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
  #14  
Old February 25th 04, 08:10 AM
Stealth Pilot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 10:27:19 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"Stealth Pilot" wrote in message
.. .
the time, the duration, that an aircraft can remain airborne is
dependent on power setting. not necessarily the range achieved.


It affects both.

what I posted were some factual observations. dispute them if you
will, they still remain what I observed.


I'm not disputing your observations. I'm disputing that they have any
bearing at the question in hand, and in particular, your claim that they
somehow disprove the fact that for any airplane, an increase in range can be
had by reducing the power setting below the normal cruise setting.

Pete


ok my last post on this.
I had a think about your thought of different cooling drag being the
reason for the identical fuel burns at the different airspeeds. If you
ever get to fly a Tailwind take up the offer. You will experience an
aircraft with a significantly increased induced drag influence
compared to the higher aspect ratio Cessnas/commercial stuff that you
seem to be basing your comments on. It seems to me that induced drag
builds up quicker in the Tailwind at slower speeds than in the
commercial offerings.
I accept the cooling drag comment but think it is less significant
than induced drag as part of the answer.

"the fact that for any airplane, an increase in range can be
had by reducing the power setting below the normal cruise setting"

I will warn you that you are in for a surprise which may cost you the
aircraft in the right (wrong) conditions.
This was covered ad nauseum in my commercial pilot studies under
aircraft performance. I'll give a brief reiteration here.
If you have a look at the Cessna POH for the 150M you will find your
range profile graph on page 5-15. what you indicate is correct - for
the conditions that the graph was made for, which is for zero wind
conditions.
two pages over you will find a more useful graph which just gives just
endurance. you use this for calculating range in the more usual
condition of having a wind component.

CPL theory (and demonstrated calcs) says that for a tailwind or no
wind you fly slower to increase range.

for a headwind you fly faster!

I'll leave it for you to work out why.
Stealth Pilot
(...returning to my uni studies)
 




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 08:06 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.