The Never Ending Fun Debate

[skippydiesel]

1 hour ago, BirdDog said:

I have flown and flown in a few aircraft in this category, and I was sceptical before I bought mine, but a Bristell NG5 does it for me.  Fast, comfy and looks sexy as!!  😄 

Seriously though - one of the most roomy cockpits in its class, with adjustable pedals etc etc. 

If I had the tenacity, I would drop a 916 in it and try and tear the wings off!!  😂

Nice looking aircraft and its (Wilkpedia) performance is almost as good as the ATEC Faet (also  Czech)

[Thruster88]

8 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

Nice looking aircraft and its (Wilkpedia) performance is almost as good as the ATEC Faet (also  Czech)

Comparing wikipedia or even manufacturer performance is a waste of time. Adsb shows anyone interested how they cruise in the real world. Cessna 182, 120-130 knots all day every day. 

[skippydiesel]

12 minutes ago, Thruster88 said:

Comparing wikipedia or even manufacturer performance is a waste of time. Adsb shows anyone interested how they cruise in the real world. Cessna 182, 120-130 knots all day every day. 

You are likely correct. Unfortunatly manufactures performance data being suspect, one can only turn to third parties (Wiki) in the hope they may not just be paroting the manufacturer's claims. 

 

ADSB? - you would need to know the registration of the aircraft, the power setting, engine type, propeller/ load, altitude, OAT, any speed/lift mods - what else? to be able to make determination (data) that could then be used to compare with another aircraft in the same conditions .

Not impossible but unlikly, outside the controlled confines of a competition.

This is why I like competition data - its the only information that is likely to be untainted by marketing hype.

https://www.pipistrel.ad/pipistrel/travel/virus-912

http://worldrecordplane.com/

 

 

[BirdDog]

It's funny, I often find myself in these discussions about performance LSA type aircraft, and the reality is, if one really need lots of speed, then one fly something fast, and stop trying to wring the neck out of a 912ULS to get past 120kts.

 

I had this chat the other day and said, I like to sit on about 112-115  That will do.  This guy says... yeah I like to sit at least 120, as I like to get there.

Hmm... I had to remind him that the reality is, there are a number of factors that could speed you up or slow you down!  Simply arriving at the airport and having to either wait a bit to get down or the like, and the valuable minutes you saved torturing your engine, are gone.  Add to that head winds and tail winds, and well, it all goes out the window.

 

For me, the journey is just as important as the destination!

[facthunter]

You feel the bumps more at higher speeds. Just fly lower and it seems fast. Nev

[skippydiesel]

4 hours ago, BirdDog said:

It's funny, I often find myself in these discussions about performance LSA type aircraft, and the reality is, if one really need lots of speed, then one fly something fast, and stop trying to wring the neck out of a 912ULS to get past 120kts.

 

I had this chat the other day and said, I like to sit on about 112-115  That will do.  This guy says... yeah I like to sit at least 120, as I like to get there.

Hmm... I had to remind him that the reality is, there are a number of factors that could speed you up or slow you down!  Simply arriving at the airport and having to either wait a bit to get down or the like, and the valuable minutes you saved torturing your engine, are gone.  Add to that head winds and tail winds, and well, it all goes out the window.

 

For me, the journey is just as important as the destination!

 

2 hours ago, facthunter said:

You feel the bumps more at higher speeds. Just fly lower and it seems fast. Nev

Your both smart Blokes so you must be making these comments to get a response. Here goes;

 

You have your engine eg Rotax 912 ULS.

Track Distance 100 NM

Two aircraft (A&B). Sam Altitude/temp/wind speed & direction, Same 75% power setting. Same 15L/ Hr consumption

Aircraft A cruise @ 110 Knots. B cruises  @130 Knots

A does the trip in 54 Min x 0.25L/Min = 13.5L

B does the trip in 46 Min x 0.25L/Min = 11.5L

 

B is the more economical.

 

Of course there are other factors that a pilot/owner may wish to take into account but when you are just looking at economy, speed, not for thrills (no sensation above 1000 ft anyhow) is an important consideration, that should not be dismissed by emotive arguments.

 

[danny_galaga]

What was the question again? 😄

[spacesailor]

Getting a higher speed from the same engine will always

Increase fuel consumption. 

Just get a different airframe .

BD 5 microJET will lower consumption for a faster ride 350 Mph 

As in the James Bond film " octopussy ".

 

 

 

spacesailor

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[pmccarthy]

We have heard here about extra ten knots from eprops.

[facthunter]

I didn't make it  to get a response. It's not all about MPG. Some of my most enjoyed trips were in a tiger moth at 78 Knots.  Nev

[skippydiesel]

15 hours ago, facthunter said:

 Just fly lower and it seems fast. Nev

You made it about the perception/sensation of speed 

[danny_galaga]

13 hours ago, spacesailor said:

Getting a higher speed from the same engine will always

Increase fuel consumption. 

Just get a different airframe .

BD 5 microJET will lower consumption for a faster ride 350 Mph 

As in the James Bond film " octopussy ".

 

 

 

spacesailor

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You missed skippys point. I almost did too. If you have exactly the same engine in two very different aircraft (say a Zenith 701 and a Sling, both with Rotax 912uls), then if one aircraft is just much more streamlined it will go faster for the same fuel consumption per hour. Then if it's going faster for the same fuel consumption, you are flying for a shorter period, so total consumption is lower for the faster plane. 

[Freizeitpilot]

and I believe Bird Dog’s point was that some recreational pilots don’t give a rat’s left gonad about speed - they simply want to enjoy the view. But if outright $/kt efficiency floats Skippy’s boat, well that’s fine too.
 

Each to their own. Bragging rights ? Not interested.

[danny_galaga]

But back to the original question, yes Holden was definitely better than Ford 😎

[spacesailor]

OK ,

I did miss the " different " airframe .

My choice of.  4 litres per hour at 95 kph cruise . ( 60mpg us )

Seems great .

Pity . Like the , BD 5J microjet .

The wings are too short .

spacesailor

Edited May 16 by spacesailor
A little more

[BirdDog]

1 hour ago, Freizeitpilot said:

and I believe Bird Dog’s point was that some recreational pilots don’t give a rat’s left gonad about speed - they simply want to enjoy the view. But if outright $/kt efficiency floats Skippy’s boat, well that’s fine too.
 

Each to their own. Bragging rights ? Not interested.

 

Exactly!  PLUS... I don't like wringing the neck out of my machine, just to get there 10 minutes earlier.  Plus... I get to enjoy that mad view out the window a bit more.  

Fuel consumption, I care little for.  I am not worried about burning a new extra litres per hour.  For me, it's about enjoying my flying without counting the minutes.  😉 

 

 

[Blueadventures]

9 minutes ago, BirdDog said:

 

Exactly!  PLUS... I don't like wringing the neck out of my machine, just to get there 10 minutes earlier.  Plus... I get to enjoy that mad view out the window a bit more.  

Fuel consumption, I care little for.  I am not worried about burning a new extra litres per hour.  For me, it's about enjoying my flying without counting the minutes.  😉 

 

 

Also in turbulent / thermal condition should not be above manoeuvring airspeed in POH.

[skippydiesel]

2 hours ago, Freizeitpilot said:

and I believe Bird Dog’s point was that some recreational pilots don’t give a rat’s left gonad about speed - they simply want to enjoy the view. But if outright $/kt efficiency floats Skippy’s boat, well that’s fine too.
 

Each to their own. Bragging rights ? Not interested.

Yes efficiency of the airframe/engine/prop combination does "float my boat" ESPECIALLY when it comes to touring (which has always been my flying objective). A fuel efficient aircraft will give me good range, more options for landing/refueling point, greater safety. 

 

One one other obvious (to me) point - the more efficient airframe, also allows me to optimise my speed/fuel consumption for any given segment of a rout ie I can go slower for less fuel/Hr, extend my duration & possibly range. I can also go faster (if fuel permits)  and get in well before last light/storm/whatever (safety).

 

I have known, since my very early flight training, that air speed is not something that thrills (open cockpits may be diffrent), unless very close to the ground,  its something on a dial to be managed according to mission/weather conditions, etc 

 

You completely miss the point - it's not about & never has been about BRAGGING, it's about efficiency and options.

[skippydiesel]

1 hour ago, BirdDog said:

 

Exactly!  PLUS... I don't like wringing the neck out of my machine, just to get there 10 minutes earlier.  Plus... I get to enjoy that mad view out the window a bit more.  

Fuel consumption, I care little for.  I am not worried about burning a new extra litres per hour.  For me, it's about enjoying my flying without counting the minutes.  😉 

 

 

Maaate! "wringing the neck out of my machine,"  It would seem you are inferring that a faster aircraft (on the same power/fuel consumption) must be being operated in a manner that will result in reduced engine service life.

You a willfully ignoring the fact that the efficiency of a given airframe, is pretty much dictated by its accumulated drag.

Reduce drag and you may go faster, for the same energy consumed or the same air speed, for less energy consumed.

There is no suggestion that anyone is"wringing the neck out of  (anyones) machine," - this is emotive nonsense.

 

I cruise my Sonex at 5000-5300 rpm. Once in a blue moon I may do a beach/strip run at WOT (5450 rpm in my aircraft)  All rpm are within Max continues. 

 

 "Fuel consumption, I care little for.  I am not worried about burning a new extra litres per hour."  You probably own a Rolls Royce, bully for you! In my World fuel consumption is an important factor in selecting a suitable aircraft for my purpose.
 

"For me, it's about enjoying my flying without counting the minutes."  Skary statement! If this be the case, you should be very concerned with fuel consumption per hour, as this equates to minutes in the air, otherwise known as endurance. Me thinks your approach to flying, places you in danger of fuel exhaustion  and the potentially unpleasant consequences thereof.  😈

Edited May 16 by skippydiesel

[Kenlsa]

Read an article in Kitplanes Magazine a few years ago comparing speeds with arrival times.  They used (from my memory) a 75/100/120 kt aircraft and flew the “normal “ hamburger run of one hour to a neighbouring strip.  
 

While there is a difference in transit times the advantage could be lost in both departing and arrival circuits.  There bottom line was that if you are flying for about an hour…..transit speed differences mattered little. It really only meant anything meaningful if you are approaching 2 hrs.

 

I put this to an informal test and flew out of an air show with traffic management so all ran smoothly.  Some had to turn right at 1000agl while the following had to turn left at 1000agl and so on.  A Gazelle departed only 5 minutes before me and with a 75kt cruise speed (had the very first Bolly prop approval).  He departed one direction and I the other.  He stayed low and I climbed 1000 ft higher than him @ at 100kts.

 

I handed a couple of minutes after him after a distance of 100 miles!

 

He flew low, not wasting time climbing and descending and probably picked up a more favourable wind, enjoying the scenery.

 

So all this “mine is bigger/faster than yours” is well…………pointless?

 

 I have gone the other way and will be lucky to cruise at 90kts, but have installed a skylight and clear door. I fly at 1500agl most of the time giving me the sensation of speed and I am looking to enjoy the close up views.

 

Ken

 

 

 

 

[Freizeitpilot]

1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

You completely miss the point - it's not about & never has been about BRAGGING, it's about efficiency and options.

And you missed mine. I couldn’t give a tinker’s cuss how efficient your aircraft is. I’ll just enjoy my own flying, which at present is in someone else’s aircraft- so I can’t brag about anything anyway.

[skippydiesel]

33 minutes ago, Kenlsa said:

Read an article in Kitplanes Magazine a few years ago comparing speeds with arrival times.  They used (from my memory) a 75/100/120 kt aircraft and flew the “normal “ hamburger run of one hour to a neighbouring strip.  

I like touring ie many hours - I have gone to some trouble to explain my interest in speed/efficient airframe engine combinations and you respond with an example that has no relevance to efficient fuel consumption.

 

32 minutes ago, Freizeitpilot said:

And you missed mine. I couldn’t give a tinker’s cuss how efficient your aircraft is. I’ll just enjoy my own flying, which at present is in someone else’s aircraft.

You would not respond if you "couldn’t give a tinker’s cuss" and no one has suggested that you should enjoy whatever aspect of flying that interests you.

It seems to me that you two are about aggressive argument not factual discussion - Try sticking to fact, do not quote me or others out of context, by all means go off on an interesting tangent but above all remain polite. 

[facthunter]

It's about OTHER points of view to yours and you run your line incessantly, skippy. 

[BirdDog]

4 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

Maaate! "wringing the neck out of my machine,"  It would seem you are inferring that a faster aircraft (on the same power/fuel consumption) must be being operated in a manner that will result in reduced engine service life.

You a willfully ignoring the fact that the efficiency of a given airframe, is pretty much dictated by its accumulated drag.

Reduce drag and you may go faster, for the same energy consumed or the same air speed, for less energy consumed.

There is no suggestion that anyone is"wringing the neck out of  (anyones) machine," - this is emotive nonsense.

 

I cruise my Sonex at 5000-5300 rpm. Once in a blue moon I may do a beach/strip run at WOT (5450 rpm in my aircraft)  All rpm are within Max continues. 

 

 "Fuel consumption, I care little for.  I am not worried about burning a new extra litres per hour."  You probably own a Rolls Royce, bully for you! In my World fuel consumption is an important factor in selecting a suitable aircraft for my purpose.
 

"For me, it's about enjoying my flying without counting the minutes."  Skary statement! If this be the case, you should be very concerned with fuel consumption per hour, as this equates to minutes in the air, otherwise known as endurance. Me thinks your approach to flying, places you in danger of fuel exhaustion  and the potentially unpleasant consequences thereof.  😈

 

Skippy, Normally I would simply pass over dribble like this, but I though it worth a retort.

 

Methinks you know nothing about who I am or what I do.  I was taught to fly by whom I would consider one of the best instructors in the country.  That said, and I don't really need to explain myself to you, but if you think my caring little about fuel consumption makes me dangerous, you obviously don't have enough common sense to know I meant, I really don't care if I spend a few more bucks to get where I want to go, rather than your insinuation that I don't actually plan my trips.

 

So... next time you feel the need to open your mouth and let your belly rumble, take a minute to have a think that you probably know cock all about the bloke you are about to berate.

 

Lastly... I was talking about wringing the neck out of my own machine.  Never did I compare it to any other airframe or configuration.  You do you bro, and I will do me.  all I ask is you think twice about painting me with a brush that you know little about.  All that does is make you look silly.

 

Let's not do that, and just be kind to each other.  It's a better world that way.

 

Cheers

J

 

 

[skippydiesel]

3 hours ago, facthunter said:

It's about OTHER points of view to yours and you run your line incessantly, skippy. 

In effect, this Forum is, amongst other things, a place for debate. That is the exchange of "OTHER points of view". You can agree or not that is your prerogative - try and keep it civil/polite, anything less demeans you, not me.

 

You put forward your idea. I put forward mine and so on.

However its very sad when people descend into language that across as aggression. Quotes out of context. Quotes that never were said. Innuendo and the like

 

Try going back over this recently rather sad debate and see who is in fact using emotive defensive and aggressive language.

As an example - Check out the previous commentary (above) - not nice!

 

It's strange that when I calmly/logically point out the efficiencies that speed can confer, the language of others seems to be about defence, as if they have somehow been attacked.