X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:30:04 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.69] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.13) with ESMTP id 3545384 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:37:02 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.69; envelope-from=colyncase@earthlink.net DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=NTIu6veGMiFknhMh9ItZk5YwbVjxkP4DDwMrkfF5RIlzSTqGJWsqDviT1Q92y7PA; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [216.57.118.63] (helo=ccaselt3) by elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1LhopV-0000yU-BF for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:36:26 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <057f01c9a339$1752de60$6501a8c0@nvidia.com> From: "Colyn Case at earthlink" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: LOP vs ROP Climb: Time and Fuel Burn (LIVP) X-Original-Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:36:34 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_057C_01C9A317.8FAD3BC0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-ELNK-Trace: 63d5d3452847f8b1d6dd28457998182d7e972de0d01da94049a6909311276009ac099a669a9b748b350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 216.57.118.63 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_057C_01C9A317.8FAD3BC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: [LML] LOP vs ROP Climb: Time and Fuel Burn (LIVP)Chuck said, So, if you are going to reduce power, between MP or RPM, it is better to = reduce MP since higher RPM keeps PP lower, at least that was their = general conclusion, supported by engine shop experience. I agree at high power settings for the reasons cited, but once you get = down to cruise power settings, if you are going to reduce power further, = reducing rpm removes some friction component while reducing mp does not. = therefore you should get better mileage by lowering rpm. ------=_NextPart_000_057C_01C9A317.8FAD3BC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: [LML] LOP vs ROP Climb: Time and Fuel Burn = (LIVP)
Chuck said,
So, if=20 you are going to reduce power, between MP or RPM, it is better to = reduce MP=20 since higher RPM keeps PP lower, at least that was their general = conclusion,=20 supported by engine shop experience.
 
I = agree at high=20 power settings for the reasons cited,  but once you get down to = cruise=20 power settings, if you are going to reduce power further, reducing rpm = removes=20 some friction component while reducing mp does not.  therefore you = should=20 get better mileage by lowering rpm.
------=_NextPart_000_057C_01C9A317.8FAD3BC0--