----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any advice in this forum.]----
on 1/30/03 9:36 AM, MAGIC VAC at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I was going to let this pass...but...it irked me... Many of the > things you say may be right... The whole purpose of a venue like this is to share opinions and information. The information should be supported by avaiable facts and if the opinions are not it is in the best interest of all concerned to re-evaluate them! The persons who understand the "whole picture" on a subject become obvious over time, and we all can benefit from their contributions and debates. It probably condenses debates to assume points not challenged are "made", or accepted. To say you may (or may not) agree with unspecified information essentially acknowledges you have no basis with which to challenge someone's contribution but implies you would if you could. >...at full throttle...leaned out to the correct mixture...making only 50-55% > power...are only details. Actually, you shouldn't be at full throttle. When setting your cruise configuration, one should back off the throttle very slowly until the rpm starts to fall. If you want absolute maximum performance, then restore only as much throttle as is required to restore your "lost" rpm. In this manner you have exit the carburetor's built-in "cooling enrichment". If you don't do this before you lean, it's not reasonabe to expect to be able to enjoy the benefits of proper airbourne mixture control (and economy). > ...What's bothering me here... (I don't believe?) > ... "mushing" being the most efficient. Also, the assertion that you're > doing higher airspeed, with less power. I believe that if you're "mushing" > (nose high attitude), it takes more power to stay there, and you're creating > more wind resistance doing it. Can't be efficient! Certainly, if you have > sufficient power to fly high, efficiently, you will make more distance, > faster. But if you're fighting to stay up there, I don't believe your > assertions. > Exactly when the airframe is "mushing" and when it is not, and the benefits or liabilities specifically associated I don't pretend to know. I do assert (with Ed, I think) that each properly rigged airframe with a powerplant in decent condition properly operated (and these qualifications are not all that subjective) will have a "best compromise" airspeed between rate of forward progress (speed) and rate of fuel consumption (range). Whether or not it is mushing at that time is...as you say...details; and in this instance unimportant. In this context Ed's statement is really the "bottom line" on this subject. His references are also the best. Efficient flying isn't easy...it's challenging; and worthy of constant pursuit. It's a worthy element in our quest for the "perfect" flight. You never "get there", but the closer you get, the greater the satisfaction from our exercise of such control as we enjoy over the many variables. It was the great teacher Socrates (I believe) who admitted that he couldn't "...teach anybody anything. All I can do is make them think." Exchanges shouldn't be personalized...they are a wonderful and ongoing learning experience for the receptive. Minds are like parachutes...they only work right when they're open. Anyway, that's my two cent's worth. Regards, William R. Bayne <____|(o)|____> copyright 2002) ========================================================================== ==== To leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
