Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=75.180.132.122; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com
From: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: N613BX update
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:10:33 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <list-3236214@logan.com>
Thread-Index: Ack1N/I4MNogOv9XShWQRRftibEyYgACZ5UQ
Message-Id: <20081023191021.HIBA3398.cdptpa-omta06.mail.rr.com@computername>

Couldn't get your spreadsheet to work, Earnest.

But based on my own I whipped up it looked I would save around $10.39 for
the 190 mile trip.  However, I was flying 770 miles in which case the
savings were around $42.00.  I did however spend approx another 2 hours in
the cockpit.  But, like I say, being retired I have no place to be in a
hurry.  So I land a couple of hours later with $42.00 more in my pocket.

On the round trip to the Rotary Round up (round trip = 782 SM) and fuel cost
5.40/gallon I saved around $46.00.  Another way to look at it is I saved
enough to by 46/5.40 = 8 gallons of gas which means I could go fly another
hour for FREE!!!!! {:>)

 Naturally the further you travel and the higher the price of fuel, the more
$$ you save and the more time you spend.


Now If I were gainfully employed making all the big $$ like some people I
know and had to be someplace in a hurry (like work), then things would be
different {:>).

You really were bored weren't you {:>)

Ed

Ed Anderson

Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered

Matthews, NC

eanderson@carolina.rr.com

http://www.andersonee.com

http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW

http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html

-----Original Message-----
From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On
Behalf Of Ernest Christley
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 1:51 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: N613BX update

Ed Anderson wrote:
>
> My best performance with the current 2.85 and 74x88 prop was 200 MPH 
> TAS 12.3 GPH burn rate at 9500 MSL. Pulling back to 10.3 GPH gave 190 
> MPH TAS. But, I normally cruise at 7.5-8.5 GPH at 140-150 IAS - just 
> too cheap to go anywhere in a big hurry {:>).
>
How much did you really save? You're burning less fuel, but you're in 
the air longer.

OK, so I'm bored, with nothing to do but watch progress messages scroll 
by from my tests. I set up a spreadsheet for some comparative analysis. 
With a 50mph headwind (when Ed is at his safest), and fuel at $4.96/gal, 
you'll save $5.61 over a 190 mile trip and be in the cockpit for an 
extra 45 minutes or so. If that headwind were negative (ie, the evil 
tailwind), that extra fuel burn will make your trip 6.6 minutes shorter 
and your wallet $11.88 lighter.

Moral: Relax in the tailwind, but pour it on in a headwind.

I'm attaching the spreadsheet and a screenshot.


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3267 (20080714) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com
 

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3267 (20080714) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com