition for a traveling airplane. It’s certainly not sustainable more than a minute or so at the most. A “normal” glideslope is 3 degrees, and at approach speeds the nose is up a couple of degrees anyway. The closest I see is a rapid descent when center keeps me high, and I start down at 2000+ fpm. That is maybe 4-5 degrees nose down with the power back.

I have had an engine briefly quit in moderate turbulence while running in single cross feed to balance the wings. I can easily see how running double crossfeed could cause both engines to quit at least momentarily, and if you are in the approach configuration, stuffing the nose down to maintain airspeed could keep them from restarting.

You don’t have to run a tank dry and let the engine stumble in the Aerostar to make sure you’ve used every drop of fuel—the fuel system does it for you. If you leave the selectors in the “on” position, you’ll use every drop of fuel on the airplane and both engines will run dry at the same time.

Momentary interruptions in flow from the wing tanks are common and probably inevitable because of the lack of dihedral and skinny wings. Running in double cross feed is a setup for a dual engine failure. It might not last long, but close to the ground it can (and has) killed people.

There is no reason to run in double crossfeed unless the system is malfunctioning, and then you need to fix it before taking off again.

How did you determine you had a turbocharger failure ?

When I had my turbo wastegate arm break just after rotation, I leaned the mixture significantly and was able to get back partial power, but I was only at about 6000 feet. Higher up that wouldn’t work well. I’ve also had a couple 80-100 mile single engine runs in my Aerostar including one in snow and light icing culminating in an ILS. I would certainly agree that the Aerostar flies very well on one engine; it’s a great design...I would have been even happier with the plane if it didn’t so often require me to explore how well it flies on one engine.

They have, for the most part. Look at modern planes, Cirrus, Cessna TTx (when it was in production), almost any LSA.... In cars, we replace them every ten years, so it has allowed the one off designs and unsuccessful concepts to fade away. While in aviation, we have a fleet which is mostly 50 years old, and the combination of regulations, legal environment and cheap owners who have not spent the coin to make everything the same. The result, standardization takes a lot longer.

Tim

How did you determine you had a turbocharger failure ?

Personal GS record of 359 yesterday northeast of Atlanta. I was at FL250 then ATC lowered me to FL240 just east of Atlanta. Made the turn to Charlotte had 115 plus on the tail. First pic was 354 knots with 113 knot tail.

Many were complaining of rough ride near Atlanta yesterday; we never got into anything uncomfortable. Aerostar handles bumps pretty good

Brad...

Good thing you were not going southwest!

Walter

Mach .6 in an Aerostar Woo Hoo!

Can anyone tell me the cockpit width? Google results are a little inconsistent.

3’10”

It’s a constant width all the way to the back of the cabin

3’10”

It’s a constant width all the way to the back of the cabin

This is from an '81 602P/700.
I'm not sure whether they added this seat height adjustment at some point at the factory, or if it's a mod. [youtube]https://youtu.be/oQ2WUdARo8s[/youtube]