SR22: real life fuel consumption?

A recent post said:

One other thing, at LOP, I plan 13 gph at 175kts. [doesn’t say what altitude].

The POH suggests that 175 KTAS at no-oxygen altitudes will burn 15.5 GPH. Just curious what people see in real life at say 8-10000 ft?

(As someone said, it makes little sense to worry about a few bucks/hr in operating cost, but it does affect range. And at risk of attracting howls of derision, yes I am thinking about buying an SR22, although the price is pushing the upper edge of my affordability envelope).

John

John,
13.3 gal/hr at 173-177 KTAS 8,000 to 12,000 is normal for me @ 50 LOP
Myron

175 KTAS @15.5 gph almost certainly refers to rich-of-peak operation.

I only fly my SR22 at 75 degrees rich of peak, since I don’t have engine monitoring. I fly at 75% power, and get 180 kts or better between 7,000 and 10,000 feet.

On a recent flight I averaged between 16 and 17 gallons per hour. That’s based on hobbs time, so it includes taxi, run-up, climb-out, and descent, as well as cruise. The total hobbs time was about 2.8 hours, so most of it was cruise.

Hope this info helps.

-MIke

I don’t do quite as well. I get 164-169 KTAS in that range at 12.5-13 GPH (given the lower fuel flow I’m sure I’m running a lower power than Myron.

John, I routinely see 165 KTAS @ 11.5 - 12.8 GPH between 8,000 and 11,000. (LOP of course.) Sorry that I’m not more precise with my numbers and altitudes. Unlike Mike and Gordon, I don’t log every event of the flight. While I’m envious of their attention to detail, I’d rather look out the window. [:)]

I lean beginning at 70% - 75% and then lean, so I believe that I am operating in the 60% - 65% of actual HP, but that’s just a guess.

I believe the POH numbers are ROP only.

Marty SR22 S/N 0017

These fuel burns are really remarkably low for the performance. To put things into perspective, today I was talking with a friend who has a Hispano HA-200 Saeta (a Spanish twin-engine jet trainer — see attachment) that goes twice as fast as an SR22 but burns 140 gallons per hour at idle…!

In reply to:


I’d rather look out the window.


Windows? Who needs windows? [;)] I’m going to talk to Avidyne to see if they can superimpose the image from a nose-mounted video camera on the PFD screen. Think of it - no more plexiglass to worry about scratching. No need for window reflector shades. Do away with those visors.

No question that the fuel burn is indeed remarkable for the performance. Even if you run it ROP and go for speed it’s impressive - especially with fixed gear.
My last plane cruised at 210-215 KTAS at the upper teens/low 20s and used 46 GPH to do it. To add insult to injury the climb settings to get to altitudes where the TAS was over 200 required climb power fuel consumption of about 75 GPH. Now when I go from DPA to the East Coast I use less fuel for the entire trip than I used to use by the time I was over South Bend and just levelling at cruise.

The HA-200 sounds like an econo-plane next to Rare Bear.

According to an article on Avweb (http://www.avweb.com/articles/rarebear), it burns 600 gallons per hour. And not kerosene, but 100LL, the champagne of petrols.

Of course, it does fly at 450+ mph …

-Mike

Roger

In the UK 140 gals of JetA would be worth (money wise) about 35 gals of AvGas 100LL. 35 Gal/per hour for that bird not bad!

(Due to the UK tax on AvGas but not JetA). Hense the need for a diesel!

Ian

Gordon, yes!

" no more plexiglass to worry about scratching. No need for window reflector shades. Do away with those visors. "

Please ask if the camera should be put on the spinner. Image without runner prop will be much better!