faster 182?

"John T" wrote:


...it trued 147 knots! Non-turbo at 5,500 feet,
10 deg. C OAT, 135 KIAS. ... The bad news is
that we were burning 15.5 GPH to get that speed.

The '67 182K I fly typically trues a good bit slower (~120), but I get much
better fuel burn. I'm typically burning about 12.5 gph at that altitude.

Lessee... 422nm trip @ 147 knots and 15.5 gph = 2.9 hours and $200 (no
wind and 100LL @ $4.50/gal). Same trip @ 120 kt & 12.5 gph = 3.5 hr and
$197.

Three dollars to buy 30 minutes? Tempting deal.

That's about the same mileage as Mobile to Houston, a frequent trip of mine.

In my airplane, that's 422nm/135KTAS = 3hrs 7 min. * 10.5gph * $4.50/g=
$148.00.

Hmm...$52 more to save 13 minutes. Not very exciting, but then the Skylane
is a much roomier ride than mine. Comfort counts.


My real question is: What power setting were you guys using? I'm usually in
the 65-70% range during cruise.


I believe it was 75% power, 23 X 2300, 25 deg. ROP.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Feb 12, 12:48 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:
"Newps" wrote:
Dan Luke wrote:
The bad news is that we were burning
15.5 GPH to get that speed.

Why the high fuel flow? My 285hp IO-520 book fuel flow is 15.2 at 75%.

That's not much difference.

It is if the new 182s still have only 235 HP.

Oh. Duh.

I don't know why the high flow. Maybe I looked before we leaned it?

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

"ktbr" wrote:

Three dollars to buy 30 minutes? Tempting deal.

How much does thirty extra minutes on your tach cost you?


Good point.

In a typical year, I fly 120 hours. Let's say I average 125 kts, that's
15,000 nm. and $5670 of gas @ $4.50/gal.

In a new Skylane, let's say I average 137 kts. That's 15,000 nm. in 109.5
hours. Times gas @ $4.50/gal * 15.5 gph (probably a high number) = $7638. So
I would spend $2K more for gas, but put 10.5 fewer hours on the airplane,
saving eight hundred bucks or so. Net $1200 more to fly the Skylane vs. the
Cutlass RG. Not a bad deal to get the comfort of a 182.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

ktbr wrote:
How much does thirty extra minutes on your tach cost you?

I see your point (adding another $47.50 to my cost above). There's also the
question of "how much is 30 minutes worth to you?"

I'm really wondering if the airframe is the root of the speed difference or
power settings. I haven't parked next to a glass Skylane, so I don't konw
what airframe differences there are. If a different style wheel pant and
cowl would buy me 27 knots, I'm all over it.

On the other hand, if most of this comes from running at a significantly
higher power setting, it doesn't look as appealing. There may also be a
significant difference in powerplant since I'm running a carbureted 230hp
engine and I'd bet he's running an IO-540 (260hp?).

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

Dan Luke wrote:
"Newps" wrote:

Dan Luke wrote:
The bad news is that we were burning
15.5 GPH to get that speed.

Why the high fuel flow? My 285hp IO-520 book fuel flow is 15.2 at 75%.

That's not much difference.




55 horsepower is a big difference.

Dan Luke wrote:

The bad news is that we were burning 15.5 GPH to get that speed.
What pwr & mixture setting? EGTs?

23" & 2300 rpm, IIRC. The mixture was 25 deg. ROP. Didn't check the EGTs.
I wish I'd looked at the CHTs.



Then something is wrong. At 23 squared that is 65% for me(IO-520) and
book flow is 13 gph.

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:14:26 -0800, Dan Luke wrote
(in article ):


wrote in message
oups.com...
On Feb 12, 12:48 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:
"Newps" wrote:
Dan Luke wrote:
The bad news is that we were burning
15.5 GPH to get that speed.

Why the high fuel flow? My 285hp IO-520 book fuel flow is 15.2 at 75%.

That's not much difference.

It is if the new 182s still have only 235 HP.

Oh. Duh.

I don't know why the high flow. Maybe I looked before we leaned it?



IIRC it should be about 13 gph.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

"Newps" wrote in message
. ..


Dan Luke wrote:
"Newps" wrote:

Dan Luke wrote:
The bad news is that we were burning
15.5 GPH to get that speed.

Why the high fuel flow? My 285hp IO-520 book fuel flow is 15.2 at 75%.

That's not much difference.



55 horsepower is a big difference.


Right.

I suspect I checked the fuel flow before we leaned it.

On Feb 12, 8:38 am, "Dan Luke" wrote:
Got a demo flight in a new Skylane Saturday morning. Very nice airplane.
The G1000 stuff was a bit bewildering at first but otherwise it flew just
like any good 182...

...except for one thing: it trued 147 knots! Non-turbo at 5,500 feet, 10 deg.
C OAT, 135 KIAS. Wow! That is 10 knots faster than my buddy's 1980 model.

The guy who runs the FBO that rents it ($190/hr) says their other Skylane is
just as fast. He said changes Cessna made to the cowl and wheel pants
starting in 2005 make the difference. The bad news is that we were burning
15.5 GPH to get that speed.

Oh, yeah, one other difference I noticed: the view forward is much better
than in older 182s, a combination of new glare shield and seat designs, I
suppose.

Ask them what the useful load is on that 182S. Our new G1000 182 has
much less useful load than my 76 Mooney, the 182 is slower and burns
almost 50% more fuel. However, I do enjoy flying the 182's G1000.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote:

Ask them what the useful load is on that 182S.

1140 lbs.

Our new G1000 182 has
much less useful load than my 76 Mooney,

Eh? A quick web search tells me Mooneys of that vintage have less. What is
your Mooney's useful load?

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM