Crash Landing in Cunnamulla - two hurt.

[Ovation]

Two survive crash landing in Qld
From: AAP October 02, 2013 6:48AM


TWO people have survived the crash landing of a light plane in outback Queensland after its engine failed. The plane landed heavily in a paddock near the Mitchell Highway, about 11km northwest of Cunnamulla, on Tuesday night.

The 29-year-old pilot suffered a broken nose, concussion and cuts, while a 30-year-old female passenger suffered minor injuries. Both were taken to the Cunnamulla Hospital for treatment.

The Forensic Crash Unit is investigating.

[Jabawocky]

If that was at night, not just at sunset, to put it down with almost no injury, is an impressive result. I hope the lady who had minor injuries had more minor than the pilot.

Get well soon :ok:

[onetrack]

Pair walk away from bush landing - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-02/pair-walk-away-from-bush-landing/4993128?section=qld)

Well done, that man - and it sounds like he needs to buy a Lotto ticket. :eek:

If the stated time of 20:30Hrs is correct, then that definitely makes it a crash landing in the proper dark - as well as in timbered country.
By my quick estimation, sunset around Cunnamulla is roughly 18:05Hrs and the end of nautical twilight is around a couple of minutes before 19:00Hrs.

[tail wheel]

"I guess they were very lucky to land."

I would have thought landing was inevitable? :suspect:

[Wally Mk2]

See 'jaba' how much more convincing do ya want buddy!:E
Dangerous things those SE toy planes:-)

I bet this guy thinks twice about flying at night again SE. There's a 'sign' here I reckon:-)


Wmk2

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Last Light YCMU Tues 1/10/13 - 0840Z.....

11km NW of Cunnamulla (town) would be almost (?) in the circuit area of YCMU....

EFATO..??

Good to have the 'minor injuries' in any case - especially on a dark night.

[onetrack]

Geez, TW, you know there's nothing worse than being stuck up there all night! :)

Some coppers aren't exactly wordsmiths, when it comes to facing media questions. :rolleyes:

He could have said (accompanied by a suitable sombre manner), "It was brought to our attention that a suspected attempted landing was being carried out in the dark. We investigated and found two individuals loitering in the area with a suspicious damaged aircraft in the vicinity. These two individuals appear to be suffering some kind of personal injuries. Further investigation is needed to clarify precisely what has occurred here. You can be assured, QLD Police have this matter firmly in hand, and no member of the public needs to become alarmed ... " :)

[Desert Flower]

I would have thought landing was inevitable?

Absolutely! There is no such thing as a forced landing. All aircraft will land eventually - one way or another! ;)

DF.

[VH-XXX]

Jabba - SE IFR / NVFR ops.... Be alert but not alarmed :ok:

[tail wheel]

Unlike Wally, I don't have a major problem with SE night operations when necessary, but within reason and reasonably close to civilisation and available landing areas.

I would not include Cunnamulla as being "reasonably close to civilisation and available landing areas."

Talking of PC Plod's linguistic tallents - and I know this is thread drift - but at 8.45 am Tuesday 24 September, on the Landsborough Highway between Longreach and Winton, Sgt Plodd from Winton had cause to pull me over just as I passed a B Double with trailer (three trailer Road Train):

"Do you know what speed you were doing driver"?

"No idea, wasn't looking, but I'm sure you will tell me".

"134 kilometers per hour."

"I knew you were waiting for me so came as quick as I could."

On being presented with a yellow Infringement Notice for $366 and 4 points, I asked whether I'd get a discount because of my Senior's Card?

Actually, $366 is more than reasonable for four years of undetected crime! :}

There is something highly comical about a harmless grey nomad being pulled over on the Landsborough Highway, miles from civilisation, to be confronted by Sgt Plod in full riot gear, pistol, Tazer, Pepper Spray, batton, three pistol magazines, handcuffs, two way radio and a few other odds and ends, all attached to a flack jacket. I couldn't help myself:

"Have the grey nomads been parking illegally again or did I interupt your deployment to the front line in Afghanistan"?

Fortunately he had a sense of humour.

And if you drive out west, avoid Adavale as that cops books everything not screwed down. Local rumour tells me he even booked his own wife for driving without a seat belt.

Yep, country coppers can be something else......... :}

[onetrack]

There is something highly comical about a harmless grey nomad being pulled over on the Landsborough Highway, miles from civilisation, to be confronted by Sgt Plod in full riot gear, pistol, Tazer, Pepper Spray, batton, three pistol magazines, handcuffs, two way radio and a few other odds and ends, all attached to a flack jacket. I couldn't help myself:

"Have the grey nomads been parking illegally again or did I interupt your deployment to the front line in Afghanistan"?

Unfortunately, ever since a scumbag double murderer on the run from the Eastern States tried to kill a W.A. copper on the N.W. Coastal Hwy after a regular traffic stop a few short years ago - and ended up receiving a fatal dose of Glock-guided lead - the country coppers have been a little more nervous about exactly WHO they are pulling up - and they tend to practise American-trooper-style tactics for traffic stops, nowadays. :(

In fact, it's SOP to have two officers in every car on lonely country patrols in W.A. now, such is their concern about the violent hoods that tend to flit across the country when they have an urgent need to "be elsewhere". :(

Fugitive's cross-country dash ends in death - National - theage.com.au (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/fugitives-crosscountry-dash-ends-in-death/2006/02/01/1138590569539.html)

The World Today - Vic Police under fire over suspect alert (http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1560674.htm)

[Wally Mk2]

'taily' it's all about choice, I now chose not to fly SE especially at night or in IMC (same thing really). My life to me ( & to my ex...bitch!) is far more important than some misguided feeling I might randomly have of believing flying in a SE under the above conditions is safe/fun!:E

'Jaba' is a good Eg & I actually like the guy mainly 'cause he's smart in other area's!:E


Wmk2

p.s....btw 'taily' you might want to be careful of yr postings here (even if they are amusing to read) as they are off topic (as you mention actually) but you already know that as yr partner in crime 'Tid' is out to get those that do so & break all sorts of awful sinful laws of fun on PPrune:E...see the other thread about QF's little adventure over the GAB:-):E

[tail wheel]

Onetrack, even in Texas where 80% of vehicles carry a loaded gun, the cops operate alone in their "cruisers" with only a pistol and handcuffs. None of the other paraphenalia.

Wally, you have peace at last. I am banning myself for seven days for thread drift! :hmm:

[Wally Mk2]

..........Jesus 'taily' don't start that sort of thing will ya we poor mortal PPruner's will think you guys are human after all!:E:E

I'll await outside yr place of self incarceration with a repentant Choir singing...... 'all is 4given'.........:E:ok::-):-)


Wmk2

[Flying Binghi]

Hmmm... with all them islamic nutter gangs roaming Oz i reckon if them traffic police want to dress like judge dredd, let em..:ok:

From 2010, USA...

"...traffic-related incidents remained the number one cause of death among the nation's law enforcement officers for the 13th consecutive year. Seventy-three officers have been killed in traffic-related incidents this year, compared with 51 in 2009... ...During the past year, 18 officers were killed in Texas, the highest in any state..."

Line-of-duty deaths among police officers go up - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/12/29/us.law.enforcement.deaths/index.html)










.

[BEACH KING]

Taily me old.. you are a bit behind the times when it comes to the Constabulary (is that a word?) west of the FIFO capital.
I shall attempt to bring you up to speed :E
"The Adavale Copper" of which you speak, was relocated to Wyandra several years ago after some angst. Chris, his replacement at Adavale is one of the nicest blokes you will ever meet, (however you would not want to get on the wrong side of him as he has several amateur boxing titles to his name).
Never the less, the infamous old Adavale copper, (who is now in Wyandra) is still referred to as "The Adavale Copper". Got it?.
I personally find him no trouble at all, and quite pleasant and helpful. Others, who do dodgy ****e (like speed dangerously past triple road trains in Jaguars) however, have run foul of the man on occasion and contributed to his notoriety (including his wife I believe).

I can relate a story regarding "The Adavale Copper" that I find amusing.
A good mate flew for the RFDS here for many years, and eventually got transferred to the Cairns base. Not long after he got posted to Cairns, he was called out to a motorcycle accident up the Cape, where a rider had gone for a trip over the handlebars and hurt himself. Upon landing at the retrieval point, my mate was giving the flight nurse a hand by collecting the patients particulars. The conversation went like this:
My mate: "what's your home address?"
patient: "you won't know where it is! It's one of the smallest towns in Australia with a population of just 6, called Adavale".
My mate: " yeah I know where it is all right.. I must have caught a thousand yellow belly fish in the Blackwater Creek over the years. They reckon that there is a C**t of a copper there now though."
Patient: (looking thoroughly delighted) "That would be me!"

Back to the Cunnamulla incident. It's probably one of the best places to be if you are are going to have an engine failure at night ( in either single or twin). The country is very open and flat. Great to see that everyone walked away. I try and keep out of the NVFR debate with the pontificating experts on here. I have nearly 400 hours of NVFR in a single mostly in arguably the blackest of black hole country, and I ain't dead yet. I try to avoid flying at night if I can, same as I avoid driving at night if I can, as the risks are greater. I keep myself and the aircraft current, and it's seems to work out OK.

[Jabawocky]

I have nearly 400 hours of NVFR in a single mostly in arguably the blackest of black hole country, and I ain't dead yet. I try to avoid flying at night if I can, same as I avoid driving at night if I can, as the risks are greater. I keep myself and the aircraft current, and it's seems to work out OK.

Amen! :ok:

[Jamair]

That's not thread drift! I kin show you some thread drift- hey Beachie, how did the enduro go? Was heading out to it when a local offered me access to his property north of CV so went there and killed stuff instead. Trust you enjoyed the TL trip too?

Back to SE prang at CMU - then a SE aircraft went and picked them up in the middle of the night to take them to the big smoke hospital!

[Jabawocky]

Back to SE prang at CMU - then a SE aircraft went and picked them up in the middle of the night to take them to the big smoke hospital!

Cop that Wally :E

[Wally Mk2]

We both know 'jaba' that the RFDS are not too bright up that way flying PC's but hey when yr all busted up from a SE prang then I guess not much else matters & yr luck is on a high, besides I think lying there on that stretcher saying hey I don't wanna go to hossy in a SE plane as I have just crashed one would be called as the ultimate ironical comment!:E



Wmk2

[tail wheel]

Hi Beachie

Was going to drop into the apothecary the other day but ran short of time.

"They were lucky to escape with the injuries they got - it is very rugged bushland out there," he said.

I would have thought you'd be rather unlucky to hit a patch of "rugged bushland" around Cunnamulla, especially now in the drought.

Apparently the Adavale Copper booked Peter Beattie's wife many years ago and found himself posted to Adavale. The Mayor at Quilpie assures me it is fact that he booked his own wife for driving without a seat belt.

[Propstop]

I am sure matrimonial bliss would have been put on hold after booking your own wife. Hope the dog did not mind the company.:E

[Sunfish]

Tailwheel:

There is something highly comical about a harmless grey nomad being pulled over on the Landsborough Highway, miles from civilisation, to be confronted by Sgt Plod in full riot gear, pistol, Tazer, Pepper Spray, batton, three pistol magazines, handcuffs, two way radio and a few other odds and ends, all attached to a flack jacket. I couldn't help myself:


My son is a policeman and that is exactly what he wears at times. However it isn't funny anymore. There is a class of drugs - Methamphetamines that make people do real bad stuff, out of your mind stuff, and the police have no idea from one minute to the next what someone they engage will actually do.

....And that includes seemingly harmless grey nomads.

There are a variety of things they are trained to do and number one is self preservation. Don't ever do something that might scare a policeman or you will end up very dead. All that pepper spray, Tazer and shooting to wound stuff is only going to happen if the policeman thinks he or she has time to do that stuff without compromising their own safety.

[onetrack]

As a bloke with 4 cops in my wifes family (from Supt FIL, through to Sen./Sgt BIL, Detective and Snr/Const. Nephews), I can back up what Sunfish says.

I have even witnessed a bloke high on Meths climbing the 2.5M high wire mesh fence of my workshop yard, with 3 sizeable coppers hanging off him, spraying him with pepper spray and belting him with truncheons - all without the slightest effect.

When he was finally subdued by 5 coppers and eventually came around in a hospital bed, he had no knowledge of anything he's done in the previous two days - which was a rampage of violence and robberies that occupied quite a number of coppers, and traumatised a lot of people.
Meths is bad stuff - along with a number of newer drugs that give people superhuman strength - and all these drugs give people a massive spurt that keeps them high, and going without sleep for 2 or 3 days, or sometimes even more.

I've pulled a semi-comatose bloke out of a car after he ran into a parked car - and he'd taken LSD and gone for a drive!! :rolleyes: He wasn't capable of stringing two words together, and how he managed to even drive, is beyond me.

Then there's always that small group of people who are consumed with a total murderous hatred of anyone in a blue uniform, and who will carry a firearm with the sole intention of killing anyone in blue who pulls them up.
There's quite a list of "fallen police" who have met their fate at the hands of these people without any warning whatsoever.

The final angle is, that pulling up a car that has indulged in obvious traffic offences is very often an indicator that a criminal is behind the wheel.
On regular occasions, traffic stops for minor offences result in drugs & firearms being found, persons wanted on bench warrants, unregistered drivers, or drivers high on drugs, or just plain drunk.

A policemans lot is not a happy one, and the last job I'd want, is wearing a blue uniform and approaching complete strangers inside their mobile cage of protective steel, without the slightest idea of their mental state. :(


Wally - I've often wondered what it does to your shattered nerves, to be hauled, injured, out of a SE aircraft wreckage - only to be placed into another SE aircraft, to go for another ride!! :) I trust they give you a good dose of sedatives!! :)

[Howard Hughes]

Wally - I've often wondered what it does to your shattered nerves, to be hauled, injured, out of a SE aircraft wreckage - only to be placed into another SE aircraft, to go for another ride!! I trust they give you a good dose of sedatives!!
I hope they give them to the pilot too, poor blokes (ettes)! ;)

[Desert Flower]

Wally - I've often wondered what it does to your shattered nerves, to be hauled, injured, out of a SE aircraft wreckage - only to be placed into another SE aircraft, to go for another ride!! I trust they give you a good dose of sedatives!!

No different to being hauled, injured, from a car crash & being put into an ambulance!

DF.

[Guptar]

Two comments

If your aircraft has a certain endurance, shouldn't you plan to land at least 45 mins before said endurance.

If you are going to fly NVFR, shouldn't your aircraft be in NVFR category as well?

Just asking, and no inference is made.......however the accident report will be interesting. Just some talk going around.

[Fantome]

Won't buy into the night single engine debate .. . . it has been covered and covered a thousand times. You either chance it or you don't. Whenever it made me feel nervous I'd take a deep breath and think of Lindbergh's 1927 solo trans-Atlantic flight. (The Wright J5 . . . what a donk.)

Cops transferred to the outback . . well one of the best was the one about the late Russ Hinze, Queensland police minister, who was pulled over by a cycle cop when driving home down the Gold Coast Highway one day. Cop had no idea who the man was heaving his huge bulk out of the Fairlane. Hinze gets out with the Queensland map in his paw. He spreads the map over the bonnet and gestures north - south down the guts of Queensland. "There you are son. You pick. Anywhere west of that line."

When Frank Delaney was the NSW police commissioner he was heading home down Anzac Parade one evening when a sprog motorcycle cop pulled him over.
Cop gets off bike, walks back, slowly and deliberately pulling off his gauntlets.
Puts his head down to the driver's window and says -

"So where's the f u c k in g fire driver?"

Delaney equally slowly and deliberately pulls out his wallet and shows the cop his ID -

"I'd say in my office, constable . . . . nine o'clock on monday morning."


There's another choice one about the cop out near Yarrawonga recently who chased a newly imported Chevvy convertible with LH drive. Too long to tell now, but if you know Muzza at Echuca, (Stearman etc) , he'll tell you.

[Creampuff]

And all those stories are manifestations of the fact that governments across Australia have been rotten to the core for a long time. :ok:

[Fantome]

well there's no arguing that there are, shining their bums, and have been, some pretty piss poor people voted into parliament . . . . .but for all the doom and gloom. . . let us remember the shining lights who all their lives put the best interests of the nation before their own.

[Avgas172]

"I guess they were very lucky to land."
Taking off is optional, Landing is mandatory ... :E

[VH-XXX]

If you are going to fly NVFR, shouldn't your aircraft be in NVFR category as well?


I flew that aircraft a few years back. It was fitted with the standard gear for that model which I believe includes NVFR when it left the factory. The only thing it would potentially be missing would be a VOR which would have hardly contributed to engine failure.

[BEACH KING]

That's not thread drift! I kin show you some thread drift- hey Beachie, how did the enduro go? Was heading out to it when a local offered me access to his property north of CV so went there and killed stuff instead. Trust you enjoyed the TL trip too?

Back to SE prang at CMU - then a SE aircraft went and picked them up in the middle of the night to take them to the big smoke hospital!
G'day Jamair! It was great to make your acquaintance the other day, and I hope you enjoyed your time out here. Enduro went great. There were many tired riders after 3 hours on a very gnarly track.
TL was very dry (and hot), and the ATC were very friendly and helpful (even dispatched a "follow me" car to show me a good place to tie down!). Apart from weaving around a line of storms on the way home, the trip was great. Caught me 2 brilliant parrot fish at Magnetic Is. :ok:

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

So, now we have the hint of a suggestion of maybe a little too much air in the tanks.....?? Guptar?

[That lights normal!]

So, now we have the hint of a suggestion of maybe a little too much air in the tanks.....?? Guptar?

What's wrong with you idiots?
Why say this stuff with not even a shred of reason or evidence?

According to the pilot there was 2 hrs fuel on board when the engine stopped.

[Desert Flower]

Why say this stuff with not even a shred of reason or evidence?

Because that's what most if not all of us think as the likely cause in cases like this - even if we don't say it out loud!

DF.

[Jabawocky]

Beachie......didn't the FTDK offer you some hanger space?

Not like he gets much use of it any more :E

[BEACH KING]

Tried to give the Forked one a ring to maybe catch up for a beer.. however he must have changed his number, as I got a seductive sounding young lady who thought I was a bit forward in mentioning her fork :ooh:

[Mish A]

Have a close friend that's returned to the thin blue line while he waits to find a use for his CPL.

Apparently the jobs have some similarities. Risk management, team work, legal interpretation and making command decisions are some of them.

[Bounceferret]

Report (if you can call it that) is out.

Can someone remind me how many hours it takes to fly from Lilydale to Cunnamulla in a PA-28?
I'm going with 3 as the 'pilot' says there was 2 hours remaining onboard at the time of incident................:confused:

Unless the AC had new long ranges tanks fitted few mins before departure?

[Capt Claret]

It's about 27 years since I've flown a PA28 but as best I can recall they TAS at about 110ish-120ish.

Straight line Lillydale Cunamulla is about 585nm, so I'd be guessing 5ish hours. :ooh:

[Jabawocky]

Those who have attended the Advanced Pilot Seminar course will know how highly animated....(zealot like) I get about a few very important engine management topics.

Two things stand out in this report, and I bet Aussie Bob, Jack Ranga, Rutan Around, Forkie, Ultralights, outnabout and a few others could easily work this out. ATSB of course missed them.

Just for the educational value, (for free-:E) can anyone guess the things that we insist pilots and owners (yes this was rented) should do? And what any well educated pilot could have done to ensure this did not happen?

And I will be talking about this one in Perth in may you can be sure of it!

If you fly piston aircraft and can't answer this off the top of your head you need to PM me.

PS: The fuel burn information given to the pilot is surprisingly very accurate, and slightly better than the POH says, but that was not being achieved evidently. I wonder how this pilot was taught? My guess just like I was....badly.

Ohhh dear me, just been re-reading.....this report is yet another shocking report. I will be in CB tomorrow and will be looking for someone!!! This is a waste.

[jas24zzk]

link to the report please jaba.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Jaba I'm waiting with bated breath for your revelations on this deep dark mystery.

A pilot ran out of fuel in the dark in the middle of nowhere.

Fascinated to learn what the ATSB could have said above and beyond that report.

[Andy_P]

Guessing hear, being a total noob. But would mixture have anything to do with it?

This is stuff I need to learn.

[duncan_g]

Here's the report Investigation: AO-2013-168 - Total power loss involving a Piper PA-28-161, VH-CCQ, 9 km N of Cunnamulla aerodrome, Qld on 1 October 2013 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2013/aair/ao-2013-168.aspx)

By the operator's numbers, 180L @ 30 LPH should have given 6 hours of fuel, yet they ran out after 4 hours 40 mins?? Either the tanks weren't really full, or the actual fuel burn was more like 38 LPH...

[27/09]

30 l/hr doesn't equate to 75% power which is what I would expect most pilots to use on a cross country flight.

From the dim distant past 33 to 35 l/hr comes to mind for 75% power and 115 KTAS for the Warrior. This gives a tad over 5 hours total, less reserves giving around 4 hours 40 safe endurance. Taking Capt Carets distance and assuming an average of 110 knots G/S (that's probably being generous unless there was a good tailwind most of the way) the flight time is around 5 hours 20. 125 knots G/S is still 4 hours 40.

Why, why, why, would you plan a flight likely to exceed your fuel limits. I suspect that since they were landing after last light (and perhaps running later than planned) there might have been a bit of throttle bashing going on as well. This does wonders for the fuel burn, NOT!!!!!!

I'd say he had it pretty well leaned as per the manufacturers figures for the powers setting he was using. It's my guess he was relying on poor information i.e. 30 l/hr which lead him to think he had 6 hours endurance and he was never taught or didn't remember that as you push the big black knob closer to the firewall the fuel consumption climbs.

[Horatio Leafblower]

The PA28-140 i used to instruct on used to burn 32 lph and although I haven't flown a PA-28-161 for about 20 years I seem to recall 36lph.

Jaba will probably tell you if old mate had a JPI engine monitor he could have run it LOPTOPPOPCOPDOPFLOPPROPDROP with no VDOP at 3 lph.

[outnabout]

Sorry, Jaba, I'm not with you on this one.


You are correct - an EDM, functioning and with a pilot who understands its use, is a wonderful piece of kit. I don't know if it was fitted to this aircraft.


However, in remote areas, I find it almost physically impossible to fly past a known source of avgas (in this case, Bourke? Griffith?) - with or without an EDM.


Beach King, to my mind, you are bang on the money. I believe this applies to IFR flights as well.


PS: 4 - 6 hours without a wee stop? Well done, those two on board!

[Horatio Leafblower]

Bet he didn't need a wee stop (or a poo stop) once that engine went quiet in the dark.

[Creampuff]

[T]he pilot selected an engine power setting of 65% and leaned the fuel mixture. …What on earth does that mean?

How do you ‘select an engine power setting of 65%’ on a PA28?

There is no analysis or discussion of the variable that would have had the greatest impact on fuel consumption on a trip that long: What was the pilot’s leaning technique? … He reported that the aircraft’s groundspeed and fuel flow correlated with the true airspeed (TAS) and fuel flow specified in the aircraft operating manual. …Errrrm … the corresponding footnote says “the aircraft was not fitted with a fuel flow gauge”. How would the pilot have known what the actual fuel flow was in-flight?

The ‘pilot enroute fuel calculations’ table shows only 14 litres consumed during the period from take-off at 1420 until 1500. There’s no way that baby consumed only 14 litres during the 40 minutes that included a climb from around sea level to 8,500’. Even at a (wrongly) assumed cruise consumption rate of 27 LPH for the climb phase, that’s 18 litres not 14. Depending on leaning technique during the climb (in this case, probably the ‘do nothing with the red knob’ method), I reckon she would have burnt at least twice that during that phase.

If the aircraft indeed had 180 litres useable before taxi, I reckon at 1500 she would have had only about 140 litres usable left (around 5 litres taxi and around 35 litres for the climb to 8,500’ plus some cruise time). If your leaning method is ‘lean until the engine runs ‘rough’ and enrich until ‘smooth’, plus a twist for Mum and the kids’, you could be burning 35 litres an hour rather than the assumed 27. Around 4 hours later ….

Calculating actual fuel consumed based on a constant ‘nominal’ rate is always going to produce hit-and-miss results, especially on long trips and especially if mixture isn’t managed meticulously. On this occasion it appears to have produced a ‘miss’. :(

[Bounceferret]

The Jab has higher END & range doesn't it?

Could the JC-160 plan/figures have been used for the PA-28?
Surely not.

[tecman]

Not much to add, except to note that my sanity check number for cross-country in a similar aircraft was 36 lph. And it'd be 38 lph for a local flight, with the need to have some flexibility in the Sunday afternoon pie run, or whatever.

The nice gear (fuel flow etc) and fancy leaning is good to have and do, but in the end it's the sanity check number, based on experience with a particular aircraft, which would dictate my fuel stop policy. If I didn't know the aircraft, I'm afraid the ultra-conservative fuel burn would have to be my default. After all, even with a fuel flow meter, how do you know the calibration is good until you've checked it yourself with a dipstick or bowser total over a few trips?

I'm finding it hard to imagine not stopping at Bourke - like Outnabout, my antennas would have been twitching at that point. And to cap it all off, it was NVFR for the last segment. I know that it's easy to fall into the holier than thou mode but this one does leave me wondering. I guess it is a version of the press-on-itis syndrome. In the end, the only positive is that the injuries were minor.

It reminds me to do another check of my FS450, but I'm afraid the dipstick remains king! (And I do mean the wooden dipstick....).

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Some things never seem to change, do they!

Back in the 70's, a PA28 crashed into a house just short of Archerfield aerodrome after a flight from Bankstown, with fatal consequences for some members of the family on board. At the time we could not understand how the pilot could have flown past Cooly with the fuel gages near empty, and not stop for fuel.

I am only writing this in the hope that it might save someone from finding themselves in the same predicament as outlined in this thread.

Its a good few years since I have flown a Warrior, but I seem to recall working on 5 hrs endurance.

I have flown a number of aeroplanes for maximum normal operating range, including the PA28. How do you do it safely? Well one way is to take-off with full fuel (obviously!), climb out and set up for cruise on one tank and then fly on that tank until it runs dry. Note the time that takes and then compare it to you remaining estimate to your destination plus reserves. If the numbers don't compute - have a fall-back plan to land and refuel. Ignore the extra fuel taken for the climb cause that will give you a hidden margin for error.

Dr :8

[Horatio Leafblower]

THe following:

What on earth does that mean?

How do you ‘select an engine power setting of 65%’ on a PA28?

There is no analysis or discussion of the variable that would have had the greatest impact on fuel consumption on a trip that long: What was the pilot’s leaning technique?

Errrrm … the corresponding footnote says “the aircraft was not fitted with a fuel flow gauge”. How would the pilot have known what the actual fuel flow was in-flight?

The ‘pilot enroute fuel calculations’ table shows only 14 litres consumed during the period from take-off at 1420 until 1500. There’s no way that baby consumed only 14 litres during the 40 minutes that included a climb from around sea level to 8,500’. Even at a (wrongly) assumed cruise consumption rate of 27 LPH for the climb phase, that’s 18 litres not 14. Depending on leaning technique during the climb (in this case, probably the ‘do nothing with the red knob’ method), I reckon she would have burnt at least twice that during that phase.

....and the rest of your post is absolutely correct and well teased out. I fell into the trap of reading the BASI report as though the footnotes were pointing out the pilot's errors.

The report would have been far more useful and understandable to the lay person and other pilots alike if it was written along the lines of your post.

Are they deliberately phrasing it in a non-confrontational non-accusatory tone to avoid legal action?

...is the ATSB required to be non-defamatory? :confused: :eek:

[djpil]

Select 65% power? Been a long time since I was in that Warrior but my recollection is that the relevant instructions are on the sun visor in front of the pilot. Look up the table then move lever to get the specified RPM.
A similar table in the POM of my old Decathlon with similar engine/prop combination.

[43Inches]

For a few years I was involved with a fleet of PA28-161, we calculated average fuel burns every month as the fuel bills came in. The average consumption rates varied between about 28lph and 34lph. Strange enough the lower figure was for aircraft that spent most of the month in the circuit, mostly navex aircraft tended to be at the higher end. We set the published typical fuel burn for the type at 36lph for students to use.

Most of the fleet would get around 105ktas at 65%, which was the preferred power setting for navex, a few were faster and a few slower.

From the POH some figures, Best power - 75% = 10gph (38lph) 65% = 8.8gph (34lph) and the burn from sea level to 8500 from the climb chart indicates a burn of around 5usg which is just under 20lt over 20-25minutes.

Assuming the first 25 minutes was climb burning 20lt, and the a further 15 minutes at 34lph (65% leaned for piper "best power" benefit of the doubt), that would be a total of of around 29lts, not 14.

[dubbleyew eight]

a question.
where could the pilot have refuelled on this flight?

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

where could the pilot have refuelled on this flight?

Cobar?
Bourke?
Griffith?
Hay?
Deniliquin?
Tocumwal?
Shepparton?

[27/09]

The 161 I flew many hours in, had the power setting tables on the sunvisor.

From the performance tables I managed to dig up online 65% best power cruise, fuel consumption is 8.8 US GPH or about 33 l/hr and TAS at 9000 PAlt varies from 110 to 113 KTAS depending on model.

For 65% best economy cruise consumption is 7.5 US GPH or nearly 29 l/hr and TAS at 9000 PAlt 108 to 112 KTAS.

Best power range 45 mn reserve 515 nm to 535 nm no wind

Best economy range 45 reserve 585 nm to 615 nm no wind.

It doesn't matter which way you dice it, there's no way that flight could safely be done on one tank full without the aid of a decent and reliable tailwind and we all know how often that happens.

Edit: I went and had a read of the report. That aircraft must have had updated vastly improved fuel gauges, ....... he based his decision to carry on on the fuel guage readings. There's no light aircraft I know of except for perhaps the likes of a Piper Cub where I'd be that trusting on the guages and even then........

[43Inches]

From the performance tables I managed to dig up online 65% best power cruise, fuel consumption is 8.8 US GPH or about 33 l/hr and TAS at 9000 PAlt varies from 110 to 113 KTAS depending on model.

Don't forget to remove 7ktas for aircraft without wheel fairings, as this one looked like it at least had no nose wheel fairing.

[27/09]

Don't forget to remove 7ktas for aircraft without wheel fairings, Correct, I was trying to be generous.

[Creampuff]

So help me out here.

I've decided I want to cruise at "65% power". Is that a "best power" setting or a "best economy" setting?

How do I set "best power" and what percentages of power can I get there?

How do I set "best economy" and what percentages of power can I get there?

[Jabawocky]

Leafie, Mate I had hoped not to have the smarty posts on this, ;) but I guess I am guilty of that too so, touché! I deliberatley wanted folk to think about it, and maybe not so much you but all the lurkers and noobe's out there that could learn from this.

Creamie is on the trail and I feel is holding back, or just lazy.

I was up at 3am, been to Canberra and back and just got home.....so will try to do this justice in the morning some time so that a sensible discussion can be had so we can all learn something. Because from the ATSB report we are learning nothing, well apart from a bunch of things that we should not be learning. :}

[43Inches]

Considering these sums;

Aircraft ran out of fuel at 1900, departed at 1420, that's 4 hours 40 minutes flight time.

4.7 hrs burn at 36lph = 170ltrs
Add 5-10lt for additional climb fuel, 5lt for taxi and you have exceeded your 180ltrs available.

180 litres is the maximum usable fuel, 190 litres is the total including unusable fuel.

The aircraft ran out of fuel almost exactly at the point it should having followed the recommended (Piper POH) procedure for leaning for 65%-75% "best power".

If the operator had another way of leaning the aircraft to achieve 25-27lph or even 30lph, was the individual involved advised of this method. These are basically the cruise flows for 55% and 65% "best economy" setting, and I have rarely seen pilots that know how to do this properly.

Was the 30lph figure derived from airswitch, tacho or block time. Using block times for trainers results in very low actual fuel burn on short flights due to .3 spent taxiing around at very low fuel flow.

We never divulged the actual burn rates for our fleet as they were used for financial reasons, not flying maximum range in one day. The averages again depended greatly on what type of flying the aircraft had done. Students were given a conservative block rate at 36lph at 65%, basic leaning technique applied as per the piper manual. This figure being the POH 65% rate (for "best power" with a small margin), this also fitted in conservatively with actual records of usage. Further they should understand that higher power settings will result in more fuel burn, sounds simple.

In any case the report as stated previously does not reference to how the aircraft was leaned (or supposed to be leaned to achieve company stated burn). There is no mention of what instrumentation was available. There was no test done or results of such test published of the aircraft fuel gauges. The only fuel log appears to reflect just writing what was on the indicator.

[Creampuff]

Awwww, OK Jabba

From the inestimable John Deakin (here: Pelican's Perch #65<br>Where Should I Run My Engine?<br>(Part 3 -- Cruise) - AVweb Features Article (http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182583-1.html?redirected=1))The first consideration for cruise has nothing to do with engine management at all, but "airplane management." Specifically, the speed you use to get the job done. This is, by far, the most dominant effect for range and efficiency. Everything else pales by comparison.

So many pilots always seem to use 65% or 75% power, because that may be the only power setting shown in the POH, or because "everyone uses 65%." Some actually believe that since the factory only shows certain power settings, those are the only "approved" settings! …
…
Some say, "Just set 23 inches and 2300, and forget the mixture."

Sorry if I offend, but that's unspeakable, a complete cop-out, and a lousy way to operate these engines.

"When all the fools in town are on your side, that's majority enough." – Anon

Folks, there's NO reason (except laziness) to fix on just one power setting, and no reason at all to even think in terms of "percent of power." Especially that 65%, that was a CRUTCH, invented by marketing departments and magazines, who wanted a common number for easy airplane comparison. It can be handy to use percentage as a reference tool when talking about engine management, as we do here.
…

Truly, your first job is to determine what your mission calls for. Most of the time, I just want to get there as fast as I can (oh, for a BD-10), regardless of using a few extra gallons of fuel. That's easy, I just set the most power I can get without hurting or overheating the engine, and go. I call this "Go Fast Mode." …
…

For extreme long-range work, it becomes necessary for me to slow WAY down, with about 120 knots being the MAXIMUM indicated at gross weights, and perhaps as low as 105 knots when very light [in my Bonanza].[Bolding added]

[dubbleyew eight]

I think that this is all bollocks.
I did a 100km round trip to the airfield last night to sit in the piper warrior I did my cross country navs in.
we flew at 2500rpm leaned to peak rpm then tweaked back rich a turn or two.

straight forward physics says that this rpm for endurance is nonsense.
if you move a mass from point A to point B in a straight line in still air and you repeat the exercise at different speeds, you will use the same fuel in each case.
the only difference is that you burn the fuel at different rates.

if you set out to fly somewhere with insufficient fuel; changing your rpm settings will get you the same result just at a different time.

all sensible flying is done at best cruise speed which is usually the 2500rpm speed. the only time you need to be concerned to achieve the slowest fuel burn rate is when your destination airfield is socked in by some weather moving through and you need to loiter in the air to wait for clear landing conditions.

gods there is some dribble that passes for expertise these days. anyone would think you all worked for CASA.

[43Inches]

I don't think the pilot involved was flying for maximum range in this instance. His original plan was to refuel at Bourke and then continue. When approaching Bourke the use of fuel gauges and an obviously wrong concept of the fuel flow and fuel remaining led him to the decision to continue.

we flew at 2500rpm leaned to peak rpm then tweaked back rich a turn or two.

straight forward physics says that this rpm for endurance is nonsense.

2500rpm will work for best range at 12000ft, if you lean it by opening the throttle wide allow the engine to go past 2500rpm then lean the mixture back to 2500rpm. If you do that you may just make it to 700nm in still air (including descent into where ever you end up). I'm not going to get into where the egt lies relative to peak on this one, and don't forget to take off 7% if your wheel fairings are off for maintenance.

[Brian Abraham]

if you move a mass from point A to point B in a straight line in still air and you repeat the exercise at different speeds, you will use the same fuel in each case.Really????? Need an explanation for that theory. Drag polars and the V squared thing have a role to play I would have thought.

[Jabawocky]

W8

You are correct in some ways, as far as energy content required however, using ROP powers and pick any number but in this case 65% power you can have a fuel flow of anywhere from around 30LPH to maybe 45LPH just by pushing the mixture knob all the way in.

You are still making the same HP (within a few fractions of a HP albeit slightly less) and wasting a lot of fuel. In other words the BSFC is going up rapidly for no extra torque produced.

The next issue is to go faster you need more and more power, as Brian has just posted.

I have to say this, some of the posts so far have been of very high quality for pprune standards indeed. :)

Chocky from to 43" and well Creamie....he gets one but I expect him to be on the ball. :ok:

I did some notes while I had my muesli this morning, just need a few minutes to turn it into a post. Stand by. ;)

[Creampuff]

[I]f you move a mass from point A to point B in a straight line in still air and you repeat the exercise at different speeds, you will use the same fuel in each case.Wrong (and potentially fatally wrong) if the ‘mass’ of which you speak is an aircraft.

You need to go back to Basic Aeronautical Knowledge and revise the concepts of maximum range (distance travelled) and maximum endurance (time aloft).

If you want to ‘go far’ without running out of fuel, you have to fly the aircraft in the most aerodynamically efficient condition. That’s about minimising drag, which is (to the extent the pilot is in control of the variables) primarily about controlling airspeed.

Glider pilots are keenly aware of the concepts and the differences. (Why do you learn the glide speed for engine failures?)

Take two aircraft – let’s call them Warriors – and put the same fuel and other loads on board. They take off at the same time, at the same weight, and climb to the same altitude and head to the same destination 500nms away. One is cruising at the highest speed it can achieve, the other is cruising at the speed that minimises drag. Both have leaned the EGT to the same delta from peak.

The ‘fast’ aircraft will run out of fuel before the destination. The other aircraft will make it safely.

[Jabawocky]

OK, this took 25 minutes (perp notes and calculations) while having breakky and a phone call interruption.

My point here is, and I am formally addressing this with ATSB is that with a little specialist knowledge these things can be given a much higher quality safety message. The current report is a lowly level 5, so it does not get any serious analysis and its nothing more than a rporting of information sent in.

My thought is that is a waste of time unless the report spells out the flaws or the reasons in what led to the accident so others can learn from it.

The ATSB is under financial pressure to reduce expenses, and they do not have any piston specialists anyway, so a priority is applied, and these reports get done as simple as they are. My frustration is it would not be hard to gain some knowledge in house or at least seek out where that specialist help is externally.

So lets begin with my back of beer coaster study (no beer was consumed with my muesli :) )

Departure was from Lilydale at 2.20pm and the exhaustion occured at 7pm abeam Cunnamulla some 580 miles north. The average speed was around 124 knots, and safe to assume a bit of tail wind was enjoyed.

Using fuel flows as a prudent well educated pilot would I believe the following would be a fair assessment. Take off flow Approx 59LPH and using a target EGT leaning in the climb a final flow rate would be around 40LPH. If left alone the volumetric flow rate change during the climb would have the FCU delivering maybe 10% more as the DA increased, so the effect of not leaning very well in the climb Vs doing it well is only going to be a few litres. Note this is for a Lycoming and a TCM is different.

With a climb of around 90 knots TAS average and say 20 minutes approximately this would yield a climb stage of 30 miles and 17 litres. Again subtle changes would have little affect. This means 550 to run from TOC to abeam CMU.

Guesstimate of TAS at the claimed 65% power and with know spats, based on POH performance data would yield about 115 plus or minus for spats etc. or lets say 110. Not that it matters much as GS is the critical key here, which was in the early 120's.

Using a best range fuel flow for the selected power/speed required, the engine would be set to 10dF LOP and burning 26-26.5 LPH. This is pretty much what the pilot claims he was told when he rented it. I believe the value to be correct advice, provided you knew how to operate the engine.

The range then would be calculated roughly as 30 miles for climb and a further 6.33 hours at 124kts GS as 790NM. YBCV is 678NM so this was achievable with a bit over over 55 min. reserve. But it had to be done right.

However, 65% power with Poor mixture control could be anything at that height ranging from say 33LPH at 75dF ROP to around 45LPH. I do not have the actual data but I do not think you can get any more than that into the engine at that height.

Based on 45LPH the range would be down to 480 miles or even at 33LPH around 660 miles. The pilot managed a distance of 580 miles so less the climb, that was 550 miles of cruise in 4.34 hrs (4.67-0.33 hrs), for an average of 38.7LPH.

The pilot seemed to be a Jabiru flyer so perhaps not much mixture knob experience and that would explain a lot when he claimed he leaned it, but who knows how much. And with so many pilots afraid of the red knob I can believe it. Heck I think back to when I was learning to fly.....nothing of value in the red knob education at all.

So it is all very believable how he got to where he was, and without an accurate fuel flow gauge or a very good margin for error, this was a bad decision passing Bourke.

Important to note that no pilot can trust the POH of any aircraft manufacturer when it comes to engine matters. Seriously they can't be trusted. So many are found to be either contradictory from one page to another or completely wrong. There is nothing to argue here, this is fact. The problem is which ones can you trust? And which parts can you trust, and the only safe assumption is trust none. They may well be accurate for take off charts and other procedures, and I am not in a position to critique them there, but in engine performance related sections you are foolish to believe everything you read. The secret here is to know how to critically appraise them. About 1-2% of pilots are. That leaves 98%, and very few instructors if any are in the 1-2%.

Case in pont in the Piper Warrior POH there are graphs that show performance for 55/65/75% Best Power Mixture, and for this example lets say the 75%
power as shown in the example. There are 75% best power and 75% Best Economy with two different TAS (122 & 118).......WTF?? :confused: 75% of 160HP is 120HP and iff you apply 120HP to that plane with the same prop, you get XXX.X knots TAS. How is it possible to get two different numbers? Simple answer it is not.

What is more they supply two different fuel flows to achieve each of these power settings, and that is fine but if you take the 65% power setting the Best Power which one can only assume means around 75dF ROP is 8.8GPH or 33.3LPH. They also show a 65% power Best Economy flow of 7.5GPH or 28.4LPH. Well the best BSFC for the engine will be slightly LOP, and at these powers around 10-20dF LOP which typically on the O-320 is found at 6.98 GPH or 26.4LPH.

Is it any wonder pilots have no idea? Given all the expertise has long gone from most organisations and it is all turbine/jet focussed is it any wonder ATSB are no better when it comes to good reports.

Last of all, and this pilot did not have the luxury of time to do this, but how often is the usable quantity IN FLIGHT tested? How do you know that the supposed 185 litres claimed to be usable is actually usable. The POH suggests 181-182 litres, but even then how can you trust this. The only way to know is at least once a year just prior to its annual is run a tank dry and refill. Best not to do both during the same flight if you only have two :uhoh:.

None of this is taught for PPL or CPL at any school I am aware of and it is certainly not in any texts.

The reason we do not have more of these problems is possibly through good luck than good training.

The Safety messages that should come out of the ATSB report are;
1. The importance of having accurately and regularly proven usable in flight fuel checks.
2. Having a decent engine monitor fitted and fuel flow with totalisation.
3. Pilots educated in proper engine management techniques and to be able to critically think when reading a POH. Having the understanding of engine fuel requirements and what the real leaning techniques are and how they should be applied.

Happy to take questions. Disclaimer: The above calculations are based on a very quick study over brekky and using my iphone calculator. I have not allowed for known weather, descent and any other small impact factors as they probably have no significant effect on the outcome. I could have made mistakes too as I have not double checked anything.

[27/09]

Jaba: There are 75% best power and 75% Best Economy with two different TAS (122 & 118).......WTF?? 75% of 160HP is 120HP and iff you apply 120HP to that plane with the same prop, you get XXX.X knots TAS. How is it possible to get two different numbers? Simple answer it is not.

Had you considered that at best economy mixture on those graphs that max power is no longer 160 HP? Is it not true that at LOP the mixture can be used like the throttle?

[dubbleyew eight]

who the hell ever flies at 65% power on a cross country?

2500 rpm, leaned and know the fuel flow.

back in the old days :E it wasn't that hard and no one ran out of fuel.

what is the limit of usable fuel??? who gives a fcuk. ever heard of 45 minutes reserve???

if the last two litres of usable fuel in the tank worry you then sonny jim you are incompetent. you are worrying about all the wrong things.

anyway I won't comment further other than to say that flying my aircraft between forest and ceduna at 120knots in still air then back the other way at 65 to 70 knots as safety for a warbird cub saw exactly the same fuel burn.
it was gawd awful slow though.
for the record the computed minimum drag speed for my aircraft is 80 knots.

you guys can be the experts from hell as far as I am concerned.
I fly the way I fly and that is it.

[poteroo]

Very informative post Jaba.

Couldn't agree more about fuel flowmeters/totalisers. But, they should be crosschecked against actual tank fills every so often. They can be calibrated down to +/- 1%

Another point to watch is the accuracy of tachometers. Running an optical tacho over the panel top every so often might be revealing of errors in the panel tacho.

happy days,

[Aussie Bob]

you guys can be the experts from hell as far as I am concerned

Hey Dubbleyew, tis fine, you do it your way, we will do it the correct way! :ok:

Seriously, I think you know what you are doing. Fact is as Jabba pointed out, most pilots have very little understanding of the mixture knob and don't know what they are doing (with it). The crap I hear around the traps about mixture use makes me cringe. Jabba seems to have analyzed the event rather well.

[Jabawocky]

27/09

Thanks for asking. :ok:I am not sure your question is making sense, but let me have a go and see if I clear it up for you. 75% power at any point on the graph is meant to be 75% of 160HP. Nothing else.

It is possible to create 75% ROP or LOP. Say you had 24.5" and 2500 RPM as a rough guess, this will be 75% power, and the mixture can be varied a lot while on the rich side of peak (and more the point from 75dF ROP and richer as power drops off once you are less than 75dF ROP) and the power is fundamentally unchanged.

It is also possible to achieve that same 120HP while LOP by having say 26.5" and 2500RPM and a fuel flow of 30.5 LPH which as a guess is going to be around 40dF LOP.

But no matter how you produce the 120HP, the airframe should do the same speed. It can't have two different TAS.

The laws of physics apply equally to all men/women and things!

By the way when you look at these POH graphs for the Piper (most models if not all, and many others, they say Best Economy, well that is completely false they are nowhere near it. And that I guess is determined by what you call close.

We spend an hour Sunday after lunch teaching critical thinking on POH's, as once the bulk of the class is taught, then critical thinking can be applied. You would be surprised if not alarmed at the examples we provide. :eek:

Your last question, yes once on the lean side of peak EGT, the fuel flow determines power so yes it is the power lever. The throttle is still throttling the air flow, and it is most efficient WOT. Think of a diesel engine, it operates LOP all the time, and it is fuel flow that determines HP. ;)

Hope that helps.

This graph below details the principals you need to understand to determine most things.

Courtesy of Advanced Pilot Seminars.
http://i849.photobucket.com/albums/ab58/jaba430/Landmarksgraph_zpsbfb07cbb.gif

[Jabawocky]

Another point to watch is the accuracy of tachometers. Running an optical tacho over the panel top every so often might be revealing of errors in the panel tacho.

Aint that the truth! :D:D

Plenty of folk, can tell some scary almost fatal experiences about this and LAME's refusing to fix what they think is not broken.

Calling Beach King......Exhibit A. He is lucky to be alive......

[Creampuff]

who the hell ever flies at 65% power on a cross country?Good point.

On cross countries I fly at 78.372% power.back in the old days it wasn't that hard and no one ran out of fuel.All days in GA seem to be ‘old days’, because people keep running out of fuel in GA aircraft.I fly the way I fly and that is it.And the laws of physics are the laws of physics and that is it.if the last two litres of usable fuel in the tank worry you then sonny jim you are incompetent. you are worrying about all the wrong things.I can hear the hairs growing on your chest from here, W8!

Your mission is to fly as far as you can and land with 2 litres usable left in your tanks.

It’s an ISA day and there’s nil wind.

How far can you go? Prove it with data to support your choice of altitude, cruise IAS, RPM, throttle and mixture settings.

If you rarely fly ranges at the edge of your aircraft’s performance envelope and your planning and in-flight management capability, not running out of fuel may not be the product of superior knowledge or superior judgment.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

who the hell ever flies at 65% power on a cross country?

?????????

I do!

Most of the time! You will rarely find me below A090 on a X-country!

Dr :8

[Creampuff]

And how do you know your engine is delivering "65% power"?

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Jaba, I think you are over-complicating this!

Lilydale to Charleville (680 nm) NVFR non-stop in a Warrior was never safely do-able for the average Joe Blow pilot in an aeroplane he was not familiar with, and even then its marginal IMO.

I would consider it marginal for me in the Bo until I was able to compare time-to-run on the GPS with endurance on the Shadin digital fuel flow as I approached Bourke.

What are the three most significant advances in GA aeroplanes in the 40+ yrs I have been flying? 1) GPS, 2) digital fuel flow, 3) all cylinder engine monitors!

Any leg over 640 nm has me thinking carefully about my options.

688 nm (Tennant Ck - Broome) is the longest non-stop leg I have flown in the Bo.

Dr :8

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

And how do you know your engine is delivering "65% power"?Cause TCM say their IO520BA engine running ROP at 2400 rpm and 21" MP = 64.5% power! :confused:

So I rounded it up to 65%! :}

Dr :8

[Brian Abraham]

Crunched the numbers from the flight manual for a 207 to fly a 500 mile segment, no wind.

Power %xxTASxxxGPHxxxTimexxxxFuel Required
xxxx75xxxx139xxx15.6xxxx3.6xxxxxxx56.12
xxxx69xxxx135xxx14.5xxxx3.7xxxxxxx53.7
xxxx61xxxx128xxx12.9xxxx3.91xxxxxx50.39
xxxx50xxxx115xxx10.7xxxx4.35xxxxxx46.52
xxxx43xxxx106xxxx9.5xxxx4.72xxxxxx44.81

25% more at 75% than 43%.

flying my aircraft between forest and ceduna at 120knots in still air then back the other way at 65 to 70 knots as safety for a warbird cub saw exactly the same fuel burnDoes not compute, and is against all the physics of aviation.gods there is some dribble that passes for expertise these daysI'm afraid that you've contributed your share on this thread. :p But then we all have from time to time.

[Jabawocky]

Lilydale to Charleville (680 nm) NVFR non-stop in a Warrior was never safely do-able for the average Joe Blow pilot in an aeroplane he was not familiar with, and even then its marginal IMO.

Yep...and I agree. But theoretically you or I could do it with the right tools. He had none of them.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Second longest leg I have flown in the Bo is Ayres Rock to Lenora (660 nm) - I am sure you remember that one Jaba! :E

Would have been a bit of a worry without the GPS and the Shadin - especially as I seem to recall we were down to 110 kts GS (ie 50 kt headwind) at one stage. :ok:

Dr :8

PS: The PA28-161 manual that I have says, "Fuel consumption for flight planning purposes:- 31.5 L per hour".
http://www.pprune.org/ ElEQVR4nO2d2ZYdOY4E4/9/Ouehp1I3g6TDQSLWa/bQp8QAAQcXgMpqqbYfAAAAgDq2qwUAAADAq+BtAQAAAJXwtgAAAIBKeFsAAA BAJbwtAAAAoBLeFgAAAFAJbwsAAACohLcFAAAAVMLbAgAAACrhbQEAAACV8L YAAACASnhbAAAAQCW8LSDHtnFmAABAQZ+4nm3bRMPe/hKaTUxPCXDEAADAN/NF7cHviJ+WWXttIHp/OFE39em3xZwAnhcAADCivjdMtPBDW5TfF8M+OteetYHzKSU+dDItYPRplDUA AHwnxY3BbDlOwy7XE3bo0DjswY4Mf277acJPqN+ZqJMaJA0AAF9KWWNwenDX 7Lj+lG2ojn2qPU8rEVNW/JQ4dJICAIBvpqYrhA1MWx7UnJyOvvV+KjDtbUVJaooIIca7Nnow3JqD9g4AA J7LgW+LsAX6DWxRkjYQI6bDMIuJueFKZv2MzKaTAgAA6FL5tvj851Q7PPRtU TXl5LfFT/J5Mf22+Pm7faHgH35WAQAAktf+OZHat0XYa8NY628LHSL7ttiaH12Y+bbeRN YAAPCF8Lbo6xkxFyts1eZcYez73410JzqCw2UBAIDvhLdFX8+I6Vh+7ze1Tf vfOelOdAKFywIAAN8Jb4uhnq35nf3IYRhr4k1Q5Uc/HT5/aQaaUw4AAN/D+98WvnPzATH3Pph7E/gy5t4WO8x8TQMAAPhOvvdt0X6dbqVhFtm5jv1oiqlta/A1mwYAAPCdXPkDg0Obk98axYjpcKUNr7wJqvysG3SzBgCA7+S1P7fQSrqhtR itdroHp2Y5Uczxn+b1EGYt6M4FAIDv5NZvi8W+1fY/3RT9RhvG8hvwtE/Tj++/K89JbTQRAAC+k/v+O5GS1pXqi6Fy82uqAc/5TPkJl9Fc51+bxU0BAIB38/K3xY9s+SPj0JUfcVG8owoAAOBW3PffidS2ZwAAADiHozo3bwIAAIDvhBcAAA AAVMLbAgAAACrhbQEAAACV8LYAAACASnhbAAAAQCW8LQAAAKAS3hYAAABQCW 8LAAAAqIS3BQAAAFTC2wIAAAAq4W0BAAAAlfC2AAAAgEp4WwAAwKtY+Y9lbg 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 6B1svoLO8XZuuAN0n5lrIu3GWQqxYqr6VVMLuFs9t6KITnV37y5S2B/HaxCbInsLpMrRF5fXpNe4myktkiLo5XbyeTtg59ETTSbiqrc2ET136vxZ//btrntqI0NLckdZt1sOEvSNjGxf8Fx+21yY2wcSRmjuFv7NG53j9fGeVtKF1d G0wd5nFagj/egG7boU8Hctx/g2IrP2DsX6EWm8TPr9w+0Kyp3p0xcQt8++jqaTESehqYro+8y8+e69NbIKJI zU9RVdYs0pqg67/319uf9m5Ff5bm5H+kbZRIiOHoxFt3yYVykvl4uf4SuaWpd2XrP/WZnd4spqdiV/F3IKYVyxr7ItZP05zxuF0cebfffBem9gEolxmp/iBupdndKO2AaFZ91PXWGsYmYkEw3XohnBGRpsV2gt5fi5mjq9ErP9PtLztwc s6aWVoV6FP38PrmV6H7hUzN3fxGDiWWT8rJ6Fbf3b/0H56H69NLMt6rZyO1T2LYrCd61g69mF2zshosGUxaDeEGHfk+bksFqBHE66/c198y1CGduX49J28GGcFwgXcjfiWi7dMW6Z2dvEYtNNHp+vd5+21iWWZPt8T hyO8WqmDWHJXu+PO0Z+euGK2WIxKFkFoeD3h+o+W5fOTb6llON5Mn+zp4t3Z mirkW46unrkd08fJv/Jm0FQui1nfmccnUIXYUb3TE+cgPI7+ke0ah3fMvE6On+zEErO5IhLapHJ5x/2fZm4LPj/pGurvo+kw5VPbvI9w6XaWznR/sOtWlBehTctOxTUjjjz4AkzLx/H4BKoQO7pesMIpu+itmKyGkXEqR31JxOU312TabHqzPs3M8cVAr0SXP71izq nW/sX0CWGOpHdvdPdG66vtGFe5TSUS5tgddwZ9tymfo8FU4vfk8QlUIbZT7/TEOQgPX3tksxqyuZj3wRRmrsm02fRmaZtsUXhHCZgj3IK54xQ6D83EvnQ/hef59bu8RTj2Kc++cTaRlD0cCpvx/4QlSU+ciKXHw5KnHeoLbI533YYjodqDgupPznqmcpnY99cQlv5dewgvV8uKD DPcSEM2WdBktxXeAZv9j4kuMndhnECj8jeatTXddzr0aHAUKJw4wnRoBg3t2 1xCMTrW15ZLp1VsDeuWKYVhuNZebPS6JICvgjvzj1TfDT9NBPpp6uy0vGwuY lyYZaWO4v4am950E2p7lVgi0ywM5CQLAPAlUBP/ke27+tNEoM+vTp+b6IipcdHUdUtOLctcd3f8h41/a3636q+k8xUA4DuhLP5j7m1RGOjzq4ioO3EobJRjpLojIDsXAAC+AbrCP1K/bxbjp0FTBwCAG0Jz+sPED/MP1QMAAPA4aI17eFsAAACsQGsEgEPwH9880wFeBvcZAA4h/HM6KTP4HrL/V3RhHP7f3uEgWG4AOASnrFP6n07Yv5s/2absna9zwjhpJ8MqA8BR+G+LM1VBCXPPBWH8OTJyNSGvqySRJ0zBEgPAELMK i3otqjm1/rmIx4EzOHK4G9EGWYdzfmAOlhjgJPRv77JOtEFKTGhmessG4mHxXMwN9bd49 CjREbMKU5JgBdYXaljvmi9mG7DoShis+9mZrdh0Y3FaHo2/dyVvi4mjMv22qDqTrR996RbzvRvPVv8OFpvN5WwDrtZ1F2rbarjCjmd/sxypqYi+W7gt/t6lNnqTb4sqkSNJYRHTs8Lo4aX7HXzH7Xi2+kfTPcrPOlJdzU9M5FD8OuV7E x4cz582oX24m2Yujz7q8MnoyofGeutHx3LuqHRnjQS0g6ORkUMdfRTR0fZQ3 pDDE+keo8edLX2vbpjIJZJELVtxNfLgeP60Ce31VvobvTWEU+CetOdntK3tV 3EAugbTR6WNEobWHkLNI4d6ZcTIo3lJGs9Cn6GnnLAnZnGVpG6RWqmY7T93D UIPpphwoy3pN350QortL+3ghKWI1XqbECmC+sd79MvWQ/vL7sh0dvfnJWk8C32GnnLCQpHlKSw6nFjYqgSdApdytXM7Mgg9TE8RAkI/TznhMGK0g6JfjoydQK0r5/D4l87/JH4pzEZitPOn855MHoQ+Q4dWXuE8FXdFZHjb/RLwOxIWEXGr23/ufgrFaBx5vpPuLx1XYkp2ljOxayzWAR6B2D7/QDoHwLmkWqS2CS13n8QvQ7Pw/L/sRrwnk6cwUVXbeyXchtdeHGtf20QWXZFdJ2LQkR1ahqqcNFPp65RTixkq1K6 m0/F3SkzXewRPoeRepI5c6pAXKhnd1t9/bsezV3JC8CN4TyZPYaKqbg3aZ9dMGHR/eVwWetDM0TEeaRh5zk7pJNmj3b4Vh+Ya+tNHThwDU3abuF5zuDnZ+5J18msg fIZRVu6U+LQ7xuG4L+Zl1+E9mTyFiZKqC/Ho4rX9xr8/vqTslHB85Lk7ni1wvue5uGL69rdQtiOOt66x720Xeuvhh3amCEszKNwQsXHZ q2F+nbiA60rEue0q7I6PQjgjj+Y9mTyFiXoa3mTnkougE2c6m0VWp1m2sgVO XHuRy0oVEOXpd3BiJcVguNEhZmhTdrihqfThJphXbLS/et/DG+ecGf9caZHCvivSyVdMdwQ/gvdk8hQmimnqEo4+1Zb4OfsSnY7bVLEIc+kqHBk7EX/+rvm6w50TvdTbf7+70k709JGS0RRHEjyI7sYtDu6+ihH/7Dm5/DQHVZ/b0SfzqOvppuD7855MnsJEMU1dQvFJnGx96EfOs1fXcZW6t/rym+NhLl2FI2NTyU9+zbXD0JsTJbQpPycTKwA3YRtgmulTEYYz5a1kFJqZ49 8Jq3A2E+dP2Ief9FVf0RZafhqkdPraRm5T407Wu1yEpalkF9r36axkak26Hh zBvjdnbVOLADdha1i3/JE/eFtVXMR9lNwWFugCUp1MTwk7jfgkHDo3R1vuvoYRQ+VdD9llmVjGXXRzcbTs rk/TrbPm5upl/YdR5iJmjQHg/nCZL0BX0lETFcbZTysTQ6mjT37Pyw76wrR9J8Oez2wL3E3c/pL17Gyrn7jvwTfIRswaA8D94T5fg+4Bu09OrQ8Hhc9UOFPtSEDXUnveEeYej mdXOFQbYiYy5xwA4G5Qy65B9E6/g7au2l/qiKOvJYmYxmZeP+P/h9dounbrGIcTAQCghUJ5JWZXDlua37Odxr+SS63lrXiobACA86FWXs/2388brhYCCt4WAAAm1EqAGP6FCACAD7USIIaHBQCAD+USAAAAKuFtAQAAAJX wtgAAAIBKeFsAAABAJbwtAAAAoBLeFgAAAFAJbwsAAACohLcFAAAAVMLbAgA AACrhbQEAAACV8LYAAACASnhbAAAAQCW8LQAAAKAS3hYAAPBytv+4Wsi3wEI DALwQuuknrMbJsNAAAHte0ITopnAhHDsAUHxnc6IrA6zA5QG4kvs3sPsrLGf xd/xfuGKQonu6XvZzppekAfBQbl5Nbi7vOKYT/9oV03TXxOym2kx4Ni13UT7Ntr84UUT0ltGnbqbP4g05TLO4i4vVJ5wubF5z/uCSE5gN8W2HbSXrJy6XKDIr6Yx6Z3cw1NC10ePhYOtf40TR0X8/jTyL1XgWj09ghdFRC80+P03H1QcoPNAvOHyP4OilXvF/zjE4/7Blr5u+EXPXbSLrrceEzUq4TRa0UThtNqezK2kkVa9ViVl3XCzaKJAeOSjQE 3l8AtP4myp2eu4QdG+XsDninL3g7J7D0fd8xb95PBb1t1U7vBGLR9e/bjpc+3V0u0dkZZuxWvtUIN/VbmTOZnE1UuPZkXZcqDUdrigM3TqDP6+oz49PYJq5K13iZPuLdluisxui3Oc JbP/9ONExMx0KY7FNzgaFGx0KcNx2/Ts2E+FGI910poMKz900R7N2I60HncXKcpnjhUsUro85Em5rSqHpylwHvbafm NNTYszp2q2fUTeFB/H4BKaZrh2tn5XQ4dGs0tn6T7mdTrNwncPy0dqIy2xadm3CDerOFZprV8MfTM UyB/XIXLiuN+1c7EvoYXqtQp/+eBgizG5uRHhO6fRFOuOf6HCpI5FK1pwuLM3VmDgSN+TxCUxTtX/TpUHM/RwfHT5TRrdwjO5q6trvsvCjZBH+S8xGg864WK5UiG7iIan9mo5lplmVXbiwj qWpJ7WDKf2+w4lY/v6GiyAOaouv8Cd/4H0lOpzQmVofR7m/p+ur8TierX4FsammpfNVT3EOXOqUh4P6rvoHXThp7UdpmqTympg7shTjOqMJ V10/IVmHc7F0OptxUFNBxRR/N38GR717bFIaTP3O4HSs7PoIM7GkK4vwU3HRzHR8zan1cZSnzk92NbopPIjH JzCHPn++cfg1nBIeQfMe/jQHWlyz9Wsf+jc9O4yiO/5bkakcRfTs2o4+HbEy4mwvHlfxaZOshxu5GgVyxExs4pz+2k3RslNizCkT6P 0a2Tsjwmd3l1MhUsq1ZWvsSBoNPo7HJzCHf/iE8efX6dKgj3vqfn4aa1UptzrcorFDOFEk235KyR6Nh2urpfr2mjlt2XBmst sHKf++yHCXnY12HJrT/YmpI2qG6B4k53Ttds3R37WcEKn9h+Idh6nzk9osc7B7Gn8ybwsx/iCerX4asXP+ZXC+hlPCizFxP8XtWnE7p8HUk9KZMnPWMzsehjPFaFchtdpSU VpvK4mkIupZKT1mailKDthElK7mMMHR+Vk/pevrsBvxhenUCqf//F3JHf70n4aJI3E3Hp/AHCXb73x1pnz+MnX6hfNQVfagZ42dy2bizA0XxJSdGhfhTDFaecjc2SiJ8tN kOkq8KmJ4ihw93cMwESsrfmLcidLFD2p+PeLYOONOjqkoqfUZJTUaF+sp5k4 s7FN4bWIacQicE+l/daZ8/nLl5nx+ClWZd6/KeAXHoRazsqQT1ccXI/w7iH0p3JqRQyeXxYjbR28bbeX29+6MDHQW3Vlz+zJSK/KaiNIGEhHF9IksDsLUeY4YWOdL90lfOd84/OpM+fyl+OQENSvCyCAVLqttGid6uCCm5Vz041xp/KxHg36U9pSOcvn9NB3xpznJrYaRWehnOtac+Ak903TXp9A/gM+XnjxdaLrG2tVE9O6IGV2XrR+jrIcewnHhP2Uc0kZ3RrKyq8ZTYrSfkO0v o3Ajm1SUNlyY/kpqMAELDvfhew+i6BmmpfPVnCJqsdnYRINJyd6Na2FhdwktTdquNtKzRd3UT HwU+nM8K3jkX/gJcRZkff3hbrR7ykbDrfjegxj2J21pfjWnjHqA3wj9dHTEH7svOstS29tCb0 7QOTGtQ99JSe4An+wOeeEtAyjhe8/iYtsOP2VDp3phV2RWYdiAdWpO7hQ7gCNon9HcNbgV33scRVs1LfUnAACA7+S r++LoRwKLHgAAAL6Zr+6Liy8DHhYAAAAt394aFx8HvC0AAAB20BoBAACgEt4 WAAAAUAlvCwA4Ff6PSgCvhxsO8Aze0ZL5yxgAvgFuOFzDTbrLTWQ4vKMlvyM LANBwyS9m+/hPlE3X3MW/pM//WzhLusJ9fud6Exkm91TLXysHAC1c/svoPghWXgZzfhz7aW3C1YqTKi5UIuKOVN1n3X4Jz8zJegDgJnD5L6PtsnMtv Gt/87fFiofCuNe+LbJd+YbdWksVX+fcCj93WxmAL4cLeRlOL/f9jBqnWcd5W9xBz4/cNa12IpGVTd96jMa3v48AsRFiYhj9qq0EgBZu4zWE1dCvlWEJNqdrP1lVYbj TaJvfSEyoLVyHsNXpjuh8TTnUuYgpn4NdGz8L4bk7pR0cGYu5AHAt3MbL0NV woknMOWnLdNYgJdJpPLpV/H5yOooO2roKtY3iziX4aRNO16p2TsSadGfpQCOfIpaeMlq90ElqOgBcBbfxM sK6bNbKVBHX08P6vlLBzd65Nc0+9JMK7Y+bTn4yrXHlU0pn17NpYwbSflJrV ZKycxIA4By4jZcxUZd9Y9/Dp1lYytcr+HpvnmskE3H9JU35EXr0p1Sj7Xr2o5u5l2SRMp5YTwA4H27jZWw RE35at+b0nSvz6wSitZjjczIOjSv0ZKekooit74oZTRx9ajGzEImItfVTdiw B4EK4jdegK3iqSi462VmmfjnBXIsyjefiLna1uU8lU1a2fmQ/8jaXRcnaOpZzpwIADoLbeBmj4uu3hzn77nTxy6pAXf9icPRpTsNxcfWyTPTC kpZssn2wG/Gnpz51/S+mXHIyAaAQbuNlTNRlYTxdWHdz2zYzLcwJF7odacjKyPakVO7TLXY0vi7Jp 43ouw0TX0zE3P25IwEAx8FtvIy5urxo7MjYnvC2uFXciU8lU7JJfdqIKSu9f/dpJZHR+PZB+0tHGwAcDXfvMubq8qKxI2NXtasCjcKNBkN563FT4xP7leqv05 Im9ujTxnGiJelPzkqmVmkb4wgDgBPg7l1G2F3MyrhYRkXHGo3PBRqFE57Nzr QY17TXcbPtTXz9/NQ6HBmPdi0UbLpddNKO65HPT346pk8AOBru3mU4vcr3U1uCdbeoFTByktJgx u1GMXWGcbcejrEvVavNrszElEP9rGu4UAAAfMJtvAyn9zjjqcputkzd9kxjU 0DrR3fK6S4y14DnAh3q/8tZvAIAcALcxsuoeluErrSlCOQPpiq7tqRJgObzvIUvUQC4BG7jw6CGAjg/3wKAC+FOAgAAQCW8LQAAAKAS3hYAAABQCW8LAAAAqIS3BQAAAFTC2wIAAAAq 4W0BAAAAlfC2AAAAgEp4WwAAAEAlvC0AAACgEt4WAAAAUAlvCwAAAKiEtwUA AABUwtsCAAAAKuFtAQAAAJXwtgAAAIBKeFsAAABAJbwtAAAAoBLeFgAAAFAJ bwu4L9u2bdvW/QcAALgtX1Smj+hJJT63v6w7DGNl7S9p55vB+aoAACDki6qz2Y1GZqPBxQ53c td80NviR+4FbwsAgNvyLdW524oWB8V4StWnk6OfF89qyULtsxIBAPgqvqU6p 54R654XJ9I4f4wfTrBKAAD35FtK891+EqAbJz/z/x8rbwtzAZ0fFLU/WxJO2FMAgG+pdMfV9JW3RblbM3TJ+KeB35tTec216q2hNeiamd52Zm122o+X OgDAg/mKSndoWZ9wPj2l/ef2l3pctEbhZ6S/pDcLRApmC28tR9Od5Rp5EwLCEAAA7+MrKt2o3C8Oml/X7T+nOO1NjOueanbKbnt2Gvaor4/YJKMpOuXR9JWMdEQAgG/jKyrgYvcVHpyv6/Y/sivr7HRrDMVMRMwK0KEFjhNTVXfcyX3itAAAvJ6vqIBmL8wOml/X7X/GHVF4MxNxUjOn+F18FM5JQXju2piqRvqFzSYxcwQAeB9fUQEXu6/w4Hwd2U9MSX0yE9HtMLUaThdPJT6dtej0frJO7mE4AIAv5CuK4Hrj1A0j204 mOtBKlw2NRVNMrYbTm3UuvqXvfPQa6E4M9X8O8pIAAOjy/rIoGsBVb4uJKSVd1vHTbcy6W4/GRRfvCnD0TAhzXgy+pe8NAOBr+Yqy+MS3xXRH1OPZRMrfFqm1ymZ9xNtC608 tMg8RAPgSvqLS3fZt4fucEDDR2mvfFr5DX0/WuTPiOGxpDULNfuIAAI/mKyrdqJ0sDmrn06q6n9a7rLZM+VnvzaNEQofh188Q3YjhVo4cfvoMcxz5H6Y KAPAivqLY+Y1WD5oNdVqY6E9Ol3WanPAs4ppi9NKJKDqv1Nc2967+iXC+DQD Al/MtVdJstKnB8JOpau5NIFx9Djp+RNyuk9GgyaPb86PFAwCcw7dUSb9xnvm22D n5hr71rBy7P/N4kH4AgEv4liqZ+k151vOihxfz9N78+eD7nvcfAMAiX1Qlj+gKdBrNNuBqXQ meqxwA4Cq+qFYe1BvoNw70ZgCA74FaDwAAAJXwtgAAAIBKeFsAAABAJbwtAA AAoBLeFgAAAFAJbwsAAHgY/KGzm8P2AABAwFwvL3wBlP9lOd3p/FH5KlhEAIBjeUG7mn5blOS+e0yU/FW5vC0OhUUEgHoOKtBOL1lpObW/M/70uejkci58W4iN4G1xW1hEgK+jsHHqEEf4FJ67LwNfxs6+9m3xnR1rPfFw9X hb3BMWEZ7Bsy78REs7VE8b7nFvC0d2+9VPs2tZskrf3K7uvHrnvC20txe/O1+Y0uMofHQvyjApDJqSd0ncOVILdfKqnhPu6PMpDOaUaLdzmqs8PJfLVy88 MH44sxL+ftLGN6mrx/G2fB7H9Kk6unYLCoOmtJ0fd5qU4JOzOydcbZRPbyPPejwUo1vFSi5mdN1+nO naMrTZrfDOTK+t8Ly+dHMeQm3+YFeJdvv5abSeW3SkH83b8nkcizenXM/O/01O/H2UmKQEn5ndadtaG+XXW1jQ58SI6esrpj3/NF1wFzdMObT86XWyrdfqPvW0HnReQmRnUWzmPIwSDD3rpTajOB7aX8ZZPYq3 5fMsFi/e+r0Nndf6X0y2UMnRpJbu0H1sA42a0EiDGBeHpDCpT1d+7U6JCRM54p6O+s1 uPJWyGHRGUms4N5JF6wllZ7X5gz9yB01LrfnRvDm3+7N4vA49neaNzTpcmb4 uYNFD69AsxNmqvZtVshFtLf50qzWMXP1ExXRRc+vKr90pMeHcxaNrCh5ttxh 0wjkbFKbprIAv0sTZF3OD5pbFlNGqWrF8B69N7BEcd/HW8Y9+eMPbKtC95MJJSabmne9KSqXTnZ7N7nNQrG2W7Ao7xmKVqgTrWGG4UI xY4fXFn1hbJ0Ff8KLD36+jT0L5+jEo2TtfW/Z0meez62Qk7B28MKUHER7Z7b+2NOGhRJtfUMQ90Tbdr04VmMvIGf8cCcUIwW IpfAFa/ARCmGNsTj9oy1IL64vRBou5aM1mLOfUhcYtpkOtduRTpONj7p0+J7620JW2H xkLJ+HKP5S35fMgwvM6uq6mkxJ52VsdXiFn/IgKtShg99X0UJhv4UaL2jcybrc4nL4ueLSGYnAU0TzJc19DJhJxNPj5bgPaW TqFMK/jjkHWZm7kd9zXMFpqR6Qz67m8Kpln4Vcc/2SfIC+M7uf1O266tXSP8e98dlUXt8wpT4XVJ7s7IyUtjsOsTnMd9PqEYsK5K 7mItU0Zh4dEGzs6U1+dU3TQMXDizmnzj1z3U2jsp/B0XpXMs/CP4ErRXMG5DP4t8gvcERVKqxpVEyf9rODQuPXs6PFJ7U64OBMrkNJproZen1 CMmL6+8iMPJRuxYumIHDkxxa8fgwlt0yN60M833JedWXdWydJdyIOlPx3/6AjL487fxH3Wnxxvn/hzTZw739UTSk0JDo1bh9t/XTxO0iC1O9N7Ubtlv/+rF9xf866NmLuSiz5IplQ/ZXPLnBHx1d5StWIAABmeSURBVNRTcgx+/m59OxLGTWkT69+N3rUceehmlPLzFB4s/emMjtTuq2N2qMKJrxNXrr20rVlCekawuQvC3hnxjY+uKSu748s7KAtxHcTJc cRMHA8TLWxaxmhrwhUQZmEWo5HtAyedCbYIx9jRNhIcOsy6nfPzFB4s/enoI/X7VRw+4aRKnnCeVSUGwztfkubcHd4pNFNLlYyD8h3hb0R3PLUCdapjz+Ispb asTXYxEV/DaDAU3BUfGpuhf79qn0LkyOccvsNWzMkCvhnW6DKyRSTlpEqerjUpVeuDlu4 xIpZ2/mlgCtblO9zfQ2u0Pni7TIXg7JoUitcHr4spz5k7p9kc9yMetMIi3Gmx4AVwX C7Dqdqfg8LJafKc0Klq3hpnV8BnesGdX47czu3vbnq4FynCjWtxjM0ox+kfC RP650LcgdojAVAOR/NKnDYzGgw/lWjTzlsbPWuU7+/4qB9UpdltPFqV81ULFmYiO+1/hVpvcBXsI9wZjuaViL7Vjozaz6HaQv9hlx0Zaw/dZFfSERpGnnU6n1/Dhfo1W5IO8AFvC7gzHM0rES8Gp2EfXVx8587DYmfZHZ9RCQAAN4NqfjH6efE 5Ys4FAAC4FjrTxUy/D3hYAADAPaE5XQxvCwAAeBk0JwAAAKiEtwUAAABUwtsCAAAAKuFtAQAAAJXw tgAAAIBKeFsAXAZ/2AcAXgl1DTpU9TzzL+v8tJ8LcYTxCdxNDwBACdQ16BD+1zGc/4KG89eWp3yKiUcYn8Pd9AAArENdgz26ATtvhe7fWT6a4r8/zFhzXNXjb/jcAQBYhKIGe0S3c94Bo6+Hvi2ys45w8rjQAAAHQVGDPfoR8BP9qCB8Q4yMeV sAALwDihrscbpd1dsiG3d9VvdxM/rZSfj0CX/oEhpMpAAAcHOoaPAHs8+FnXLUhtdDm+GcEN2HRfdt0Y3SvjyyBl1VAABPh4o Gf1h/W3S/Oi+A898W5rh4KnVfKqFbMzoAwEOhosEfqtrh1qMk9CiQb5wd96fwtgAA+OFt ATt4W5iS/LfFQYkDANwWKhr8we+FuulOdNkHvS26L6euktG4EwUA4KFQ0eAPZp9z3hbme DZ01q0TIju+i7t7RY0stStHPwDAI6CiwR+q3hYTzp/4tijRydsCAF4GFQ3+cNzb4ok/t/jp/RwinDIRPeUHAODmUNTgD/zcwpTUxh2NaG+FPxoBALgJVC74g9PPdDsffT365xZhaxchtOYwtBNuIgRvCw B4KFQu2OM/L/RXp7Nm4+pYI5wQWftu9GkD4VxEBwC4J1Qu2FP7tgibayquiNWG/hn8qQ3HT2hfBa8HAHgf1DXYY74tzhHzbvjJBAC8EuoadKDhnQPrDACvhNIGH fj9NAAATEP/AAAAgEp4WwAAAEAlvC0AAACgEt4WAAAAUAlvCwAAAKiEtwUAAABUwtsCAAAA KuFtAQAAUAB/LdAvLAQAADySW/Vy/srBT1gIAID70v2v6GX/m7qh/3l9l3Ir8bcSczksBFTC1YL7Y/6HeS9n9N8QHin/zrfF1RKgDxsDAGme3pAeIV7oLNQ/sRr3Wb2nbOUXwq7AXaBMPIhHb9ZTxNf+fCIbRU+pir7IU7byfzzlB2YlvD/D+9Oes9TJKz+pm6QwUDfucf5hgvftyIOK+1U/t9DOT6gG//PsFB/x9hITPwerLEd6RrmYyg9d50N5pOg3MTrQWSe1ei454s+9RS/mfTvyiHodXj1/8KdJeWf2+0sz6NE1wS9BOt+dNxGixHKkx1c+inLEIp/AI0W/Cf+MaieH6jmH596it3JaaTszSrdbCDPhqv3nc6Rq5SNXP4N21Y3irM96ml1G/lOD2sYPUSJGb0rK7EE8UvRrSNWICT+Fkk7gubfoIMLV8EvhaK4w3hp06NEsX W1D40J8bRNmhwrujo/snZGt6WorUWrRccMEHYd+yuEBCMWYy+hHeQqPFP0axLEr8VMoKevkqtBmFOf SOpa/445l18ZxPnLy6W00rjWYxq0YPUWMiKBiKQoZ5TsSoFM4UGjybHTtRUZhFB39 uNy1nuyZSW1f1nJitUfjfpSn8EjRr2HiVqf8FEpKGYfVIXUJC9kGCLMfo76E Pj9HnJoy+tQ6HwUVMvyVH9mb2uYsR6tRRTZ6aiXL8c9Gd9Axm9t9R/wcYmGdQ777lNq+1EbPrbbOZZRFO/3+PFL0awiPnb4huymHSkoZO3fMvJmFiCpjmi1WKKHK/OQXoAnB/rivrftpIlwt5q6JTxfqTI07merE/ehVLG5Ee4qyF8GxNMWIdJxdOO1GHMEjRb8Gfey6h8+/dSuSBL7+9ZFaUtVk5MGxzPpc9FMoo1xb91NWRjmpZex+ulCn+DR3YPwtdj6t s7gRcyNzlhOrPRoXc084aUfwSNGvIXVwhb3+NCFpREq/MxLerkIc//oym4KdZHdfTSXlu+B4LneelVFOahl/rjirpqRw0DGb2I5Dc0/pqRoR46mr4Z+r7i50dZ5w0o7gkaLfgTg3ejw1ZUVV6NAX41ybo2+R419fZlO wLkZmmet+ypa5lVjZ8fV1058KMZdr9+nMs+pIcuydTLNR9JR1suc5TNk/q2aIlNuJWC3t9PvzSNGvYeLq+id1WpLvxxQj7kxrtqh/Qm1rYy7+xF50/Qsn3epjajanz+Wy4nxCRi3mcolP5+j8SZaIkc528UuOsZlClk0SKvm0HE084 lSPjFPLuxM8yvoRPFL0O5i7uhOFoEqVaWxeZv8SVuH415d592luL9oQK8soN I+m+x5ELqa2rvOJ413LxDKaydaSXSitf8fOJiVg5KcER/CnsemhNRhNdEL4xinl3RAnnLQjeKTo15A64tNTJiSZrnwxjs+jb5FQu7NZTE on0oYYFSkzYlaw7+Eg5xPhatFJ/X7aPrhE58/yzy0+x3d5OVG0sIMW4bS1vT/HLfIJPFL0a/AL98qUEkmLYhy3R98i0SccGdkeKSz1L3/GXW2io4Rudf1Knbedq1QWoZJCwnx3jCyP1DgTxTQ+Z5Gnubm8g0jdlEfwVN3 vIFW4f8bFt/AIplyJ+xBekksu0qj5CZtwcBSlO6KddwkjZmXoEF0nraWY6DgXQbWec7iDhi r8A3MTbi7vOD6vjHk978xTdb8D3RVWusiiJNPb7gLoptK1PCgLU3O4/k5GoyjapwgaOnHCjVSdsMJwH7qH6ubH4ObyDsWpTk/hwdJfgN/bfmRRKDyFE65GUrXlyNWE5uN4+vXe8bJ0wKEtJpwBOAEO2cV0r3r7ntAVgXo BDpyT74RXBZwPR+1i1i88JQNMOCoAcA4UmuvhbQEAAG+CnnQ9PA4AAOBN0NI AAODb4Td4tbCaAABwR87s9+EfbfP//7DZH0V3ozz9/377VN0AAA/luQ1DM90LRxNPa67iz+ul+v3cm+B9D4sf3hYAcCYrFfN34vbfn9Auk9WEOI7 L++hxvOltMeruoutPPwtesPUtb8sHAG7I+u/J1n9vFxqfU+Iv76M3ROR+2tuiHdEPCGHP2+KHtwXAFyL6dHmN6zoveRlkndz hbaGb6PsajMm1b4uJc1h7kF659W/LBwAcRMs/Ikrqk3Dlj09Y8ra4imuXhbfFEbwtHwCY5qC3hf66+DLwnbzgbSHmOlPMtUo1 Wl/GXO73fFsUOvy03/7ie7ghz1YPAIXUVrTaEvmat0Uq+udgt+uE3ag7PVzMkU3bBc0UTLcjSd1PVa TOT8lJG3l21uopPFU3ANRSXsvO8VZY8Y8u5dp/2Jh/ZJ/WbXvrPQK6g+ZEsRd60LEJpRZi+teJd40nNOgdeRZP1Q1wIc+98ILyQlboMOx nJRX/6FKupYqmO+r6TisaBXWmi9CpFCZC+18XMc/P9hfHOKthWts9eaRoOI0zj/X23+/MQrPwvgkbp0Zog0df+BHlSZ3jMBVlaxgNHoT23/06UuUb+8fYiTKRgmMmJh69L1n/jn2V4BPO5HE8UjQcxKjgCktn/HekrWUjhLzQWBu0OYoUtP+uyIdSnlF4eMLtDmdlN0J4mHOYRTsPT6M5nvKw/T3qW++ybM2dTaWwcyUCTbhdZ/oUhTYV6h78r0UeKRoOor352VogypP+FDo3LbNFajfy3Ju8SHniogRvDSmHqV mthwnBVWQPp5hiGju7sPtll/UUfj91JQm3l+/LhH2V4BNyP45HioaDENferAUr1a0kYlj7Vqa/lSNKmOMzFXddYa2eaQEj/+IumMbdcfP2mYmH98u5/r7IkYdaUiuvP5kGpv0JuR/HI0XDQfhHPFvasjcnWyKnw/mpZelWq0L/hRwkyXHrh14XWd4S5gSkOpZ/QUbj5nXQ2kJvqei+yDBiCRMrX3uQsrv8CJ6qG47Av07Z0pa9OWY4oU0oaRFm 3aBaiYnv+VCO0+O49UOviww9HL0veqm7n0b2/njKsmvmePOjdxchuyyhkhRi5f1xU5v2ufXqmJvGzXiqbjgCfY3bc296mKgOZ riuth/vrjrVYf1u3780HFe/FqvwtOW0hxOq+VzXWTF27sJoujPi2H9eOjN0+Kl2p8Kl2zHhbefTjDWd0eU8 WDqUo69xW5tMDxPVwQzX1Tb6lL2rL7jeDlU5midnOvq6ztCDOEgrcU0NJXen He92LBFLm03s5qLb1HJNo9dTLNqENu2kNq8LeUMOUEV4wUzLlFtHSWjp+Blp 604MlYtZDyJVMRdDfG5Ed3w3xRnUQbMexKyqJfLPvLb3T2Z4Bbr2ImvhIZWa w9GH8/xA3wOrCf/QhWwzmv1EfVxsLe240Nk19qdr2U/knES2iJH9tNQ5D6lTPcf5h+fRZ/VM8Y9eqBvCUsI//Gafarq6ZH9+nes3m/2YGIUbqU2l+UTOT8QM947l7cLbwueehxMcWEr4xzZGGLcTu5aL4Ub2oVnoJD X916Y7DuBw5vkRxxjgODhz8A/zrbCzd8x0uAmR4dyVr74NwM3hGMMlcOzgHyf/FoffUQEAvBIqO/yDtwUAAKxDZYd/8LYAAIB1qOzwD5o9AACsQyMBAACASnhbAAAAQCW8LQAAAKAS3hYAAABQCW8L AAAAqIS3BbwK/pwLAMDlUIhhT/ZPot6qnd9KDADAd0Ihhj2pt8Xd/kqMu+kBAPhCqMKw59E/t/i5nx4AgG+DKgx7nP/KqOmnRM9T4gIAwP+gCsOeqn+tcOHbgucFAMCFUIJhT8nPLUwnrUE40TRIqQU AgEIowbAn+7bYWW49dl9HUcTE7nSh3xQPAADlUIJhz/rbQjjZvRu6zw49Yuo3xQMAQDmUYNiz+Lb4dJJybr4tQmG8LQAAroUSDHtOeF uY460S3hYAAPeHEgx7LnxbdBmZaf2meAAAKIcSDHsm3hajHzmYxj/No8F5PWRDAADAOVCCYU/Jzy1G41UPAt4WAAC3hRIMe0reFnM/t5jQWeIKAAAKoQTDnkP/nciP/DnH1vt/V4zmjnTysAAAuBaqMOwp/Hci2TfH59eujNZgUQ8AAJRDqYU9m0Frr/2ExqPQ2mDkQTgXiQMAQAmUWtgz8bYIXU1omJHOAwIA4AZQheFV8LYAALgcqj C8Ch4WAACXQyEGAACASnhbAAAAQCW8LQAAAKAS3hYAAABQCW8LAAAAqIS3BQ AAAFTC2wIAAAAq4W0BAAAAlfC2AACAP/B30MEiHCAAAPgDf3c+LPK808OhB3gotZf3hnXgNdXpNYnAVXB6AOAkwnal/8O55n+Y90JuJWaRN+UC58PRAZiEypsi7FXhW6H7pLjbLpyp59D2z9sCVuDo3 ILpO3zQ5a/9feHdfnNZxSuTOo6qt8Ux6h4Jb4sdJwg+opq19baw/F7FI0W/jJXTU37sys/302+I4JVJHYfzsPiRq8qC73Cea4v+V6aPvI0KQlhwtIE5vRUgvOkQnEYBS3M 96537aDErF+nFN/DFqZWj1yos9I6Tc1jUoK+Sn3jb5EKDkZLTFvzXmxC8EzYS43zVKY/misHdiF46YF2uZ+WAHnT5CwO9+Po9NDWt+aCktFvdNj7HD13wbnvTgyKRVnn owb992pv+5Y+34PrTBKl1C0ecBJ3B7vSRT2ci/A/W5XpWDugRl198Lff5aPzUJlbg17mo+zvjsEmMWtHIJqtZEGoLLT9VHaSz9Tk KpNdQKHcsR8JS49rSXLeDltcM5Gs2FzPlwYletT7b35s+OnXP4qm6X8P66Tn n8i861Ff6iPuj7+fnYHiTN0nX5yhWO9iN25UnVJmWQlLXoHBf/MURcZ1dWBfZ1WPq9Ae7477logZz0c48A+FSiL1uP/lbJsJ1Q7T0s80w8lm4+OfzYOnvQJ/O36+OTZUY35u4Y84lPOKWtlmE8kYTd+Pm9JGekcjRFFOAH0uM+K6m8RdHxNV beabI9cHueEqAGU6c1XDRzjwDXYTZtAdH23QI+IV1uRJ9Os1zXHu+/TvzaTOa4ssuzMKpKVqwb+mkkF2ZLuX6TYWmvBA/hIirV3hd7cQOTg92x1MCdLguI7PWs447R7h9TqyusTndT9bfGhjBYl2JuBLr dWddVXgVp+X5gxM4nkfZZZe9LXAjS2dwhF9MfVVdMbvaWniuDj0GVWoPOsO+ 25QAHc5cje0DP+4chVF2mk0P2mzncF3kl8NiXcnoVotLOHJynDazVB1Ul7OY 1dZXK1SlfPpud7NGW2Cm4O9dGHEFvS+L0avUmktaMtgdTwnIhhshVu+EMyAE 6NCfU8zpYTr67Pn7BT+8La6l5Eoffb7NWi9y0T53FKoVns0yp1XtPpk+tbEv wzw8zqqWrPxEiFGa2cNQe3jM8cXB7nhKQImG0P9oygRCg7MU4mCPLogvYOfH We2qU/dWWJcryZYS4adO1DBE96rvcCaO5pZkYbry1foFUfvsLoKvzRdmqnJcFeKHEM uVXeEqkeaOpAa743OJT3h2Dkn5qQiv0u/XbsqtwciDPkKhQmGzNQhvXw5LcyXZkpFyUku2Wunx4zSbnqeLsvikfU67HRm bKYg6G/rvypvDr8WplUl5ng4txn2FpttdOtsHIw/CyfbRa0ehtZM26DTa4dagbUIPWQE+tcvyVlijKym51YUlILz8wjJ1n8vLVta zX6yzlqNku+OmNj+WmJ4aEf6nWdyan6Z5fHKoQjHuWE643aVmron/KfyqgwKEcHSuRBeFlJNCPc6n1jJVQNezFjjawoIrRsT4bnD7iyOg/ZT1EKoNlY9SXsT0GZptDXUahxHN8XP0nMBrEoGr4PRcjN+3tHGhGKdjLbY6x +E0uyxEKx1NHzns4huHgUInznS94HqdQ4MVjvMM5bBZsAin52J0Jwgty0tA2 126PelzJOygYasrb2mhWxFOt17TMvzq8L7iTscC+BK45xejm9xKj1yUZIbev TC6ZmG4Etlwf3hbAHwJ3PPrCQuu/p00xRoAAG4Fbel6Vt4HvC0AAOBu0JauZ/FtUSsGAABgEToTAAAAVMLbAgAAACrhbQEAAACV8LYAAACASnhbAAAAQCW8LQ Bux+4vJfNnhQ6dvxWtHP6kNMC3wYWH8zi5pWkZ4tNVPVgI8Cf6PnlbAMBBcO Ghw1xX08YXNuyuDP31wh68i5VdW9Ptu/mqZAFuCDcQ9ny2olTTSrW36W632Dact8WK/xX06ulZ4eJXCr0335YvwA3hBsIfunV51Lf832T7gxPyJqbfsw3rF4/4+mk2ml4l8v7o5fqx32rHqAP4Ch55f7j2x+H3pyrL1G6uFP3PubqLz/k/DrFQu6SOeFvs/O+8bQ2mgK7blP7RSRs51F9NMQDgwOWBP/hNVxTfbk0fmaUq+ErF36IevOj/Z9C91huV2VxTZr6eXQrOPzv6W7fa0nQrlLSDXRvxFQBMuDxgkepPZs/Tn0rshaTQbNf8zBA7SmQLtSPxoTA/ta6lPzgSJgZTeZnjjufpbQKAHVwksPAr/s+gQ5tuszLmZun2M9eDy9HRsz2420edvPxWrY2dwe64b7mo4cK9BngZ3CIYI pqrrsLdki38p2S0OIkIeaGkq1qOyFHoFH7M8a6ZM5gy9j2kYulw4fm5aq8BX gZXCIZke9vua9bSkfHp7fN/w+ntYErPXL/ZLUJ2+udcp93qdRbOHQHmRN/Y95DdFH1i24MkLNuvAODA5QHFqM7q4vv5ybf09SzaH9qDBb7skWehZy6Wn5c 50Tf2PaRiZcN1Kdk1gG+GmwMW3d5mdmLfMivDtB+14UU/ZzJa/xFzbn2b9b7ue9CWi+EE1+44wKPh5oCFX/HbT76lqSRlXNiDj+40wn8YXSS1uP6LL4N1D9pyJVw3VhgXAEK4OeBiVvz202 Jv0zImJoqHQna8lmwTXZy+4vb8t8Vo0M8rPJamwQknAeDpcEngH6lHgDZ2LO cq9XplD9P0G2Etuoma04XbtnFOu9WxDvLQRWgepSzmaoNzjgHAC+CewD/CmusYr3eXUGR2iu+km5RuY7Vkm2g7N+XWlOSPm4dHu534NDKeO3XCgLcFgAP 3BP6Qaq7t+LrlOejmMd2Gq7TNhTa75rUrDwDfAPUF9vjNNdWGr23YrRj99Q4 iAQAeCnUTOmQfAfRgAAD4hX4AAAAAlfC2AAAAgEp4WwAAAEAlvC0AAACgEt4 WAAAAUAlvCwAAAKiEtwUAAABUwtsCAAAAKuFtAQAAAJXwtgAAAIBKeFsAAAB AJbwtAAAAoBLeFgAAAFAJbwsAAACohLcFAAAAVMLbAgAAACrhbQEAAACV8LY AAACASnhbAAAAQCW8LQAAAKAS3hYAAABQyf8BQmg3np6LQKQAAAAASUVORK5 CYII=

[djpil]

Quote:
flying my aircraft between forest and ceduna at 120knots in still air then back the other way at 65 to 70 knots as safety for a warbird cub saw exactly the same fuel burn
Does not compute, and is against all the physics of aviation.
Fuel burn in my Pitts, over the same distance, at 65 kts is the same as at 115 kts (per my cruise performance charts only, I haven't done it to verify it) but seems like basic aircraft physics to me.

Lean for best economy/best power - per Lycoming Operator's Manual, pretty standard stuff taught in theory class as I recall.

Lycoming defines the term best economy, it is not up to Piper to state something different as the engine has a Type Certificate itself.

I have often wondered about the HP figures in that Warrior POH associated with % powers for best economy vs best power but it doesn't really matter.

[VH-XXX]

When I fly the Cirrus it actually tells me on the Avidyne how many percent power I am developing. Very handy for answering pprune questions.

From memory, 68% was the max it was capable of at 9,500ft but it's been a while since I've been that high, don't want nose bleeds (non turbo of course).

[Jabawocky]

djpil,

lets look at this;
Lean for best economy/best power - per Lycoming Operator's Manual, pretty standard stuff taught in theory class as I recall.
Most likely taught wrong...almost guaranteed :ok: Not your fault, you were not to know.


Lycoming defines the term best economy,No they do not it is not up to Piper to state something different as the engine has a Type Certificate itself.And you trust that??? Ohhhh Nooooo
Lycoming defines the term best economy, it is not up to Piper to state something different as the engine has a Type Certificate itself.

Trust me.......Do not trust this stuff, on any day I can demonstrate the errors, and you can too if you actually realise what they are. Data has no opinion. It is what it is.

[Brian Abraham]

djpil, I must confess to casting some burley upon the waters with my "Does not compute, and is against all the physics of aviation" in an endeavour to draw D8 out. The following diagram shows that you can have two speeds that provide the same specific range. Max range speed is too slow for the average aviator, and if I recall is about 90 knots for a Bonanza class aircraft. I don't recall ever seeing a GA manual which provided max range or max endurance details. They do provide range and endurance tables, but not what to aim for to extract the maximum.

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m56/babraham227/z254_zps41c3bc50.jpg

W8'sif you move a mass from point A to point B in a straight line in still air and you repeat the exercise at different speeds, you will use the same fuel in each case.is only true if you apply the caveat in a very specific manner as per the diagram. Which he has not done, his statement is an all encompassing one, that the total fuel burn will always be the same over a given distance irrespective of power setting.

[peterc005]

The Lycoming engineers know what they are doing and I don't think it is prudent to recommend anything that is inconsistent with the POH.

[gerry111]

With the greatest of respect, peterc005.. I'd suggest that that you keep an open mind to some of the information available on this thread. :ok:

[djpil]

I did not say Lycoming was right or wrong, simply that they defined a term which an airframe manufacturer uses. Stuff in Piper's AFM is consistent with what will be achieved (give or take the usual caveats on stuff in good condition etc) doing what is stated in the books.
Stuff taught wrong? Again, I make no comment on what is right or wrong, just what is consistent with the books.

Finally, experience has taught me never to trust people who say "trust me".

Incidentally, I have seen good aircraft performance data with incompetent analysis leading to rubbish information - not saying that applies to anything in this thread.

Brian, I certainly agree wrt your view on W8's statement that you quoted. Never seen a GA manual with max range and endurance information? - I've done some and I've seen others. Of course, some with appropriate gear would lean some more and do better. Doesn't invalidate the info in the manuals that I have.

[LeadSled]

Local rumour tells me he even booked his own wife for driving without a seat belt.

Anybody who lived around Gunnedah years ago will remember a particular member of the NSW Constabulary known as "crazyhorse".

Tootle pip!!

[43Inches]

Stuff in Piper's AFM is consistent with what will be achieved (give or take the usual caveats on stuff in good condition etc) doing what is stated in the books.

Straight from Pipers PA28-161 POH figure 5-25 Best Power Mixture Range;

Still Air Range 65% at 8500ft 590nm without reserves. If you factor in lack of fairings offset by 10kts tailwind, ie drop 7% for fairings then add 7% back due winds the figure remains about 590nm.

So the book says he will run out of fuel using 65% "best power" leaning at around 590nm, how far is it from Lilydale to Cunnamulla?

Forgot to reply to this earlier as well;

we flew at 2500rpm leaned to peak rpm then tweaked back rich a turn or two.

Best power is achieved when you achieve best power, ie, when the rpm peaks, you are confusing using an EGT to lean with rpm technique. To lean best power fuel flow you need to lean to best rpm, the procedure is to set the rpm slightly below desired and lean until rpm peaks, you now have best power mixture. Moving the mixture forward of this position you might as well open a fuel drain tap as well and fly along. The only point to be cautious about is not to lean aggressively above 75% power.

[Jabawocky]

43" :ok:
So the book says he will run out of fuel using 65% "best power" leaning at around 590nm, how far is it from Lilydale to Cunnamulla?

Yeah, about says it all, however had he used the red knob as per the best power fuel flow, or 75dF ROP he would have travelled a lot further due to the tail winds. His burn would have been about 33LPH not the 39LPH he seemed to have used (by my calculations). So running much richer than he should have and blissfully unaware.

peterc
I should know better than take your bait, but I will try to respond to this as best I can.The Lycoming engineers know what they are doing and I don't think it is prudent to recommend anything that is inconsistent with the POH.

Lycoming engineers know what they are doing? Yeah the few they have might. But they do not write the stuff you read. And that is where the problems arise.

Inconsistent with the POH? You are kidding me, the POH's are often inconsistent with the POH.....one page from the next! So what do you do now? What do you do when they are inconsistent with the laws of physics? Maybe in your world you can alter the laws of physics but the rest of us can't, except F22 pilots, I think they can.

Also remember POH's give some data points, usually the extremes of the envelope and you are free to operate anywhere in there, this includes matters not relating to engines too.


Lastly;
It seems this thread has done more for safety than the report did. Thats a plus :D

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

So the book says he will run out of fuel using 65% "best power" leaning at around 590nm, how far is it from Lilydale to Cunnamulla?

I make it 585 nm! :ok:

I wonder what the fuel guages were showing as he flew past Cunnamulla headed for Charleville?

Dr :8

[Creampuff]

All this discussion about percentage power cracks me up.

I have no idea what percentage power my engine is producing from time to time, and I don’t care because it wouldn’t make any difference to my flight planning or aircraft/engine management.

All powered aircraft have some kind of fan, somewhere, that produces thrust. It can produce as much thrust as it can produce. The pilot can generally manipulate controls to get the fan to produce as much thrust as it can produce, or less.

I can tell whether the fan on my aircraft is producing the thrust I need, without having a clue what ‘percentage power’ the engine is producing. I can tell that by how fast the aircraft is accelerating down the runway, how fast the aircraft is climbing, and how fast the aircraft is cruising. If I need the aircraft to do something specific, like go a very long way without running out of fuel, I make the fan produce whatever thrust is necessary to produce an IAS that corresponds with the minimum drag speed. I can also make sure the engine is producing that thrust as efficiently as it can, by choice of RPM and mixture settings. If I am in more of a hurry, I will make the fan produce more thrust so that the aircraft goes faster. I will make sure the engine does that at EGT settings that keep the engine and my pocket happy, and a fuel flow that will result in enough reserve at ETA.

Percentage power is just number estimated from a bunch of other numbers. I already know all the other numbers.

I realise the APS amigos (…blessed be the amigos…) use %power as a means to describe the fuzzy boundaries of the ‘red box’ or ‘red fin’ (depending on the axes of the charts). But it’s just as easy to remember some rough altitude and EGT delta figures. In the climb I just remember one number: target EGT on my hottest cylinder.

And by the way, I don’t want the engine to produce as much power as it can possibly produce (would that be 100%?), during the climb…

Quick quiz:

1. Cruising along fat, dumb and happy and the CHT alarm goes off because #5 CHT has reached 200c and is continuing to rise very quickly. What do you do? Would your answer be different if the % power gizmo says the engine is producing 61.87% power? If yes, what would you do instead?

2. Balls to the wall, sea level on an ISA day, and the aircraft trundles along the runway at 40 knots and doesn’t get any faster. What do you do? Would your answer be different if the %power gizmo says the engine is producing 100% power? If yes, what would you do instead?

3. What’s the point of ‘best glide speed’ and how is it determined?

[43Inches]

I agree that a good pilot can get a lot more out of their aircraft if they understands it, including airspeed being the most critical side of performance.

The main issue is that 90% of GA pilots out there just want the thing to get from A to B and not think too hard about it.

If you apply the book figures and techniques for this aircraft, the PA28-161 it will do roughly what it says, enough for you to get from A to B in one piece.

If the pilot had consulted the range charts he would see that a fuel stop was necessary at Bourke. If he had used the Piper recommended fuel burns for his flight log and used the correct leaning technique he would not have ended up where he did. He may have used this information to tell him the fuel gauges don't seem right I'll stick to the original plan and land at Bourke.

Instead it sounds like he relied on information provided from an operator that included fuel flows that are not related to his intended usage (both long range cruising and leaning technique).

If the manufacturer says that an aircraft can only do this, and you find its doing something magically way better, you best ask why that is (it may be true but mostly unlikely). There are many aircraft wrecks from high capacity jets to light trainers that could have been avoided if they understood what the aircraft is capable of. The jets that deep stalled due to blocked pitot tubes comes to mind as a basic example, pilots recorded on CVRs claiming how well their 727 was climbing at 420kts at 8000fpm etc...

The manufacturers book is a fine starting place to understand what it is capable of. After that you can tweak your speeds, leaning, climb and descent profile to beat the book figures with proper knowledge, and testing. For instance if I was told a PA28 would only burn 25lph, I would ask how they achieved this and still land in Bourke and fill it up and test how much it actually burnt.

[Trent 972]

A lot of this recent discussion seems to be based on/taken from the writings of J. Deakin's 'Pelican Perch' articles, and a good discussion it is, but for those not too familiar with those articles, consider this quote from Pelican Perch #64, before you discount the POH numbers.

Oh, you don't have an engine monitor? Sorry pal, I can't help you; you're on your own. I'm really hard-line on engine monitors; I think it's stupid to operate one of these big, expensive, life-supporting engines without one.

AND
Creampuff,
If I need the aircraft to do something specific, like go a very long way without running out of fuel, I make the fan produce whatever thrust is necessary to produce an IAS that corresponds with the minimum drag speed.
Does that include 'if there is a significant headwind component', or should you just stick to the Law and leave flight training alone?

[Hempy]

OK, this took 25 minutes (perp notes and calculations) while having breakky and a phone call interruption.

My point here is, and I am formally addressing this with ATSB is that with a little specialist knowledge these things can be given a much higher quality safety message. The current report is a lowly level 5, so it does not get any serious analysis and its nothing more than a rporting of information sent in.

My thought is that is a waste of time unless the report spells out the flaws or the reasons in what led to the accident so others can learn from it.

The ATSB is under financial pressure to reduce expenses, and they do not have any piston specialists anyway, so a priority is applied, and these reports get done as simple as they are. My frustration is it would not be hard to gain some knowledge in house or at least seek out where that specialist help is externally.

So lets begin with my back of beer coaster study (no beer was consumed with my muesli :) )

Departure was from Lilydale at 2.20pm and the exhaustion occured at 7pm abeam Cunnamulla some 580 miles north. The average speed was around 124 knots, and safe to assume a bit of tail wind was enjoyed.

Using fuel flows as a prudent well educated pilot would I believe the following would be a fair assessment. Take off flow Approx 59LPH and using a target EGT leaning in the climb a final flow rate would be around 40LPH. If left alone the volumetric flow rate change during the climb would have the FCU delivering maybe 10% more as the DA increased, so the effect of not leaning very well in the climb Vs doing it well is only going to be a few litres. Note this is for a Lycoming and a TCM is different.

With a climb of around 90 knots TAS average and say 20 minutes approximately this would yield a climb stage of 30 miles and 17 litres. Again subtle changes would have little affect. This means 550 to run from TOC to abeam CMU.

Guesstimate of TAS at the claimed 65% power and with know spats, based on POH performance data would yield about 115 plus or minus for spats etc. or lets say 110. Not that it matters much as GS is the critical key here, which was in the early 120's.

Using a best range fuel flow for the selected power/speed required, the engine would be set to 10dF LOP and burning 26-26.5 LPH. This is pretty much what the pilot claims he was told when he rented it. I believe the value to be correct advice, provided you knew how to operate the engine.

The range then would be calculated roughly as 30 miles for climb and a further 6.33 hours at 124kts GS as 790NM. YBCV is 678NM so this was achievable with a bit over over 55 min. reserve. But it had to be done right.

However, 65% power with Poor mixture control could be anything at that height ranging from say 33LPH at 75dF ROP to around 45LPH. I do not have the actual data but I do not think you can get any more than that into the engine at that height.

Based on 45LPH the range would be down to 480 miles or even at 33LPH around 660 miles. The pilot managed a distance of 580 miles so less the climb, that was 550 miles of cruise in 4.34 hrs (4.67-0.33 hrs), for an average of 38.7LPH.

The pilot seemed to be a Jabiru flyer so perhaps not much mixture knob experience and that would explain a lot when he claimed he leaned it, but who knows how much. And with so many pilots afraid of the red knob I can believe it. Heck I think back to when I was learning to fly.....nothing of value in the red knob education at all.

So it is all very believable how he got to where he was, and without an accurate fuel flow gauge or a very good margin for error, this was a bad decision passing Bourke.

Important to note that no pilot can trust the POH of any aircraft manufacturer when it comes to engine matters. Seriously they can't be trusted. So many are found to be either contradictory from one page to another or completely wrong. There is nothing to argue here, this is fact. The problem is which ones can you trust? And which parts can you trust, and the only safe assumption is trust none. They may well be accurate for take off charts and other procedures, and I am not in a position to critique them there, but in engine performance related sections you are foolish to believe everything you read. The secret here is to know how to critically appraise them. About 1-2% of pilots are. That leaves 98%, and very few instructors if any are in the 1-2%.

Case in pont in the Piper Warrior POH there are graphs that show performance for 55/65/75% Best Power Mixture, and for this example lets say the 75%
power as shown in the example. There are 75% best power and 75% Best Economy with two different TAS (122 & 118).......WTF?? :confused: 75% of 160HP is 120HP and iff you apply 120HP to that plane with the same prop, you get XXX.X knots TAS. How is it possible to get two different numbers? Simple answer it is not.

What is more they supply two different fuel flows to achieve each of these power settings, and that is fine but if you take the 65% power setting the Best Power which one can only assume means around 75dF ROP is 8.8GPH or 33.3LPH. They also show a 65% power Best Economy flow of 7.5GPH or 28.4LPH. Well the best BSFC for the engine will be slightly LOP, and at these powers around 10-20dF LOP which typically on the O-320 is found at 6.98 GPH or 26.4LPH.

Is it any wonder pilots have no idea? Given all the expertise has long gone from most organisations and it is all turbine/jet focussed is it any wonder ATSB are no better when it comes to good reports.

Last of all, and this pilot did not have the luxury of time to do this, but how often is the usable quantity IN FLIGHT tested? How do you know that the supposed 185 litres claimed to be usable is actually usable. The POH suggests 181-182 litres, but even then how can you trust this. The only way to know is at least once a year just prior to its annual is run a tank dry and refill. Best not to do both during the same flight if you only have two :uhoh:.

None of this is taught for PPL or CPL at any school I am aware of and it is certainly not in any texts.

The reason we do not have more of these problems is possibly through good luck than good training.

The Safety messages that should come out of the ATSB report are;
1. The importance of having accurately and regularly proven usable in flight fuel checks.
2. Having a decent engine monitor fitted and fuel flow with totalisation.
3. Pilots educated in proper engine management techniques and to be able to critically think when reading a POH. Having the understanding of engine fuel requirements and what the real leaning techniques are and how they should be applied.

Happy to take questions. Disclaimer: The above calculations are based on a very quick study over brekky and using my iphone calculator. I have not allowed for known weather, descent and any other small impact factors as they probably have no significant effect on the outcome. I could have made mistakes too as I have not double checked anything.

Jaba that was a really good read, thanks! :thumbsup:

[ozaggie]

Jaba, that was a really good read. Thanks!
Did we really need the whole post repeated? Bandwidth is not unlimited, and you, Hempy, just wasted a ****load of mine!

[Creampuff]

Does that include 'if there is a significant headwind component', or should you just stick to the Law and leave flight training alone?You are absolutely correct Trent 972 and I realise the error of my ways. :ok:

Everybody: The IAS for lowest drag depends on ‘headwind’, as does the best glide speed.

So, if you need maximum range while flying into a significant headwind the IAS for minimum drag will be different from nil wind conditions. I always thought that aircraft spend most of their cruise time in a 'headwind' (that's blowing at about the TAS), but Trent 972 obviously knows better. Trent 972 will now explain how to calculate the maximum range IAS, taking into consideration 'headwind'.

Over to you, Trent… ;)

[djpil]

This quote from Advanced Pilot (http://www.advancedpilot.com/articles.php?action=article&articleid=1838) is worth noting too: If a pilot is NOT prepared to invest in a good monitoring system AND to understand what he is doing, then my best advice is to use full rich for climb, never exceed 65% MP and RPM settings, and lean to any setting that seems about right. For the really abysmally ignorant and unequipped, just leave it full rich all the time!CCQ did not have a "good monitoring system".

[BlatantLiar]

OK, this took 25 minutes (perp notes and calculations) while having breakky and a phone call interruption.

My point here is, and I am formally addressing this with ATSB is that with a little specialist knowledge these things can be given a much higher quality safety message. The current report is a lowly level 5, so it does not get any serious analysis and its nothing more than a rporting of information sent in.

My thought is that is a waste of time unless the report spells out the flaws or the reasons in what led to the accident so others can learn from it.

The ATSB is under financial pressure to reduce expenses, and they do not have any piston specialists anyway, so a priority is applied, and these reports get done as simple as they are. My frustration is it would not be hard to gain some knowledge in house or at least seek out where that specialist help is externally.

So lets begin with my back of beer coaster study (no beer was consumed with my muesli )

Departure was from Lilydale at 2.20pm and the exhaustion occured at 7pm abeam Cunnamulla some 580 miles north. The average speed was around 124 knots, and safe to assume a bit of tail wind was enjoyed.

Using fuel flows as a prudent well educated pilot would I believe the following would be a fair assessment. Take off flow Approx 59LPH and using a target EGT leaning in the climb a final flow rate would be around 40LPH. If left alone the volumetric flow rate change during the climb would have the FCU delivering maybe 10% more as the DA increased, so the effect of not leaning very well in the climb Vs doing it well is only going to be a few litres. Note this is for a Lycoming and a TCM is different.

With a climb of around 90 knots TAS average and say 20 minutes approximately this would yield a climb stage of 30 miles and 17 litres. Again subtle changes would have little affect. This means 550 to run from TOC to abeam CMU.

Guesstimate of TAS at the claimed 65% power and with know spats, based on POH performance data would yield about 115 plus or minus for spats etc. or lets say 110. Not that it matters much as GS is the critical key here, which was in the early 120's.

Using a best range fuel flow for the selected power/speed required, the engine would be set to 10dF LOP and burning 26-26.5 LPH. This is pretty much what the pilot claims he was told when he rented it. I believe the value to be correct advice, provided you knew how to operate the engine.

The range then would be calculated roughly as 30 miles for climb and a further 6.33 hours at 124kts GS as 790NM. YBCV is 678NM so this was achievable with a bit over over 55 min. reserve. But it had to be done right.

However, 65% power with Poor mixture control could be anything at that height ranging from say 33LPH at 75dF ROP to around 45LPH. I do not have the actual data but I do not think you can get any more than that into the engine at that height.

Based on 45LPH the range would be down to 480 miles or even at 33LPH around 660 miles. The pilot managed a distance of 580 miles so less the climb, that was 550 miles of cruise in 4.34 hrs (4.67-0.33 hrs), for an average of 38.7LPH.

The pilot seemed to be a Jabiru flyer so perhaps not much mixture knob experience and that would explain a lot when he claimed he leaned it, but who knows how much. And with so many pilots afraid of the red knob I can believe it. Heck I think back to when I was learning to fly.....nothing of value in the red knob education at all.

So it is all very believable how he got to where he was, and without an accurate fuel flow gauge or a very good margin for error, this was a bad decision passing Bourke.

Important to note that no pilot can trust the POH of any aircraft manufacturer when it comes to engine matters. Seriously they can't be trusted. So many are found to be either contradictory from one page to another or completely wrong. There is nothing to argue here, this is fact. The problem is which ones can you trust? And which parts can you trust, and the only safe assumption is trust none. They may well be accurate for take off charts and other procedures, and I am not in a position to critique them there, but in engine performance related sections you are foolish to believe everything you read. The secret here is to know how to critically appraise them. About 1-2% of pilots are. That leaves 98%, and very few instructors if any are in the 1-2%.

Case in pont in the Piper Warrior POH there are graphs that show performance for 55/65/75% Best Power Mixture, and for this example lets say the 75%
power as shown in the example. There are 75% best power and 75% Best Economy with two different TAS (122 & 118).......WTF?? 75% of 160HP is 120HP and iff you apply 120HP to that plane with the same prop, you get XXX.X knots TAS. How is it possible to get two different numbers? Simple answer it is not.

What is more they supply two different fuel flows to achieve each of these power settings, and that is fine but if you take the 65% power setting the Best Power which one can only assume means around 75dF ROP is 8.8GPH or 33.3LPH. They also show a 65% power Best Economy flow of 7.5GPH or 28.4LPH. Well the best BSFC for the engine will be slightly LOP, and at these powers around 10-20dF LOP which typically on the O-320 is found at 6.98 GPH or 26.4LPH.

Is it any wonder pilots have no idea? Given all the expertise has long gone from most organisations and it is all turbine/jet focussed is it any wonder ATSB are no better when it comes to good reports.

Last of all, and this pilot did not have the luxury of time to do this, but how often is the usable quantity IN FLIGHT tested? How do you know that the supposed 185 litres claimed to be usable is actually usable. The POH suggests 181-182 litres, but even then how can you trust this. The only way to know is at least once a year just prior to its annual is run a tank dry and refill. Best not to do both during the same flight if you only have two .

None of this is taught for PPL or CPL at any school I am aware of and it is certainly not in any texts.

The reason we do not have more of these problems is possibly through good luck than good training.

The Safety messages that should come out of the ATSB report are;
1. The importance of having accurately and regularly proven usable in flight fuel checks.
2. Having a decent engine monitor fitted and fuel flow with totalisation.
3. Pilots educated in proper engine management techniques and to be able to critically think when reading a POH. Having the understanding of engine fuel requirements and what the real leaning techniques are and how they should be applied.

Happy to take questions. Disclaimer: The above calculations are based on a very quick study over brekky and using my iphone calculator. I have not allowed for known weather, descent and any other small impact factors as they probably have no significant effect on the outcome. I could have made mistakes too as I have not double checked anything.

I'll continue the appreciation trend. I never really have much to weigh in on these discussions but I read everything you post very carefully and enjoy taking on the knowledge. Thanks Jaba, keep it up.

[Trent 972]

Creampuff, you said…..If I need the aircraft to do something specific, like go a very long way without running out of fuel, I make the fan produce whatever thrust is necessary to produce an IAS that corresponds with the minimum drag speed.
A laymans interpretation of that statement is..
For max range fly min. drag speed.
Yes for nil wind, perhaps but not necessarily for tailwind and No for headwind.
Your statement, as written is WRONG.

As to your last post statement.
So, if you need maximum range while flying into a significant headwind the IAS for minimum drag will be different from nil wind conditions.

You are being mischievous, because that is not anything I said, rather a deflection to cover up your own weakness on the topic.
'Min Drag' is not 'Best Range', in a headwind.
When you said,
You are absolutely correct Trent 972 and I realise the error of my ways.
You should have stopped there, because the rest of your writings are just bullish!t and fancy.
Stick to the law. If you were a flight Instructor, I would ask for my money back! :ugh:

[Creampuff]

Then educate me, rather than having a little tantie.

How do you calculate the speed to achieve maximum range in a headwind?

Let’s assume the IAS at which a particular aircraft – let’s call it a ‘Warrior’ - at a particular weight achieves minimum drag is 80 knots.

I want to fly as far as I can in:

- Nil wind

- 5 knots head wind

- 10 knots head wind

- 15 knots head wind

- 20 knots head wind

- 25 knots head wind

At what IAS should I fly, in each of those prevailing conditions, to achieve maximum range?

Let’s simplify things and assume the weight remains constant.

I say 80 knots. You say I'm wrong.

Fine. Prove it.

Always happy to stand corrected.

[Creampuff]

There is some very useful analysis of data and the laws of physics here: http://www.nar-associates.com/technical-flying/range/wind_wide_screen.pdf

The ‘rough approximation’ is to add a quarter of the headwind velocity, to maintain the maximum distance speed.

Hence the answers to my questions above are:

- Nil wind: 80

- 5 knots head wind: 81

- 10 knots head wind: 82

- 15 knots head wind: 84

- 20 knots head wind: 85

- 25 knots head wind: 86

See Trent: It’s not that hard! :ok:

I stand corrected.

[Trent 972]

You're welcome, and what's even better, you did it by yourself.
Now go and write it out 100 times before sunrise, or I'll come back and cut your Balls off. :E

edit.

I would suggest that the data you referenced is for a BE-33A, with a max range cruise in the 115 - 120 knot range, and with your example of 80 knot max range cruise, I would expect something closer to half (or even a bit more) the headwind component should be added.
However that is only a guess, I have not done the numbers.

[Creampuff]

The irony is that my posts are still far more educational than yours … ;)

So, the (corrected) statement is: If you need maximum range while flying into a significant headwind, fly the IAS for minimum drag plus a quarter of the headwind component. (The paper at the link also talks about how to adjust for tailwind component to get maximum range in a tailwind. For Trent: I interpret the paper as saying a quarter is the better approximation, for wind fractions up to a quarter of the nil wind best range velocity. So maybe at 25 in 80 the adjustment should be higher, but others 'fit' ...)

And to get back to the subject of this thread, none of this was considered by the PIC of CCQ. Had the aircraft been flown at the IAS for minimum drag, whether or not it was adjusted a couple of knots for the wind component, the aircraft would have made it with fuel to spare.

[Trent 972]

That is where you seem to miss the point Creampuff.
If the pilot of that flight was faced with a 25 knot headwind component, following your befuddled concept of range flying, it would have gone quiet about 220nm short.
Sorry lawman, more work required for you. The educational content of your posts so far have been D-.
edit.
Not wanting to bore everyone to death with our little to'ing and fro'ing I've added my reply to Creampuff here.If he’d flown at the IAS for least drag, adjusted or not for wind component, he would have made it with fuel to spare.
As a person who spends the vast majority of his work time 'range flying' it is obvious to me that you Creampuff, are quite happy in your ignorance and nothing I can say will change your mind, even though you have already admitted to Standing Corrected. Continue on in your ignorance, blissfully unaware. I will be content if some of the young ones reading this thread give a little thought to the rubbish you have posted so far on range flying. Goodbye.
*Just one thing before I go.
Taken to extremes… How far will you travel in your PA28 with a 80 knot headwind at YOUR max range cruise speed, and how long will it take you to reach your final destination with full tanks. bibi

[Creampuff]

He wasn’t faced with a headwind, 25 knots or otherwise. It appears he had a slight tailwind.

Did you not read the report?

If he’d flown at the IAS for least drag, adjusted or not for wind component, he would have made it with fuel to spare.

[Arnold E]

Can someone please explain to me some concept here, if minimum drag is at a speed, of say 80kt, how is going faster into a headwind, with increased drag, going to extend the range available. I dont understand.:confused::confused:

[Trent 972]

Arnold, click on the link in Creampuff's post 6 posts above.
Not a bad dissertation, remembering the stronger the H/W component and/or the lower the IAS, the greater the effect.
The basics are, as you go faster your drag will increase, but the exposure time to the headwind over a set ground distance will decrease. The relationship is not linear. Somewhere between the 2 extremes is nirvana.

[Creampuff]

What I don’t understand, Trent, is why you don’t use your vast experience in long range operations to explain why I’m wrong and, thereby, to educate others. :confused:

I’ve quoted, in this thread, an article by John Deakin in which he talks about ‘extreme long-range work’. Happy to be convinced that what he says about what do when the mission is 'extreme long-range' is not correct. (Indeed, I reckon he’d be happy to be convinced he’s not correct.)

I stand by my statement that had CCQ been flown at the IAS for minimum drag, whether or not it was adjusted a couple of knots for the wind component, the aircraft would have made it with fuel to spare. Lots of fuel to spare.

Sure it would have been a much longer flight, but at that speed the fuel consumption would have been at a much lower rate (if the pilot understood how to lean properly, which is the first issue I raised in my first post in this thread …).

After all, that’s the point of maximum range speed, is it not?

The PIC wasn’t dealing with an 80 knot head wind or a 25 knot headwind. He was dealing with no wind or a slight tail wind, during a flight over a long distance for that aircraft.

Please Trent, educate everyone else and explain why flying at minimum drag speed would not have resulted in CCQ arriving with fuel to spare.

[Hempy]

as I understand it faster speed into a headwind means the increased drag is overcome by the reduced time. It'll still increase your fuel burn regardless...

[Trent 972]

Creampuff,
Nice try, "educate others", because you're far too clever to be educated.
1. I only entered this discussion to point out a statement made by you was WRONG, it still is WRONG and will always be WRONG, no matter how much you try to deflect. You even admitted you were WRONG after self educating yourself, even though you still haven't recognised the magnitude of your misunderstanding.
2. You said that the accident aircraft subject of this thread would have arrived safely even if it flew at 80 knots plus a few knots even with a hypothetical 25 knot headwind. Guess what you're still WRONG.
I called you on advocating a method of 'range flying' that is incomplete, incorrect, ignorant and WRONG.
Email Deakin yourself and tell him that range is not affected by a headwind component and he will tell you, you're WRONG.

[Trent 972]

Hempy you are CORRECT. What Creampuff seems unable to differentiate in his mind is the difference between endurance and range.

[Creampuff]

You said that the accident aircraft subject of this thread would have arrived safely even if it flew at 80 knots plus a few knots even with a hypothetical 25 knot headwind. Guess what you're still WRONG.That is not true.

I have never said that.

However, now that you mention it, I will calculate whether a Warrior could have made the distance at an IAS of 3 knots above the lowest drag speed, with a headwind of 25 knots.

(Did I sleep with your wife/girlfriend? I’m trying to get to the source of the anger.)

[Creampuff]

Hempy

Correct (on my meager understanding).

But the adjustment factor for wind effect on lowest drag IAS to get maximum range in e.g. a Warrior is only a few knots up to, at a stretch, a dozen if the head/tail wind is 25 knots.

During the flight the subject of the report, the difference would be a couple of knots, if any.

But the important point is this: We’re talking about vastly different IASs.

HYPOTHETICALLY 80 knots (lowest drag) versus 100 knots (preferred/planned/glossy brochure cruise).

The extra speed above the lowest drag IAS costs FUEL. It usually doesn’t matter much, unless the flight is towards the limits of the aircraft’s range.

Like a trip from Lilydale to Southern Queensland in a Warrior ….

[Hempy]

Hempy you are CORRECT. What Creampuff seems unable to differentiate in his mind is the difference between endurance and range.

Well, as I understand that, endurance is how long the donks will keep turning, which might be important if I was oh say up looking for a 777, but if I wanted to fly a long range flight like say YLIL-YCMU in one hop I'd rather care about how far I could go (with thrust) not how long it took. But thats just me.

[Creampuff]

Hempy

Be careful listening to Trent.

‘Endurance’ is indeed about ‘how long the donks will keep turning’.

But there are many variables that affect when the donks will ‘stop turning’ and how far down track the aircraft to which they are fitted will be when they do.

The donk in question in this thread is one fitted to a Warrior.

Let’s assume 25 knots headwind

Lowest drag IAS in a Warrior at MTOW is about 80 knots.

Apply a headwind of 25 knots and assume our adjusted-for-headwind best range IAS is 85, for a ground speed of 60kts. (Trent (correctly) says that the adjusted speed should be around 92, but let’s not complicate things at this point by making assumptions in my theory’s favour. We could complicate things more by taking into account changing weights and climb fuel consumption etc, but let’s not, at this point.)

500 nms at 60 knots is a very long way. At a constant 60 knots GS it would take 500 minutes or 8 hours and 20 minutes.

With 180 litres usable on board, you’d have to burn less than 22 litres an hour to make it.

And how much do you have to burn to maintain an IAS of 85 knots in a Warrior?

Well jigger me with a bargepole if it’s not: “Less than 22 litres an hour”! You wouldn’t land with much more than fumes - those operations are called “W8”.

Let’s assume no headwind

Given that the actual aircraft appears to have had a slight tailwind in real life, let’s assume it didn’t (because otherwise the assumption would be in my theory’s favour).

Best long range speed is the lowest drag speed for nil wind: That’s 80 knots.

500 nms (on the same assumptions) is 6 hours and 15 minutes.

With 180 litres on board, you’d have to burn less than 28 litres per hour to land with fuel.

To maintain 80 kts IAS in a Warrior, you don’t have to burn anywhere near 28 litres per hour.

Trent will hopefully help us out by explaining where and why my calculations are wrong, rather than merely asserting they are “wrong”.

[Hempy]

Thank your for the concern, but to be honest when I fly I generally only care how fast I'm going :)

[Trent 972]

Ahem. YLIL - YBCV (via YBKE, only a couple of miles off track) is 677nm.
Want to run those numbers again! Oh, and you really should add a bit for reserves too!
ps
I'm glad to see your method now includes what you learned earlier today from being held to account for your lack of knowledge on the subject. You're getting there….. but very slowly..

pps
the "assumptions in my theories favour" gave me a little giggle too.

ppps. The figure of 220 nm short I gave earlier was just a spur of the moment guess, but I've since run some more realistic burn figures including climb and taxi burn and it came up with 211 nm short. Sorry about that sloppiness.

[Trent 972]

http://www.abpic.co.uk/images/images/1431329M.jpg
No spats!
Don't forget to take the 7 knots off, or make an adjustment to your fuel burn calcs!

edit
ISA +10 (http://www.weatherzone.com.au/climate/station.jsp?lt=site&lc=48013) for performance calcs would be a fair temperature I think. Bourke info provided as an average for the cruise portion, but I'm not really that fussy if you don't want to.

[Creampuff]

You’re being very naughty, Trent. :=

The report says the plan was to refuel at Bourke. (You have read the report, haven’t you? That’s the second time I’ve asked that question…)

The ‘best range’ speed for CCQ is what it is (was). It is (was) determined by the laws of physics, and therefore the outcome is the same, whether or not the planned destination is Charleville, Chicago or Chittagong.

Arguing about what the best range speed for CCQ may have been, and whether it’s a good idea for CCQ to have been operated at that speed, seems to me to be a pointless exercise.

[Trent 972]

Creampuff, so when you saidAnd to get back to the subject of this thread, none of this was considered by the PIC of CCQ. Had the aircraft been flown at the IAS for minimum drag, whether or not it was adjusted a couple of knots for the wind component, the aircraft would have made it with fuel to spare.You were wrong.
and again when I challenged you to consider a theoretical 25 knot H/W component you saidIf he’d flown at the IAS for least drag, adjusted or not for wind component, he would have made it with fuel to spare.You were wrong again.
Again then you said
I stand by my statement that had CCQ been flown at the IAS for minimum drag, whether or not it was adjusted a couple of knots for the wind component, the aircraft would have made it with fuel to spare. Lots of fuel to spare.You were really wrong.
and still you sayYou wouldn’t land with much more than fumes - those operations are called “W8”.DOH again
and Lastly you resort to the petulant child defence.
On the matter of 'Long Range Flying', you have been weighed and measured and come up a bit short.
I'd suggest you get back to J. Deakin and ask him to finish off that quote on how to extend your range in a Headwind, because you've grabbed the bull by the horns and gone off half cocked there old fella. (mixed metaphor intentional), and yes I have read the report.

[Creampuff]

Had CCQ been flown at the IAS for minimum drag, whether or not it was adjusted a couple of knots for the wind component, the aircraft would have made it with fuel to spare. Lots of fuel to spare.

There was no headwind.

Anyway, great initiative Jabba! :D

We should do these analyses for ATSB more often.

[Trent 972]

There you have it folks.
Be very very careful with what some people on this forum will tell you.
Creampuff huffed and puffed but he couldn't blow the house down.
I challenged him on his statement that a headwind doesn't affect the IAS for max range flying and he offered nothing but deflection and misinformation.
Educational value zero. :ugh:

Edit- Creampuff said
We should do these analyses for ATSB more often.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha.

pm that I received from Creampuff
Greetings!
So help me out, Trent.
Did I get a job you wanted, sleep with your girlfriend, wife or a hot chick you never got to root?
Why are you so obsessed by just one of the many mistakes that, like you, I make every day?
It's hard to fathom the cause (unless you are just a garden variety nutjob).
No Creampuff, it's because you were WRONG with what you wrote, and yet you continued to bullsh!t on, knowing that you were WRONG.
PS. Please stop having sexual thoughts about me, NO means NO.
I am not interested in you like that, or any other way. P!ss off weirdo!