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.