That's easy - throttle back, lift nose, level nose and power up again - this
time using a lot more fuel than you did before.
While playing with the flight characteristics I made several runs around
115 - 125 knots as I was getting varying results from day to day. Some days
the aircraft would require considerably more power to achieve the same
speed - over 1" of manifold pressure for the same result at the same
normalised atmospheric pressure. In the end I noticed that the aircraft will
settle into a 120knot cruise at two different visual angles with the most
efficient feeling as if the aircraft is flying nose down. It is that angle
that I refer to (rightly or wrongly) as being "on the step". Since
discovering that point I have never flight planned for more than 12 litres
an hour burn and simply assumed that is what everyone else was doing. Also
note.... I am flying that on only one of two fuels from smaller importers.
They sell it as 96 unleaded mogas though the buzz around town is that it has
an actual RON of 98. If I use major brand 96 unleaded then fuel consumption
rises as I have to fly with a greater power setting.
It would also be rather interesting to check whether UDB is rigged slightly
differently to other Europas. Unfortunately as the aircraft was built
overseas I don't have any real way of checking other than poring over it
with a measuring stick and incidence gauge.
Tony
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-europa@aztec.houxou.com
Subject: Re: Getting "on the step"
It's interesting that one never hears of exactly how you "get off the
step." If valid, surely the phenomenon should be reversible.
Regards,
Fred F., A063
Chuck Popenoe wrote:
>
> As a graduate level aeronautical engineer, I can assure you that only
> magic and no aerodynamics is involved in getting "on the step". I also
> recall an article in AOPA Pilot by Barry Schiff (a man whose wisdom
> I have a great respect for) thoroughly debunking the step myth.
>
> Now in hydrodynamics, planing theory, that is another matter! ;
)
>
> Pops
|