Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Sender: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 10:43:25 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-771459@logan.com>
X-Original-Return-Path: <Walter@advancedpilot.com>
Received: from lakermmtao06.cox.net ([68.230.240.33] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c2)
  with ESMTP id 771449 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 05 Mar 2005 10:31:20 -0500
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.240.33; envelope-from=Walter@advancedpilot.com
Received: from [10.0.1.3] (really [68.227.132.71]) by lakermmtao06.cox.net
          (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-118-20041027) with ESMTP
          id <20050305153034.DRWD21504.lakermmtao06.cox.net@[10.0.1.3]>
          for <lml@lancaironline.net>; Sat, 5 Mar 2005 10:30:34 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619.2)
In-Reply-To: <list-771393@logan.com>
References: <list-771393@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Original-Message-Id: <d8b568b4eba534f03b2d9e6fcaacd914@advancedpilot.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: W Atkinson <Walter@advancedpilot.com>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: FADEC Rough idle explanation
X-Original-Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 09:30:33 -0600
X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" <lml@lancaironline.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619.2)

Gary:

Eloquently stated.  You expressed my thoughts precisely.

Thank you very much.

Walter


On Mar 5, 2005, at 8:32 AM, Gary Casey wrote:

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



--
For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/lml/