Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 22:58:53 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-6683687@logan.com>
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.161.173; envelope-from=toddlong1@gmail.com
From: Todd Long <toddlong1@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Considering purchase of N301H
References: <list-6683402@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-6683402@logan.com>

What is the best range speed:fuel flow people see in the IV-P?

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 11, 2014, at 11:28, "Bill Harrelson" <n5zq@verizon.net> wrote:
>=20
> Joe,
>=20
> The IV is a great traveling machine.  You are, however, correct in your as=
sessment of "just for fun" flying. In that regard you just can't beat the 36=
0.
>=20
> In my experience operating an IO-550 powered IV, I have found that operati=
ng at an IAS in the range that you are considering (150-160 kias) will requi=
re a fuel flow of less than 10 gph. The higher altitude you fly the lower th=
e fuel flow and the higher the TAS.  At 14,000 ft, for example, 150 kias wil=
l produce around 190 ktas with a fuel flow of less than 9 gph (depending on w=
eight).  This assumes, of course, LOP operation.  Flying slower than these s=
peeds, down to 130 kias or so, would allow squeezing a tiny bit more efficie=
ncy out of the IV but it's a fairly broad topped curve at these speeds. Your=
 actual MPG would not be dramatically better and with a headwind might even b=
e worse.
>=20
> Bill Harrelson
> N5ZQ 320 2,150 hrs
> N6ZQ  IV  450 hrs
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> LML,
>=20
> I've been looking at N301H (IV) as a way to get a bit more space than my 3=
60.  301H is listed on Controller and based in palm beach.  Does anyone have=
 any gouge on this aircraft?
>=20
> I'm a little concerned that at twice the $ per flight hour I won't take it=
 up as often just for fun.  I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on cruis=
ing in a IV at max range and max endurance.  The BSFC of the TSIO-550 is onl=
y 5-10% worse than the IO-550 according to Conti.  The cruise speeds ive see=
n quoted are far from the published L/D MAX ( max range) speed of the IV.  C=
an anyone comment on operating at a more efficient 150-160kias?
>=20
> Joe Czabaranek
>=20
>=20
> --
> For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.htm=
l