I know the fuel gauges are notoriously unreliable, but you could always do a simple calibration test here and then - very simple, especially if aircraft flies a lot.
You drain the tanks, put in the unusable fuel - the fuel gauges should read zero. Then you start filling up, let's say in 5 USgal increments - and check what the gauges read and note it down. You end up with a full tank and a nice table showing actual fuel in tanks vs. fuel shown by the fuel gagues. Quite simple or am I missing something here?
Obviously you don't need a fuel totalizer if you're doing one-hour trips, although it's quite handy to have one - or at least an accurate fuel flow gauge.
Originally Posted by Cows getting bigger
Doesn't anyone read the POH any more? For example, the Cessna 172 has a fine (and accurate) cruise performance table. Set an RPM and lean in accordance with the guidance in Normal Operating Prcedrues and you'll get a pretty accurate fuel burn. Add 10% and 45 mins if, like me, you like to adopt IFR criteria and you will never need to stare longingly at notoriously inaccurate fuel gauges.
Spot on! If only people weren't afraid of the red knob and follow the leaning procedure in the POH
exactly, the fuel flow probably wouldn't be more than 5% off the book value. I think one of the problems is that people who rent aircraft just listen to the owner, who says "this aircraft burns xx USgal/h" and use it for fuel planning. It all depends on the mission profile you have - full throttle/full rich at sea level will definitely burn
a bit more than a nice economy full throttle/peak EGT at FL100. It's like saying a car has the same mileage/fuel consumption for driving in a city or on the highway.