Return-Path: Received: from pop3.olsusa.com ([63.150.212.2] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.1) with ESMTP id 999908 for rob@logan.com; Sun, 30 Dec 2001 19:55:58 -0500 Received: from mta06ps.bigpond.com ([144.135.25.138]) by pop3.olsusa.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-71866U8000L800S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2001 19:50:15 -0500 Received: from hostname ([144.135.25.75]) by mta06ps.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GP6O0X00.A3C for ; Mon, 31 Dec 2001 10:58:09 +1000 Received: from 144.138.108.55 ([144.138.108.55]) by PSMAM03.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V3.0h 83/3413255); 31 Dec 2001 10:51:07 Message-ID: <000001c19195$27cd38c0$376c8a90@direcpc.com> From: "Fred Moreno" To: "Lancair list" Subject: Questions on Lancair IV performance Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 19:59:01 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailing-List: lancair.list@olsusa.com Reply-To: lancair.list@olsusa.com <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> << Lancair Builders' Mail List >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Many thanks to Carl Cadwell for publishing some actual data for his plane. He posted the following: "My TAS speeds at various altitudes are: 9000 209 kts 18000 234 kts 21000 246 kts 25000 264 kts" These figures were at 75F lean of peak at 15.5 gallons per hour, as reported by Carl. Later in the same Lancair List, George Braly suggested that the power output at these settings would be 212 horsepower or 61% of 350 horsepower. (This corresponds to a specific fuel consumption of about 0.438 pounds per horsepower.) I plugged the numbers into a little program I wrote, and also plotted the results. The speeds at lower altitudes seem way low. So my question is: Why? What is going on here? What have others experienced? Here is the basis for my question. If I use standard day atmospheric properties, a prop efficiency of 85%, 212 horsepower, and a flat plate area of 2.1 square feet (in the ball park for the Lancair IV, although 2.2 may be closer to the truth) I get Carl's numbers on the head for 25,000 feet. If I use 262 horsepower (75%) holding all else constant, I get 283 knots, close enough (within experimental error of say 2-3%) to trustworthy numbers from other sources for these conditions. Now if I put in lower altitude data, I get speeds substantially higher that Carl's data: about 220 knots for 9,000 feet, and about 245 knots at 18,000 feet. (And 205 knots at sea level.) Since Carl used GPS data and made three speed runs in three directions at the same altitude, I assume that the readings he obtained represent pretty good data. So I am left wondering: what is going on here? Is horsepower going down with altitude, or is drag coefficient going up, or what? Drag is going up as the air gets thicker, but the flat plate area which is the frontal area times the drag coefficient should remain more or less the same. Yet at 9000 feet, a speed of 209 knots corresponds to a flat plate area almost 11% greater (or power 14% less) that that calculated at 25,000 feet. These are BIG differences with altitude. Somebody please help me to understand what is going on here. Have other Lancair IV drivers seen similar performance at low altitudes? (Please, let's confine our sharing to data obtained using GPS readouts taken at steady conditions going several conditions to take out the effects of wind and eliminate the errors of pitot static systems and instruments, compressibility, aerodynamic heating etc.). "With all thy getting, get thee understanding." (Malcolm Forbes). Fred Moreno >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LML website: http://members.olsusa.com/mkaye/maillist.html LML Builders' Bookstore: http://www.buildersbooks.com/lancair Please remember that purchases from the Builders' Bookstore assist with the management of the LML. Please send your photos and drawings to marvkaye@olsusa.com. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>