![]() |
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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |