Monty
Well-Known Member
Something that seems to be lost on many people.
You can only afford a certain fuel burn in a small airplane, in both dollars and range. Increasing the cruise fuel burn through any means: larger engine, turbo, whatever; impacts the design in a negative way.
You must fix the landing speed at something reasonable. Gust loading limits top speed for a given Q. Therefore additional fuel burn does not help you in any way other than climb rate. This is important for a fighter, not so much for a GA aircraft.
How to best put your additional wing area and fuel burn to use is the issue.
Two solutions emerge:
CS prop, turbo, small engine. (ideal)
Large engine, fixed pitch. (not so ideal...but it works, with a weight penalty)
both cruise at high altitude.
Do the math before you argue....please.
You can only afford a certain fuel burn in a small airplane, in both dollars and range. Increasing the cruise fuel burn through any means: larger engine, turbo, whatever; impacts the design in a negative way.
You must fix the landing speed at something reasonable. Gust loading limits top speed for a given Q. Therefore additional fuel burn does not help you in any way other than climb rate. This is important for a fighter, not so much for a GA aircraft.
How to best put your additional wing area and fuel burn to use is the issue.
Two solutions emerge:
CS prop, turbo, small engine. (ideal)
Large engine, fixed pitch. (not so ideal...but it works, with a weight penalty)
both cruise at high altitude.
Do the math before you argue....please.