Quote:
Originally Posted by cleanspeed1
I'm sorry, I should have qualified: a diesel reciprocating engine. Are the gph rates better or worst between it and a turbine?
|
Likely a piston would have lower consumption rates, but at 675 HP continuous I don't think a diesel could be light and durable enough. I do know of gasoline radial engines that operate at similar power levels and lower consumption but the overhauls are much more frequent (as are failures) and the parts situation is pretty dismal for having anything close to an acceptible dispatch relibility.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Christ
Lol the only reasonable time to be proud of 3mpg...
Any way to get it better?
|
Fuel flow and speed in this aircraft are pretty linear. If you slow down enough to improve the consumption the trip times almost double. Which means the company is doing manditory 100hr inspections (and expinsive overhauls) spread over less revenew.
About the best option is to load the thing to max weight/pasenger count before doing a trip. The company already tries to do that as it is.
The plane I learned to fly in got about 15mpg to 17mpg if I climbed really high and leaned as far out as I could. With two people on board that works out to about 30mpg/per person
The one I will be flying for work gets about 3mpg most of the time, 4 if you climb and cruse in thin air, but most of the time we are ducking weather so that is not really a reliable option. If you load to max passenger load (9) we are in the 27mpg/passenger range.
__________________
Learn from the mistakes of others, that way when you mess up you can do so in new and interesting ways.
One mile of road will take you one mile, one mile of runway can take you around the world.