Brodhead Pietenpol Association

Original Posted By: "Jake Crause"
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Adventure '05 Crunching the NumbersCook (K50) to Earhart (K59) 175 sm 2.3 hrs 8 gal 3.47 gal/hr 5500 mslEarhart (K59) to Centerville (TVK) 143 sm 1.9 hrs 6.4 gal 3.36 gal/hr 5500 mslCenterville (TVK) to Antique Field (Pvt) 30 sm .7 hrs 2000 mslAntique Field (Pvt) to Maquoketa (OQN) 120 sm 1.9 hrs 10 gal 3.8 gal/hr 5500 mslMaquoketa (OQN) to Brodhead (C37) 80 sm 1.2 hrs 5500 mslBrodhead (C37) to Brodhead (C37) Local flight - did Smokin' Figure 8'sBrodhead (C37) to Brodhead (C37) Local flight Brodhead (C37) to Brodhead (C37) Out & Back 20 sm Attempt flight to Oshkosh, but the headwinds won out !! I had almost full power in, with an indicated speed of 73 mph, pointing the nose west, trying to track north, and aground speed of 17 mph !! Brodhead (C37) to Maquoketa (OQN) 80 sm 1.3 hrs 5.4 gal 4.1 gal/hr 4500 mslOn this leg, I didn't climb as high, but I still leaned it out, with a higher power setting of 2100 rpm, which I believe is why the fuel burn was higher.Maquoketa (OQN) to Centerville (TVK) 145 sm 2.5 hrs 9.13 gal 3.65 gal/hr 4500 mslCenterville (TVK) to Earhart (K59) 143 sm 2.2 hrs 7.8 gal 3.5 gal/hr 4500 mslEarhart (K59) to Cook (K50) 175 sm 2.3 hrs 8 gal 3.4 gal/hr 4500 mslAll told, I burned 65.7 gal of fuel (Av Gas & Mo Gas), logged 18 hrs flight time, covered 1171 sm, which gave me an average fuel burn of 3.63 gal/hr, and 17.8 miles per gallon. I am suprised that my plane doesn't get very good milesper gallon, but I triple checked the numbers, and that's a little better than I got last year. I'm working on a long post about the details of the trip.Chuck GantzerNX770CG________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
And you are complaining about getting 3.63 gal/hour?ChrisBraumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren ----- Original Message -----

Original Posted By: Christian Bobka
ChrisWhat are you burning? I have been at about 4.1 gph. I checked the engine manual,it should be more like 3.7 gph. I was getting ready to do some trouble shooting.My flying has been at less than 2500' at 2100 rpm.Dick N. ----- Original Message -----

Original Posted By: Dick Navratil
I have always found that flight planning at 4.0 was pretty much on the money.I get 4.0 on the C-85 in the Cessna 140 when I lean at altitude.chrisBraumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren ----- Original Message -----

Original Posted By: Rcaprd(at)AOL.COM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Adventure '05 Crunching the NumbersIn a message dated 7/31/2005 10:49:31 AM Central Standard Time, sbobka(at)charter.net writes:And you are complaining about getting 3.63 gal/hour?ChrisNaw, I just like to experiment. I'm finding out where all the burn rates are, for the various power settings, altitude, EGT, CHT, Oil temp, etc... I'mstill planning on finding the service ceiling, and absolute ceiling. I have ahunch this will change, if I remove the front pit cover. I really like it there for the cross country flights, because it lowers the drag, keeps a lot ofthe wind out of the cockpit, and it's much easier to manage folding the charts.It gets pretty cold up there, too !! I brought along the new front windshield, but didn't get the chance to use the quick change, and give some rides.Chuck G.________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Adventure '05 Crunching the NumbersIn a message dated 7/31/2005 12:36:18 PM Central Standard Time, horzpool(at)goldengate.net writes:ChrisWhat are you burning? I have been at about 4.1 gph. I checked the engine manual, it should be more like 3.7 gph. I was getting ready to do some troubleshooting. My flying has been at less than 2500' at 2100 rpm.Dick N.Dick,Try a flight at 1950 to 2000 rpm, and I can almost guarantee your burn rate will drop.Chuck G.________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: "Christian Bobka"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Adventure '05 Crunching the NumbersIn a message dated 7/31/2005 4:36:33 PM Central Standard Time, sbobka(at)charter.net writes:I have always found that flight planning at 4.0 was pretty much on the money.I get 4.0 on the C-85 in the Cessna 140 when I lean at altitude.chrisChris,I always plan on the 4.0 gph also. I was wondering what altitude you begin to lean it out at ?Chuck G.________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: "Christian Bobka"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Adventure '05 Crunching the NumbersIn a message dated 8/1/2005 9:14:31 P.M. Central Standard Time, sbobka(at)charter.net writes:I lean out after takeoff and continue to lean in the climb, keeping it to the rich side a little.Chris, Do you have an EGT gauge? Tom ________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
I lean out after takeoff and continue to lean in the climb, keeping it to the richside a little.ChrisBraumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren ----- Original Message -----

Original Posted By: TomTravis(at)aol.com
No, I just note the full rpm rise and then lean for half the rise.ChrisBraumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren ----- Original Message -----

Original Posted By: "Christian Bobka"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Adventure '05 Crunching the NumbersIn a message dated 8/1/2005 9:52:15 PM Central Standard Time,sbobka(at)charter.net writes:No, I just note the full rpm rise and then lean for half the rise.ChrisI have NO noticeable rise in RPM on my Cont. A65, even up to 6500 msl. Thisis somewhat difficult to see, because slight pitch changes effect the RPM,especially a slight pitch down. If a change in RPM is there, I can't concludeitdue to leaning the mixture. Therefore, my only immediate indication is arise in EGT. The CHT then indicates a rise after several minutes, and I haven'tbeen able to see much rise in oil temp at all. The info I have about the A65and Stromberg carb, states that leaning the mixture at less than 5000' DensityAltitude will not do any good. Flight testing, and perhaps re-reading theprocedures, shall continue, and I will report the results.Chuck G.NX770CG100=BA today, and 101=BA forecast for the next day or so. I think it's supposed to decrease by 3=BA F for each 1000' in altitude. Hummm....Might not be too bad up around 9000' or 10,000'.________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
at a 1000 foot field elevation, 101 degree temp, 88 degree dewpoint, and a standardaltimeter setting, you are looking at about a 4400 foot density altitude.Start leaning at about 600 feet after you take off and you will be at a 5000foot density altitude.see http://wahiduddin.net/calc/calc_da.htmChrisBraumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren ----- Original Message -----

Original Posted By: Prange Larry J PSNS
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Adventure '05 Crunching the NumbersHi Chuck,Very impressive fuel consumption - I seem to be burning nearer 4.5 US Gallsper hour! Running a 600 hour C65 but with mixture permanently wire lockedrich. I imagine you were leaning out on every trip regardless of altitude -is this correct? Following some of the engine related presentations atOshkosh I think I had better take out some plugs and have a look at them. Myunderstanding now is that a weaker mixture is actually good for enginelongevity so I'm now thinking of fitting a mixture control.Regards,Mike HayesThis message and any associated files sent by Denco Limited, Delimon Denco Lubrication Limited and Franklin Hodge Industries Limited are confidential, and intended only for the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the IT Helpdesk by telephone immediately on 01432 377305 (UK) or +(44) 1432 377 305 (international) or return it to us by e-mail quoting the name of the sender and the address. Please also be advised that if you have received this email in error and that any disclosure and/or use of the information contained within this email or attachments is strictly prohibited.Any views or opinions expressed in this e-mail are solely those of the sender and do not necessarily represent those of Denco Limited, Delimon Denco Lubrication Limited and Franklin Hodge Industries Limited their divisions and/or subsidiaries, unless otherwise specifically stated.Please note that this e-mail and any attachments have not been encrypted. They may therefore be liable to be compromised. This is an inherent risk in relation to e-mail. Denco Holdings Limited its divisions subsidiaries and divisions of subsidiaries do not, to the extent permitted by law, accept any liability (whether in contract, negligence or otherwise) for any changes made to this e-mail after it has been sent by the original sender, any external compromises of security and/or breaches of confidentiality in relation to transmissions sent by e-mail.We cannot to the extent permitted by law accept any liability (whether in contract, negligence or otherwise) for any damage sustained as a result of any software viruses and it is therefore your responsibility to scan the attachments (if any) and carry out your own virus check before opening any attachments.________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: "James Dallas"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Adventure '05 Crunching the NumbersIn a message dated 8/4/2005 11:47:15 AM Central Standard Time, Mike.Hayes(at)denco.co.uk writes:I imagine you were leaning out on every trip regardless of altitude -is this correct? Following some of the engine related presentations atOshkosh I think I had better take out some plugs and have a look at them. Myunderstanding now is that a weaker mixture is actually good for enginelongevity so I'm now thinking of fitting a mixture control.Mike,I have been leaving it full rich, until I get to an altitude of 4000 or 5000 msl. My next time up, I'm going to follow Chris's suggestion about leaning itout before that. If your engine is running rich, it will deposit more carbon in the engine oil. Another possible cause of running rich, is a float setting that is too high. Does your carb ever drip fuel ? And a possible causeof higher fuel consumption might be using a high power setting, in attempting to sustain a higher speed. I'm pretty sure I can get a consumption of just over 3 gal / hr, if I fly at just over minimum controllable airspeed. For my plane and instruments this is at 1750 to 1800 rpm, which nets about 55 to 60 mphindicated. Can't get there quite as fast, but it's a great way to just take inthe beautiful scenery !!Chuck G.NX770CGps It looks like this weekend I'll be doing some high altitude tests.________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Chuck, The speed you are looking for is Lift over Drag Max--the point where induceddrag and parasitic drag co-incide. The slower you go the more induced drag dueto lift and the faster you go the more parasitic drag increases. Wished I could'vemade it to Broadhead, but Uncle Ray wouldn't let me off.Jim Dallas ----- Original Message -----

Original Posted By: del magsam