Message-ID: <36542438.4DDC@ibm.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 07:59:20 -0600
From: Snowbird <snbird@ibm.net>
Reply-To: snbird@ibm.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Re: Airport Etiquette?
References: <365324D1.9D16E70@birdland.sky> <365376BB.5D22@ibm.net> <73169t$s04$1@ausnews.austin.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.37.111.110
X-Trace: 19 Nov 1998 14:35:13 GMT, 129.37.111.110
Organization: IBM.NET
Lines: 35
X-Notice: Items posted that violate the IBM.NET Acceptable Use Policy
X-Notice: should be reported to postmaster@ibm.net
X-Complaints-To: postmaster@ibm.net
Path: news.jprc.com!dca1-feed2.news.digex.net!dca1-hub1.news.digex.net!digex!cyclone.news.idirect.com!island.idirect.com!newsm.ibm.net!ibm.net!news1.ibm.net!129.37.111.110
Xref: news.jprc.com rec.aviation.student:39367

Dylan Smith wrote:

> Snowbird wrote in message <365376BB.5D22@ibm.net>...
> >Just out of curiousity, what kind of plane are you flying?  You
> >mention 5 gallons of fuel in 3/4 hr, which should be fuel burn
> >of less than 7 gallons an hour, which kind of sounds like a C150
> >or C152, low for a C172; then you mention 5 1/2 hrs fuel which sounds
> >like high fuel capacity for a C172 let alone a C150/C152.  But maybe
> >I'm wrong, it's been a bit.
 
> If you fly a C172 at 65% power, you'll get a fuel burn very close to 
> 6.6 gph and 105KTAS. 

Yeah, and if the tach in a different C172 reads 100 lower than actual
rpm or you're flying at 3000 agl and 75% power, the fuel burn might
be closer to 8.3 gph or more.  Do you count/flight plan on getting 6.6
gph?

There was a story a while ago about a new PPL who ran her C172
out of fuel after flying something like 4 1/2 hrs without refueling.
Search dejanews, "New ticket in July, accident in August"

Everyone who responded at the time scoffed at how foolish and
ridiculous it was to fly for 4 1/2 hrs without refueling in a
C172, but if you can honestly count on getting >7 gph, she ought 
to have been able to do it and land with an hour and a half of 
reserve.  If you can honestly count on 5 1/2 hrs of fuel from 
a C172, she should have had an hour of fuel in reserve instead
of an off-airport landing.

Just a point to consider.

Snowbird


