X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao103.cox.net ([68.230.241.43] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.0) with ESMTP id 2723583 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 10 Feb 2008 13:20:15 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.43; envelope-from=alventures@cox.net Received: from fed1rmimpo03.cox.net ([70.169.32.75]) by fed1rmmtao103.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20080210181936.VLKS14980.fed1rmmtao103.cox.net@fed1rmimpo03.cox.net> for ; Sun, 10 Feb 2008 13:19:36 -0500 Received: from BigAl ([72.192.137.74]) by fed1rmimpo03.cox.net with bizsmtp id nuKV1Y00B1cVYgg0000000; Sun, 10 Feb 2008 13:19:29 -0500 From: "Al Gietzen" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: Fuel burn Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 10:20:45 -0800 Message-ID: <000801c86c11$a767ca20$6401a8c0@BigAl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0009_01C86BCE.99448A20" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C86BCE.99448A20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Fuel burn =20 Thanks, good data Al. I'm sure that some of the differences we're seeing = are due to altitude. So far, I've stayed fairly low (3000-5000'). I may = try some higher altitude flight soon just to see how it changes my = performance numbers. Another difference is that I have a M/T electric constant = speed prop. I normally set it to 2150rpm for takeoff. This allows the engine = to turn around 7000 rpm, which will account some for the higher fuel burn = I'm seeing. My airport is at 520' msl, so there's a 1000' difference there = from your 1500' msl airport. Yes, she really accelerates down the runway. = I'm usually airborne in about 900-1000'. =20 Mark I'm not sure I see how these correlate "set it to 2150rpm for takeoff. = This allows the engine to turn around 7000 rpm,"; but the big difference is = that you're putting out more horses than I am. At 7000 you're likely looking = at about 300 hp, so 25-26 gph would be expected. Are you running a 2.85 = ratio redrive; or something else? Al =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C86BCE.99448A20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Fuel burn

Thanks, good data Al. I'm sure that some of = the differences we're seeing are due to altitude. So far, I've stayed = fairly low (3000-5000'). I may try some higher altitude flight soon just = to see how it changes my performance numbers. Another difference is that = I have a M/T electric constant speed prop. I normally set it to 2150rpm = for takeoff. This allows the engine to turn around 7000 rpm, which = will account some for the higher fuel burn I'm seeing. My airport is at = 520' msl, so there's a 1000' difference there from your 1500' msl = airport. Yes, she really accelerates down the runway. I'm usually = airborne in about 900-1000'.

Mark

I’m not sure I see how these = correlate “set it to 2150rpm for takeoff. This allows the engine to turn around = 7000 rpm,”; but the big = difference is that you’re putting out more horses than I am. At 7000 = you’re likely looking at about 300 hp, so 25-26 gph would be expected. = Are you running a 2.85 ratio redrive; or something = else?

Al

------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C86BCE.99448A20--