>>1248668>Usually 100LL(low lead)Wow. Leaded gas is still used?
>Probably 1950s engine design and aerodynamic drag at those speeds, Im no engineer thoughFor 1950s fuel consumption is pretty OK I'd say.
>There are more efficient small planes of course. and the new diesel engines look pretty cool.I thought diesel engines are heavy... Btw, where can I find consumption figures?
>>1248671>It is inaccurate because variations in wind conditionsMaybe, but still, air has effect on cars as well, but I thing wind speeds are different in air and on the ground.
>There is no rolling friction (in cruise) for aircraft, but there is aerodynamic resistanceCar experience aerodynamic resistance as well. Otherwise they'd keep making comfy boxes.
On some shitboxes opening window on highway speed will increase consumption quite dramatically.
>weighs half as much as a car.Weight is not important tho. Once you have that speed, you need just to overcome rolling resistance and aerodynamic resistance in case of car.
>The power transmission for a reciprocating engine is done through a propeller, which isn't as efficient as simply turning a wheelIt depends on type of transmission.
In case of manual (or modern automatic that blocks torque converter) wheel should be more efficient.
But it case of classical automatic, where torque converted isn't blocked at high speed, efficiency should be nearly identical, since both use fluid (not really, plane uses air) in order to transfer power.
>Also, a torque converter is not equatable to a propeller, as the fluid is incompressible, while the air a propeller interacts with is.Sure, but I don't think that it is that different.
