faster 182?

[Dan Luke]

Got a demo flight in a new Skylane Saturday morning. Very nice airplane.
The G1000 stuff was a bit bewildering at first but otherwise it flew just
like any good 182...

....except for one thing: it trued 147 knots! Non-turbo at 5,500 feet, 10 deg.
C OAT, 135 KIAS. Wow! That is 10 knots faster than my buddy's 1980 model.

The guy who runs the FBO that rents it ($190/hr) says their other Skylane is
just as fast. He said changes Cessna made to the cowl and wheel pants
starting in 2005 make the difference. The bad news is that we were burning
15.5 GPH to get that speed.

Oh, yeah, one other difference I noticed: the view forward is much better
than in older 182s, a combination of new glare shield and seat designs, I
suppose.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Peter Clark]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:38:32 -0600, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

>The guy who runs the FBO that rents it ($190/hr) says their other Skylane is
>just as fast. He said changes Cessna made to the cowl and wheel pants
>starting in 2005 make the difference. The bad news is that we were burning
>15.5 GPH to get that speed.

FWIW, I routinely plan 141TAS at 15gph in a 2004 182S.

[[email protected]]

On 12-Feb-2007, "Dan Luke" > wrote:

> The bad news is that we were burning
> 15.5 GPH to get that speed.


My suspicion is that part of the increased cruise speed is the result of
aerodynamic improvements and part is due to higher power setting (maybe
about 85%?), as evidenced by the much higher fuel flow

-Elliott Drucker

[Newps]

Dan Luke wrote:
The bad news is that we were burning
> 15.5 GPH to get that speed.


Why the high fuel flow? My 285hp IO-520 book fuel flow is 15.2 at 75%.

[Kingfish]

On Feb 12, 11:38 am, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> Got a demo flight in a new Skylane Saturday morning. Very nice airplane.
> The G1000 stuff was a bit bewildering at first but otherwise it flew just
> like any good 182...

I got a demo ride in the SR22 and Columbia 400 last year. Like you, I
was behind the curve a bit with the Avidyne & G1000 panels (and I fly
an EFIS equipped Pilatus) The capabilities are pretty amazing, once
you read through the (lengthy?) ops manual

> The bad news is that we were burning 15.5 GPH to get that speed.

What pwr & mixture setting? EGTs?

[John T]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message

>
> ...it trued 147 knots! Non-turbo at 5,500 feet,
> 10 deg. C OAT, 135 KIAS. ... The bad news is
> that we were burning 15.5 GPH to get that speed.

The '67 182K I fly typically trues a good bit slower (~120), but I get much
better fuel burn. I'm typically burning about 12.5 gph at that altitude.

Lessee... 422nm trip @ 147 knots and 15.5 gph = 2.9 hours and $200 (no wind
and 100LL @ $4.50/gal). Same trip @ 120 kt & 12.5 gph = 3.5 hr and $197.

Three dollars to buy 30 minutes? Tempting deal.

My real question is: What power setting were you guys using? I'm usually in
the 65-70% range during cruise.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org
____________________

[Dan Luke]

"Newps" > wrote:

> Dan Luke wrote:
> The bad news is that we were burning
>> 15.5 GPH to get that speed.
>
>
> Why the high fuel flow? My 285hp IO-520 book fuel flow is 15.2 at 75%.

That's not much difference.

[Dan Luke]

"Kingfish" wrote:

> On Feb 12, 11:38 am, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>> Got a demo flight in a new Skylane Saturday morning. Very nice airplane.
>> The G1000 stuff was a bit bewildering at first but otherwise it flew just
>> like any good 182...
>
> I got a demo ride in the SR22 and Columbia 400 last year. Like you, I
> was behind the curve a bit with the Avidyne & G1000 panels (and I fly
> an EFIS equipped Pilatus) The capabilities are pretty amazing, once
> you read through the (lengthy?) ops manual
>
>> The bad news is that we were burning 15.5 GPH to get that speed.
>
> What pwr & mixture setting? EGTs?

23" & 2300 rpm, IIRC. The mixture was 25 deg. ROP. Didn't check the EGTs.
I wish I'd looked at the CHTs.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 12, 12:48 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> "Newps" > wrote:
> > Dan Luke wrote:
> > The bad news is that we were burning
> >> 15.5 GPH to get that speed.
>
> > Why the high fuel flow? My 285hp IO-520 book fuel flow is 15.2 at 75%.
>
> That's not much difference.

It is if the new 182s still have only 235 HP.

Dan

[ktbr]

John T wrote:
>
> Three dollars to buy 30 minutes? Tempting deal.
>
How much does thirty extra minutes on your tach cost you?

If you make those sorts of trips often it adds up to more
maintenance dollars for ADs, more hours on the airframe when
you sell, parts weraing out quicker and getting closer to TBO.

[Dan Luke]

"John T" wrote:

>>
>> ...it trued 147 knots! Non-turbo at 5,500 feet,
>> 10 deg. C OAT, 135 KIAS. ... The bad news is
>> that we were burning 15.5 GPH to get that speed.
>
> The '67 182K I fly typically trues a good bit slower (~120), but I get much
> better fuel burn. I'm typically burning about 12.5 gph at that altitude.
>
> Lessee... 422nm trip @ 147 knots and 15.5 gph = 2.9 hours and $200 (no
> wind and 100LL @ $4.50/gal). Same trip @ 120 kt & 12.5 gph = 3.5 hr and
> $197.
>
> Three dollars to buy 30 minutes? Tempting deal.

That's about the same mileage as Mobile to Houston, a frequent trip of mine.

In my airplane, that's 422nm/135KTAS = 3hrs 7 min. * 10.5gph * $4.50/g=
$148.00.

Hmm...$52 more to save 13 minutes. Not very exciting, but then the Skylane
is a much roomier ride than mine. Comfort counts.

>
> My real question is: What power setting were you guys using? I'm usually in
> the 65-70% range during cruise.
>

I believe it was 75% power, 23 X 2300, 25 deg. ROP.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Dan Luke]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Feb 12, 12:48 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>> "Newps" > wrote:
>> > Dan Luke wrote:
>> > The bad news is that we were burning
>> >> 15.5 GPH to get that speed.
>>
>> > Why the high fuel flow? My 285hp IO-520 book fuel flow is 15.2 at 75%.
>>
>> That's not much difference.
>
> It is if the new 182s still have only 235 HP.

Oh. Duh.

I don't know why the high flow. Maybe I looked before we leaned it?

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Dan Luke]

"ktbr" wrote:

>> Three dollars to buy 30 minutes? Tempting deal.
>>
> How much does thirty extra minutes on your tach cost you?


Good point.

In a typical year, I fly 120 hours. Let's say I average 125 kts, that's
15,000 nm. and $5670 of gas @ $4.50/gal.

In a new Skylane, let's say I average 137 kts. That's 15,000 nm. in 109.5
hours. Times gas @ $4.50/gal * 15.5 gph (probably a high number) = $7638. So
I would spend $2K more for gas, but put 10.5 fewer hours on the airplane,
saving eight hundred bucks or so. Net $1200 more to fly the Skylane vs. the
Cutlass RG. Not a bad deal to get the comfort of a 182.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[John T]

ktbr wrote:
> How much does thirty extra minutes on your tach cost you?

I see your point (adding another $47.50 to my cost above). There's also the
question of "how much is 30 minutes worth to you?"

I'm really wondering if the airframe is the root of the speed difference or
power settings. I haven't parked next to a glass Skylane, so I don't konw
what airframe differences there are. If a different style wheel pant and
cowl would buy me 27 knots, I'm all over it. :)

On the other hand, if most of this comes from running at a significantly
higher power setting, it doesn't look as appealing. There may also be a
significant difference in powerplant since I'm running a carbureted 230hp
engine and I'd bet he's running an IO-540 (260hp?).

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

[Newps]

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Newps" > wrote:
>
>> Dan Luke wrote:
>> The bad news is that we were burning
>>> 15.5 GPH to get that speed.
>>
>> Why the high fuel flow? My 285hp IO-520 book fuel flow is 15.2 at 75%.
>
> That's not much difference.
>



55 horsepower is a big difference.

[Newps]

Dan Luke wrote:

>>> The bad news is that we were burning 15.5 GPH to get that speed.
>> What pwr & mixture setting? EGTs?
>
> 23" & 2300 rpm, IIRC. The mixture was 25 deg. ROP. Didn't check the EGTs.
> I wish I'd looked at the CHTs.



Then something is wrong. At 23 squared that is 65% for me(IO-520) and
book flow is 13 gph.

[C J Campbell]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:14:26 -0800, Dan Luke wrote
(in article >):

>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> On Feb 12, 12:48 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>>> "Newps" > wrote:
>>>> Dan Luke wrote:
>>>> The bad news is that we were burning
>>>>> 15.5 GPH to get that speed.
>>>
>>>> Why the high fuel flow? My 285hp IO-520 book fuel flow is 15.2 at 75%.
>>>
>>> That's not much difference.
>>
>> It is if the new 182s still have only 235 HP.
>
> Oh. Duh.
>
> I don't know why the high flow. Maybe I looked before we leaned it?
>
>

IIRC it should be about 13 gph.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Dan Luke]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> Dan Luke wrote:
>> "Newps" > wrote:
>>
>>> Dan Luke wrote:
>>> The bad news is that we were burning
>>>> 15.5 GPH to get that speed.
>>>
>>> Why the high fuel flow? My 285hp IO-520 book fuel flow is 15.2 at 75%.
>>
>> That's not much difference.
>
>
>
> 55 horsepower is a big difference.
>

Right.

I suspect I checked the fuel flow before we leaned it.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Feb 12, 8:38 am, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> Got a demo flight in a new Skylane Saturday morning. Very nice airplane.
> The G1000 stuff was a bit bewildering at first but otherwise it flew just
> like any good 182...
>
> ...except for one thing: it trued 147 knots! Non-turbo at 5,500 feet, 10 deg.
> C OAT, 135 KIAS. Wow! That is 10 knots faster than my buddy's 1980 model.
>
> The guy who runs the FBO that rents it ($190/hr) says their other Skylane is
> just as fast. He said changes Cessna made to the cowl and wheel pants
> starting in 2005 make the difference. The bad news is that we were burning
> 15.5 GPH to get that speed.
>
> Oh, yeah, one other difference I noticed: the view forward is much better
> than in older 182s, a combination of new glare shield and seat designs, I
> suppose.

Ask them what the useful load is on that 182S. Our new G1000 182 has
much less useful load than my 76 Mooney, the 182 is slower and burns
almost 50% more fuel. However, I do enjoy flying the 182's G1000.

-Robert

[Dan Luke]

"Robert M. Gary" wrote:

> Ask them what the useful load is on that 182S.

1140 lbs.

> Our new G1000 182 has
> much less useful load than my 76 Mooney,

Eh? A quick web search tells me Mooneys of that vintage have less. What is
your Mooney's useful load?

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Dan Luke]

>
> Ask them what the useful load is on that 182S.

It's a 182T

[Robert M. Gary]

On Feb 13, 4:06 am, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" wrote:
>
> > Ask them what the useful load is on that 182S.
>
> 1140 lbs.

1140 lbs with the G1000 system?

> > Our new G1000 182 has
> > much less useful load than my 76 Mooney,
>
> Eh? A quick web search tells me Mooneys of that vintage have less. What is
> your Mooney's useful load?

My Mooney useful load is 1006 lbs. Our 182T's useful load is 900 lbs.
In addition the 182T requires almost 40% more fuel for the same
airtime but probably more like 50% more fuel for the same distance
covered (because the 182T is slower than the Mooney).

-Robert

[Dan Luke]

"Robert M. Gary" wrote:

> Our 182T's useful load is 900 lbs.

Why so low? That's 68 lbs less than my 172RG.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Feb 13, 1:06 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" wrote:
>
> > Our 182T's useful load is 900 lbs.
>
> Why so low? That's 68 lbs less than my 172RG.

Now I'm starting to wonder. We do have some extra equipment (Sat
computer hook up in the back so back seat to surf the web va the XM on
laptop link up), but that stuff shouldn't weigh 200 lbs. I figured the
G1000 LRU's were just heavy.

-Robret

[Milen Lazarov]

> On 2007-02-13, Robert M. Gary > wrote:
>
> Now I'm starting to wonder. We do have some extra equipment (Sat
> computer hook up in the back so back seat to surf the web va the XM on
> laptop link up), but that stuff shouldn't weigh 200 lbs. I figured the
> G1000 LRU's were just heavy.
>
> -Robret


That is a bit wierd, the 182T with G1000 that I rent has 1213 lbs useful load.

-Milen

[Will]

On Feb 12, 2:53 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>
> > What pwr & mixture setting? EGTs?
>
> 23" & 2300 rpm, IIRC. The mixture was 25 deg. ROP. Didn't check the EGTs.
> I wish I'd looked at the CHTs.

Dan, that EGT value looks quite close to the "red box" value that John
Deakin teaches in his engine management course. Here's a link to his
latest article, which covers (or reviews, actually) the EGT/CHT
relationship. Good stuff here..

http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/194452-1.html

[Newps]

Will wrote:
> On Feb 12, 2:53 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>>> What pwr & mixture setting? EGTs?
>> 23" & 2300 rpm, IIRC. The mixture was 25 deg. ROP. Didn't check the EGTs.
>> I wish I'd looked at the CHTs.
>
> Dan, that EGT value looks quite close to the "red box" value that John
> Deakin teaches in his engine management course. Here's a link to his
> latest article, which covers (or reviews, actually) the EGT/CHT
> relationship. Good stuff here..




I believe he said the 23 squared was 65%. If so he is in the red box.
You want to be richer then 100 ROP or leaner than peak EGT.

[Dan Luke]

"Newps" wrote:> Will wrote:
>> On Feb 12, 2:53 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>>>> What pwr & mixture setting? EGTs?
>>> 23" & 2300 rpm, IIRC. The mixture was 25 deg. ROP. Didn't check the
>>> EGTs.
>>> I wish I'd looked at the CHTs.
>>
>> Dan, that EGT value looks quite close to the "red box" value that John
>> Deakin teaches in his engine management course. Here's a link to his
>> latest article, which covers (or reviews, actually) the EGT/CHT
>> relationship. Good stuff here..
>
>
>
>
> I believe he said the 23 squared was 65%. If so he is in the red box. You
> want to be richer then 100 ROP or leaner than peak EGT.

According to the boss of the flight school who was giving me the test flight,
that is the setting achieved by using the Garmin G1000's "lean assist"
feature. Also according to him, that's Cessna's SOP for the airplane.


--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM