Jump to content

Heard ATC talking to air force one


Recommended Posts

*Members that donate $10 or more do not see advertisements*

2 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

We should have a contest here on Mooneyspace to see who can keep their Mooney airborne the longest. I bet at L/D max and the minimum power to hold altitude, LOP of course, you could keep a Mooney in the air for 10 hours or more. If you could stay airborne on 3 GPH those long range airplanes could make 30 hours!

Assuming factory tanks. Not these ocean crossing long range things. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

Assuming factory tanks. Not these ocean crossing long range things. 

Found the link to Jonathan Paul's flight in his E. He had long range tanks, 90 gal total, no ferry tank installed. it's a great read! I'm reading it again . . .

On 5/14/2015 at 6:59 PM, mike_elliott said:

Conner, A friend of mine Jonathan Paul, knows how to milk every mile out of a Gallon of avgas. His IO360 and prop combo is the same as yours, but he has a less draggy airframe.

A good read here

http://www.jonathanpaul.org/pdf/NonStop.pdf

Anyone up to beat his record????

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hank said:

Found the link to Jonathan Paul's flight in his E. He had long range tanks, 90 gal total, no ferry tank installed. it's a great read! I'm reading it again . . .

Anyone up to beat his record????

But I’m not talking about miles per gallon, I’m talking about hours per gallon. No need to go anywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

But I’m not talking about miles per gallon, I’m talking about hours per gallon. No need to go anywhere.

He had 5.3 gal/hour, sustained. My calculator says that's 0.1887 hours/gal, or 11 min 19 sec per gallon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve sat in a single seat airplane with no autopilot for over 14 hours before, it’s no fun.

Ferrying crop  Dusters they held 228 gls in the wings and we also turned the chemical hopper into a ferry tank. that added another 510 gls, so 738 gls. At altitude fuel burn is about 40 gls an hour so that’s 18 hours of fuel.

‘I never did it, but many have been Ferried to Australia, the longest leg was from California to Hawaii, Drop tanks were installed for that giving well over 24 hours of fuel on board. The tanks were not droppable 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

I’ve sat in a single seat airplane with no autopilot for over 14 hours before, it’s no fun.

Ferrying crop  Dusters they held 228 gls in the wings and we also turned the chemical hopper into a ferry tank. that added another 510 gls, so 738 gls. At altitude fuel burn is about 40 gls an hour so that’s 18 hours of fuel.

‘I never did it, but many have been Ferried to Australia, the longest leg was from California to Hawaii, Drop tanks were installed for that giving well over 24 hours of fuel on board. The tanks were not droppable 

I have a good friend who used to fly F-4s He has told me the story about ferrying an F-4 from Okinawa to San Francisco many times. He refueled about 20 times. He said it was the most intense thing he ever did.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

But I’m not talking about miles per gallon, I’m talking about hours per gallon. No need to go anywhere.

For God’s sake, land at an airport 50 miles away.  At least then you can count it as a cross-country flight.  :)

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This one takes the cake, not as a MPG or whatever, but can you imagine? My understand that a large reason the quit was the poor engine couldn’t make enough power to keep flying one they refueled, so they were having it refuel more often and finally just quit.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2008/march/01/endurance-test-circa-1958

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

This one takes the cake, not as a MPG or whatever, but can you imagine? My understand that a large reason the quit was the poor engine couldn’t make enough power to keep flying one they refueled, so they were having it refuel more often and finally just quit.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2008/march/01/endurance-test-circa-1958

They cheated, they were refueling....

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

They cheated, they were refueling....

Hardly cheating!  You spend every minute of over TWO MONTHS with one other person inside a 172 and get back to me!

Frankly, that is the aviation record to end all others.  It's over 60 years old and I don't think it will ever be broken.

No one alive today is that motivated (or crazy) :D

 

It's been years since I saw it hanging at McCarran....anyone know if it's still there?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MikeOH said:

It's been years since I saw it hanging at McCarran....anyone know if it's still there?

It’s still there by the A/B terminal entrance.  There’s a nice display with pictures and even the actual toilet seat they used on the flight.  Ick.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

What impresses me most about the record is it’s wasn’t accomplished by someone  who wrote large checks to have something no one else could afford built to set the record.

It was two plain ordinary pilots with a plane Jane off the shelf airplane, doing things that probably would not be allowed now

Edited by A64Pilot
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

This one takes the cake, not as a MPG or whatever, but can you imagine? My understand that a large reason the quit was the poor engine couldn’t make enough power to keep flying one they refueled, so they were having it refuel more often and finally just quit.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2008/march/01/endurance-test-circa-1958

WOW - what a flight!  I didn't see what drove their decision to finally land - why then?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

WOW - what a flight!  I didn't see what drove their decision to finally land - why then?

I think it was as much as anything that the engine was developing so little power it was becoming difficult to fly. that and of course they were about to lose sanity and a I’d guess plotting how to kill each other. At that weight it’s likely even with a healthy motor it was a dog

That motor had 2000 hours on it with nothing but oil changes, no plug changes, and nothing done to the mags, no timing check etc.

Edited by A64Pilot
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

I think it was as much as anything that the engine was developing so little power it was becoming difficult to fly. that and of course they were about to lose sanity and a I’d guess plotting how to kill each other. At that weight it’s likely even with a healthy motor it was a dog

That motor had 2000 hours on it with nothing but oil changes, no plug changes, and nothing done to the mags, no timing check etc.

Its pretty remarkable that it ran nonstop for so long - yeah the plugs and the mags - imagine how much longer they could have gone with fine wires and electronic ignition!

But as for sanity - I would guess that after 1 week they would be stark raving mad ready to land and kill each other - more so after 1 month, that after 2 months I ask - why now?  Of course they would need to be stark raving mad to even think to try such a thing in the first place.  In a 172 no less.  At least they could have chosen a 182 for a bit more shoulder room!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think unleaded gas would really have made the difference, I look forward to the day that hopefully we will be offered 94UL, so long as they don’t jack the price up for leaving something out.

Unleaded fuel ought to pretty much eliminate plug fouling, and allow us to move into the 21st century oil wise.

‘Of course a few need 100, but most don’t.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

I think unleaded gas would really have made the difference, I look forward to the day that hopefully we will be offered 94UL, so long as they don’t jack the price up for leaving something out.

Unleaded fuel ought to pretty much eliminate plug fouling, and allow us to move into the 21st century oil wise.

‘Of course a few need 100, but most don’t.

Right - unleaded fuel (on a Cessna 172 at low altitude like that - modern auto-fuel would have run that O320 just fine), fine wire plugs, and electronic ignition.  They could have gone for 6 months!  Or a year!

150,000 miles is 60% of the way to the Moon.  In a 172.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not abdicating eliminating 100 LL. however it’s no secret that the Friends of the Earth and a few others are.

‘I believe making 94UL widely available and at a slightly cheaper price to give some incentive, would significantly reduce the amount of leaded ful eluded and may buy us more time.

‘I actually though long and hard against buying a high compression fuel injected engine, but decided that the sky has been falling for over 40 years and hasn’t yet so go ahead.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

Right - unleaded fuel (on a Cessna 172 at low altitude like that - modern auto-fuel would have run that O320 just fine), fine wire plugs, and electronic ignition.  They could have gone for 6 months!  Or a year!

150,000 miles is 60% of the way to the Moon.  In a 172.

I have a 1956 C172. It has a Continental O300 six cylinder engine. I’m pretty sure it would run just fine on mineral spirits.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

Right - unleaded fuel (on a Cessna 172 at low altitude like that - modern auto-fuel would have run that O320 just fine), fine wire plugs, and electronic ignition.  They could have gone for 6 months!  Or a year!

150,000 miles is 60% of the way to the Moon.  In a 172.

in 1958 Mogas wasn’t unleaded, well most wasn’t, Amaco sold a “white gas” that was, but maybe that came later? Mogas to quote Avweb is a “non starter” and I intend to agree largely due to it not doing so well in storage.

‘I assume they likely ran 80 Octane and maybe that’s why the plugs lasted so long?

https://www.avweb.com/insider/going-to-the-moon-was-easy-compared-to-100ul/

Edited by A64Pilot
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.