From: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: FADEC Rough idle explanation
To: lml
Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 10:26:23 -0500
Message-ID: <web-772450@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <MMEELOPNFCJLIMPNNKMOKEBBDKAA.hapgoodm94@alum.darden.edu>
References: <MMEELOPNFCJLIMPNNKMOKEBBDKAA.hapgoodm94@alum.darden.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Posted for "Matt Hapgood" <hapgoodm94@alum.darden.edu>:

  Hi Walter.  I'll take that beer.
  
  I guess the biggest difference between your situation and mine is:
  
  1.  My range is rarely limited by fuel (I carry over 5 hours worth) - the
  bladder and personal comfort is my limiting range.  If I want to increase
  range for a really long flight, I just increase altitude and I can go for
  much longer than I care to be in the air (7 hours).
  
  2.  In a normally aspirated engine, 0.2 GPH is less than the altitude change
  from 8,000 to 9,000 feet.  It's so rare I actually get my assigned altitude
  that, again, forecasting to 0.2 GPH just doesn't make any sense.  Instead of
  forecasting an 8.1 GPH burn I'd rather forecast 9 GPH burn.  I still carry
  4.5 hours of fuel plus 1 hour reserve (longer than I want to be in the air).
  If I need more range, I'll plan a higher altitude - NOT a lower fuel burn.
  That's how I'd complete my mission.   Because sure as I forecast 8.1 GPH and
  take on starting fuel according to that estimate, I'll get assigned a lower
  altitude, fight a stronger headwind, or get a screwy routing... all of which
  would cause me to SCRUB the mission.
  
  So as I see it, planning to a much tighter GPH would actually cause me to
  scrub more missions than it would enable me to achieve.
  
  Matt
  
  (and I said I was done with typing on this subject...).
  
  

"""
   I'll bet you that if we could discuss this over a beer, we probably don't
  disagree.  Keyboards are a terrible method of communication.  Please allow
  me
  to try again.
"""