New Cessna panel

Actually, we must all be nerds. I've been keeping the same spreadsheet since
getting my 182 a year ago, and my experience is much the same - it averages
about 11.5 gal/hr, but most of my flying is also at higher cruise altitudes
where I'm rarely above 65% (19 or 20 inches at 10,000). It was a real
eye-opener though, after installing a JPI FS-450, to see the fuel flow up
around 20 on takeoff.

Mike

In article 1Vcib.102338$%h1.98157@sccrnsc02, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:
I keep an Excel spreadsheet of every flight I ever make, and every time I
add fuel.

Wow -- I'm not sure whether I should be impressed, or incredulous. :-)

I thought I was doing well to remember to write each flight in my logbook!

In article ,
Craig Prouse wrote:
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

Wow. You've got to be running at some pretty low power settings to achieve
11.5 GPH. We usually average between 13 and 15 gph on our O-540, at 23
squared, leaned using a JPI EDM-700 engine analyzer. (As measured with the
JPI FS-450 flow meter.).

I keep an Excel spreadsheet of every flight I ever make, and every time I
add fuel. Whenever I top off, I run the spreadsheet to figure my average
economy since the last time I topped off. In all seriousness, I've never
seen 12 GPH. The number that most commonly turns up is 11.3 GPH.

I think we're comparing different numbers. If your spreadsheet uses the
same times as your logbooks (engine start to engine stop) and your trips
average 2 hours of which about .3 is at low/no power (taxi, landing),
then your total number is about 17% lower (2 / (2 - 0.3)) than the
instantaneous reading you'd get in cruise, which Jay is reading off of
his EDM-700. Your 11.3 GPH would be closer to 13.3 GPH on an engine
analyzer. The shorter your average trip, the higher the actual burn
would be.

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

"Ben Jackson" wrote:

I think we're comparing different numbers. If your spreadsheet uses the
same times as your logbooks (engine start to engine stop) and your trips
average 2 hours of which about .3 is at low/no power (taxi, landing),
then your total number is about 17% lower (2 / (2 - 0.3)) than the
instantaneous reading you'd get in cruise, which Jay is reading off of
his EDM-700. Your 11.3 GPH would be closer to 13.3 GPH on an engine
analyzer. The shorter your average trip, the higher the actual burn
would be.

I didn't say how my spreadsheet comes up with the numbers it does, but in
fact it does not use the same times as my pilot logbook. My stated fuel
burn is per tach hour, which in my case usually works out to be uncannily
close to actual flight time, takeoff to touchdown.

Sure, I burn a little less in taxi, but I burn a little more in climb. Most
of my trip is in cruise, probably closer to 3 hours on average, so whatever
is happening there should mostly determine my results. The rest of the time
seems to average out for typical X/C work. I feel pretty good about the
number 11.3 -- that's what I use in the Hayward Air Race and it gives me
excellent results (which I have so far managed to waste by making other
stupid mistakes). My POH even says that 2300 RPM and 21" MP at 8000' should
give me 66% power on 11.2 GPH.

I've also done the exercise of taking off from PAO with full tanks (88 gal),
then flying four hours to HIO whereupon I dip my tanks and find that I've
got 42 gallons left in there. So there's just no way I could be burning 13
GPH for any sustained period of time in cruise; if I had an engine monitor
that said so, it would have to be lying.

The difference between my economy and O-470 powered C182s and Jay's
Pathfinder probably has a lot to do with having well-balanced fuel injectors
rather than a carburetor. If he's running 50+ ROP, and I'm running right at
peak or a little on the lean side, that's going to cost him an extra gallon
or two per hour. Then consider the fact that Jay probably doesn't cruise at
11,000 between Iowa City and Racine like I have to between Medford and
Redding.

In conclusion, I think it's a mistake to dismiss the IO-540 on the new
Cessnas as an insignificant update to the type. The O-470 was a good
engine, but the IO-540 rocks. It's easier to manage and more efficient.

In conclusion, I think it's a mistake to dismiss the IO-540 on the new
Cessnas as an insignificant update to the type. The O-470 was a good
engine, but the IO-540 rocks. It's easier to manage and more efficient.

I agree -- the injected O-540 is a terrific engine.

Heck, we absolutely LOVE our carbureted version. It's powerful, relatively
smooth, can be throttled back to burn 10 gph all day long, or honked all the
way forward to burn 23 gph -- and when you do that our Pathfinder will climb
like a homesick angel!

It starts on 2 blades, and doesn't burn a drop of oil. (Of course, it was
newly overhauled just last year...)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck"

O-540...doesn't burn a drop of oil.

Uh-oh.

That's a *bad* thing, isn't it? I've read that an aircraft piston engine
that burns no oil between changes is giving evidence of glazed cylinders.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Dan Luke" c172rgATbellsouthDOTnet writes:

"Jay Honeck"

O-540...doesn't burn a drop of oil.

Uh-oh.

That's a *bad* thing, isn't it?

I believe so. I believe there are specs for both max AND min oil
usage.

I'm not sure what all the bad reasons for zero oil usage are. Coking
would be one, I'd guess.

-jav

In article ,
Dan Luke c172rgATbellsouthDOTnet wrote:
"Jay Honeck"

O-540...doesn't burn a drop of oil.

Uh-oh.

That's a *bad* thing, isn't it?

That's my understanding. Oil has to get on the sides of the cylinder
walls to lubricate them, and that film will burn on every stroke. My
IO-540 burns (and/or leaks) about 1qt every 10 hours and I'm worried
that might be a sign that oil isn't sticking to the Cermichrome.

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:hzDib.753715$YN5.705721@sccrnsc01...
In conclusion, I think it's a mistake to dismiss the IO-540 on the new
Cessnas as an insignificant update to the type. The O-470 was a good
engine, but the IO-540 rocks. It's easier to manage and more efficient.

I agree -- the injected O-540 is a terrific engine.

Heck, we absolutely LOVE our carbureted version. It's powerful,
relatively
smooth, can be throttled back to burn 10 gph all day long, or honked all
the
way forward to burn 23 gph -- and when you do that our Pathfinder will
climb
like a homesick angel!

I'd love a 182RG with an IO-540 instead of the O-470. Does anyone do a
conversion?

"Tom S." wrote:

I'd love a 182RG with an IO-540 instead of the O-470. Does anyone do a
conversion?

The 182RG always had a Lycoming O-540 vice the Continental O-470. All
you're missing is the fuel injection.

O-540...doesn't burn a drop of oil.

Uh-oh.

That's a *bad* thing, isn't it? I've read that an aircraft piston engine
that burns no oil between changes is giving evidence of glazed cylinders.

*sigh* So I exaggerate a bit.

What I SHOULD have said is "it doesn't burn a drop of oil beyond 'normal'
consumption"...

Our O-540 uses around one quart every 12 - 15 hours. More if I fill the
sump beyond 8.5 quarts.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"