Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Sender: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 09:32:03 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-771402@logan.com>
X-Original-Return-Path: <glcasey@adelphia.net>
Received: from mta11.adelphia.net ([68.168.78.205] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c2)
  with ESMTP id 771367 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 05 Mar 2005 08:11:29 -0500
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.168.78.205; envelope-from=glcasey@adelphia.net
Received: from worldwinds ([70.32.213.236]) by mta11.adelphia.net
          (InterMail vM.6.01.04.01 201-2131-118-101-20041129) with SMTP
          id <20050305131038.UMFN5402.mta11.adelphia.net@worldwinds>
          for <lml@lancaironline.net>; Sat, 5 Mar 2005 08:10:38 -0500
From: "Gary Casey" <glcasey@adelphia.net>
X-Original-To: "lancair list" <lml@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: FADEC Rough idle explanation
X-Original-Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 05:06:19 -0800
X-Original-Message-ID: <NEBBIBKBKLGPNKKOGMMBOEPGGBAB.glcasey@adelphia.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106

Walter wrote:
<<I have verified that my rate of burn is very accurate. It will result in
less than 1/2 gallon difference at any fill up>>
While Matt wrote:
<<I personally don't really care whether I burn 8 GPH or 9 GPH in cruise.>>

I'll have to weigh in with Walter here, while the disagreement might be more
semantics than anything.  "Accuracy" is a quantitative term - there really
is no such thing as "accurate" or "inaccurate," only degrees of accuracy.
To say what I believe Walter meant in another way is that more accuracy
allows decisions to be made with less uncertainty.  Knowing the fuel flow
within 0.1 GPH is better than knowing the fuel flow within 1 GPH.  If I
"don't care" whether the fuel flow is 8 or 9 I would have to plan a 5-hour
flight to end with perhaps 5 more gallons than if I was confident to 0.1
GPH.  Add that to a 1-hour reserve and the maximum trip length, number of
fuel stops, and other options are more constrained.  Not absolutely
constrained, but constrained more than they would be if fuel flow were known
to a better accuracy.  The same could, of course, be argued for almost any
of the other operational parameters associated with aircraft operation.
More accuracy = less risk.

Gary Casey