Flying "on the step"?
still learning....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: USA
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GB-
I don't think anyone doubts that at speeds LESS than LRC, you really cut down on the NAM per fuel unit. You can stay aloft for a longer period of TIME, tho.
It's the "step" FASTER than LRC that's in question. IE, if LRC is M.79, then getiing it up to M.80 or .81 and then pulling back the power to LRC settings, you'll be "on the step" and get better results than LRC.
I don't think anyone doubts that at speeds LESS than LRC, you really cut down on the NAM per fuel unit. You can stay aloft for a longer period of TIME, tho.
It's the "step" FASTER than LRC that's in question. IE, if LRC is M.79, then getiing it up to M.80 or .81 and then pulling back the power to LRC settings, you'll be "on the step" and get better results than LRC.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: East of West and North of South
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello I have never flow jets and never will. But don't you think that would be mentioned in the manual if possible? Not to mention the bean counters would probably have all their pilots go through a "step test"? 
Moderator
Quid's comment is pertinent.... we are talking about a poofteenth of cruise speed.
A spot of turbulence and it evaporates. That is, the whole idea is fun, but not really worth wasting the time on it....
A spot of turbulence and it evaporates. That is, the whole idea is fun, but not really worth wasting the time on it....
