----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any
advice in this forum.]----



Larry,

The key thing you're missing is that at high altitude, you're NOT at full
throttle!

Yes, the engine is spinning at 2400 or 2500 rpm but the air is thin and it
takes less power to spin the prop at that speed.  You'll have leaned the
engine and be developing maybe 50% power using 50% or 60% of max fuel
flow.

But, since you're doing it in the high, thin air, the plane is nose high
and
the wing is in the nose-high mushing attitude that give it the best
efficiency.  AND you're doing this at what turns out to be a high true
speed
even though the indicated airspeed is down around 75-80 mph.

1.  The wing is in its best efficiency mode - mushing

2.  The engine is throttled back by the leaning process so your fuel flow
is
WAY low.

3.  You're doing this at high true speed but low INDICATED airspeed
because
of the thin air.

4.  The pump into the plane during the 1-hour climb you get back at the
end
with a long cruise descent at maybe 2100 or 2200 rpm - getting back maybe
80% of the climb energy.

5.  By the time you do the pattern, land, fuel, pay, take off, get back on
track, each fuel stop costs you at least an hour so any fuel stop you can
avoid gives you a 10-30% increase in your overall speed for the entire
trip.
Because of the high altitude efficiencies and low fuel flow, you can make
long cross country trips much faster at high altitude as long as you don't
have strong headwinds.  (Just don't drink much before flying a long
cross-country leg or you'll have a wet leg.  :) )

Please don't take my word for it.  Read the words of an aeronautical
engineer respected by Fred Weick.  Wolfgang Langewiesche's book
_Stick_and_Rudder_ has been in print for 59 years because IT'S REALLY GOOD
and nobody has since said it as well.  It's on the shelf in most decent
bookstores.  Again, I suggest reading chapter 19, The Working Speeds of an
Airplane and also chapter 20, Thin Air.

I've tested these words in my Coupe on long cross country trips and it
WORKS - it's NOT something that "Others will prove the
inefficiency of it."  That can't be done because it's a well tested and
re-testable scientific and engineering fact.

Ed Burkhead
http://edburkhead.com/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-----Original Message-----
From: MAGIC VAC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 8:58 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Coupe-Tech
Subject: Re: [COUPERS-TECH] Re:"0200 conversion"

I know this can be one of those points that will be proven many times
over.
Some will prove the efficiency of altitude flying.  Others will prove the
inefficiency of it.  To each his own here.  I will however say that in an
aircraft that is power challenged to begin with, and that (on a good hot
summer day) takes 30 minutes to an hour to reach high altitude, and that
once you reach that altitude you have to maintain full throttle just to
stay
there for the next hour or so, high altitude flying isn't practical or
efficient unless you have that strong tail wind.

Larry


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Burkhead" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "MAGIC VAC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Coupe-Tech" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 7:02 PM
Subject: RE: [COUPERS-TECH] Re:"0200 conversion"


>
> Larry,
>
> You're right in that winds are important.  But high altitude IS
efficient
> and MUCH more so if you can lean the engine.  For cruising, please read
> chapter 19, "The Working Speeds of an Airplane" and chapter 20, "Thin
Air"
> in Stick and Rudder by Wolfgang Langewiesche.  This is the definitive
> information.
>
> Ed Burkhead
> http://edburkhead.com/
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: MAGIC VAC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 12:55 PM
> To: Greg Bullough; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [COUPERS-TECH] Re:"0200 conversion"
>
> ----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following
any
> advice in this forum.]----
>
>
> I've never found flying at high altitude to be efficient.  Full
throttle,
> but getting 55% power, and having to continually be in climb mode just
to
> keep you there doesn't equate out to efficient flying.  On the other
hand,
a
> hell of a tail wind will offset those other problems really fast.
>
> Larry
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Greg Bullough" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 5:44 AM
> Subject: Re: [COUPERS-TECH] Re:"0200 conversion"
>
>
> > ----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following
any
> advice in this forum.]----
> >
> >
> > At 11:05 AM 1/27/03 -0800, Maynard Smith wrote:
> > >Cruising up high isn't about the wind, it's about efficiency.
> >
> > When winds aloft at 12000 hit 40 or 45 knots...
> >
> > ....one way or another, it's about the wind.
> >
> > :-)
> >
> > Greg
> >
> >
>
==========================================================================
==
> ==
> > To leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm
> >
>
>
==========================================================================
==
> ==
> To leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm
>


==========================================================================
====
To leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm


<<attachment: winmail.dat>>

Reply via email to