Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:29 AM - Re: flying at what altitude (Max Cointe (Free))
2. 04:07 AM - Re: flying at what altitude (h&jeuropa)
3. 11:01 AM - rough running 912S (Richard Iddon)
4. 11:29 AM - Re: Re: flying at what altitude (Bud Yerly)
5. 11:47 AM - Re: rough running 912S (Jeff B)
6. 01:09 PM - Re: Re: flying at what altitude (Paul McAllister)
7. 01:21 PM - Re: Re: flying at what altitude (Jeffrey Roberts)
8. 02:53 PM - Re: Re: flying at what altitude (David Joyce)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | flying at what altitude |
Flying is a compromise! So you have to balance quality of air and engine
performance, wind stengh and direction and TAS, scenery and comfort, time to
climb and time to descent... Each flight is different and that is why we fly
!
Max Cointe
mcointe@free.fr
F-PMLH Europa XS_TriGear
Kit #560-2003 912ULS/AirmasterAP332 450 hours
F-PLDJ DynAro MCR 4S
Kit #27-2002 912ULSFR/MTProp MTV7A 1550 heures
-----Message d'origine-----
De: owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com] De la part de graeme bird
Envoy: jeudi 25 avril 2013 22:55
: europa-list@matronics.com
Objet: Europa-List: flying at what altitude
I notice it seems to be popular to fly at highish altitudes. I must admit
even with an IMC and when I had an IMC legal plane I have always been
reluctant to spend the time climbing, feels the winds are stronger higher,
the scenery is less interesting and the engine performance is worse.
On the other hand the air is thinner and maybe the engine performance is not
so bad, though its not turbo charged. I may have it wrong, any views?
--------
Graeme Bird
G-UMPY
Mono 912S/Woodcomp 3000/3W
Newby: 55 hours 1 year
g(at)gdbmk.co.uk
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=399386#399386
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: flying at what altitude |
Graeme,
We agree with all the above and add that altitude gives you more landing options
in case of a problem - more potential landing sites and more time to figure
out your course of action.
Jim & Heather
N241BW
XS Mono 914
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=399414#399414
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | rough running 912S |
I have just fired up my 912S after new sprag clutch, fitting soft start, new plugs
and 6 month lay up. It has always been quite smooth before but now it feels
very rough. I pulled the plugs and the two from no. 1 cylinder are black and
sooty whereas all the others are clean / whitish. Carb balance is not perfect
but not at all bad.
Any idea's why this should be and where to start would be appreciated.
Richard Iddon.
G-RIXS
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: flying at what altitude |
My two sense (since I really don't want to work on what I should be) if
you have a 914 you climb better so we normally use that to our
advantage. A short wing at 1370 lbs from TO takes 15-20 minutes to
level off at 12,000. Fuel used 2.5 gallons start, taxi, TO to L/O.
A similarly equipped 912S will take 25-30 minutes and 3.5 gallons. Both
climbing at 90 KIAS ish.
Once level, figure your true airspeed (nominally about 10 Kts between
the two engines) and the difference in climb distance to cruise and I
have found the optimum altitude for best range to be nominally 8500-9500
for a 2.5 hour trip. No oxygen required either engine.
But then again, I have a 2.5 hour bladder any more, plus I get bored.
The plane just flies too well. In the 914 I go 270-300 miles, and in a
similar 912S I go 250-270 and on landing, put 10 gallons in the tank and
drain my bladder.
In Florida, the tops of the bumpers on a nice day are about 8500, and it
is nice to cruise climb a bit higher to 10.5. Pull the throttle back to
68% and 4.6 GPH once level then plan a long slow descent, your fuel
usage is quite low and you can do the 2.5 hour trip at or near 35MPG
truing about 127 ish. If I pick up the speed my milage drops to
25-30MPG (even in a trigear) truing a bit faster and climbing higher is
done for comfort only, not economy. Each plane and engine prop
combination has to be tested for optimum cruise performance. Some of
our birds are draggy and built for fun, and others are stripped down
speed merchants with extended range tanks and pilots with tight urinary
tract control.
The new 912iS appears to be the ticket. I'll wait a bit for them to
figure out maintenance, injector cleaning, etc. Then the extra fuel
savings of the iS may be able to put more legs on the trip and frankly
better efficiency for the normally aspirated engine.
I refuse to get into a contest on which engine is better. Your flying
desires, density altitude operation, personal stomach for maintenance
costs, and type of aircraft all affect a subjective decision. I hate my
914 (except when it behaves), and I hate the 912S (when shaking on start
and stop). I love and hate both these engines and the new engines (UL,
MW, Jabiru) so I do not descriminate, I hate them all, except when I
love them.
Bud
----- Original Message -----
From: h&jeuropa<mailto:butcher43@att.net>
To: europa-list@matronics.com<mailto:europa-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 7:06 AM
Subject: Europa-List: Re: flying at what altitude
<butcher43@att.net<mailto:butcher43@att.net>>
Graeme,
We agree with all the above and add that altitude gives you more
landing options in case of a problem - more potential landing sites and
more time to figure out your course of action.
Jim & Heather
N241BW
XS Mono 914
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=399414#399414<http://forums
.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=399414#399414>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List<http://www.matronics.com/N
avigator?Europa-List>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution<http://www.matronics.com/contributi
on>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: rough running 912S |
Richard,
Black soot is usually a carb problem, though it would also probably show
up in the #3 also. There is also the possibility of ignition problems
on that cyl. A place to start, anyway...
Jeff - Baby Blue
On 4/26/2013 1:00 PM, Richard Iddon wrote:
>
> I have just fired up my 912S after new sprag clutch, fitting soft start, new
plugs and 6 month lay up. It has always been quite smooth before but now it feels
very rough. I pulled the plugs and the two from no. 1 cylinder are black and
sooty whereas all the others are clean / whitish. Carb balance is not perfect
but not at all bad.
>
> Any idea's why this should be and where to start would be appreciated.
>
> Richard Iddon.
>
> G-RIXS
>
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: flying at what altitude |
Yep, I hate my 914 too except when it behaves :(
It's a bit my kids, when there good they are really good, and when they are
bad they are REALLY bad :)
do not archive
_____________________________________
>
> I refuse to get into a contest on which engine is better. Your flying
> desires, density altitude operation, personal stomach for maintenance
> costs, and type of aircraft all affect a subjective decision. I hate my
> 914 (except when it behaves), and I hate the 912S (when shaking on start
> and stop). I love and hate both these engines and the new engines (UL, MW,
> Jabiru) so I do not descriminate, I hate them all, except when I love them.
>
> Bud* *
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: flying at what altitude |
I have a dog and a middle daughter like that... But my new 912ULS is so
far perfect all the time!!!!! Like a sewing machine!
Jeff R. N128LJ Gold Rush / FOR SALE
Do not archive!
On Apr 26, 2013, at 4:08 PM, Paul McAllister wrote:
> Yep, I hate my 914 too except when it behaves :(
>
> It's a bit my kids, when there good they are really good, and when
they are bad they are REALLY bad :)
>
> do not archive
>
>
>
>
> _____________________________________
>
>
> I refuse to get into a contest on which engine is better. Your flying
desires, density altitude operation, personal stomach for maintenance
costs, and type of aircraft all affect a subjective decision. I hate my
914 (except when it behaves), and I hate the 912S (when shaking on start
and stop). I love and hate both these engines and the new engines (UL,
MW, Jabiru) so I do not descriminate, I hate them all, except when I
love them.
>
> Bud
>
>
>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: flying at what altitude |
Bud, All good stuff, except what's with the 2.5 hr
bladder? Those of us who have come to power flying via
gliding dream of those rare days(rare in the UK that is)
when you can glide in style for 7 or 8 hrs. Glider Pilot's
bladders are no different. They just use a pee tube or a
bottle - in fact I thought that was what the space under
the L thigh rest was designed for!
Regards, David Joyce, G-XSDJ
On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 14:28:51 -0400
"Bud Yerly" <budyerly@msn.com> wrote:
> My two sense (since I really don't want to work on what
>I should be) if you have a 914 you climb better so we
>normally use that to our advantage. A short wing at 1370
>lbs from TO takes 15-20 minutes to level off at 12,000.
> Fuel used 2.5 gallons start, taxi, TO to L/O.
> A similarly equipped 912S will take 25-30 minutes and
>3.5 gallons. Both climbing at 90 KIAS ish.
> Once level, figure your true airspeed (nominally about
>10 Kts between the two engines) and the difference in
>climb distance to cruise and I have found the optimum
>altitude for best range to be nominally 8500-9500 for a
>2.5 hour trip. No oxygen required either engine.
>
> But then again, I have a 2.5 hour bladder any more, plus
>I get bored. The plane just flies too well. In the 914
>I go 270-300 miles, and in a similar 912S I go 250-270
>and on landing, put 10 gallons in the tank and drain my
>bladder.
>
> In Florida, the tops of the bumpers on a nice day are
>about 8500, and it is nice to cruise climb a bit higher
>to 10.5. Pull the throttle back to 68% and 4.6 GPH once
>level then plan a long slow descent, your fuel usage is
>quite low and you can do the 2.5 hour trip at or near
>35MPG truing about 127 ish. If I pick up the speed my
>milage drops to 25-30MPG (even in a trigear) truing a bit
>faster and climbing higher is done for comfort only, not
>economy. Each plane and engine prop combination has to
>be tested for optimum cruise performance. Some of our
>birds are draggy and built for fun, and others are
>stripped down speed merchants with extended range tanks
>and pilots with tight urinary tract control.
>
> The new 912iS appears to be the ticket. I'll wait a bit
>for them to figure out maintenance, injector cleaning,
>etc. Then the extra fuel savings of the iS may be able
>to put more legs on the trip and frankly better
>efficiency for the normally aspirated engine.
>
> I refuse to get into a contest on which engine is
>better. Your flying desires, density altitude operation,
>personal stomach for maintenance costs, and type of
>aircraft all affect a subjective decision. I hate my 914
>(except when it behaves), and I hate the 912S (when
>shaking on start and stop). I love and hate both these
>engines and the new engines (UL, MW, Jabiru) so I do not
>descriminate, I hate them all, except when I love them.
>
> Bud
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: h&jeuropa<mailto:butcher43@att.net>
> To:
>europa-list@matronics.com<mailto:europa-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 7:06 AM
> Subject: Europa-List: Re: flying at what altitude
>
>
><butcher43@att.net<mailto:butcher43@att.net>>
>
> Graeme,
>
> We agree with all the above and add that altitude gives
>you more landing options in case of a problem - more
>potential landing sites and more time to figure out your
>course of action.
>
> Jim & Heather
> N241BW
> XS Mono 914
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=399414#399414<http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=399414#399414>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List>
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
>
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|