Ammoholic
| quote: Originally posted by jed7s9b:
I’ve seen similar mpg improvement at altitude. I assume modern computer controlled engines use less gas since the maximum output is reduced by the thin air at elevation.
In most piston engine powered airplanes, the pilot needs to manually lean the mixture at higher altitudes. It makes sense that cars would do it automatically. Some newer aircraft handle the mixture automatically. |
| | | Posts: 7171 | Location: Lost, but making time. | Registered: February 23, 2011 | 
IP
|
|
Res ipsa loquitur
| quote: Originally posted by Powers77:
First of all, all segments were worse than I anticipated. Hoped for 8-10 MPG.
All three segments excluding the Denver to Grand Junction came in about 6.8 MPG.
I was surprised that Denver to Grand Junction was 7.9 MPG. The only thing I can figure is that the altitude caused the improvement. I have previously noted improved MPG during motorcycle trips in the Rockies.
It was odd having the thing floored trying to climb up to the pass and seeing the real time MPG calculator showing the better mileage. By the way I confirmed it via a manual calculation.
Still kind of surprised which is why I thought it was an interesting poll question.
If it is a naturally aspirated engine (no turbo or supercharger), you lose power at altitude. It is one reason the naturally aspirated P51 wasn't that successful until the Rolls engine was put in it.
__________________________
|
| | |
