Theory Q: Cold Air, Lower Fuel Consumption?

Yeah, but I'm not going to post it on the internet. Can you scan it and
send a JPG file?

Also, I misread your numbers (in terms of measures) - you go from 5.5 GPH,
to 7.6 GPH. That's the way I'm used to calculating fuel loads.

I'd still like to see the numbers, but my example (2X fuel flow for 18%
better TAS is not too far from your 33% increase in TAS for 40% increase
in FF. Getting upwards, then over, 200kts makes a big dent in fuel use.

Another thing to look at it is this - it often doesn't pay to divert a
long way to save a few buck on gas at a cheaper FBO. AirNav has this
option on their fuel planner.
I can't figure out your email address. How about sending me one at
to start. I'll be glad to share the JPEG with you. If I'm
wrong, I'd like to know it.

I probably should have emphasized that I was calculating bottom line
costs for block-to-block when I did the arithmetic. When I'm in the air, or
doing a flight plan, I strictly use GPH to calculate fuel consuption -- or
more important, fuel remaining.

Roger that about AirNav's fuel planner. Saving a $ on fuel at the cost
of spending $$ on the Hobbs is counterproductive. On the other hand, if the
diversion has something to offer AND I'm just on a fun cruise, I might go
there. Along that same line, I absolutely will not stretch a leg to save a
buck if it starts creeping anywhere near my personal reserve point (or
expected bladder capacity, which is diminishing with my age).

Cheers,

Casey