|
My suggestion would be to figure a higher
fuel usage than you know you would use. i.e. if you know you use a max of 7
gal/hr, then figure 8 gal/hr. to be on the safe side. As to performance, maybe
you could use the figures from the C-90, again to be on the conservative side.
Then, while on your journey, you could measure and compile your own data and
share it with the group later.
As to your true speed at altitude, maybe
you could use a handheld GPS to give you more info more accurately. I know that
my airspeed indicator and my GPS seldom agree. The Airspeed Indicator is giving
me indicated airspeed and the GPS can give me true ground speed. Also wind can
be factored out this way.
Hope
this is helpful.
Mary
N52WT
-----Original Message-----
From:
Tom Laird-McConnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Ercoupe list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date:
Tuesday, June 15, 1999 09:11 PM
Subject: Real Performance numbers
for an O-200 Ercoupe
I'm planning on
flying from WA to the midwest in a week. On some of the longer legs over
mountainous terrain, I find myself trying to figure out what my real
performance is going to be with the O-200. It's starting to bug me
that I can't use the flight manual that the Coupe comes with.
I know
that at 2000 feet I only go about 90KT, with about 6-7 gal an hour.
But I don't have any chart to look at to predict how I will do at altitude,
etc. Now I know that I could go out there with a large notebook and
try and create a wide variety of situations that would give me the data I
want. But since I only have float fuel gauges and no fuel flow
measuring instrument, I would have to land and refill the tanks to determine
performance, which wouldn't be practical at all.
So my questions
to you out there are:
1) Has anyone
gone and put together a comprehensive performance profile for an O-200
coupe?
2) Would it make
sense to take a C-150 flight manual (which had the O-200) and adopt their
data? I have looked at the manual and already noticed that they say
that the 150 cruises at 102 KTs (at unkown altitude) on the O-200, so
already we know that it is faster...and speed adjustments would have to be
made.
Your help and
insight is appreciated.
-Tom
| 