--0__=HDfztP8sYWphkJL31NKHlNmidODmXrLNZDxaMumK3CS6T0dIEBARBOUp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--0__=HDfztP8sYWphkJL31NKHlNmidODmXrLNZDxaMumK3CS6T0dIEBARBOUp
Boy, I for one am beginning to sense that it is getting pretty deep around
here with all this power/performance/on the step stuff. I really like this
email bulletin board as it relates to building and flying Europas, but some
of this has gotten out of hand.
Now we are supposed to believe that you can get more horsepower out of fuel
with a higher octane rating? Oh Please! Octane only relates to the
anti-detonation characteristics of the fuel, not the amount of power it can
make. Unless you can increase the compression ratio when you go to the
higher octane fuel you will get the same power output. You either have
enough octane to prevent detonation or you don't, and putting a higher
octane fuel in than you need will provide no additional benefit, except
make the oil companies richer.
>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
>
--0__=HDfztP8sYWphkJL31NKHlNmidODmXrLNZDxaMumK3CS6T0dIEBARBOUp--
|