X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 07:42:20 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from nm24-vm0.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com ([98.138.90.34] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.7) with SMTP id 6650805 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 23 Dec 2013 13:34:13 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=98.138.90.34; envelope-from=chris_zavatson@yahoo.com Received: from [98.138.100.111] by nm24.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 23 Dec 2013 18:33:37 -0000 Received: from [98.138.86.157] by tm100.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 23 Dec 2013 18:33:35 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1015.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 23 Dec 2013 18:33:35 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 592198.91667.bm@omp1015.mail.ne1.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 36704 invoked by uid 60001); 23 Dec 2013 18:33:35 -0000 DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=DecYwg9cZcnBQvT7byauBzJXnpY4jWYT1Qv6rz6sr/fD8V3vNS+U+9HnPh3Ge8sVs/t7HEriJ4PkZixW8SnMJU3Cb6Ee1FUKhsSRC2hFZT0RLKgDT7O9zADnX2yZWVjwXoVxQ23/uwMos+d2cqXH14iOfFKV/OFqoT9e1XGTdIM=; X-YMail-OSG: Gas.SHEVM1klcggGeNkK98j9uLueGgxMt5z2hnbeibE5A7c 8nRec_EeBZ7qO97B5KkkDeSIrfiz12zmfjxX5hzpC.2VxaeBTynkXHems_Ul bbJniawESQhskJXrQaP4jq0OEykR3VUZrgD4Ut1QKUwfHWa2BlKtFuVIOjyC LH4t4dOMPW0TdDDyFV1RMfFQAT0Ed82fk0_uS5HCb0ipd9ZFPswUGy6r9K2d KJr44vlSSX0_08zZj6wEOPszt5dgHOUHU4zXfqSstBAlZIMVZ_x8QXx03RkN sj9n8DqPc85xPo5gZ5mh2kxlbg94ZYRiiURQOfYEkVH2biPXi8BnE2VOdGVU 3OSs1QoudaInBcSd1VDdGmeoLUJwzZZNHnFeETXOOJk7vDoypNLvzK2Zbxz4 Eho2TSJaUj3xY05JSs7xOsNt8K87KzEeUZeAlGXZ28W2S.fQ6nitP1sHOusS B0poeam55dc3NvAlzzjtcH1OwREizVTyg2obDdzS2aRJXtmeznFXWzGrjYyQ ZCvzAHsHyuZk6G7LGXu.YnnZTDCJsXQ96dR8n4jWB3Iv5RpY33NhbGA_IfKb Plhl9uJuDgQtCSTOriWBzYknGWrC6cogzxa8TXzriO31I9I8tepGrRKeS88B DsConSULl1O2GM7Rvr4HrFS4OG15Eexwc.9wJ0kNy7zWWSq4JKIclpIuhd9v JWWw7uz8UKNy7reZQhRNOA5Q4DAmhkuyLWhu.nNsvFTnW6qKJiS5uTBZaE4p NtEyPLryoicqsF8ee03jj91CI_J..c7aDEW07NtBwiGkHY7OT6TNZR1TSKkH o7Z8phzZmZI1HZbhNgXjjdtODSwYeugvLjMs5GI4uWlOWxOiK Received: from [172.14.16.72] by web121601.mail.ne1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 23 Dec 2013 10:33:35 PST X-Rocket-MIMEInfo: 002.001,VGhlIHNlY3Rpb24gb24gcmFuZ2UgaW4g4oCcSGFuZGJvb2sgZm9yIE5hdmFsIEF2aWF0b3Jz4oCdIGRvZXMgYQpnb29kIGpvYiBjb21wYXJpbmcgdGhlIHZhcmlvdXMgcHJvcHVsc2lvbiB0eXBlcyB3aXRoIHJlc3BlY3QgdG8gYWNoaWV2aW5nCm1heGltdW0gcmFuZ2UuwqAgV2hpbGUgZGlzY3Vzc2luZwpwcm9wZWxsZXIgZHJpdmVuIGFpcmNyYWZ0IHdpdGggcmVjaXByb2NhdGluZyBlbmdpbmVzLCBpdCBtZW50aW9ucyB0aGF0IGVuZ2luZQpvcGVyYXRpbmcgbGltaXRhdGlvbnMgbWF5IGFjdHVhbGx5IGRyaXYBMAEBAQE- X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.172.614 References: X-Original-Message-ID: <1387823615.96167.YahooMailNeo@web121601.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> X-Original-Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 10:33:35 -0800 (PST) From: Chris Zavatson Reply-To: Chris Zavatson Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Debunking myth of flying fast into headwind X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-1977980688-503958540-1387823615=:96167" ---1977980688-503958540-1387823615=:96167 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The section on range in =E2=80=9CHandbook for Naval Aviators=E2=80=9D does = a=0Agood job comparing the various propulsion types with respect to achievi= ng=0Amaximum range.=C2=A0 While discussing=0Apropeller driven aircraft with= reciprocating engines, it mentions that engine=0Aoperating limitations may= actually drive achievable range.=C2=A0 This is indeed the case given the s= peed at=0Abest L/D for the 360, for example, is about 120 KIAS (weight depe= ndent) and it=0Aonly requires about 50 hp at low altitudes.=C2=A0 At such l= ow power and low altitude, engine efficiency is rather=0Apoor.=C2=A0 And as= Gary mentioned, we tend to=0Aplace a relatively high value on speed.=C2=A0= We can extract a good compromise by flying at higher altitudes.=C2=A0 As t= he indicated air speed reduces with=0Aaltitude, range continues to increase= .=C2=A0 At WOT, reaching best L/D may still not be practical due to the ver= y=0Ahigh altitude required =E2=80=93 unless we are really, really heavy, as= in carrying an=0Aextra 350 gallons of gas.=C2=A0 Throttling=0Aback on powe= r or pulling back engine speed is an option.=C2=A0 Since power has already = reduced naturally at=0Aaltitude, less power reduction is needed.=C2=A0 One = can also simply satisfy the need for speed and accept reduced range.=0AI su= perimposed fuel economy (fuel flow taken from a=0Acarburetor with poor mixt= ure distribution =E2=80=93 about a 20% hit) and indicated air=0Aspeed on pe= rformance charts for the stated conditions.=C2=A0 Peak economy occurs very = near the 120 KIAS=0Amark.=C2=A0 Further reductions in power or=0Aincrease i= n weight will pull this point to lower altitudes.=0AGiven all this I tend t= o fly high so I can save gas and=0Astill go fast.=0AChris=0AZavatson=0AN91C= Z=0A360std=0Awww.N91CZ.net=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0AOn Monday, December 16, 2= 013 6:45 AM, Mark Sletten wrote:=0A =0ACheck Aerodyn= amics for Naval Aviators. The figure on page 169 and the accompanying text = on page 170 will answer your question.=0A=0Ahttp://www.faa.gov/regulations_= policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/media/00-80T-80.pdf=0A=0A=0A--Mark=0A= =0A=0A=0AOn Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 7:00 AM, George Wehrung wrote= :=0A=0AHey guys,=0A>=0A>On long range flights I always fly a Max range prof= ile no matter the wind direction. Case in point I logged a 7.5 in a king ai= r 200 flying from Lajes Azores to St Johns Newfoundland today. The winds go= t up to 122 knots in the face. But with the internal ferry tank we made it = with 800 lbs to spare.=0A>=0A>Anyhow the guy next to me wanted to push it u= p saying we would spend less time bucking the wind but I owned the plane to= day and flew what I perceived a Max range AOA (no AOA installed) of about 3= degrees nose up and kept pulling the throttles back to keep her their. Thi= s attitude comes from 7 yrs in king airs and knowing the charts. But I don'= t have the aero background to counter his argument.=0A>=0A>Can anyone help = me out with research or otherwise?=0A>=0A>I know their is a number of TPS g= rads and much smarter aviators than I.=0A>=0A>George=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>Sent fr= om my iPhone=0A>--=0A>For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:= 81/lists/lml/List.html=0A> ---1977980688-503958540-1387823615=:96167 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=0A=0A
The= section on range in =E2=80=9CHandbook for Naval Aviators=E2=80=9D does a= =0Agood job comparing the various propulsion types with respect to achievin= g=0Amaximum range.  While discussing=0Apropeller driven a= ircraft with reciprocating engines, it mentions that engine=0Aoperating lim= itations may actually drive achievable range.  This is in= deed the case given the speed at=0Abest L/D for the 360, for example, is ab= out 120 KIAS (weight dependent) and it=0Aonly requires about 50 hp at low a= ltitudes.&nb= sp;=0AAt such low power and low altitude, engine efficiency is rathe= r=0Apoor.  And as Gary mentioned, we tend to=0Aplace a re= latively high value on speed. =0AWe can extract a good co= mpromise by flying at higher altitudes.  As the indicated= air speed reduces with=0Aaltitude, range continues to increase. = ;=0AAt WOT, reaching best L/D may still not be practical due to the = very=0Ahigh altitude required =E2=80=93 unless we are really, really heavy,= as in carrying an=0Aextra 350 gallons of gas.  Throttlin= g=0Aback on power or pulling back engine speed is an option.  Since power has already reduced naturally at=0Aaltitude, less power re= duction is needed. =0AOne can also simply satisfy the nee= d for speed and accept reduced range.
= =0A=0A
I superimposed fuel e= conomy (fuel flow taken from a=0Acarburetor with poor mixture distribution = =E2=80=93 about a 20% hit) and indicated air=0Aspeed on performance charts = for the stated conditions.  Peak economy occurs very near= the 120 KIAS=0Amark.  Further reductions in power or=0Ai= ncrease in weight will pull this point to lower altitudes.
=0A=0A
= Given all this I tend to fly high so I can save gas and=0Astill go fast.
=0A=0A
Chris=0AZavatson
=0A=0A
N91CZ
=0A=0A
360std
=0A=0A
www= .N91CZ.net
=0A=0A




=0A=0A

On= Monday, December 16, 2013 6:45 AM, Mark Sletten <mwsletten@gmail.com>= ; wrote:
Check Aerodynami= cs for Naval Aviators. The figure on page 169 and the accompanying text= on page 170 will answer your question.

<= br clear=3D"none">
--Mark


On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 7:00 AM, George Wehrung <gw5@me.com> wrot= e:
=0A
Hey guys,=
=0A
=0AOn long range flights I always = fly a Max range profile no matter the wind direction. Case in point I logge= d a 7.5 in a king air 200 flying from Lajes Azores to St Johns Newfoundland= today. The winds got up to 122 knots in the face. But with the internal fe= rry tank we made it with 800 lbs to spare.
=0A=0A
=0AAnyhow the guy next to me wanted to push it up saying we woul= d spend less time bucking the wind but I owned the plane today and flew wha= t I perceived a Max range AOA (no AOA installed) of about 3 degrees nose up= and kept pulling the throttles back to keep her their. This attitude comes= from 7 yrs in king airs and knowing the charts. But I don't have the aero = background to counter his argument.
=0A=0A
=0ACan anyone help me out with research or otherwise?
=0A
=0AI know their is a number of TPS grads and much sm= arter aviators than I.
=0A
=0AGeorge=0A
=0A
=0A
=0ASent from my iPhone
=0A--
=0A= For archives and unsub http://mail= .lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
=0A



---1977980688-503958540-1387823615=:96167--