While I appreciate that jets and pistons are very different animals the principals of fuel management being more important to trip management are clear and while not all the principals are relevant many are.
Ok I own up
I used this to drag the conversation into trip management rather than purely looking at the powerplant.
I realise that jets are as different as chalk and cheese
10540 continues to amaze me with his depth of technical knowledge and I always read his contributions with interest.
Engine management is only part of the picture. While the level margins to play with are much smaller in a piston the principals are the same ie if climbing to cruise at FL120 do you fill with fuel and pax to max grosse weight to go 250 nm? Do you accept a much longer full power climb to get there and the much higher fuel burns?
Winds are much lower low level but can still be high. I can remember flying UK to Alicante in a Seneca at FL120. I held a GS of 100 kts with a headwind of 70 kts all the way to northern Spain having to make an extra landing at La Rochelle for fuel. Maybe I would have been better going all the way with the 30 kts headwind at 3000 feet?
Descent how do you descend in a piston twin? a managed descent can make a big difference to fuel burn etc.
So as stated its not all about leaning for the last litre. The principals of jets although very different beasts to pistons can be carried over. Trip planning and execution can make a much bigger difference than purely playing with individual cylinder readouts on engine mangement units you can buy.
Flying both jets and piston twins I find I can use a lot of the techniques for trip management in the lower flying, different powerplant twins.
whereas the jet stream is probably forecast pretty well.
10540 dont believe that
Pace