|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When tested the 85 may work just fine and may be what you want.
I don't have any experience with 4500 feet. I am at 131 feet. At 4500 feet you have thinner air making the planes ability to produce lift harder, so the plane needs a longer roll and faster ground speed to take off. It will also need a faster landing ground speed. It would seem to me that weight would even be more critical at 4500 feet.
What element am I missing here?. Do engines run like dogs at 4500 feet? If the air is less dense it seems you will have to lean the fuel to compensate like we have to on 100 degree days. With our temperatures in the summer the density altitude can reach 2500 feet. You can notice a drop in power with that increase.
If engines don't produce the HP at 4500 feet, you need more power then you would at sea level, but with the thinner air you need to keep it even lighter than at sea level. Looks like you are squeezed on both ends. If I am assuming things right you do have a conundrum here.
Help me out guys is this the problem with 4500 feet?
It does seem to me that there would be a better way than trial and error. |
|
|
|
|
I noticed you are talking about the altitude. Did you go back and read the thread completely? You are missing alot. If you were anyone esle, I would answer your questions. But maybe someone esle will.
I will answer one question. You lean out the mixer to prevent the engine from running rich because of less dense air. Less dense air along with humidity reduces prop effeciency. This reduction in prop performance has more of an affect on take off and in flight performance than a 2oz per square feet increase in wing loading. The less dense the air, the more horsepower needed to maintain altitude.
I guess I answer more than one question. Just trying to be constructive and concise.
Good luck gentlemen. I will not reply to this thread again. Well, maybe...
