X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from [64.12.137.4] (HELO imo-m23.mail.aol.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0) with ESMTP id 812830 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:02:34 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.137.4; envelope-from=WRJJRS@aol.com Received: from WRJJRS@aol.com by imo-m23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r6.3.) id q.54.4fff3cb5 (16099) for ; Wed, 2 Nov 2005 21:01:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from FWM-R32 (fwm-r32.webmail.aol.com [152.163.181.136]) by air-id11.mx.aol.com (v107.13) with ESMTP id MAILINID113-3ee343696f882c2; Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:01:44 -0500 Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:01:43 -0500 Message-Id: <8C7AE31AC604E30-14A0-22EB@FWM-R32.sysops.aol.com> From: wrjjrs@aol.com References: Received: from 66.127.99.234 by FWM-R32.sysops.aol.com (152.163.181.136) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:01:43 -0500 X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI X-MB-Message-Type: User In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: AOL WebMail 1.1.0.14204 Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: economy test Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MailBlocks_8C7AE31AC604E30_14A0_2281_FWM-R32.sysops.aol.com" MIME-Version: 1.0 To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net X-AOL-IP: 152.163.181.136 X-Spam-Flag: NO ----------MailBlocks_8C7AE31AC604E30_14A0_2281_FWM-R32.sysops.aol.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sounds cool guys. The only question I have is what altitude did you tell center you would be at when filing your flight plan? You know this kind of blows the old first half even thousands... etc. for vfr flight rules. Bill Jepson -----Original Message----- From: jesse farr To: Rotary motors in aircraft Sent: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 20:01:20 -0500 Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: economy test 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 ----- From: Tracy Crook 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. 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. ----------MailBlocks_8C7AE31AC604E30_14A0_2281_FWM-R32.sysops.aol.com Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Sounds cool guys. The only question I have is what altitude did you tell center you would be at when filing your flight plan? You know this kind of blows the old first half even thousands... etc. for vfr flight rules.
Bill Jepson 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: jesse farr <jesse@jessfarr.com>
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 20:01:20 -0500
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: economy test

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 -----
 
  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.   
 
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.
----------MailBlocks_8C7AE31AC604E30_14A0_2281_FWM-R32.sysops.aol.com--