I used a ratchet strap and pulled the tail down to the hanger floor or as close as the strap would allow. I just drilled the floor and installed a removable tie down ring.
I hadn't thought about flaps. Yikes. My 5-degree thought came from a 4-degree LPV we have locally plus 1 degree of worse-than-real-world conditions. I should have been paying better attention in my transition training to see how much that last bit of flaps affected the pitch angle.This is an interesting scenario for sure. I don't have anything but opinion, but here are a couple of points to think about.
1- I think that 5* nose down previously mentioned is more than you'll see on a normal approach. An ILS glide slope is normally around 3* and it seems like the deck angle would be more flat than that, unless putting flaps down would make pitch actually lower than the glide path. Maybe an Aero guy can comment here?
2-Seems like if the pickups aren't un-ported in the approach phase, they wouldn't be un-ported in the level off portion of a go around, because if anything, you've improved your situation due to fuel wanting to run aft, both due to pitch change and due to simple acceleration.
Having said all that, I'm guessing that the unusable fuel is probably not more than 2-3 gallons per side and I'd be freaking out if I landed with only 5 gallons left in most airplanes, no matter how much min fuel testing I'd done. Then again, I'm an old pilot, not a bold pilot.
When you find out, please post your results, I'm genuinely curious to see what the actual number is.
...I hadn't thought about flaps. Yikes. My 5-degree thought came from a 4-degree LPV we have locally plus 1 degree of worse-than-real-world conditions. I should have been paying better attention in my transition training to see how much that last bit of flaps affected the pitch angle...
But here's the thing, just because the airplane is following a 5* glide path, it doesn't necessarily follow that he nose is pointed 5* down. It's just one of those things with lots of variables.
But here's the thing, just because the airplane is following a 5* glide path, it doesn't necessarily follow that he nose is pointed 5* down. It's just one of those things with lots of variables.
The number of variables, none of which I can measure right now, is why I said "yikes" on this point. The plane's power-off, full-flaps pitch attitude to follow an X-degree glidepath at approach speed could be well above or well below X.
So that makes me think I should just measure unusable fuel on the ground using a level pitch angle, or even nose-high (taildragger, so that's easy) and then study the particulars of how pitch affects access to the usable fuel during Phase 1.
I haven’t seen any published figures for approach AOA, if they’re out there. Maybe I haven’t looked hard enough.If the airplane is built per the plans, hasn't Vans already established these numbers from flight testing and published them?
George
I tested this by running a tank dry to evaluate pressure and flow fluctuations nearing cut off, then, switch tanks, land, fill the empty tank to the caps to get usable. Interesting that it took a little more than 21 gallons.
I built the right tank with a flop tube and trap door... I use this as the last tank and other low fuel operations. If I had it to do over again I would trap door both though.
I haven’t seen any published figures for approach AOA, if they’re out there. Maybe I haven’t looked hard enough.
Though it should be available. Anyone have savvy data with b an approach. Pitch angle should be in there, and glide path difference between the two is AoA, or relatively close.