Narrative:

We departed from stl after fueling, to full tanks of gas, for a 290 NM trip to tul. We made a forced landing due to fuel starvation 7 NM from tul. The aircraft was new, and we had just picked it up in wisconsin that morning. Our flight plan had included a WX brief including winds aloft. We calculated a fuel burn of 10 gph, which is 1 gph more than the performance charts called for at 75 percent power. We had 2 GPS on board, both working, and were averaging between 90-105 KTS the entire distance. The manufacturer's performance charts state a range of 436 NM with an endurance of 3.92 hours. We were in the air for 2.9 hours. The gauges showed that there was still fuel in the tanks. 7 NM from tul the engine quit at 1500 ft AGL. We spotted a field to our right and turned toward the field. There was a paved concrete strip in the center of the field with no phone or power lines and we landed. I did not try to restart, not enough time. It seemed that our fuel burn was much higher than we were led to believe, both from the operating manual and a verbal confirmation from the factory. We were at 75 percent power the entire trip. Cause for excessive fuel burn unknown. Our average burn from wisconsin to stl was 10 gph. We made a safe emergency landing with no damage to plane, pilots, or property. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter landed on an unused road at the port of tocusa, east of tul. As there was fuel showing on the gauges, the reporter started the engine immediately and it ran perfectly. When the aircraft ran off of the TRACON radar screen, a search and rescue was implemented. The oklahoma troopers were on the scene immediately. Some fuel was put into the aircraft and it was flown to tul where an FBO looked over the aircraft and could find nothing wrong with it except that the fuel strainer was half clogged with residue from the manufacture of the tanks. The factory was contacted, but they gave no financial help and only offered that this might have been a vapor lock caused by clogging the fuel tank vent. An FSDO representative interviewed the reporter on the telephone and gave him a reprimand. The FSDO representative said that nothing would be put into his record. The reporter does not know why there was a reprimand. This problem has not recurred in the 100 hours that the reporter has flown his new aircraft.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A CITABRIA 7GCBC PLT HAD AN OFF ARPT LNDG WHEN HIS ENG SUDDENLY STOPPED.

Narrative: WE DEPARTED FROM STL AFTER FUELING, TO FULL TANKS OF GAS, FOR A 290 NM TRIP TO TUL. WE MADE A FORCED LNDG DUE TO FUEL STARVATION 7 NM FROM TUL. THE ACFT WAS NEW, AND WE HAD JUST PICKED IT UP IN WISCONSIN THAT MORNING. OUR FLT PLAN HAD INCLUDED A WX BRIEF INCLUDING WINDS ALOFT. WE CALCULATED A FUEL BURN OF 10 GPH, WHICH IS 1 GPH MORE THAN THE PERFORMANCE CHARTS CALLED FOR AT 75 PERCENT PWR. WE HAD 2 GPS ON BOARD, BOTH WORKING, AND WERE AVERAGING BTWN 90-105 KTS THE ENTIRE DISTANCE. THE MANUFACTURER'S PERFORMANCE CHARTS STATE A RANGE OF 436 NM WITH AN ENDURANCE OF 3.92 HRS. WE WERE IN THE AIR FOR 2.9 HRS. THE GAUGES SHOWED THAT THERE WAS STILL FUEL IN THE TANKS. 7 NM FROM TUL THE ENG QUIT AT 1500 FT AGL. WE SPOTTED A FIELD TO OUR R AND TURNED TOWARD THE FIELD. THERE WAS A PAVED CONCRETE STRIP IN THE CTR OF THE FIELD WITH NO PHONE OR PWR LINES AND WE LANDED. I DID NOT TRY TO RESTART, NOT ENOUGH TIME. IT SEEMED THAT OUR FUEL BURN WAS MUCH HIGHER THAN WE WERE LED TO BELIEVE, BOTH FROM THE OPERATING MANUAL AND A VERBAL CONFIRMATION FROM THE FACTORY. WE WERE AT 75 PERCENT PWR THE ENTIRE TRIP. CAUSE FOR EXCESSIVE FUEL BURN UNKNOWN. OUR AVERAGE BURN FROM WISCONSIN TO STL WAS 10 GPH. WE MADE A SAFE EMER LNDG WITH NO DAMAGE TO PLANE, PLTS, OR PROPERTY. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR LANDED ON AN UNUSED ROAD AT THE PORT OF TOCUSA, E OF TUL. AS THERE WAS FUEL SHOWING ON THE GAUGES, THE RPTR STARTED THE ENG IMMEDIATELY AND IT RAN PERFECTLY. WHEN THE ACFT RAN OFF OF THE TRACON RADAR SCREEN, A SEARCH AND RESCUE WAS IMPLEMENTED. THE OKLAHOMA TROOPERS WERE ON THE SCENE IMMEDIATELY. SOME FUEL WAS PUT INTO THE ACFT AND IT WAS FLOWN TO TUL WHERE AN FBO LOOKED OVER THE ACFT AND COULD FIND NOTHING WRONG WITH IT EXCEPT THAT THE FUEL STRAINER WAS HALF CLOGGED WITH RESIDUE FROM THE MANUFACTURE OF THE TANKS. THE FACTORY WAS CONTACTED, BUT THEY GAVE NO FINANCIAL HELP AND ONLY OFFERED THAT THIS MIGHT HAVE BEEN A VAPOR LOCK CAUSED BY CLOGGING THE FUEL TANK VENT. AN FSDO REPRESENTATIVE INTERVIEWED THE RPTR ON THE TELEPHONE AND GAVE HIM A REPRIMAND. THE FSDO REPRESENTATIVE SAID THAT NOTHING WOULD BE PUT INTO HIS RECORD. THE RPTR DOES NOT KNOW WHY THERE WAS A REPRIMAND. THIS PROB HAS NOT RECURRED IN THE 100 HRS THAT THE RPTR HAS FLOWN HIS NEW ACFT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.