Jump to content

SW or LS


Junglejett

Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, Jorge E Trevino said:

Do you remember what was your fuel consumption Andy?
Isn’t 5500 Rpm at the limit of the engine?
Again thanks for your tips.

Yes, 5500 is the maximum continuous limit for the engine, it runs fine at that speed all day long (though it's a little loud and burns more fuel!).  I don't have a good way to track exact fuel consumption numbers since I only have the sight tubes in my airplane..  But I took off with 30-31 gallons and landed with about six.  So call it 6gph or a little more.  That was around 5500ft IIRC.  I think the book calls for 6.3gph at 5500rpm, so that sounds about right.

Now that I have more experience I'd probably just run at 5400rpm and live with the few minutes extra time.  That extra 100rpm really takes a lot more gas than you get from it in speed.  I think 5300rpm is the best speed/economy sweet spot from my experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Towner said:

Went on a short x-country flight yesterday in my SW, one hour each way. 4500 ft there and 5500 feet back. Density altitude was about 700 ft higher. Running 5150 rpm I was burning 4.9-5.0 gph. Averaged about 107 knots tas

Sounds about right.  When I’m not in a hurry I love 5000rpm, gives about 4gph and 100kt or so.  Quiet and smooth too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to chime in - I cruise ar 5000 rpm and 100Kts IAS.  5gph. (usually below 3000ft)    Like mentioned above, part of my reason i cruise at 5000rpm  is i notice a considerable increase in engine noise above this rpm.  Also 99.99% in no hurry and actually sad when arriving at destination /end of flight :)- edit 2006 CTSW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, cdarza said:

Just to chime in - I cruise ar 5000 rpm and 100Kts IAS.  5gph. (usually below 3000ft)    Like mentioned above, part of my reason i cruise at 5000rpm  is i notice a considerable increase in engine noise above this rpm.  Also 99.99% in no hurry and actually sad when arriving at destination /end of flight :)

Hmm...5gph at 5000rpm sounds high.  What is your WOT rpm at 3000ft?  Of course I might be wrong and that could be the normal fuel burn, as I say I only have tubes to judge fuel burn so I'm really just kind of guessing.  But I'd expect 4-4.5gph at 5000rpm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, okent said:

The POH should list fuel burns at particular rpm settings.  I've found it to be pretty close.

image.png.c19b822b3034e67143ff9d8204643183.png

Looks like 4.9gph at 5200rpm (75%).  So 5gph @ 5000rpm does seem a little high...4.5gph or so is probably close by FD's numbers.  It would be 4.7gph if consumption were linear with rpm, but it's not.

6.6gph at 5500rpm sounds on the high side, but FD's people are more expert that me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mine was about 4.9-5.0 at 5150. That’s pretty close. I’m guessing prop pitch can make a huge difference. On my 2006 SW, my prop was originally pitched to 5200 at wot by the factory. Needless to say, it’s been changed, but I’m guessing the book is based on the original prop setting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, FlyingMonkey said:

Hmm...5gph at 5000rpm sounds high.  What is your WOT rpm at 3000ft?  Of course I might be wrong and that could be the normal fuel burn, as I say I only have tubes to judge fuel burn so I'm really just kind of guessing.  But I'd expect 4-4.5gph at 5000rpm.

WOT is 5600 - 5650 at 3000ft.   Yeah it could possibly be 4.5 however i rounded up to the average when i check flight time and fuel consumed.   There have been times when i computed 4gph and thought i made a mistake as seemed a bit too low for consumption.      2006 CTSW       - just hit 1000hrs last week    yeeeha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, cdarza said:

WOT is 5600 - 5650 at 3000ft.   Yeah it could possibly be 4.5 however i rounded up to the average when i check flight time and fuel consumed.   There have been times when i computed 4gph and thought i made a mistake as seemed a bit too low for consumption.      2006 CTSW       - just hit 1000hrs last week    yeeeha

You and I are neck and neck, I'm at 962hrs.  The airplane had 113hrs on it when I bought it in 2013, so I have been flying it a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi... so RZ is flying again so I got a chance today to confirm some numbers I see, weather was bumpy so stayed around  100 knots.

2003 CT2K half tanks 175 KG in front seats 3 blade warp drive prop ground  set to 19 degrees at the tip .... 1,300 ft, 4650rpm, 110Knots .....didn't check fuel burn

2000 ft, 4500rpm, 100 knots, 11.9 ltr/hr

I think it's the 12 degree negative Flap give me the speed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Tommy Mc said:

Hi... so RZ is flying again so I got a chance today to confirm some numbers I see, weather was bumpy so stayed around  100 knots.

2003 CT2K half tanks 175 KG in front seats 3 blade warp drive prop ground  set to 19 degrees at the tip .... 1,300 ft, 4650rpm, 110Knots .....didn't check fuel burn

2000 ft, 4500rpm, 100 knots, 11.9 ltr/hr

I think it's the 12 degree negative Flap give me the speed.

As Tom noted, some airframes are just faster than others.  Seems like you have a speedy one.  I do too.  With the new e-Props propeller I was able to hit 130kt indicated yesterday, verified against another airplane (RV7) and ground speed corrected for wind.  That was at WOT at 5500rpm at 3500ft.  I am sure the fuel burn was "impressive", at least for a CT.

Roger Lee said his testing showed -12° vs -6° settings had negligible speed effect, a knot or two.  But I'm getting that second hand, and everybody knows not to trust Roger.  :D  I'd guess the lower drag would at least make the -12° airplanes climb a little better.

If you can put an e-Props on the CT2k, I'd do it.  They are not very expensive relative to other props, and your performance would be really something.  Plus you'd save over 10lb over your current Warp Drive Prop.  The e-Props is only 4.4lb including the spinner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been following the conversation about e-props and I do think next time I will go e-props but for now I'm going to get some Value for money from my current re-worked by warp drive prop with approx 60 hours on it since Daryl did his thing....No Kiev props now either...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/5/2022 at 12:58 PM, Tommy Mc said:

I have been following the conversation about e-props and I do think next time I will go e-props but for now I'm going to get some Value for money from my current re-worked by warp drive prop with approx 60 hours on it since Daryl did his thing....No Kiev props now either...

Definitely no need to spend money you don't have to, especially in this economy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...