Originally Posted by
212man
It does seem a bit contradictory unless there is a dramatic reduction in fuel burn with altitude to compensate. Looks like about 180 l/hr is average cruise consumption, so to stretch 132 litres to 1:35 (albeit with about 10+ min in autorotation), looks like a tall order. That said, I flew one type where with full fuel you had about 3 hours endurance at sea level in the cruise, but climbing to 10,000 ft the endurance was now 3:25 even after the climb fuel consumption (fuel burn dropped from 320 kg/hr to 275 kg/hr), so I'm not sure how much lower the consumption would have continued to reduce if we'd climbed higher.
In a B3+ & e I was sucking ~90lph above 20,000' & 70lph @ 28,000' hmmmmm
given 540litres usable petrol tank @ 25% = 135litres (not 132, every drop counts at extreme alt.) so way more than 2hrs of noise time at those scary heights is very achievable
in a B2 fuel burn even less...so what part is hard to believe again??
rehash; wonder why airlines soar up to 35,000' surely not just for the view
Keeping it real....do it into wind whenever possible (except pea)