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
"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>
>
>
>
|