X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from rwcrmhc11.comcast.net ([204.127.198.35] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0) with ESMTP id 812736 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 02 Nov 2005 20:02:39 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=204.127.198.35; envelope-from=jesse@jessfarr.com Received: from office5 (pcp04959909pcs.midval01.tn.comcast.net[68.59.199.44]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc11) with SMTP id <2005110301013501300ek44oe>; Thu, 3 Nov 2005 01:01:35 +0000 Message-ID: <016e01c5e012$1b123b60$057ba8c0@farr.com> From: "jesse farr" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: economy test Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 20:01:20 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_016B_01C5DFE8.3184CA40" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_016B_01C5DFE8.3184CA40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Tracy / Ernest: I don't know nothing about flying these fancy computer = controlled injected things and I could have probably never figured out = who used what for how long over how much distance; but, I put many a = mile on an old turbo normalized mooney and while my flight method = depended on distance of course, if close enough around, it usually = consisted of climb to 14 or 15,000 and a couple of hundred feet per = minute descent where clearance height and pattern altitude would work = out. The whole point of this is that flight time and overall fuel = consumption was usually reduced, sometimes even by as much as a third. = At the time I thought I had really found the ultimate "slipping off the = step" method of flight that I had often read about. jofarr, soddy tn ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Tracy Crook=20 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. ------=_NextPart_000_016B_01C5DFE8.3184CA40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Tracy / Ernest: I don't know nothing about = flying these=20 fancy computer controlled injected things and I could have probably = never=20 figured out who used what for how long over how much distance; but, I = put many a=20 mile on an old turbo normalized mooney and while my flight method = depended on=20 distance of course, if close enough around, it usually consisted of = climb to 14=20 or 15,000 and a couple of hundred feet per minute descent where = clearance height=20 and pattern altitude would work out. The whole point of this is = that flight=20 time and overall fuel consumption was usually reduced, sometimes = even by as=20 much as a third. At the time I thought I had really found the ultimate = "slipping=20 off the step" method of flight that I had often read about.
jofarr, soddy tn
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Tracy = Crook
 
  Actually it was 55 mpg during = the descent=20 portion of flight.  I was looking at MPG averages so speed never = entered=20 the picture in my quick & 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=20 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=20 got by averaging the MPG during each unit of time (48 mpg = result)=20 but still a pretty good bump up from 30 mpg in level = flight.  Not=20 sure where the error is coming from.
 
Naturally my test results will have to be repeated many = more times=20 before I accept them as=20 fact.
------=_NextPart_000_016B_01C5DFE8.3184CA40--