X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from [64.4.51.83] (HELO hotmail.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0) with ESMTP id 812580 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 02 Nov 2005 17:38:13 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.4.51.83; envelope-from=lors01@msn.com Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 2 Nov 2005 14:37:28 -0800 Message-ID: Received: from 4.174.1.21 by BAY107-DAV11.phx.gbl with DAV; Wed, 02 Nov 2005 22:37:27 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [4.174.1.21] X-Originating-Email: [lors01@msn.com] X-Sender: lors01@msn.com From: "Tracy Crook" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: economy test Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 17:37:24 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0393_01C5DFD4.15CC79B0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: MSN 9 X-MimeOLE: Produced By MSN MimeOLE V9.10.0011.1703 Seal-Send-Time: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 17:37:24 -0500 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Nov 2005 22:37:28.0092 (UTC) FILETIME=[00F8CDC0:01C5DFFE] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0393_01C5DFD4.15CC79B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable (Bottom posting this time) Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Shady Bend / economy test Tracy Crook wrote: > At 9.5 GPH and 100 MPH I was climbing at 1500 fpm and getting 10.5=20 > MPG. It took 40 seconds to climb 1000 feet. Hmmm, I thought, = what=20 > is the average MPG if I get 10.5 MPG for 40 seconds and 55 MPG for = the=20 > 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=20 > but nothing like 60%. Any math majors out there see a flaw in my = math=20 > or logic? Or maybe I was in a giant thermal at the time? I = repeated=20 > the test twice so I don't think so. > =20 Were you decending at 100mph? If not, then it is an apples and = oranges=20 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=20 up .174 gallons. In the total 9.4 miles, you used .279 gallons, for 33.7mpg. Does that sound closer to reality? www.ernest.isa-geek.org Actually it was 55 mpg during the descent portion of flight. I was = looking at MPG averages so speed never entered the picture in my quick & = dirty look at this. =20 But you suggest another way of cross checking the results. Let's see, = I think I agree with your miles traveled calcs so lets look at it this = way. I burned .106 gal in the 40 seconds of climb and .125 gal during = the 5 minutes of descent for a total of .231 gal. 9.4 miles divided by .231 gal gives 40.69 MPG. Not as good as I got = by averaging the MPG during each unit of time (48 mpg result) but still = a pretty good bump up from 30 mpg in level flight. Not sure where the = error is coming from. Naturally my test results will have to be repeated many more times = before I accept them as fact. Tracy ------=_NextPart_000_0393_01C5DFD4.15CC79B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

(Bottom posting this time)

Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Shady = Bend /=20 economy test

Tracy Crook wrote:

> At 9.5 GPH and 100 MPH I was = climbing at=20 1500 fpm and getting 10.5
> MPG. It took 40 seconds to = climb 1000=20 feet.   Hmmm, I thought, what
> is the average = MPG if I=20 get 10.5 MPG for 40 seconds and 55 MPG for the
> next 5=20 minutes?   I think the answer is around 48 MPG but that = seems=20
> to be too good to be true. Seems like some one would = have used=20 this
> technique long ago if it would give a 60% increase in = fuel=20 economy.
> The error in the EM2 fuel flow readout may be = higher=20 at this low flow
> but nothing like 60%. Any math majors = out=20 there see a flaw in my math
> or logic?   Or maybe I = was in a=20 giant thermal at the time? I repeated
> the test twice so = I don't=20 think so.
>

Were you decending at = 100mph? If=20 not, then it is an apples and oranges
comparison, isn't = it?

You=20 went 1.1 miles at 10.5mpg, using .105 gallons.
Assuming a decent = speed of=20 100mph, you went 8.3 miles at 48mpg, burning
up .174 = gallons.
In the=20 total 9.4 miles, you used .279 gallons, for 33.7mpg.

Does that = sound=20 closer to reality?

www.ernest.isa-geek.org

=

Actually it was 55 mpg during the descent portion of = flight. =20 I was looking at MPG averages so speed never entered the picture in my = quick=20 & dirty look at this.

But you suggest another way of cross checking the results. = Let's=20 see, I think I agree with your miles traveled calcs so lets look = at=20 it this way. I burned .106 gal in the 40 seconds of = climb and=20 .125 gal during the 5 minutes of descent for a total of .231 = gal.

9.4 miles divided by .231 gal gives 40.69 MPG. Not as good = as I got=20 by averaging the MPG during each unit of time (48 mpg = result) but=20 still a pretty good bump up from 30 mpg in level flight. = Not sure=20 where the error is coming from.

Naturally my test results will have to be repeated many more = times=20 before I accept them as fact.

Tracy

------=_NextPart_000_0393_01C5DFD4.15CC79B0--