A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Single-engine plane with the best range?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #7  
Old February 18th 04, 07:09 PM
Bob Gardner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Using a 172P POH as an example, at 8000 feet density altitude and 75
percent, the range is eyeballed as 575 nm; at 65 percent it is 640; at 55
percent it is 680, all based on 50 gallons available with reserve. With 62
gallons available (with reserve), the numbers a 75 percent 755 nm, at 65
percent 820, and at 55 percent 870. Sure looks to me as though reducing the
power setting increases range, as does carrying more fuel.

Bob Gardner

"Stealth Pilot" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 20:59:55 GMT, "Bob Gardner"
wrote:

The range for any aircraft is dependent on power setting (and fuel
available, of course). If speed is not important, you could operate at
50-percent of max power and get astounding range...but few pilots are
willing to make that tradeoff.

Bob Gardner


bob my experience doesnt support that.

I fly a Wittman W8 tailwind with an O-200.

flying between Ceduna and Forrest via Nullabor Homestead is about 297
nautical miles.
I have made the flight with two settings.
-at reduced rpm (about 1800rpm) and about 70 knots. (in company with a
piper cub)
-at cruise rpm (2500 rpm) and 114 knots.
weight and aircraft trim was just about the same.

believe it or not the fuel consumed was the same.

reducing your rpm gets you more time aloft but does not increase your
range.
it seems to take the same amount of energy to move the aircraft the
distance. all you vary with rpm is the rate of energy conversion and
the air speed.

another point pertinent to the original posters question.

the fuel bill for a thorp T18 with an O-360 engine and a W8 Tailwind
with an O-200 engine is about the same for the flight across
australia.
the thorp cruises around 180 knots and does the trip in 1 day. I
cruise at 114 knots and it takes 2 days.
it astounds me that the fuel consumed is about the same.

of course these flights are made upside down (downunder) and our
Lycoming and Continental engines might be different from yours.
...and these are both taildraggers. :-)
ymmv
Stealth Pilot
Australia.




 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Should I consider this plane - weird engine history [email protected] Owning 12 February 3rd 05 12:18 AM
ROP masking of engine problems Roger Long Owning 4 September 27th 04 07:36 PM
Lancair Columbia 400: The World's Fastest Certified Piston Single Engine Aircraft! David Ross Aviation Marketplace 0 August 24th 04 07:13 PM
Real stats on engine failures? Captain Wubba Piloting 127 December 8th 03 04:09 PM
The "Lightweight" Fighter is on the verge of overtaking the F-105 as the heaviest single engine fighter of all time. Talk about irony. Scott Ferrin Military Aviation 1 November 24th 03 03:12 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.