Fuel Prices and their Effect on Your Flying

"Matt Barrow" wrote:



What's your fuel burn now?

9.5 GPH

"M" wrote in message
ps.com...
How do you get 30.5" at 12.5K w/o a turbo?

The Beech Bo 36 is TC'ed, but in this case is TN'ed. We regularly run 60+
LOP.

"Jon Kraus" wrote in message
.. .
I have concidered GAMI's but since I get my engine to run smooth and cool
LOP I didn't think the cost would be worth it. On the Mooney owners list
we have some very knowledgable folks from GAMI that participate in the
lists and have told me that 20-30 LOP at 70% will be no detonation issue at
all...

The problem is not detonation, but internal chamber (cylinder) pressure.



Matt Barrow wrote:

"Jon Kraus" wrote in message
.. .

Yes a TCM 200 hp IO-360-A3B6D with no GAMI's. I usually cruise 5-6k 24
squared and 20-30 LOP.


In calculating off the top of my head, you're running about 70% (your's
is 200 HP?); see the chart below.

Have you considered GAMI's?

Try this: 12.5K, 185kts, 14.5gph (30.5"/2350 RPM); smooth as silk, even
at idle.


Matt Barrow wrote:

"Jon Kraus" wrote in message
om...


Third I am now learning and practicing everything I can about Lean of
Peak (LOP) operations in order to save money on fuel.


http://www.advancedpilot.com/index.html - expensive ($1000), but worth
every penny Save gas, but more importantly, your engine. (see below)



I have found that in cruise I can save many gallons-per-hour by
twisting the red knob until the EGT's peak and then get to 10-20
degrees on the other side of peak temperatures. I know that this will
not work for everyone but for my IO-360 it gives me a cool, smooth
running engine that is only drinking 9.5 GPH.


At what MP? Throttle setting? Altitude?

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182045-1.html

Yes, cool and smooth...but possibly with excessive internal pressure.

Red Box = No Fly Zone
At and below about 60% power, there is no red box.
At about 65% power, 100ºF ROP to Peak.
At about 70%, 125ºF ROP to 25ºF LOP.
At about 75%, 180ºF ROP to 40ºF LOP.
At about 80%, 200ºF ROP to 60ºF LOP


http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182084-1.html



Have higher fuel prices forced you to adjust your operations?


Fuel here is $4.15, up from $3.45 so it translates to about $11 more an
hour. Considering our hourly DOC & Reserve is around $135 an hour, $11
is minor.

We did cancel a optional trip to the "Big City" for shopping.



I'm sure that over the years when fuel prices have peaked, folks have
made changes, but since I am a new owner (working on our second year)
it is my first experience at spiking prices. So what say you?


LOP is your best bet. IIRC, the Mooney is running a TCM? If so,
GAMIjectors.

Bob Noel wrote:
However, what would the difference in maintenance costs be between the
172 and the F33, and insurance...?

Maintenance: Modestly higher, obviously, but with the fixed costs taken
as a whole, we wouldn't pay that much more (hangar is the same,
insurance is about $1000 more...chump change all things considered).
What makes the Bo so attractive is that this particular specimen is
owned by a guy who's just as anal as we are about the 172 so we don't
even expect a "catch up" annual. Even the engine was freshly overhauled
last year.

Insurance: We're established pilots with experience (ATP/Comm/CFI) and
I fly turbine equipment. No factor. Insurance might want my partner to
get 10-25 hours in type because he has no Bo time, but that's a no brainer.

But, unfortunately, he's getting up there in age and in spite of telling
him how the new 172's are driving down the value of the 35+ year old
six-pack equipped 172's, AND the fact that I don't plan to fly it very
much anymore given it no longer meets my mission profile, he won't
budge. Shame too...other than being a stick in the mud on matters like
this, he's been a great partner.

-Doug

--------------------
Doug Vetter, ATP/CFI

http://www.dvatp.com
--------------------

Ross Richardson wrote:
I have a 180hp (C/S prop) C-172F with the lyc O-360 and I burn and plan
on 9 gph. Why are you at 11? I run 2300 rpm and 22". I believe that give
me 9 gph.

I rounded up a bit -- sorry. 22/23 is 65% (book is 8.8GPH). We usually
run 23/24 (75% -- for obvious reasons) and burn 10.6GPH block to block
(0.6GPH over book). If we fly low and don't lean as aggressively, we
can easily see 11.5GPH block to block. And we can't run LOP due to the
carb. My kingdom for a fuel-injected, flow-balanced engine like that in
the Bo.

The biggest slap in the face is that even with the benefits of the CS
prop we don't go as fast as the fixed pitch 172R/SP because the stupid
old-school STOL kit with leading edge cuff destroys the cruise
performance of the wing. If we could just lose that and put some vortex
generators on it we'd get the same low-speed performance without the
cruise penalty and then we'd have a solid 125-130K airplane. Still slow
as sh!t but an improvement.

At one point I thought seriously about paying to get the kit removed
because it causes other issues related to low-speed performance when
combined with the heavy CS prop, etc., but then I came to my senses.
Every $1000 we spend on this pig is $1000 less I have to invest in a
real airplane built for real traveling.

Sorry for the rant. Can you tell I'm tired of flying low-tech airplanes
going 115KTAS? :-) I think I'm beginning to understand why small GA is
dying. If you're going to pay as much as we do to fly an airplane
(particularly in relation to fuel), it better damn well perform like a jet.

-Doug

--------------------
Doug Vetter, ATP/CFI

http://www.dvatp.com
--------------------

: Have higher fuel prices forced you to adjust your operations?

Sold my airplane.

That sucks, Aaron.

:-(
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

B A R R Y wrote:
: How great is that mod when you need to get 30-40 gallons into the plane?

: Do you land at a gas station? G

: Even 20 is a lot to carry around in portable containers.

I've found that with a little planning, it's not too bad for the way I fly at
least. Most flights are relatively local, with the occasional 500nm cross country.
I've got three 5-gallon cans in my car. For local flights I just stop by the gas
station before flying and get a can or two. For the longer ones, I'll fill them all
up on the way to the airport. When I return I'll dump them in and then go for one
more trip for three more. Not too inconvenient for the few times I return from a
trip and need to put 30-40 gallons in.... just one extra trip to the local filling
station.

I was going to build a fuel trailer, but decided that the small cans work OK.
If I had a high-wing I'd be more inclined to build a trailer (with the requisite pump,
etc). With the low-wing I've got, I just let the cans drain while I post-flight,
tie-down, etc.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

: * Fly at lower power setting for local flights.
: * Lean like crazy on those low powered flights. It won't hurt the
: engine.
: * Fill up autogas whenever I can.

That's one of the biggest ways to save significantly on fuel. In particular
with a high-performance plane. Drag power (and thus fuel burn) goes with the *cube*
of the speed, and a plane with a big engine generally lets you climb that steep cubic
curve a pretty good ways. If you're willing to slow down a few knots (generally 5-10
is pretty significant), you can generally get a pretty big fuel savings.

My PA28-180 is neither high-performance nor has a big engine, but the airframe
is pretty much in the "sweet-spot" with a 150-160hp engine at 75%. More than that
means lots more fuel burn for very little speed gain. In my case:

75%: 10gph - 115-120KIAS (can't lean too much)
65%: 8.5gph - 110-115KIAS (can lean to whatever as long as CHT is OK)
55%: 7.5gph - 105-110KIAS (can lean 'till it wheezes out of the sky)

That's a increase from 12nmpg - 13.5nmpg - 14.5 nmpg... roughly 8% speed
penalty for 20% fuel savings. With a slippery plane with a big engine, even moreso.

Oh yeah... headwinds suck.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

wrote:

I was going to build a fuel trailer, but decided that the small cans work OK.
If I had a high-wing I'd be more inclined to build a trailer (with the requisite pump,
etc). With the low-wing I've got, I just let the cans drain while I post-flight,
tie-down, etc.


Do your local fields allow fuel cans to be stored on the property? Both
of the places where I've had tie-downs forbade it.

: I was going to build a fuel trailer, but decided that the small cans work OK.
: If I had a high-wing I'd be more inclined to build a trailer (with the requisite pump,
: etc). With the low-wing I've got, I just let the cans drain while I post-flight,
: tie-down, etc.
:

: Do your local fields allow fuel cans to be stored on the property? Both
: of the places where I've had tie-downs forbade it.

I "store" them in my vehicle so that I can bring them full to the airport.
Some FBO's might forbid full fuel cans to be stored on the property, but I wouldn't
think that they could forbid empty ones.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************