[jhb_airlines] Re: 4Gals

  • From: Gerry Winskill <gwinsk@xxxxxxx>
  • To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 19:23:32 +0100

I must confess to fiddling the Pirep!
When I checked the fuel used, by the Rotax engined Lionceau, after the first two trips, I couldn't believe them. I was about to increase its fuel consumtion, using Fuel_Scalar= . Twelve pounds didn't seem enough for a 30 minute flight. Instead I dug out my GA mags and looked for a couple of Rotax engined Microlights. At normal cruise speed, they "sip" fuel at a rate that converts to about 35 lbs per hour.
If you opt for Lbs as units then the minimum value of 5 isn't a problem.

Gerry Winskill


bones wrote:

Oddly enough this debate is going on in Prune right now.
Cessna have just launched a new aircraft - the C162 Skycatcher - and nice looking it is too. Basically a C150 on diet pills. See http://www.cessnaskycatcher.com/ for piccies - especially the cockpit shots. It looks a nice modern aircraft, but Cessna have decided that the engine to go in it is the venerable O-200-A, built in 1948 and about as basic as a mangle. The Prune debate is hotting up with most of the battle raging around Cessna's concern for public liability being the reason why they shied away from new, fuel efficient designs - old engines predate the laws and are exempt. I tend to agree in that GA design has evolved very slowly in the last 30 years whereas any other form of transport hasn't allowed PL to significantly affect development. The engine in your car is so much more advanced than a basic aero engine - the O-200A still has a carb and magnetos instead of fuel injection and electric ignition. This makes it liable to carb icing and magneto failure with both being mechanical devices with wear and tear being additional problems. If they had banged an O-200-A in with electric ignition and fuel injection I would have considered it a step forward.. bones

    -----Original Message-----
    *From:* jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
    [mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Alex Barrett
    *Sent:* 18 August 2007 14:23
    *To:* jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
    *Subject:* [jhb_airlines] Re: 4Gals

    The local flying club issued planning tables for their C-152 fleet
    Gives:

    Full power climb = 8.7 GPH
    Cruise = 4.2GPH

    So if we take a typical VFR flight from Shoreham to Lydd on a
    sunny summer day =

    10 minutes at full power =1.45 Gallons
    30 mins in the cruise and decending = 2.34 Gallons
    Plus a bit for farting about = 1.00 Gallon

    Gives 3.791 Gallons all used.

    Perhaps an email suggestion to IVAO to bring the minimum down? or
    I guess they just don't have many VA's on VFR ops!

    All the best,

    Alex



    Assuming a quick 5 minute climb

    franklyn fisher wrote:

    As a matter of interest.

    I was flying a C172SP cruising 100 (cannot get the damn thing up
    to the rated 120).

    Departure X2BS to FSWB (Binstead-Swanborough)= 44nm.

    Recorded fuel in tank, before departure and at arrival, 19L used
    =4 Gallons rough translation.

    Could not get Pirep to accept L or less than 6G

    Next flight from FSWB to Clipgate.

    A slip of the keys. I think I uprated Chris from C2 to C3. hit
    the send button too soon.

    FF





Other related posts: