Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:11 AM - Re: Fw: W10 Wing (Fred Weaver)
2. 06:29 AM - Re: Fw: W10 Wing (cgalley)
3. 06:51 AM - Re: Weav's Fuel numbers (Fred Weaver)
4. 06:53 AM - Re: Re: Weav's Fuel numbers (dmagaw@att.net)
5. 08:19 AM - Re: Re: Weav's Fuel numbers (flamini2)
6. 08:19 AM - Fw: Re: Weav's Fuel numbers (flamini2)
7. 09:16 AM - Trip MPG (Dennis Flamini)
8. 09:32 AM - Re: Tri-Gear W-10 Tailwind (DaveM)
9. 09:35 AM - Re: Trip MPG (cgalley)
10. 10:08 AM - New product announcement: affordable VG's (Land Shorter)
11. 11:08 AM - Re: Re: Tri-Gear W-10 Tailwind (Fred Weaver)
12. 12:25 PM - Re: Trip MPG (Fred Weaver)
13. 01:23 PM - Fw: Cougar W10 project (Keith Imel)
14. PM - ()
15. 02:36 PM - Re: Trip MPG (William Bernard)
16. 03:09 PM - Re: Re: Weav's Fuel numbers (Mcculleyja@aol.com)
17. 10:30 PM - Re: Trip MPG (mytyweav@earthlink.net)
18. 10:43 PM - Re: Trip MPG (Fred Weaver)
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: | Re: Fw: W10 Wing |
Keith.... Even the ribs are not Tailwind ribs. They may have the airfoil but
they don't have the structural strength of a good built up rib. The tank looks
interesting but that's about it. Not sure if I would use it/them.... After looking
at your pic, I think I would simply save the spars if they are good and
build new ribs etc etc...
Weav
----- Original Message -----
From: Keith Imel
To: Tailwind
Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2004 10:50 PM
Subject: W10 Wing
Hey Guys,
Well this is the first time I have tried to post a photo so I hope it is okay.
This is the wing that I started to remove the plywood. It is coming off way to
easy. You can see the wing tanks that the original builder installed. I am thinking
that to much of the ribs are cut out to make room for the tanks??? I will
post more photos after I get some feedback on how this picture came out.
Thanks guys for all your help
Keith
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: Fw: W10 Wing |
The inner layer of the plywood looks like it is still glued to the ribs. The plywood
itself appears to be coming apart. Someone else can comment about this being
normal or not.
Instead of destroying the wings in your manner, why not load test them by mounting
upside down and placing weights one them? I recently saw a load proof testing
using bags of fertilizer. Then you would know whether the tank mount was
ok or needed a re-design.
Most airplane structure looks way to flimsy.
Cy Galley
Safety Programs Editor
Always looking for ideas and articles for EAA Sport Pilot
----- Original Message -----
From: Keith Imel
To: tailwind-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, September 05, 2004 1:58 AM
Subject: Tailwind-List: Fw: W10 Wing
----- Original Message -----
From: Keith Imel
To: Tailwind
Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2004 10:50 PM
Subject: W10 Wing
Hey Guys,
Well this is the first time I have tried to post a photo so I hope it is okay.
This is the wing that I started to remove the plywood. It is coming off way to
easy. You can see the wing tanks that the original builder installed. I am thinking
that to much of the ribs are cut out to make room for the tanks??? I will
post more photos after I get some feedback on how this picture came out.
Thanks guys for all your help
Keith
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: | Re: Weav's Fuel numbers |
--> Tailwind-List message posted by: "Fred Weaver" <Mytyweav@earthlink.net>
Dennis..... You sure don't let me off the hook easily.... :)
The trip to Oshkosh complete...averaged much less than 8 gph. I just am too
lazy to go find all my paperwork for that trip. On a recent trip down to
Corona in Southern California from my home airport, Westover O70, I made the
trip down and back in 3 hours and 35 minutes. That includes climbing to
12,500 ft. in one direction, 11,500 on the other.. The distance was 620+NM
for the round trip. Total fuel burned (including taxiing) was 28.0 gallons.
Again, if we would have slowed down some, I'm sure I could have done better
on the burn rate. The thing is..... I fly the Tailwind because it's fairly
fast and it still gets better mileage than most new cars. Why bother to slow
down?
Now, it looks like I may be going to Denver later in the week. I will
provide you with the round trip numbers for that one too. You'll love
em....The longer the legs, the better it gets. :) Want me to take off the
pants?
Weav
PS.. Dennis.. On your trip to Iowa and other destinations, one thing is
missing in your info... The total amount of time to and from the
destination. Can we get that too?
----- Original Message -----
From: "flamini2" <flamini2@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Tailwind-List: Re: Weav's Fuel numbers
> --> Tailwind-List message posted by: "flamini2" <flamini2@comcast.net>
>
> Made the trip to Iowa today, 225nm ea way for 450nm total, filled up after
> with 29.7 gals.
> These are the only numbers we should be comparing and i even took my wheel
> covers off.
> Weav and others,
> How about some round trip totals?
> Dennis Flamini N564DF race #53 Chicago
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: Weav's Fuel numbers |
Check my math, but it appears from the data below that your overall MPG was 17.5.
With taxi time, runnup, and a healthy full throttle climbout, that would be
about right. Do you have a fuel flow gage Dennis?
Dave
N202Q
N168A
-------------- Original message from "flamini2" : --------------
> --> Tailwind-List message posted by: "flamini2"
>
> Made the trip to Iowa today, 225nm ea way for 450nm total, filled up after
> with 29.7 gals.
> These are the only numbers we should be comparing and i even took my wheel
> covers off.
> Weav and others,
> How about some round trip totals?
> Dennis Flamini N564DF race #53 Chicago
>
<!-- BEGIN WEBMAIL STATIONERY -->
<style type='text/css'>
p {
margin: 0px;
}
</style>
<!-- WEBMAIL STATIONERY noneset -->
Check my math, but it appears from the data below that your overall MPG was 17.5.
With taxi time, runnup, and a healthy full throttle climbout, that would be
about right. Do you have a fuel flow gage Dennis?
Dave
N202Q
N168A
-------------- Original message from "flamini2" <FLAMINI2@COMCAST.NET>: --------------
-- Tailwind-List message posted by: "flamini2" <FLAMINI2@COMCAST.NET>
Made the trip to Iowa today, 225nm ea way for 450nm total, filled up after
with 29.7 gals.
These are the only numbers we should be comparing and i even took my wheel
covers off.
Weav and others,
How about some round trip totals?
Dennis Flamini N564DF race #53 Chicago
<!-- END WEBMAIL STATIONERY -->
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: Weav's Fuel numbers |
Dave and others,
1:40 to and 1:30 from Iowa 225nm.
i am perplexed that Weav and others can almost double my mpg #'s.
On the Iowa trip i took some photos of the panel from takeoff, level at 8500'
and destination.
Have to go out in the car and get the camera.
Dennis Flamini N564DF race #53 Chicago
----- Original Message -----
From: dmagaw@att.net
To: tailwind-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, September 05, 2004 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: Tailwind-List: Re: Weav's Fuel numbers
Check my math, but it appears from the data below that your overall MPG was 17.5.
With taxi time, runnup, and a healthy full throttle climbout, that would
be about right. Do you have a fuel flow gage Dennis?
Dave
N202Q
N168A
-------------- Original message from "flamini2" : --------------
> --> Tailwind-List message posted by: "flamini2"
>
> Made the trip to Iowa today, 225nm ea way for 450nm total, filled up after
> with 29.7 gals.
> These are the only numbers we should be comparing and i even took my wheel
> covers off.
> Weav and others,
> How about some round trip totals?
> Dennis Flamini N564DF race #53 Chicago
>
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: Weav's Fuel numbers |
----- Original Message -----
From: flamini2
Subject: Re: Tailwind-List: Re: Weav's Fuel numbers
Dave and others,
1:40 to and 1:30 from Iowa 225nm.
i am perplexed that Weav and others can almost double my mpg #'s.
On the Iowa trip i took some photos of the panel from takeoff, level at 8500'
and destination.
Have to go out in the car and get the camera.
Dennis Flamini N564DF race #53 Chicago
----- Original Message -----
From: dmagaw@att.net
To: tailwind-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, September 05, 2004 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: Tailwind-List: Re: Weav's Fuel numbers
Check my math, but it appears from the data below that your overall MPG was 17.5.
With taxi time, runnup, and a healthy full throttle climbout, that would
be about right. Do you have a fuel flow gage Dennis?
Dave
N202Q
N168A
-------------- Original message from "flamini2" : --------------
> --> Tailwind-List message posted by: "flamini2"
>
> Made the trip to Iowa today, 225nm ea way for 450nm total, filled up after
> with 29.7 gals.
> These are the only numbers we should be comparing and i even took my wheel
> covers off.
> Weav and others,
> How about some round trip totals?
> Dennis Flamini N564DF race #53 Chicago
>
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 |
|
"tailwind-list@matronics.c" <tailwind-list@matronics.com>
Dave, Weave, Others,
Here is the photo after going back down to 3500' from 8500' heading West and about
24 sq. on power.
153kts is about a 7 kt headwind and my 1:40 vs 1:30 times to go 225 nm looks right.
The reason i just wanted to compare fuel round trip numbers is it eliminates all
other variables.
Dennis Flamini N564DF race #53 Chicago
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 |
|
"Tailwind list" <tailwind-list@matronics.com>
| Subject: | Re: Tri-Gear W-10 Tailwind |
--> Tailwind-List message posted by: "DaveM" <dmagaw@att.net>
I was flying a Decathlon mostly. Jim Lewis graciously let me get a few
hours in his tailwind (taildragger), including a few landings and takeoffs.
That really helped.
If you really want a recommendation, while it is expensive, my feeling is
that training in a two place Pitts is invaluable--even 5-10 hours with
instructor only. If you can land one of those consistently, you can land
just about any light plane in most conditions. See Budd Davison in Phoenix
area. http://www.airbum.com/PittsFlightTraining.html .
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "rjrellis" <rjrellis@yahoo.com>
Subject: Tri-Gear W-10 Tailwind
> Dav .... what would you recommend at a good training aircraft in
> preparation for a Tri-Gear W-10 Tailwind? I am building a Tri-Gear W-
> 10 Tailwind and hope to have a completed in a few years (basic
> fuselage completed, main gear, and currently working on nose
> gear/motor mount assymbly in Baraboo with Lombard, Danner, Clement).
> I am a new pilot with only about 60 hours PIC.
>
> Appreciate your thoughts? Rich
>
>
Message 9
| 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 |
|
I don't think the round trip eliminates much. Winds change, density altitudes
change, etc. For a short round robin, non stop, they are minimized but never eliminated.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dennis Flamini
To: TailwindForum@yahoogroups.com ; tailwind-list@matronics.c
Sent: Sunday, September 05, 2004 11:14 AM
Subject: Tailwind-List: Trip MPG
Dave, Weave, Others,
Here is the photo after going back down to 3500' from 8500' heading West and
about 24 sq. on power.
153kts is about a 7 kt headwind and my 1:40 vs 1:30 times to go 225 nm looks
right.
The reason i just wanted to compare fuel round trip numbers is it eliminates
all other variables.
Dennis Flamini N564DF race #53 Chicago
Message 10
| 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: | New product announcement: affordable VG's |
teamgrumman-list@matronics.com, ultralight-list@matronics.com,
warbird-list@matronics.com, yak-list@matronics.com
Hey folks,
I double checked and Matt Dralle's earlier post says it's OK to post about new
aviation products as long as the message doesn't come off as having a "flavor"
of "traditional spam". Don't worry I'm not going to try to sell you anything
that supposedly makes any of your body parts larger (or smaller) and this product
is directly aviation related :) I'm just an airplane builder, owner, pilot,
and aviation nut who wants to tell you where you can find more information about
a great new product.
I've been selling kits of vortex generators (VG's) for only $95 and my customers are telling me they really like the performance gains they're seeing. VG's are great for reducing stall speeds and allow you to land slower, shorter, and safer. I invite you to check out my site at www.landshorter.com and see what you think. My VG's can be quickly installed for testing using removable double-stick tape and come with a 100% money-back guarantee so why not try them out on your plane? You'll be really glad you did :)
Thanks and let's keep 'em flying!
Joa Harrison
The VG Guy
www.landshorter.com
1-877-272-1414 (toll free)
---------------------------------
Message 11
| 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: Tri-Gear W-10 Tailwind |
--> Tailwind-List message posted by: "Fred Weaver" <Mytyweav@earthlink.net>
Rich.... A Grumman American Yankee would be very similar for landings and
takeoffs.. The rest doesn't matter.
Weav
----- Original Message -----
From: "DaveM" <dmagaw@att.net>
<tailwind-list@matronics.com>
Subject: Tailwind-List: Re: Tri-Gear W-10 Tailwind
> --> Tailwind-List message posted by: "DaveM" <dmagaw@att.net>
>
> I was flying a Decathlon mostly. Jim Lewis graciously let me get a few
> hours in his tailwind (taildragger), including a few landings and
takeoffs.
> That really helped.
>
> If you really want a recommendation, while it is expensive, my feeling is
> that training in a two place Pitts is invaluable--even 5-10 hours with
> instructor only. If you can land one of those consistently, you can land
> just about any light plane in most conditions. See Budd Davison in
Phoenix
> area. http://www.airbum.com/PittsFlightTraining.html .
>
> Dave
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "rjrellis" <rjrellis@yahoo.com>
> To: <dmagaw@att.net>
> Sent: Sunday, September 05, 2004 8:57 AM
> Subject: Tri-Gear W-10 Tailwind
>
>
> > Dav .... what would you recommend at a good training aircraft in
> > preparation for a Tri-Gear W-10 Tailwind? I am building a Tri-Gear W-
> > 10 Tailwind and hope to have a completed in a few years (basic
> > fuselage completed, main gear, and currently working on nose
> > gear/motor mount assymbly in Baraboo with Lombard, Danner, Clement).
> > I am a new pilot with only about 60 hours PIC.
> >
> > Appreciate your thoughts? Rich
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 12
| 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 |
|
Dennis.... It looks like 25" and almost 2500 rpm from here at just under 3500
ft.. Also airspeed looks like 140 kts indicated. These settings will have you
swallowing fuel at a fairly good clip and still not going very fast. Remember
my comments about flying next to the Fourrunner on the way to Baraboo? For my
plane to indicate 140 kts, especially at 3,500 ft, I would have to be throttled
back to around 15-16 inches and 2,000-2100 rpm. At that setting, I would be
sipping fuel @ 6 gph or so.. I will probably fly tomorrow after I finish servicing
my tires and will verify those settings if you want me to.
If I fly my airplane at 3500 feet and set the power up for 2500 rpm, I too will
be using a fair amount of fuel but the plane will be doing 200 mph. The only
way I minimize the fuel consumption is by flying high at lower power settings.
For example, 10,500 feet or so and manifold pressure around 19", 2350 -2400
rpm will yield less than 8 gph. My indicated airspeed at that altitude will be
somewhere in the neighborhood of 165 mph. I don't have an OAT so I don't really
know what my TAS is. The higher I go, the faster I can run and still use less
fuel. I don't have a fuel totallizer yet on this airplane so I can't really
tell what I'm using until it's over. I'll see if I can get some pics too....
My climbs are full power and full rich until around 8,000 ft as my carb/engine
combo doesn't like to run smooth even with only a click or two on the mixture
knob. When I reach 8,000, I lower the nose some and lean a little. I tend to climb
out from sea level at 165 indicated, climbing at 1200-1300 fpm. If the air
is cooler and a little more dense, the climb is 1500 fpm @ 175 mph. This minimizes
the amount of time that I'm in climb while I'm covering distance at a good
clip. After passing thru 5,000 ft I just keep the climb rate steady at 1,000
fpm and let the airspeed go wherever it wants. Passing thru 8,000 ft I adjust
the climb to 650-750 fpm keeping the airspeed up around 165-175 mph. If I plan
on travelling over 300-400 miles at least, I keep right on climbing until
12,500. I begin my descents about 50 miles from the destination so I can keep
the engine lean, keep the speed up and continuously lower the Manifold Pressure.
That's my clumsy way of going cross country without having to do a lot of math
to save gas.
Weather permitting, on your trip to Iowa, I would have been above 10,000 ft each
way to save $$$. What happens to your airplane when you run up at that altitude
with wide open throttle, prop pulled back to 2200-2300? Manifold Pressure?
Speed? Fuel consumption? It might not be so perplexing..... :)
Weav
----- Original Message -----
From: Dennis Flamini
To: TailwindForum@yahoogroups.com ; tailwind-list@matronics.c
Sent: Sunday, September 05, 2004 9:14 AM
Subject: Tailwind-List: Trip MPG
Dave, Weave, Others,
Here is the photo after going back down to 3500' from 8500' heading West and
about 24 sq. on power.
153kts is about a 7 kt headwind and my 1:40 vs 1:30 times to go 225 nm looks
right.
The reason i just wanted to compare fuel round trip numbers is it eliminates
all other variables.
Dennis Flamini N564DF race #53 Chicago
Message 13
| 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: | Fw: Cougar W10 project |
----- Original Message -----
From: Keith Imel
Subject: Cougar W10 project
Hey Guys here is a photo of fuselage with wings.
Keith Imel
Message 14
| 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 |
|
Message 15
| 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 |
|
I've been following this thread with some interest. I was amazed at the fuel economy
being reported. I just took a trip to Manistee, MI. 333 NM one way (666
total) and used 43 gallons of fuel. Time up was 2:35 and 2:45 on the way back
the same day. The trip up was at 5500 ft and back at 4500. I've shown the comparison
in a table. (Weav didn't give a time for his trip, so all we can figure
is the MPG.
Distance
Fuel
MPG
Time
Speed
GPH
Me
666
43
15.49
5.33
124.88
8.06
Dennis
450
29.7
15.15
3.17
142.11
9.38
Weav
620
28
22.14
On my 'Grand Expedition' tour in July the fuel consumption varied from 5.66 to
8.49 and the mpg from 20.82 to 13.63 (not on the same legs either.) Most of the
trip was flown at 9500 to 10500 due to terrain. There was a lot of variation
from one day to the next, due to winds, desire to hurry, etc. Overall, for the
trip 4543 nautical miles, I used 266 gallons in 38 hours. The average speed
was 118 knots, average fuel burn was 7 gph and average mpg was 17 nMPG.
Without precisely calibrated instrumentation and side by side tests, its really
difficult to come up with meaningful comparisons. So many minor factors can have
a big effect on the end result. Maybe a round-robin tour at Baraboo next year?
Bill
Workin' on wheel pants for the mains.
Message 16
| 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: Weav's Fuel numbers |
--> Tailwind-List message posted by: Mcculleyja@aol.com
Fred,
I really need help! You were questioning my earlier MPG claims at MUCH lower
average speeds than you are reporting, but now your data makes me want to
trade airplanes with you! Deal ? <gr>
Yours is obviously much better even than Jim's (N6168X) that CAFE tested
while producing at least 180 HP (like yours and mine) but at higher than
Lycoming-rated RPM.
I believe you explained in another message that your normal procedure is to
record time from start of takeoff to shutdown at the destination fuel pump. On
the trip to Corona and return, I assume the 3+35 time included the taxi time
from landing to the fuel pump at each airport. Can I estimate about a minimum
of 4 minutes at each and thus conclude the ENROUTE time for the round trip
was 3+27? If this is reasonable, then the average enroute flight speed was
179.7 K (206.7 MPH).
Now, if we assume the two climbs to 11,500 and 12,500 and the respective
descents also averaged the same 206.7 MPH (nice thought?), we can simplify the
thinking by just pretending that the entire trip was begun and ended over the
respective airports without the need to use fuel getting up there twice. In this
case the maximum fuel burn rate equates to 22.14 NM /gal ( 25.46 MPG). That
appears to be really outstanding results while also cruising at a speed that
is 95% of the CAFE finding of 216.9 MPH max cruise.
However, reality is that there had to be fuel used in climbing, descending
and taxiing twice. If it is fair to guess that 4 gallons of the 28 were
consumed in the two climbs, descents and taxi then that leaves 24 gal for cruise,
and
that results in 29.7 MPG for the cruise phase. So it looks like you are
routinely doing what you thought was impossible magic. <gr>
Congratulations!
Jim
In a message dated 9/5/04 9:52:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
Mytyweav@earthlink.net writes:
> On a recent trip down to
> Corona in Southern California from my home airport, Westover O70, I made
the
> trip down and back in 3 hours and 35 minutes. That includes climbing to
> 12,500 ft. in one direction, 11,500 on the other.. The distance was 620+NM
> for the round trip. Total fuel burned (including taxiing) was 28.0 gallons.
Message 17
| 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 |
|
--> Tailwind-List message posted by: "mytyweav@earthlink.net" <mytyweav@earthlink.net>
Bill: The time was clearly listed as 3 hours 35 minutes. Would have looked
nice in your graph eh?
Weav
Original Message:
-----------------
From: William Bernard billbernard@worldnet.att.net
Subject: Re: Tailwind-List: Trip MPG
I've been following this thread with some interest. I was amazed at the
fuel economy being reported. I just took a trip to Manistee, MI. 333 NM one
way (666 total) and used 43 gallons of fuel. Time up was 2:35 and 2:45 on
the way back the same day. The trip up was at 5500 ft and back at 4500.
I've shown the comparison in a table. (Weav didn't give a time for his
trip, so all we can figure is the MPG.
Distance
Fuel
MPG
Time
Speed
GPH
Me
666
43
15.49
5.33
124.88
8.06
Dennis
450
29.7
15.15
3.17
142.11
9.38
Weav
620
28
22.14
On my 'Grand Expedition' tour in July the fuel consumption varied from 5.66
to 8.49 and the mpg from 20.82 to 13.63 (not on the same legs either.) Most
of the trip was flown at 9500 to 10500 due to terrain. There was a lot of
variation from one day to the next, due to winds, desire to hurry, etc.
Overall, for the trip 4543 nautical miles, I used 266 gallons in 38 hours.
The average speed was 118 knots, average fuel burn was 7 gph and average
mpg was 17 nMPG.
Without precisely calibrated instrumentation and side by side tests, its
really difficult to come up with meaningful comparisons. So many minor
factors can have a big effect on the end result. Maybe a round-robin tour
at Baraboo next year?
Bill
Workin' on wheel pants for the mains.
Message 18
| 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 |
|
Bill, Please use my time of 3 hours and 35 minutes. It was on the original post.
It'd be nice to see it in the graph. Jim M wants to match it.
Weav
PS. In fact, it would be great to see some of Jim's real flying numbers in your
graph too.
----- Original Message -----
From: William Bernard
To: tailwind-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, September 05, 2004 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: Tailwind-List: Trip MPG
I've been following this thread with some interest. I was amazed at the fuel
economy being reported. I just took a trip to Manistee, MI. 333 NM one way (666
total) and used 43 gallons of fuel. Time up was 2:35 and 2:45 on the way back
the same day. The trip up was at 5500 ft and back at 4500. I've shown the comparison
in a table. (Weav didn't give a time for his trip, so all we can figure
is the MPG.
Distance
Fuel
MPG
Time
Speed
GPH
Me
666
43
15.49
5.33
124.88
8.06
Dennis
450
29.7
15.15
3.17
142.11
9.38
Weav
620
28
22.14
On my 'Grand Expedition' tour in July the fuel consumption varied from 5.66 to
8.49 and the mpg from 20.82 to 13.63 (not on the same legs either.) Most of
the trip was flown at 9500 to 10500 due to terrain. There was a lot of variation
from one day to the next, due to winds, desire to hurry, etc. Overall, for
the trip 4543 nautical miles, I used 266 gallons in 38 hours. The average speed
was 118 knots, average fuel burn was 7 gph and average mpg was 17 nMPG.
Without precisely calibrated instrumentation and side by side tests, its really
difficult to come up with meaningful comparisons. So many minor factors can
have a big effect on the end result. Maybe a round-robin tour at Baraboo next
year?
Bill
Workin' on wheel pants for the mains.
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! --
|