Welcome to Frugal Flier
December 15, 2008 by Dave HirschmanAOPA Pilot introduces “Frugal Flier” a series designed to help pilots better manage their aircraft and flying in these turbulent economic times.
- How-to (1)
- Operations (1)
- Uncategorized (2)
- Winter (2)
Archives
-
-
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Loved the Oil change article.
Is there a publication as to what maintenance an Owner can do and cannot do (or shouldn’t do)?
December 23rd, 2008 at 10:07 am
Aircraft owners are allowed to perform a wide variety of “preventive maintenance” under FAR Part 43 Appendix A. Here’s the relevant portion:
Preventive maintenance. Preventive maintenance is limited to the following work, provided it does not involve complex assembly operations:
(1) Removal, installation, and repair of landing gear tires.
(2) Replacing elastic shock absorber cords on landing gear.
(3) Servicing landing gear shock struts by adding oil, air, or both.
(4) Servicing landing gear wheel bearings, such as cleaning and greasing.
(5) Replacing defective safety wiring or cotter keys.
(6) Lubrication not requiring disassembly other than removal of nonstructural items such as cover plates, cowlings, and fairings.
(7) Making simple fabric patches not requiring rib stitching or the removal of structural parts or control surfaces. In the case of balloons, the making of small fabric repairs to envelopes (as defined in, and in accordance with, the balloon manufacturers’ instructions) not requiring load tape repair or replacement.
(8) Replenishing hydraulic fluid in the hydraulic reservoir.
(9) Refinishing decorative coating of fuselage, balloon baskets, wings tail group surfaces (excluding balanced control surfaces), fairings, cowlings, landing gear, cabin, or cockpit interior when removal or disassembly of any primary structure or operating system is not required.
(10) Applying preservative or protective material to components where no disassembly of any primary structure or operating system is involved and where such coating is not prohibited or is not contrary to good practices.
(11) Repairing upholstery and decorative furnishings of the cabin, cockpit, or balloon basket interior when the repairing does not require disassembly of any primary structure or operating system or interfere with an operating system or affect the primary structure of the aircraft.
(12) Making small simple repairs to fairings, nonstructural cover plates, cowlings, and small patches and reinforcements not changing the contour so as to interfere with proper air flow.
(13) Replacing side windows where that work does not interfere with the structure or any operating system such as controls, electrical equipment, etc.
(14) Replacing safety belts.
(15) Replacing seats or seat parts with replacement parts approved for the aircraft, not involving disassembly of any primary structure or operating system.
(16) Trouble shooting and repairing broken circuits in landing light wiring circuits.
(17) Replacing bulbs, reflectors, and lenses of position and landing lights.
(18) Replacing wheels and skis where no weight and balance computation is involved.
(19) Replacing any cowling not requiring removal of the propeller or disconnection of flight controls.
(20) Replacing or cleaning spark plugs and setting of spark plug gap clearance.
(21) Replacing any hose connection except hydraulic connections.
(22) Replacing prefabricated fuel lines.
(23) Cleaning or replacing fuel and oil strainers or filter elements.
(24) Replacing and servicing batteries.
(25) Cleaning of balloon burner pilot and main nozzles in accordance with the balloon manufacturer’s instructions.
(26) Replacement or adjustment of nonstructural standard fasteners incidental to operations.
(27) The interchange of balloon baskets and burners on envelopes when the basket or burner is designated as interchangeable in the balloon type certificate data and the baskets and burners are specifically designed for quick removal and installation.
(28) The installations of anti-misfueling devices to reduce the diameter of fuel tank filler openings provided the specific device has been made a part of the aircraft type certificate data by the aircraft manufacturer, the aircraft manufacturer has provided FAA-approved instructions for installation of the specific device, and installation does not involve the disassembly of the existing tank filler opening.
(29) Removing, checking, and replacing magnetic chip detectors.
(30) The inspection and maintenance tasks prescribed and specifically identified as preventive maintenance in a primary category aircraft type certificate or supplemental type certificate holder’s approved special inspection and preventive maintenance program when accomplished on a primary category aircraft provided:
(i) They are performed by the holder of at least a private pilot certificate issued under part 61 who is the registered owner (including co-owners) of the affected aircraft and who holds a certificate of competency for the affected aircraft (1) issued by a school approved under Sec. 147.21(e) of this chapter; (2) issued by the holder of the production certificate for that primary category aircraft that has a special training program approved under Sec. 21.24 of this subchapter; or (3) issued by another entity that has a course approved by the Administrator; and
(ii) The inspections and maintenance tasks are performed in accordance with instructions contained by the special inspection and preventive maintenance program approved as part of the aircraft’s type design or supplemental type design.
(31) Removing and replacing self-contained, front instrument panel-mounted navigation and communication devices that employ tray-mounted connectors that connect the unit when the unit is installed into the instrument panel, (excluding automatic flight control systems, transponders, and microwave frequency distance measuring equipment (DME)). The approved unit must be
designed to be readily and repeatedly removed and replaced, and pertinent instructions must be provided. Prior to the unit’s intended use, and operational check must be performed in accordance with the applicable sections of part 91 of this chapter.
(32) Updating self-contained, front instrument panel-mounted Air Traffic Control (ATC) navigational software data bases (excluding those of automatic flight control systems, transponders, and microwave frequency distance measuring equipment (DME)) provided no disassembly of the unit is required and pertinent instructions are provided. Prior to the unit’s intended use, an operational check must be performed in accordance with applicable sections of part 91 of this chapter.
December 24th, 2008 at 12:40 am
CRUISE ALTITUDE:
How high will you fly your non-turbo piston plane if you are going 40% of its range capability, and then, what indicated speed?
Great thinking for this section. I’m looking for answers… and now my burning question: Since studying for my commercial license [is there really any new material here?] and multi… I realized, I’ve never been taught how to select a cruise altitude for best economy. Sure the books say “x” gph for speed at “y” alt. Fine, but PLAY with the numbers plugging and chugging. W/out looking I think its most economical to stay in dense air and fly a plane in ground effect the entire way [think over water - no trees] to the destination vs. and arbitrary altitude of 3000′ the entire way. Think about it: no gas spent climbing, and its immediate cruise speed to destination, and it gives a good run for the money when comparing to climbing to any altitude. I’ll have to look at my figures again, but I think this scenario breaks even with climbing to max altitude for max range, which in my opinion would be better on the plane because the engines would not be stressed from climbing. HOW HIGH FOR HOW LONG? Sure, its better to go high, but how high? My question is “IS IT REALLY?” say we’re running out a tank of gas, I may agree higher is better. But what if we are only going HALF of the planes suggested range, should we go at HALF of the highest cruise altitude? DO the numbers, take the good ole C-150 and figure gas to climb to 13k’ before level off. I doubt it will payoff. No one in their right mind will climb a plane until its time to decend [which I'm told works for jets, but my limits here are for non-tubo piston engines]. I saw previously in our emailings that some aero engineer [which i missed my calling for!] advised 1.3x the Vy approx for any given plane for most economical cruise, reaching compromise with engine efficiency [highest at WOT at high alt] and airframe drawbacks [like a cessna 172! lol]. I want to know the math to maybe figure 1.28 of Vy is better than 1.29 of Vy, so I can determine most economical cruise for every plane I look at. This figure took me by surprise. I had previously assumed [and before calculating all this] that the most efficient speed of a plane was the speed that enabled it to climb the fastest: Vy, and thus would serve to provide most, MPG – not gph, GPH is useless for this argument because we are talking about using the least amount of fuel from A to B. We all understand that pushing the power in runs risk of using more fuel.
Now go look in your POH and plan some flights with the exactness required for the private exam where you must calculate to the second, and this should serve our theory as a good testbed. fly in ground effect, then calculate a flight with arbitrary 3000′ at your random rpm setting, then climb/descend w/out leveloff, and one more for high as possible for any given segment length of level-off cruise [and what duration should cruise be?]… I even planned cruise segments of 25%, 50%, and a majority of the flight. I use Vy for climb segments, and since POH’s I’ve seen only recommend descent speeds / power to prevent shock cooling, it too is another variable. For our theory here, I will not recognize shock cooling. After you do this for an hour or three, do you see my conundrum? …I hope!
Don’t reply with that of government rules, altitude levels, WIND, cowl flaps, flight duration [get there itus]… for I think most pilots know all those limitations and I don’t want to recognize them here. My question focuses on finding the time spent climbing vs. cruising level, and then descent, all in the name of gas savings for theory. I say theory because we most likely won’t sacrifice our $20k engines on our twin just to save $200 on gas and run them hot all climb…
Andy
December 26th, 2008 at 8:26 am
Hello Andy,
I don’t profess to have the answers, but I also consider with my T210 that above 10,000 feet MSL, I’m generally out of the way of other GA aircraft. When I’m heading east, I climb high and use oxygen, since I generally have a terrific tailwind. When headed west, I stay about 10,000 but have cruised most of the way across the US as low as 8,500 MSL. In the Air Force, we bulit tables showing the calculations of “Ground nautical miles per pound of fuel” burned. GNMPPH took into account both the engine performance and winds. Over a long time, I expect we could do the same for most GA planes. In the turbocharged series, it’s perhaps easier because the fuel flow stays steady almost regardless of altitude once above 10K, but the true airspeed increases, thus in general, it’s an easy calculation to decide if the time you’ll spend at the higher altitude saves more than the fuel spent climbing. With my T210, I almost always am further ahead, without wind considerations, to climb if I have more than an hour left to cruise. Great topic!
December 28th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
I love doing my own oil change. I also found that doing your own brake pads isn’t as tough as I thought it would be. I ordered the pads and removed the the old ones and installed the new ones in about an hour. All in all it cost me $80 for parts and $0 for labor. I love it!
December 28th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
I spent considerable time this summer evaluating the climb high and run hard method in a Piper Warrior. I had always run low and at 65% BHP lean of peak. But after reading some of the discussions this summer, tried the alternative of high and hot (10K MSL, 75% BHP). From my calculations I found that I get about 20% increases in speed with a 5% – 10% increase in fuel burn. I also found my temperature safety margin on leaning is much higher since the air is always much cooler at 10,000. The heads never seem to even come close to burning no matter where they are leaned. However I ham still skittish and find that just minor leaning provides a majority of the fuel savings so I don’t push it.
The only caveat is ceilings and winds which play trump to high and hot. But I have found I can plan on average 115 KTAS using this technique I get a 9 gph burn or 14 MPG as Compared to 15.7 MPG at 100 KTAS at 3000 and 65%. But I fly 15% faster, which gives roughly the same total consumption for the trip. Same fuel but faster trip.
December 30th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
If you are new to performing pilot-owner preventative maintenance tasks, may I suggest that a great way to learn each task properly is to hire a local A&P mechanic to do it with you the first time. S/he can show you not only the proper steps and technique to perform the job but also how to make the legally required maintenance logbook entries. A basic oil change, for example, is a fairly simple task on many airplanes. But to do it properly assumes some basic underlying knowledge and skills: Do you have the proper tools and required maintenance references? Do you know how to correctly set, read, and use a torque wrench? (And when was it last calibrated?) Do you know the basics of safety wiring and do you have any proficiency at it? Once you remove the filter, do you know how to cut it open without contaminating it and what specific things to look for when you inspect it? There is more, but you get the idea. Doing your own preventative maintenance can be a lot of fun and save you a few bucks in the process. But if you’ve never done a specific task it before, getting some expert guidance with it the first time around can be a great way to learn.
January 2nd, 2009 at 9:25 am
My Mooney, 200 hp, gami injected, fuel injected enging will climb at about 14-15 gph. Lower alt will burn around 12 mpg. at 075 and up between 9-10 gph. I live in Phoenix, Az area higher is better for economy. I will also fly lean of Peak.
Changing your own oil is not only cost effective it fun. It takes me about 4 hours. 4 hours – well between warming the enging and eating lunch and refilling oil and every thing else yep.
January 2nd, 2009 at 11:16 am
I know of a way to make money for your flight time not only for you but your organization as well. If you are interested just throw me an e-mail. rangerjames73@yahoo.com.
January 2nd, 2009 at 12:45 pm
I am very fortunate to be a member of a local flying club. We do not have any club owned planes but most members own their own. I work on the barter system. I am able to paint,cut grass, general maintenance etc. to our clubhouse and grounds. In return a small group of pilots and an IA perform my annual and repairs. I stay involved the whole way through. learning more about my airplane and fellow club members each year!
Doug
Frugal Flyer!
January 2nd, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Frugal Flier arrives just in time to aid my re-entery into above ground operations. Time to drain the 28 quarts of oil, add some 100LL, air the tires and watch the snow melt. Keep up with ideas of how you do it. Thanks, Curt
January 2nd, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Mr. Dave H.,
Please allow me to provide some proverbial food for thought. After reading you article, I was left with a few questions. 1.) Was the oil hot when it was drained? 2.) Was the oil sample taken from the stream of draining oil after it had drained about one third of the sump’s capacity? Additionally, your description of the “finger screens” was not absolutely clear to me. 3.) Did you remove, inspect, clean, and reinstall both finger screens or only one? 4.) If it was only one, was it the suction screen or pressure screen? 5.) Do you recommend reusing the crush washers? Finally, if my reading was correct the 50 hour filter was left in place. 6.) Was any consideration given to the amount of “dirty oil” that was not removed?
I remain,
Patrick Andrews
January 2nd, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Keep this article going and solicit ideas and see how far it goes. It has potential to become very widely read.
For an oil change I have a 5/8 quick drain on my IO-360 Lycoming but have no hose. I have found a 5/8 garden hose with the end split slightly will slide on and stay firm with a suitable hose clamp works very satisfactorily…
Other hints
I place a suction cup made for hanging items on a glass surface in the center of my altimeter. When cleared to a certain altitude I move the hook as a pointer to that altitude as a reminder of my clearance.
I place velcro “Loops” in spare places on the panel and attach items like spare pen, stopwatch, check lists to them with small patches of Velcro “Hooks” . It makes a nice storage method for those items.
I take an old map and crease it in my windows to make a pattern for bubble foil sun screens. They attach to the window frame with velcro patches when left outside. It keeps the aircraft cool in summer and prevents a lot of facing of the upholstery if not hangared.
January 2nd, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Talking about leaning lean of peak. I have read where some tests were done in flying and a test cell with a carbuator engine. I had a Tripacer 160 HP. I ran it lean of peak since 2004 when I read the artical. The method is to lean at cruise speed until the engine starts to run lean than pull the carb heat until it smooths out. Do this a scond time. The exhaust and cylinder head tempture will decrerase.You will loose about 50 rpm. My last annual in January the compression was 175-176-177-178 and the engine rung real good. The engine used about 9 GPH before. With this method it would be between 7 and 8 GPH. I just traded it off for a light sport with our a mixture controll or I would us this method with it.
Happy flying
Ted Fields
January 3rd, 2009 at 2:47 pm
On long trips moving weight aft after takeoff will cause the elevator to unload. Normally the elevator uses downward force to maintain the angle of attack on the wing. Moving weight aft causes the weight to help maintain the angle of attack. As you unload the elevator speed increases causing the wing to produce more lift. You must trim it down to maintain altitude. If weight is moved far enough aft in some planes the elevator will actually cause an up force which is lift. With both the wing and the elevator producing lift the nose must be trimed down which results in more speed at the same power setting. Be sure you move any weight forward before landing. In a PA-28-120 I put my wife in the back seat and the bag in the baggage compartment and moved my seat aft as far as it would go while inflight. In a P-3 Orion as the Flight Engineer I extended our three engine range to safely reach an island in the middle of the Indian Ocean by moving most of the crew to the tail. On a VIP flight in a T-39 I prevented us from having to make a fuel stop to complete the flight with legal IFR fuel upon arrival by moving the passengers as far back in the aircraft as possible. We increased speed by eight knots, which put us just legal.
January 6th, 2009 at 1:29 am
Charlie, your “In the Air Force, we bulit tables showing the calculations of “Ground nautical miles per pound of fuel” burned.” really intrigues me. I must make these tables! Any insight to start this?
All, I apologize for lacking the knowledge of separating this fuel/cruise altitude topic from the DIY oil Changes [which I do, and LOVE].
In the mean time, here is what I found out. I have books for:
PA-23-150/160 aka Apache
PA-30 both NA and Turbo Twin Comanche NORMALIZED [as opposed to the lower compression factory boosted version]
1975 C-150
————————–
The turbo twin Comanche and Charlie;s T210 need further study. While the turbo allows for so much higher groundspeed from climbing high versus its non-turbo cousins, gas mileage actually improved by having a turbo [though CLOSE ... say ~5mpg for an entire fuel tank] evidenced by planning a flight from point A to point B: WOT Vy climb to high cruise alt, and a Vy speed descent after cruising at lowest permissible power for flight at that high altitude, engines maxed out. Turbo is a definite must for speed, and gas mileage is paid by the climb stress to that highest altitude. One last comment: I like turbos, for MANY reasons [especially twins, b/c we all know what that 2nd engine is for] – given a tail wind, and the gains are tremendous… now leaving turbos. For now, I’ll say the price/maintenance costs of having turbos [and a turbo twin comanche I can speak from experience] is up to the owner, such that of having a controllable pitch prop… is the ridiculous price worth the effort? Not to me, not with government AD’s… anyway, moving on!
————————-
Need I remind myself that tailwinds don’t exist, nor do gov. regs, and other limits [reserves] that interfere with my theory [like engine stress in climb, or shock-cooling descents]. My quest [read above] is to find the best economy/range from a plane and I have no supporting documentation, or figures that advise climbing for that TAS not achievable at sea level. All my examples, and I spent about 4 hours on each plane since my first post, planning trips at various altitudes, lead me to believe that if you want the most MPG, its best to NOT CLIMB, and to stay as low and slow as possible. Yes, I know a normal piston engine performs best at WOT as high as the plane will let it. But is getting there worth the price? My answer is no, and I want help on this! I want someone to prove me wrong so I can learn. I have determined it is Vy, the most efficient speed in my opinion is best for transit, Climb, Cruise, and Descent. I’ve used cruise climbs, cruise descents and cruise speeds, and they all end up using more gas. Yes, we get there faster, we know this. I’m after ECONOMY because I’m so tired of seeing airplane owners not fly because gas is pricing aviation to extinction.
Take your POH and plan a flight, A to B. Full fuel, Take off, and do not climb [remember, we are using book numbers here like the manufacturers do] and disregarding ground effect, fly to point B at lowest documented cruise power. Find miles, Find Miles Per Gallon. I bet you cant beat it. Climb to any altitude, fly at any speed, etc. and I will remind you , standard day, no winds at all altitudes, etc. This is a book world, a book example. Dont forget your climb rate at altitude, fuel to climb to get there, distance traveled…
Furthermore! plan the same route, and fly at the redline, heck, use war emergency power if you have it [do not throttle back from WOT] and fly to point B w/out climbing: get total trip time. I bet you can’t beat it. Now climb to any altittude and any cruise setting, and I bet you won’t arrive there sooner, so my point is once again, why climb for TAS?
In all planes [non turbo] it proved most economical to stay as low as possible, fly at speed Vy, and land. This solves the crazy episode in my head if we have to fly at 40% of the airplanes range… how high then? Surely its not worth climbing to svc ceiling for a 40% range flight, and shock cool on the descent, so what altitude is right?
If you think I’m crazy, let me relay this to you. Can you fly a gas-friendly twin comanche at 5gph? no. Can you fly a 172 on that? close, but no. My 150 I did manage 4.5gph, but better be very careful, and only recommend that to someone experienced in that plane, allowing for reserve. It would not get any better, so bear with me:
Using $5/gal and 5gph:
If 2000hr engine operation until engine rebuild: is $25/hr to operate = $50,000 in fuel over the course of the engine!
If 3000hr engine operation until teardown: $25/hr to operate = $75,000 in fuel expenses over the engine lifespan!
Now that you’ve spent this much gas, now you also have a new engine to sink money into!
How much is your engine? surely not $50k. Now I hope you see that being all so nice to the engine may not be the primary goal anymore. When our avgas skyrockets, or should I say NOW, because it is NOW the single most detrimental expense that I see keeping us on the ground, how will you fly?
P.S. This all started when I had to fly my normal 115nm trip in my 150, on a beautiful day, eastbound. NO WIND up to 10,000′. I could fly 3000′ [not lower because I have to cross HCH vor on a mountian in TN] 3,500′ / 5,500 / 7,500 / or 9,500′. As you can imagine, my head almost exploded!
Thoughts and comments please!
Andy <— wants to keep flying
amckevitz@yahoo.com
January 8th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
I have been changing my oil in my car for several years. Just not worth it to pay $35 for what will take me 10 minutes, not have to wait in line, and get the stuff I need for $10-15.
So why not with an airplane? If I am allowed to change the oil in my airplane without having to have a maintenance license, I would do that in a second!
January 9th, 2009 at 2:33 am
Dear Andy Wants to Keep Flying (posted 12/24 and 1/6),
I applaud your desire for precision in maximizing fuel efficiency, but it is possible to lose sight of other desiderata while concentrating solely on gas mileage. I have some practical suggestions, the first two based on the observation that gas is cheaper than crashing:
1. Rec you NOT cross Hinch Mtn at 3000 – 3500 msl except on a dead calm day. Even relatively light winds out of the west or northwest can set up mountain wave updrafts and downdrafts which could ruin your whole day in a Ce 150.
2. I agree with the poster who recommended loading to (but NOT PAST) aft CG limit for best economy, since this minimizes the production of lift and therefore the drag associated with same. Be aware that (except in a canard-equipped airplane) this will reduce pitch stability and require you to be more deft on the yoke, which can be tiring on long flights. Also be aware that on some airplanes the main fuel tanks are forward of the wing spar, which means that as you burn off gas the CG moves aft. A few pilots of older Bonanzas in particular found to their dismay that they took off within CG-limits but had to try to land a squirrelly aft-out dynamically unstable beast a couple hours later.
3. Note also that gas is cheaper than cylinders. It is often hard to keep cylinder head temps down in extended Vy climbs; 1.2 – 1.3 x Vy may burn a little more gas, but may save you from a mid-time top overhaul. Also, if you own your plane rather than rent various beaters, you may well find that your engine has a ’sweet spot’, a particular combination of RPM, MP, and FF which results in less vibration, good temps and pressures, and sometimes even better-than-book power. Try hard to find it. Then fly it unless there is a really really REALLY good reason not to. Using these techniques, I got 2400 unscheduled-maintenance-free hours out of my last engine, and still got to keep my crankcase, crankshaft and camshaft at overhaul time.
4. It is unrealistic to ignore winds aloft, which are usually out of the west and are often a significant fraction of piston-plane climb and cruise speeds. You are flying an airplane, not a video game. Happily, since I got a GPS I have found a simple method for integrating speed vs power vs wind:
a. For flights less than an hour, fuggitaboutit. Climb as fast and as far as necessary to clear obstacles with safe margins, and never mind ephemera. Saving a gallon of gas is not worth being out of gliding distance of a forced-landing field.
b. For long eastbound flights, climb at a given indicated airspeed (Vy or faster if needed for engine cooling) noting your GPS ground speed at 2000 ft cruise altitude intervals; if ground speed never declines, fly as high as you can; otherwise, descend back down to the odd-thousands-plus-500 altitude which maximized the efficiency quotient (= ground speed knots per hour/fuel flow gallons per hour) for this day, in this airplane, with this load, at this temperature, with these winds. Note that you do not have to actually put a number to any of those latter parameters, which is the elegant beauty of this technique. And give up the idea of flying off-altitude. You’re not the only guy in the sky. Saving a gallon of gas is not worth disrupting traffic or risking a midair.
c. For long westbound flights, climb at 1.2 – 1.3 Vy (you do want to get there today, don’t you?) only until you get to cool, smooth air, which (east of the Rockies) is often just above the haze layer/shear layer/cumulus bottoms. Saving a gallon of gas is DEFINITELY not worth making your passengers puke and having to clean it up.
d. Okay, (c) above doesn’t really address fuel efficiency. If you and your passengers have iron stomachs, the westbound variant of (b) above (specifics left as an exercise for the student) usually requires shaking your fillings out at a very low altitude. There are other ‘regulatory’ hazards as well. One time my father was flying his Ce 182 home from Laredo to Los Alamos, NM, into the teeth of a miserable headwind. His best speed/mileage was obtained shaving the high plains at wheat-stalk level, zooming to avoid windmills and silos, and he actually had to climb to land (Los Alamos airport is on top of a finger mesa). Immediately post landing, a DEA Citation swooped out of the sky, landing without bothering to announce on CTAF. A half dozen fit and crew-cutted young men in black BDUs piled out with M-16s at the ready. They jumped old Dad and proceeded to search him, his plane, and the immediate environs for the expected bales-o-drugs. Apparently they had spent hours shadowing this obvious drug-runner who was clearly flying a radar-avoidance profile to his nefarious offload point, and were baffled and chagrined that they weren’t going to get a commendably big drug bust today!
January 15th, 2009 at 11:10 am
A little more research has brought my attention to the speed of MINIMAL DRAG: where parasitic and induced meet their lowest point, and I believe it is this point [airspeed] that allows for the most-efficient flying. That is where that AOPA article came from last … several months ago, where “roughly” 1.3x Vy was used, because it is often here where the drag is the lowest.
Art, I definately agree HCH is low, and only on the best summer day would I do that. It was mentioned to further the point of my findings: its not worth the climb to gain the few knots attained in zero wind condition.
-this whole idea stemmed from when I had to fly east with ZERO wind up to 10k’ and I had a multiple choice altitude for VFR that day. [see 2nd post]
-it is not worth risking the plane for a gal of fuel, yes, we all agree!
Now,
HOW DO WE FIND THAT AIRSPEED OF MINIMUM DRAG FOR OUR GIVEN AIRPLANE? [where induced and parasitic drag intersect]
This is not something the POH gives us. It is most derived from airfoils I think, but the fuselage differences may throw the number around.
I know of plenty pilots who don’t fly because fuel hurts [who doesn't relate?]. I know this is a very real topic.
Andy
January 30th, 2009 at 8:06 am
For 20 years my procedure was as follows:
1. Pull the battery and keep in house so it stayed warm. leave aft cover off.
2.. On departure, take warm battery – connect it leaving batt cover off.
3. If engine starts – while idle – put battery cover back on (keep back to cold prop air – it’s winter right?
—————-
For really tough times would park vehicle in front of plane. Use 4″ aluminum duct to route exhaust of car into front air inlet to engine. Keep other inlet covered with blanket, etc.
Sit in car for a half hour or so. Read a book. Whatever.
Install battery, remove duct, start engine
Art Brothers, AOPA 235066 – soloed Aeronca Dec 1946 at age 16.
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:39 am
I use a variation of Dave Hirschman’s light bulb warming scheme (AOPA Pilot, February, 2009): I stick the end of a three foot piece of 4-inch aluminum drier tubing in the wheel well just aft of the retractable nose gear and then put a high air volume hot air gun on the other end. Stuffing a couple of towels in the cowl air intake completes the job. On a 20F day the IO-360 engine on my Glasair is toasty after 60 minutes. Upon start the oil temp gauge reads about 60F. I’ve been doing this for over ten years with no problems.
March 21st, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Thanks for these great articles! In the process of purchasing my first plane and these are very helpful and informative.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:29 pm
I’m personally a big fan of the 12 ounce curl.
April 4th, 2009 at 1:00 am
How to get places efficiently has always intrigued me….least amount of fuel to get there.
My first thought was to simply fly the aircraft at the optimum L/D speed as high as possible, but that does not take into account that the engine efficiency drops off as the manifold pressure decreases. The optimum altitude can be found by simply looking for the maximum range in the POH. This fuel efficient altitude, as previously stated, does not account for winds.
My solution was to install a fuel flow meter that is linked to my GPS so that it displays MPG over the ground in real time. Then it can be used as a learning tool, so I can experiment with various power setting and altitudes as I fly along….. optimizing all parameters.
It wasn’t long before the cost of the meter (about $450) paid for itself in fuel savings. For a frugal guy like me, it’s a real rush to watch…on my last trip to Seattle (some tail winds) I achieved over 50mpg, with my 4 place airplane! I can often match my Honda civic performance in MPG. I should mention that I have a highly tuned homebuilt that is optimized with ultra low airframe and cooling drag. It is powered by a specially built 0-360 that has optimized compression ratios and electronic ignition with spark advance timing curves ….so it’s no ordinary Cessna or Piper (your mileage may vary).
April 24th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
I have been considering setting up an association for owner/pilots of aircraft that specifically tackles the burdens maintenance as on an owner of an airplane. Being able to offer on-line maintenance programs for tracking the aircrafts costs and time in shop, offer standardized bid forms for overhauls, phased inspections and avionics work, engage shops that would offer standard hourly rates or flat rates on inspections and standardizing parts mark up. Your overall feed back would be appreciated.
June 30th, 2009 at 4:07 am
This is a wonderful idea and may be useful to many of us.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Thought For The Day. (From VERY hard experience).
How many of you put a pitot cover on your plane after landing?
How many of you put a similar cover over your fuel tank vent tube?
What happens when your pitot tube gets plugged by some insect because you didn’t cover it?
What happens when your fuel tank vent tube gets similarly plugged?
I picked up my Mustang II out of a VERY small mountain meadow after the latter. And the rural 12,000 volt power lines that I severed in the tops of the trees at the edge of the field———because it was so close to dark that neither I nor my passenger, both of us Forestry firebomber pilots whose worst nightmare is power lines, saw before hitting them—–hit them EXACTLY on the spinner, pushed them together where they shorted, exploded, and got out of our way——–
Because a liddle-biddy insect had built a nest in the first bend of the fuel tank vent tube.
PLEASE protect your vent tubes, guys!
PS Answer to my first questions. If you get a plugged pitot tube, you lose airspeed indication. BIG DEAL! Fly attitude.
You plug your fuel tank vent tube, in about 20 minutes, there is enough vacuum in the tank that the fuel flow shuts off. No warning, no sputter, no options, the engine just very suddenly quits.
I had 90 seconds from engine stoppage to stepping out of the plane in that little tiny rocky mountain meadow. I don’t wanna do dat again! I will ALWAYS use fuel tank vent tube covers from then on.
July 5th, 2009 at 10:13 am
Minimize electric loads too………
Many folks not knowledgeable with the science of electricity production may think that generating amps is free. Well, it’s not! Each amp you consume in you aircraft has a cost associated with it, and ultimately that cost can be expressed in fuel used. There are many ways to help reduce the cost of flying by reducing the electricity consumed during a flight.
Almost every light plane has self-contained magnetos for ignition, and low wing planes generally have a mechanical fuel pump to provide needed fuel. So, it could be entirely possible to get the plane running, and turn the master switch completely off while still completing a flight. Caution: This is only an example of cost effectiveness, and pilots should never sacrifice safe operation for frugality.
On my plane, I have some appliances that draw a fair amount of load. By reducing this in a safe manner, I’ve improved my economy a few percent. Typical loads for many appliances in your plane: Landing light ~ 7 amps; Pitot heat ~ 6-10 amps; Marker beacon ~ 3 amps; solid state comm receiver ~ 1.6 amps; solid state nav receiver ~ 1 amps; turn & bank 1.5 amps.
I’ve been turning off the landing light, marker beacon, 2nd navcom, pitot heat, and the turn & bank in clear VFR flight. The savings is about 20 amps total and that has resulted in less heat, and less fuel usage.
Remember, never turn off an appliance that would sacrifice safety. Also, it is an FAA requirement that the transponder in your plane be on at all times in flight. Enjoy the savings!
July 5th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
For the last several years I have flown our C-182Q with an O-470-U (25b), carbureted, LOP. I have a an Insight Model 602 GEM. Cylinder #3 runs the highest temp & I set fuel flow so the #3 runs about 400 F (#3 uses a spark plug ring CHT sensor which tends to be 25 F or so higher than if the regular screw in sensor is used) and the other cylinders run about 350 F. I have had no problems with the engine since I started doing this. The AOPA Pilot article by Dave Hirschman was remiss in not mentioning CPA’s John Frank’s many articles in CPA’s monthly rag dealing with LOP operation. He has been preaching this for years.
July 10th, 2009 at 8:05 am
Love the Frugal Flier. What great ideas you have to save money and I never would have thought of using a light bulb to keep to engine warm. Also loved the oil change article.
July 12th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
According to the logbooks, over the past 50 years my flap motor has only had brushes replaced once. So I wanted to have it checked out, just to be sure it wouldn’t die 500 miles from home. Repair stations want $700+ to “overhaul” it. Their list of work operations included disassemble, visual inspection, test armature, turn commutator, install new bearings, install new brushes, grease gearbox, reassemble, paint, and final test. Instead I performed that work myself, as supervised by my friendly independant A&P/IA. The armature test and commutator turn was done by a local motor shop for $15. The brushes were $30 from the airframe manufacturer. I replaced a cracked brush holder assembly, costing another $50 from the airframe manufacturer. The maintenance manual gave the spec for the grease, which cross referenced to Aeroshell #7. A couple hours of work and $95 later the motor is like new, although not officially “overhauled”. $600 saved, and I know it was done right. The same thing can be done for the gear motor, starter, alternator, magnetos… By doing quality work inexpensively an owner can afford to be proactive, instead of flying until something breaks. In the long run you get much better reliability and reduced cost.
July 28th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Comment on aircraft covers: They are nice and protect interior and exterior. One caution to be aware of is in a high wind area the cover will move enough to scratch the all of the plastic. Worse if any dust or sand blows or the windshiesd and windows are not completely clean.
August 5th, 2009 at 10:59 am
I have found that having two partners helping me share the cost of the airplane, along with DIY maintenance, is the way to go for low cost flying. The only way I can think of to lower the cost is to have more partners. That being said, I don’t see many flying clubs in my neck of the woods(N.e. GA). How do I find or start a flying club?
August 5th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
I’m only a student pilot, and 71 years old to boot. But have experience with aircraft and maintenance, including picking up crashed planes and pilot’s remains. I read Doc Mirror’s comments about turning off electrical equipment in flight. His philosophy and mine diverge.
My thinking runs more towards being readily visible to other pilots, and not adding to a risk of a mid-air collision or even a near miss. I intend to continue flying with a taxi light on. Nav lights and the beacon too.
Some steps to achieve frugality have low risk, some high. In flight, the penalty for error is catastrophic.
On the subject of flying high or low, saving fuel, etc. I will fly low and slow. It isn’t the destination for me – it’s the journey. I like to gawk and see the countryside. It’s like sitting in a comfortable chair while beautiful scenes slide by. I can save more fuel going slow than high – and I see more scenery. Just me, no one else has to like it.
September 24th, 2009 at 11:53 am
I read with interest your recent article entitled “It’s free…really” on free charts from John Baute, a software engineer, in the latest issue of AOPA PILOT. I attempted to go the the referenced web site: www,pfdplates.com and could not locate the website. Has anyone else had this problem?
November 10th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
View limiting devices for IFR practice can be purchased at an FBO for $25 and up. Instead I purchase safety glasses from a large home improvement store, place tape over the lower inboard section, sand the rest of the safety glasses with coarse sandpaper, peel off the tape… Foggles knock-offs for less than $4 in about 10 minutes..