Received-SPF: softfail
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.102.122.148; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com
Message-ID: <43693164.60704@nc.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 16:36:36 -0500
From: Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com>
Reply-To: echristley@nc.rr.com
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050317)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Shady Bend / economy test
References: <list-812347@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-812347@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Tracy Crook wrote:

> At 9.5 GPH and 100 MPH I was climbing at 1500 fpm and getting 10.5 
> MPG.  It took 40 seconds to climb 1000 feet.   Hmmm, I thought,  what 
> is the average MPG if I get 10.5 MPG for 40 seconds and 55 MPG for the 
> next 5 minutes?   I think the answer is around 48 MPG but that seems 
> to be too good to be true.  Seems like some one would have used this 
> technique long ago if it would give a 60% increase in fuel economy.  
> The error in the EM2 fuel flow readout may be higher at this low flow 
> but nothing like 60%.  Any math majors out there see a flaw in my math 
> or logic?   Or maybe I was in a giant thermal at the time?  I repeated 
> the test twice so I don't think so.
>  


Were you decending at 100mph?  If not, then it is an apples and oranges 
comparison, isn't it?

You went 1.1 miles at 10.5mpg, using .105 gallons.
Assuming a decent speed of 100mph, you went 8.3 miles at 48mpg, burning 
up .174 gallons.
In the total 9.4 miles, you used .279 gallons, for 33.7mpg.

Does that sound closer to reality?

-- 
         ,|"|"|,                                    |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===----        Dyke Delta         |
        o|  d  |o          www.ernest.isa-geek.org  |