Range of a PA-28?
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
Very clever, Tinstaafl 
Incidentally, I have a variant of the Microflo-L.
The transducer for all of these products (Shadin or JPI, etc) is a Floscan 201B or similar.
I'd never fly anywhere half serious without this kind of kit.
Incidentally, I have a variant of the Microflo-L.
The transducer for all of these products (Shadin or JPI, etc) is a Floscan 201B or similar.
I'd never fly anywhere half serious without this kind of kit.
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
From: Londonish
IO540, good points all - I did say your mileage may vary. All I can say is for the fleet I'm hiring from, I'm getting marginally better than the suggested fuel burn. I generally plan 36ltrs/hr. None of them are at all close to brand spanking new. They are however well maintained, and I do use the spiky red knob. The point I intended to make was to compare actuals and know what to expect at worst.
As for the POH/conventional wisdom, it seems to suggest we're all flying knackered old pieces of cr*p that don't come anywhere near to doing what the book says. I don't believe it. Not suggesting one should push the numbers however.
I'm also reasonably confident we'd all agree that fuel planning is done on time, not distance, distance being rather more of an outcome than an input.
What constitutes a reasonable reserve, over and above the legal minimums is up to you, the pilot. I'd hazzard a guess that I'm blessed with better weather, and more convenient alternates than IO540, am not IFR, and last but not least when the forecast gets frightening I stay on the ground. I always plan on landing with *at least* an hour in the tanks, though I'll frequently plan more, especially if there are other factors. Based on that, given a good VFR day with the right conditions 400nm is about ballpark for the PA28-161's I fly, and theoretically they'd hit a bit more than 500 before falling out the sky - all in still air. Of course, it also depends how high you fly.
As for the POH/conventional wisdom, it seems to suggest we're all flying knackered old pieces of cr*p that don't come anywhere near to doing what the book says. I don't believe it. Not suggesting one should push the numbers however.
I'm also reasonably confident we'd all agree that fuel planning is done on time, not distance, distance being rather more of an outcome than an input.
What constitutes a reasonable reserve, over and above the legal minimums is up to you, the pilot. I'd hazzard a guess that I'm blessed with better weather, and more convenient alternates than IO540, am not IFR, and last but not least when the forecast gets frightening I stay on the ground. I always plan on landing with *at least* an hour in the tanks, though I'll frequently plan more, especially if there are other factors. Based on that, given a good VFR day with the right conditions 400nm is about ballpark for the PA28-161's I fly, and theoretically they'd hit a bit more than 500 before falling out the sky - all in still air. Of course, it also depends how high you fly.
Joined: Jan 1999
Posts: 6,209
Likes: 2
From: north of barlu
Tinstaafl
12 Lts is no doubt IRO the required reserve fuel if you are at 45% Power at best lean mixture, but is this wise?
When the guy ahead of you blocks the runway and you go around at full power, full rich mixture will eat into this at an "interesting" rate, next you are off to another airfield and during this (most likley high workload) diversion you dont have 45% power set at best lean mixture then the fuel gets burnt at a much higer rate, at the same time the aircraft is flying at a much slower speed than the usual cruise speed.
I would suggest that what is in theory OK might not be quite so wise in the real world.
When the guy ahead of you blocks the runway and you go around at full power, full rich mixture will eat into this at an "interesting" rate, next you are off to another airfield and during this (most likley high workload) diversion you dont have 45% power set at best lean mixture then the fuel gets burnt at a much higer rate, at the same time the aircraft is flying at a much slower speed than the usual cruise speed.
I would suggest that what is in theory OK might not be quite so wise in the real world.
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
From: The Front of Beyond
eugegall,
?? Did you mean 1" below tabs on arriaval? From what I remember of the PA28-180 I flew full tanks was 48 USG and tabs was 36 USG. I can't see how you could get from Fairoaks to Carlisle using less than 12 USG.
Brooklands
I flew from Fairoaks to Carlisle on full tanks with 3 people inc me. on the way i had near nil wind conditions. When i got there i had an inch above tabs on both wings.
Brooklands
Joined: May 2003
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 900
Likes: 0
From: Surrey
Why is there such confusion going on?? The simple reason why endurance is given as the main fuel burn as opposed to range is because the range will ALWAYS change with the wind, endurance given the correct procedures will be relatively accurate. Its all very well saying the Pa28 has a range of 500 miles, but this is not correct. It has a range of 500 miles in nil wind, or a range of 0 miles if the is a headwind of 120knots!
or have I missed the point of the original post??
or have I missed the point of the original post??
