First 100 hours

[Jim Burns]

We've put our first 100 hours on our Aztec since buying it mid-August and
this weekend we had the 50hr and 100hour AD's complied with. Fuel leak
inspection (50hrs, pilot can do this one), Fuel valve/cable inspection,
Engine mount inspection, Exhaust system inspection. Everything looked good.

Since we bought it, we've upgraded the KLN 89B to a KLN 94 and had it IFR
certified, replaced one vacuum pump and installed vacuum pump cooling
shrouds via a FAA field approval, braced the oil coolers and fixed the leaky
baffles, re-insulated the nose and heater compartments, installed the Piper
elevator bungee kit, replaced the occasional old vent or drain hose,
replaced a bad pitot heat switch, replaced the cabin door lock, and bought a
set of new 8 ply main gear tires.

We had to pull the pitch control computer from our STec 60-2 due to run away
trim in altitude hold mode, it's still out for repairs.

The next project on our list is a new one piece windshield, maybe a vertical
card compass and electric OAT.

On short hops of 1 hour or less we're seeing fuel burns of 20 gallons per
hour, longer hops we see 24 gallons at 24 squared and 155kts true. Push
everything forward and we see 175 knots true at around 6000 ft and fuel
burns of 27 gallons per hour. Surprisingly close to book numbers for a 38
year old airplane.

So far we're pretty happy with our bird.

Jim


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.799 / Virus Database: 543 - Release Date: 11/19/2004

[Jay Honeck]

> So far we're pretty happy with our bird.

Congrats, Jim. Sounds like a great plane!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

On 22-Nov-2004, "Jim Burns" > wrote:

> On short hops of 1 hour or less we're seeing fuel burns of 20 gallons per
> hour, longer hops we see 24 gallons at 24 squared and 155kts true. Push
> everything forward and we see 175 knots true at around 6000 ft and fuel
> burns of 27 gallons per hour. Surprisingly close to book numbers for a 38
> year old airplane.

So, at the high end of the power/fuel consumption curve you are gaining 20
kts TAS for only 3 gph? That's incredible! In my relatively efficient
Arrow I gain only about 6 kts TAS for about 2 GPH going from 65% to 75%
power. How do you do it?

--
-Elliott Drucker

[Mike Rapoport]

> wrote in message
news:nfKod.2604$6m2.1574@trnddc04...
> On 22-Nov-2004, "Jim Burns" > wrote:
>
>> On short hops of 1 hour or less we're seeing fuel burns of 20 gallons per
>> hour, longer hops we see 24 gallons at 24 squared and 155kts true. Push
>> everything forward and we see 175 knots true at around 6000 ft and fuel
>> burns of 27 gallons per hour. Surprisingly close to book numbers for a
>> 38
>> year old airplane.
>
> So, at the high end of the power/fuel consumption curve you are gaining 20
> kts TAS for only 3 gph? That's incredible! In my relatively efficient
> Arrow I gain only about 6 kts TAS for about 2 GPH going from 65% to 75%
> power. How do you do it?
>
> --
> -Elliott Drucker

27GPH-20GPH=7GPH

[Matt Whiting]

Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > wrote in message
> news:nfKod.2604$6m2.1574@trnddc04...
>
>>On 22-Nov-2004, "Jim Burns" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On short hops of 1 hour or less we're seeing fuel burns of 20 gallons per
>>>hour, longer hops we see 24 gallons at 24 squared and 155kts true. Push
>>>everything forward and we see 175 knots true at around 6000 ft and fuel
>>>burns of 27 gallons per hour. Surprisingly close to book numbers for a
>>>38
>>>year old airplane.
>>
>>So, at the high end of the power/fuel consumption curve you are gaining 20
>>kts TAS for only 3 gph? That's incredible! In my relatively efficient
>>Arrow I gain only about 6 kts TAS for about 2 GPH going from 65% to 75%
>>power. How do you do it?
>>
>>--
>>-Elliott Drucker
>
>
> 27GPH-20GPH=7GPH

No, the 20 GPH was on short hops and no speed is given. 24 GPH is
listed along with the 155 speed vs. 27 for 175. I'm with Elliott, this
defies physics. This is almost exactly a linear increase, but we all
know that drag is not linear with airspeed.


Matt

[Scott Skylane]

Mike Rapoport wrote:

> > wrote in message
> news:nfKod.2604$6m2.1574@trnddc04...
>
>>On 22-Nov-2004, "Jim Burns" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On short hops of 1 hour or less we're seeing fuel burns of 20 gallons per
>>>hour, longer hops we see 24 gallons at 24 squared and 155kts true. Push
>>>everything forward and we see 175 knots true at around 6000 ft and fuel
>>>burns of 27 gallons per hour. Surprisingly close to book numbers for a
>>>38
>>>year old airplane.
>>
>>So, at the high end of the power/fuel consumption curve you are gaining 20
>>kts TAS for only 3 gph? That's incredible! In my relatively efficient
>>Arrow I gain only about 6 kts TAS for about 2 GPH going from 65% to 75%
>>power. How do you do it?
>>
>>--
>>-Elliott Drucker
>
>
> 27GPH-20GPH=7GPH
>
>
Huh!?! Are my eyes funny, or doesn't his original post reference *24*
GPH at 155 kts vs. 27 GPH at 175 kts?

inquiring minds...
Scott Skylane

[Mike Rapoport]

"Scott Skylane" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message
>> news:nfKod.2604$6m2.1574@trnddc04...
>>
>>>On 22-Nov-2004, "Jim Burns" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On short hops of 1 hour or less we're seeing fuel burns of 20 gallons
>>>>per
>>>>hour, longer hops we see 24 gallons at 24 squared and 155kts true. Push
>>>>everything forward and we see 175 knots true at around 6000 ft and fuel
>>>>burns of 27 gallons per hour. Surprisingly close to book numbers for a
>>>>38
>>>>year old airplane.
>>>
>>>So, at the high end of the power/fuel consumption curve you are gaining
>>>20
>>>kts TAS for only 3 gph? That's incredible! In my relatively efficient
>>>Arrow I gain only about 6 kts TAS for about 2 GPH going from 65% to 75%
>>>power. How do you do it?
>>>
>>>--
>>>-Elliott Drucker
>>
>>
>> 27GPH-20GPH=7GPH
> Huh!?! Are my eyes funny, or doesn't his original post reference *24* GPH
> at 155 kts vs. 27 GPH at 175 kts?
>
> inquiring minds...
> Scott Skylane

You're right. I guess it is my eyes which are out of whack. They saw
20GPH which is the "short hop" number. Now the numbers make even less sense
since I would normally expect to see "short hop" fuel flow higher than the
"longer trip" fuel flow and he is also claiming a 13% increase in speed with
a 13% increase in fuel flow. I suspect that he uses the mxture lever on
some flights but not others

Mike
MU-2

[Jim Burns]

> You're right. I guess it is my eyes which are out of whack.

You're right. I guess my numbers are out of whack! :)
I ran though them from memory, which is normally good, but sometimes very
short.

>They saw
> 20GPH which is the "short hop" number.

This is what we are seeing on 1 hour flights with only one take off and
landing. Multiple take offs and landings, then numbers get lower due to
more time at reduced power. We've actually seen numbers down around 16 for
pattern only work.

I looked up a round robin flight of 2.1 hours each way, power settings I
recorded were 24/24 and fuel tickets showed 90 gallons, so I had one too
many 24's in my head, that figures out to 21.4 gallons at 155 True.

Longer trips we've been flight planning at 25gph and it's hardly ever that
high at normal cruise settings. Speed runs at 175 kts burns 27.

So, I believe that we are getting a 13% increase in speed for a 26% increase
in fuel burn.

Thanks for makeing me look that up and correcting it. One problem we have
is the old fuel flow meters are wayyyyyyyy off towards the high side, which
I guess may be on the safe side.



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.799 / Virus Database: 543 - Release Date: 11/19/2004

[Mike Rapoport]

"Jim Burns" > wrote in message
...
>
>> You're right. I guess it is my eyes which are out of whack.
>
> You're right. I guess my numbers are out of whack! :)
> I ran though them from memory, which is normally good, but sometimes very
> short.
>
>>They saw
>> 20GPH which is the "short hop" number.
>
> This is what we are seeing on 1 hour flights with only one take off and
> landing. Multiple take offs and landings, then numbers get lower due to
> more time at reduced power. We've actually seen numbers down around 16
> for
> pattern only work.
>
> I looked up a round robin flight of 2.1 hours each way, power settings I
> recorded were 24/24 and fuel tickets showed 90 gallons, so I had one too
> many 24's in my head, that figures out to 21.4 gallons at 155 True.
>
> Longer trips we've been flight planning at 25gph and it's hardly ever that
> high at normal cruise settings. Speed runs at 175 kts burns 27.
>
> So, I believe that we are getting a 13% increase in speed for a 26%
> increase
> in fuel burn.
>
> Thanks for makeing me look that up and correcting it. One problem we have
> is the old fuel flow meters are wayyyyyyyy off towards the high side,
> which
> I guess may be on the safe side.
>

That is because the "fuel flow" guage in a Piper is really measuring fuel
pressure and displaying it in GPH. It is not a true fuel flow system. On
my Turbo Lance, I had a Shadin fuel flow system and it was dead accurate
while the stock guage always showed much higher numbers.

Mike
MU-2

[Newps]

Jim Burns wrote:

> We've put our first 100 hours on our Aztec since buying it mid-August and
> this weekend we had the 50hr and 100hour AD's complied with. Fuel leak
> inspection (50hrs, pilot can do this one), Fuel valve/cable inspection,
> Engine mount inspection, Exhaust system inspection. Everything looked good.
>
> Since we bought it, we've upgraded the KLN 89B to a KLN 94 and had it IFR
> certified, replaced one vacuum pump and installed vacuum pump cooling
> shrouds via a FAA field approval, braced the oil coolers and fixed the leaky
> baffles, re-insulated the nose and heater compartments, installed the Piper
> elevator bungee kit, replaced the occasional old vent or drain hose,
> replaced a bad pitot heat switch, replaced the cabin door lock, and bought a
> set of new 8 ply main gear tires.
>
> We had to pull the pitch control computer from our STec 60-2 due to run away
> trim in altitude hold mode, it's still out for repairs.
>
> The next project on our list is a new one piece windshield, maybe a vertical
> card compass and electric OAT.
>
> On short hops of 1 hour or less we're seeing fuel burns of 20 gallons per
> hour, longer hops we see 24 gallons at 24 squared and 155kts true. Push
> everything forward and we see 175 knots true at around 6000 ft and fuel
> burns of 27 gallons per hour. Surprisingly close to book numbers for a 38
> year old airplane.
>
> So far we're pretty happy with our bird.

I have a friend who until a month ago had a turbo Aztec. Biggest toilet
I have ever seen. Numerous engine failures in icing conditions, turbos
that break down with regularity, heaters that don't work, gear that
won't go down, or up; the list is endless. I asked him why he didn't
buy a Baron in the first place and he said he couldn't afford it. I
told him you've already bought a new Baron that came in the shape of an
Aztec. He finally did the math and came home with an Aerostar the other
day. Now some poor sap has this Aztec to deal with.

[Jim Burns]

Yep, you are exactly correct. I hope Santa cough's up a Shadin to interface
with our KLN94.

Jim

> That is because the "fuel flow" guage in a Piper is really measuring fuel
> pressure and displaying it in GPH. It is not a true fuel flow system.
On
> my Turbo Lance, I had a Shadin fuel flow system and it was dead accurate
> while the stock guage always showed much higher numbers.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.799 / Virus Database: 543 - Release Date: 11/19/2004

[Jim Burns]

No doubt about it, there are a LOT of real beaters out there. but shhhhh on
the Aerostar... my wife saw one this summer (nooooo not the van!!) and
thinks that we'd look good in it... :(
Jim

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jim Burns wrote:
>
> > We've put our first 100 hours on our Aztec since buying it mid-August
and
> > this weekend we had the 50hr and 100hour AD's complied with. Fuel leak
> > inspection (50hrs, pilot can do this one), Fuel valve/cable inspection,
> > Engine mount inspection, Exhaust system inspection. Everything looked
good.
> >
> > Since we bought it, we've upgraded the KLN 89B to a KLN 94 and had it
IFR
> > certified, replaced one vacuum pump and installed vacuum pump cooling
> > shrouds via a FAA field approval, braced the oil coolers and fixed the
leaky
> > baffles, re-insulated the nose and heater compartments, installed the
Piper
> > elevator bungee kit, replaced the occasional old vent or drain hose,
> > replaced a bad pitot heat switch, replaced the cabin door lock, and
bought a
> > set of new 8 ply main gear tires.
> >
> > We had to pull the pitch control computer from our STec 60-2 due to run
away
> > trim in altitude hold mode, it's still out for repairs.
> >
> > The next project on our list is a new one piece windshield, maybe a
vertical
> > card compass and electric OAT.
> >
> > On short hops of 1 hour or less we're seeing fuel burns of 20 gallons
per
> > hour, longer hops we see 24 gallons at 24 squared and 155kts true. Push
> > everything forward and we see 175 knots true at around 6000 ft and fuel
> > burns of 27 gallons per hour. Surprisingly close to book numbers for a
38
> > year old airplane.
> >
> > So far we're pretty happy with our bird.
>
> I have a friend who until a month ago had a turbo Aztec. Biggest toilet
> I have ever seen. Numerous engine failures in icing conditions, turbos
> that break down with regularity, heaters that don't work, gear that
> won't go down, or up; the list is endless. I asked him why he didn't
> buy a Baron in the first place and he said he couldn't afford it. I
> told him you've already bought a new Baron that came in the shape of an
> Aztec. He finally did the math and came home with an Aerostar the other
> day. Now some poor sap has this Aztec to deal with.
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.799 / Virus Database: 543 - Release Date: 11/19/2004

[Paul Lee]

Matt Whiting > wrote in message >...
> .........
> No, the 20 GPH was on short hops and no speed is given. 24 GPH is
> listed along with the 155 speed vs. 27 for 175. I'm with Elliott, this
> defies physics. This is almost exactly a linear increase, but we all
> know that drag is not linear with airspeed.
>
>
> Matt

My guess is that the 24/155 was at a lower altitude and the 27/175 is
the "true" speed at the higher 6000ft altitude where the air is thinner
and less drag per "true" speed. If you could shoot yourself into space
you could turn off the engines and get zillion knots for 0 gph.
The basic problem is engine aspiration at higher alt. With turbos
that is less of a problem.

[Matt Whiting]

Jim Burns wrote:

>>You're right. I guess it is my eyes which are out of whack.
>
>
> You're right. I guess my numbers are out of whack! :)
> I ran though them from memory, which is normally good, but sometimes very
> short.
>
>
>>They saw
>>20GPH which is the "short hop" number.
>
>
> This is what we are seeing on 1 hour flights with only one take off and
> landing. Multiple take offs and landings, then numbers get lower due to
> more time at reduced power. We've actually seen numbers down around 16 for
> pattern only work.
>
> I looked up a round robin flight of 2.1 hours each way, power settings I
> recorded were 24/24 and fuel tickets showed 90 gallons, so I had one too
> many 24's in my head, that figures out to 21.4 gallons at 155 True.
>
> Longer trips we've been flight planning at 25gph and it's hardly ever that
> high at normal cruise settings. Speed runs at 175 kts burns 27.
>
> So, I believe that we are getting a 13% increase in speed for a 26% increase
> in fuel burn.

That sounds much more reasonable ... and restores my faith in physics! :-)

Matt