Return-Path: Received: from [65.33.165.45] (account ) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro WebUser 4.0b1) with HTTP id 1236119 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 08:38:07 -0400 From: "Marvin Kaye" Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Engines for the IV To: lml X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro Web Mailer v.4.0b1 Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 08:38:07 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <003501c1fa64$efc938a0$f70c4094@oemcomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Posted for "Tom Hall" : I think that many are overly consumed with the fuel flow issue with regard to the turbine. If we look at the actual fuel flow figures (I would suggest Lancair's experience), the turbine application has an easy 3 hour range with reserves. As someone pointed out, if we take into account every possible ATC delay and procedure, that may shorter, but I would suggest that "we" as GA pilots might more carefully choose our departure and aarival airports to aviod these "traps". Additionally, low altitude fuel burn is not a major issue. Power reduction serves the same purpose as altitude and cruising at at almost any altitude is not prohibitively fuel costly. I have personally flown and tested these observations in the IV-PT. Additional fuel capacity is also available if the above is not compelling enough. Even with standard fuel, the turbine is capable of VFR ranges of over 1000 NM. Both the piston and turbine a/c are great transportation and each has it's own niche due to the various strengths and weaknesses ( as do all a/c). Asserting that the turbine is merely a toy is rather illogical. Tom H.