REFLECTOR: Fuel Consumption Performance

Christopher Barber CBarber at texasattorney.net
Fri Aug 28 03:21:06 CDT 2009


Go Al Go!!!!! I agree with ya buddy. I am making some real progress with 
my 2 rotor. Now that I not trying to tune it with coolant in the 
combustions chambers, things seem to be coming together MUCH better <g>

Right now my potential airplane is kinda of kewl as a REALLY expensive 
"go-kart" taxiing around the airport :-) I am making a lot of "proof of 
concept" stuff into flight ready. Kinda scary ;-0

All the best,

Al Gietzen wrote:
>
> Terry;
>
> Good numbers. They are a bit lower than you previously reported, and 
> right in line with what I get with my rotary.
>
> There was some discussion awhile back on another list about slowing 
> down and reducing the cost of flying. I’m thinking- wait a minute; one 
> of the reasons I have an airplane is to go fast. I can make a 500 nm 
> leg on about 28.0 gals of fuel at 170 KTAS. If I slow down to 150 I 
> can save about 1 gal, and take over 20 minutes longer. The cost of 
> that gas (especially mogas at $3.00) is completely negligible compared 
> to the overall cost of having an airplane. I think I’ll start flying 
> at 190 J.
>
> Al
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* reflector-bounces at tvbf.org [mailto:reflector-bounces at tvbf.org] 
> *On Behalf Of *Terry Miles
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 27, 2009 10:00 AM
> *To:* 'Velocity Aircraft Owners and Builders list'
> *Subject:* Re: REFLECTOR: Fuel Consumption Performance
>
> Al,
>
> Here is my cruz engine log to include this last IN to CO trip. 
> Westbound was full power. 10,000 will get me mid 180 Kts TAS and 
> 12,000 gets mid 190 kts TAS. That runs about 11.5 at full throttle and 
> leaning 50 LOP. Thanks to Scott I did it right and pulled the mixture 
> out until they were all LOP and enriched back on the first to peak so 
> to get 50 LOP. It was hardly any real effective difference, but better 
> to do it right. (And I never got to KLMO when I was asking about high 
> dens alt ops.)
>
> As the log shows, on the way back at 11,000 I pulled back to try and 
> hold mid 170's for speed, and I pulled the prop rpm back some too, but 
> it doesn't sound good below 2100 for some reason. Anyway I was able to 
> get 9.5 for a fuel flow. Next good tailwind and I'll try mid 150's for 
> a speed.
>
> Also for what it worth for you other fellow newbies and flatlanders 
> out there, I had it in my head and in my muscle memory that cooler 
> temps mean more leaning since those are the mixture adjustments I have 
> been making hundreds of times now. When I got out on the runway for 
> takeoff run…I put the throttle in full, then I leaned the mixture 
> leaning for peak…when I got to peak I instinctively _leaned _for the 
> 100 cooler instead of enriching to get the 100 cooler. Of course I 
> immediately saw this and fixed it, but I was surprized at myself…all 
> while the engine is at full blast and my head is on the departure 
> matters and checklists. Thought I'd toss that in. What not to do is 
> often as good as knowing what TO do.
>
> Terry
>
> *From:* reflector-bounces at tvbf.org [mailto:reflector-bounces at tvbf.org] 
> *On Behalf Of *Al Gietzen
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 05, 2009 11:34
> *To:* 'Velocity Aircraft Owners and Builders list'
> *Subject:* Re: REFLECTOR: Fuel Consumption Performance
>
> Al,
>
> Hey thanks for that. Can I do anything to help fill in the matrix any 
> better? I could get you some 165 TAS numbers on my next long trip. It 
> seems like runs at similar altitudes and TAS would make for the 
> easiest comparisons. But, I could fly at whatever altitude or fuel 
> flow, etc you wanted to know about.
>
> Terry;
>
> I think I’ve gone as far as going with that – I was just 
> tabulating/correlating the reported data for easier viewing. I’d be 
> more interested in comparison data for alternative engines, although 
> that then needs to be compared with the certified engines.
>
> I think each person should gather some data on their own plane, for 
> their own purposes; starting with verifying the accuracy of the 
> airspeed and fuel flow readings. Then it might be fun to compare some 
> data for the same models at the same TAS at the same elevation.
>
> So if all you folks flying would, whenever convenient, like to post 
> some data for your M&M and engine type at, say:
>
> Leaned cruise
>
> 150 KTAS
>
> 9500 ft;
>
> it would be interesting.
>
> Best,
>
> Al
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> To change your email address, visit http://www.tvbf.org/mailman/listinfo/reflector
>
> Visit the gallery!  www.tvbf.org/gallery
> user:pw = tvbf:jamaicangoose
> Check new archives: www.tvbf.org/pipermail
> Check old archives: http://www.tvbf.org/archives/velocity/maillist.html


More information about the Reflector mailing list