This may be trivial to most, but its something to do to occupy my time and justify flying. Can only eat so many $100.00 hamburgers.
I have taken on the tasks of establishing optimum fuel burn without the use of a fuel flow gauge. Don't have one.
1968 180 w/ 0-360 Both tanks filled to tabs (17gal ea.) Take off and climb to altitude, level off and lean on the R tank then switch to L tank for one hour at a steady state then back to R tank. Currently using 2450 RPM and as suspected getting better GPH at higher attitudes. Std day getting 8 GPH @ 4000' and 7.8 GPH @ 6000'. These numbers are pretty consistent. Local flying buddy and intense engineer has shared that on these engines the ideal situation is being at an altitude that requires full throttle to produce 65% power. My eyes are crossed looking at so many performance graphs and not being able to decipher that information. Is getting this information only possible by using a manifold pressure (vacuum) gauge. Anyone with input on this?? No matter what, I still use 10 GPH for flight planning.
I have taken on the tasks of establishing optimum fuel burn without the use of a fuel flow gauge. Don't have one.
1968 180 w/ 0-360 Both tanks filled to tabs (17gal ea.) Take off and climb to altitude, level off and lean on the R tank then switch to L tank for one hour at a steady state then back to R tank. Currently using 2450 RPM and as suspected getting better GPH at higher attitudes. Std day getting 8 GPH @ 4000' and 7.8 GPH @ 6000'. These numbers are pretty consistent. Local flying buddy and intense engineer has shared that on these engines the ideal situation is being at an altitude that requires full throttle to produce 65% power. My eyes are crossed looking at so many performance graphs and not being able to decipher that information. Is getting this information only possible by using a manifold pressure (vacuum) gauge. Anyone with input on this?? No matter what, I still use 10 GPH for flight planning.
