windy
SPONSOR
Utah
I have had that conversation before. The 160 is a lot better than the 150, but it is displacement per mile that sucks the fuel.
One of my 1965 Mustang convertibles had a 200 ci "six" and got 24 mpg. I converted it to a 289 - now it gets 14 mpg. Same driver, exactly the same mission and driving technique.
My buddy and I flew practically in formation - he had a 150 Super Cub and I was in my 85 hp J3. We were going to Lock Haven. At each fuel stop he took on twice the fuel I did.
My 180hp PA-12 burns the exact same amount as btracy’s 160hp PA-18, flying on our many trips together, zig-zagging around the country at the same speed. We both used the little black knob & the little red knob to try & beat each other’s fuel burn, but we were always within 1/2 gallon or less either way.