C182 vs Cherokee 6

*If it
wasn't for the additional costs, I would never fly an C172 again.


The flying club I belong to has an R182 RG. It goes for $145 an hour.
Is that about normal?

High?

Low?

In article ,
john wrote:

I was surprised at the difference on fuel consumtion. I have tried to
fly both of them at the same altitude, RPM and fuel/air mixture.
Over several flights the consumption stays about the same. I asked an
instructor about it and he mentioned he can't get the high fuel
consumption down either. It doesn't matter whether it was in the
lower or higher altitudes (up to 7500 feet), and aggressive leaning,
the Cherokee doesn't have the fuel economy of the Cessna. The engine
had been rebuilt recently, (less than 200 hours), but I'm not sure
that has anything to do with it.

If the 140's tach is reading low, then it can have a higher than expected
fuel burn. (fwiw - even with the 160hp conversion on my 140, I don't
see 9gph, usually it's around 7 gph).

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

"kontiki" wrote:

(I am suprised you are getting 12gph
for the 182... the ones I've flown burn more than that).

That's about right for 125 KTAS.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

wrote:

The flying club I belong to has an R182 RG. It goes for $145 an hour.
Is that about normal?

Wet? Sounds like the low side of normal.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

Does the 160 HP conversion come with a repitched prop? Unless it does, your
fuel burn at a given RPM should actually go down because the engine has a
higher compression ratio and produces power more efficiently.

KB
"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article
,
john wrote:

I was surprised at the difference on fuel consumtion. I have tried to
fly both of them at the same altitude, RPM and fuel/air mixture.
Over several flights the consumption stays about the same. I asked an
instructor about it and he mentioned he can't get the high fuel
consumption down either. It doesn't matter whether it was in the
lower or higher altitudes (up to 7500 feet), and aggressive leaning,
the Cherokee doesn't have the fuel economy of the Cessna. The engine
had been rebuilt recently, (less than 200 hours), but I'm not sure
that has anything to do with it.

If the 140's tach is reading low, then it can have a higher than expected
fuel burn. (fwiw - even with the 160hp conversion on my 140, I don't
see 9gph, usually it's around 7 gph).

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

In article ,
"Kyle Boatright" wrote:

Does the 160 HP conversion come with a repitched prop? Unless it does, your
fuel burn at a given RPM should actually go down because the engine has a
higher compression ratio and produces power more efficiently.

I did repitch my prop to make it the same engine/prop as a warrior II.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

In article ,
John Smith wrote:
In article ,
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

A 6-300 will cruise about 167 Knots and burn about 16gph. I think a 260
is a little under 140 knots at about 13 or 14gph. I've flown both but
the 260 was a long time ago.

I think you mean mph not kts.
I fly a 6-300 and I flight plan and get 135 kts.
16 to 18 gph will depend on the engine installation, how high and how
lean you like to fly. I have flown at 10,500 leaned to 12 gph but GS was
only 95 kts.

*nod* I've been flying a 6-300 for about 4 years now, and get 135 kts
at 15 gph below 8,000 ft, and around 13.5 - 14 gph at 10,500.

-- Dane

John Smith wrote:
In article ,
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

A 6-300 will cruise about 167 Knots and burn about 16gph. I think a 260
is a little under 140 knots at about 13 or 14gph. I've flown both but
the 260 was a long time ago.

I think you mean mph not kts.
I fly a 6-300 and I flight plan and get 135 kts.
16 to 18 gph will depend on the engine installation, how high and how
lean you like to fly. I have flown at 10,500 leaned to 12 gph but GS was
only 95 kts.


Yes I did mean MPH. Sorry.