X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com
Return-Path: <cbeazley@innovista.net>
Received: from [209.217.78.137] (HELO mx5.magma.ca)
by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.9)
with ESMTPS id 1123826 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 22 May 2006 17:25:21 -0400
Received-SPF: none
receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.217.78.137; envelope-from=cbeazley@innovista.net
Received: from mail2.magma.ca ([10.0.10.12])
by mx5.magma.ca (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k4MJJYHj022441
for <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>; Mon, 22 May 2006 15:19:35 -0400
Received: from [192.168.0.101] (CPE006067657509-CM014110005316.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [72.139.119.150])
(authenticated bits=0)
by mail2.magma.ca (Magma's Mail Server) with ESMTP id k4MJJVOZ008198
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO)
for <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>; Mon, 22 May 2006 15:19:34 -0400
Message-ID: <4472143C.6020206@innovista.net>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 15:42:52 -0400
From: cbeazley <cbeazley@innovista.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (Windows/20060308)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net
Subject: Re: "Designed" test was [Rationalization]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-magma-MailScanner-Information: Magma Mailscanner Service
X-magma-MailScanner: Clean
X-Spam-Status: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-4.399, required 9,
autolearn=not spam, ALL_TRUSTED, BAYES_00)
The test does reveal some data, however "designed". Here are a few
holes in the testing/writeup:
For the time to climb test:
Why specify throttle setting, rpm AND speed for a climb test. Different
engine - different performance. Pick speed only or better yet let the
pilots pick their speeds and give them a few tries to optimize and get
their best time (or manage temps).
For the X-country, what was the speed for each aircraft for the
160miles? The fuel use for the recip cruise portions of the x-country
flight looks to be well into the economy cruise power settings...
What was the noise data?
A better comparison would include some cruise/climb, straight and level
flight at different speeds, say 130, 150, 170, top speed. No contraints
other than speed.
As has been noted, a comparison between a p-port and side port would be
useful for us at various speeds.
fans of Mythbusters?
Cheers
Cary
Ed, you may want to reread the article. They weighed all the planes,
added ballast to the light ones to equal things out, then all flew same
speed, altitude on long cross country. The reported fuel use
differences were real.
Only points they didn't consider was the fact that both rotaries were
burning 87 octane instead of 100LL. I don't know the difference in
energy per gallon, but there sure is a difference in $. So if they
compared cost for the trip, rotary would win.
It would have been nice if the author had compared the operating expense
difference, but in all fairness, pilots tend to think in terms of GPH.
-al wick
Artificial intelligence in cockpit, Cozy IV powered by stock Subaru 2.5
N9032U 200+ hours on engine/airframe from Portland, Oregon
Prop construct, Subaru install, Risk assessment, Glass panel design info:
http://www.maddyhome.com/canardpages/pages/alwick/index.html
On Mon, 22 May 2006 09:16:20 -0400 "Ed Anderson"
<eanderson@carolina.rr.com <mailto:eanderson@carolina.rr.com>> writes:
Even the Aviation Sport article supports that conclusion, even if they
did dwell on the fuel burn (and Noise {:>),being higher. Well of
course, the fuel consumption was higher - it was producing more power
and beating the lycoming power RV-8.