Hi everyone,
Since I got my PPL, I have bought block time on 150's in my area. The first plane I flew started to develop some engine problems, so the owner decided to take it offline. A couple weeks later I negotiated block time on another 150 (with a STOL kit) that was great on gas, but terribly slow (80 knots on a good day). The owner hasn't been too keen on fixing broken equipment (VOR, battery is finally being swapped out, I've had to hand start the thing a number of times) and a radio that the Wright brothers would approve of (one of the old radios that can't hit frequencies such as 125.67, etc). I ended up NORDO a couple of times already, thank god for my ICOM..
So.. I've had enough. I started looking for other planes to fly. Here are my options:
1. A Cessna 150/150hp engine conversion with a great avionics package. Thing is a rocket, climbs well over 1500 FPM on a good day, price is right (45 dry/hr) but is a gas guzzler (50/hr), so a total of $95 an hour. The owner is trying to sell this plane, but would let me fly it in the mean time. Not economical at all, in the long term.
2. Cessna 150, decent avionics package. The owner wanted to sell it but hasn't had much luck so is considering blocktime/partnership. The plane was a school plane in its past, but doesn't have some things it would need (TANIS heater, VOR). I can fly this thing whenever I want, because the owner doesn't use it.
3. Another Cessna 150, for sale ($25,000) with a fresh annual. New paint, interior. Had a prop strike (snowbank), rebuilt the motor. I've considered buying it but i'm weary about the engine damage due to the prop strike.
4. The first plane I flew (the one that had engine problems) is getting an IFR package, and now has a 0 time engine (brand new). The owner is interested in a partnership with me. Would be great so I can get my group 3 but I am concerned about further mechanical issues due to a new engine.
I thought about flight instructing (I'm a good teacher, I was a teaching assistant for some classes in University) which would be enjoyable + gain hours at the same time, but once I realized I'd need to quit my job to be effective, the idea went out the window. I'd be making $25,000 (on a good year) as an instructor and would end up spending more time sitting idle than I'd like. A busy flight instructor in my area puts in 400-600 hours per year but doesn't bring much money home at the end of the day.
From what I've gathered, fixed costs on a 150 are around $600 per month. $100 to park, $200 for the annual (x12 = $2400), $100 for insurance, and $200 for a rainy day fund (when shit breaks). Annually $7200 to run + fuel ($35 per hour). If I were to fly 400 hours per year it would cost me approximately $21,200 (fixed+fuel costs). This amount would be paid for by my current job, and I'd have an air plane to show for it at the end of the day. Ideally if I partnered up, those fixed costs would be cut in half, and my initial investment would be cut in half as well ($15,000 for the plane, $3600 a year + fuel). If I were to go the block time route, at a rate of $80 (45 + 35 per hour, 400 hours would cost me $32,000 and I wouldn't have an air plane at the end of the day. Seems like a no brainer to partner up or buy one outright.
Any one have insights / experiences with buying a 150 (or similar trainer) for the purposes of time building, and saving money?
Number Crunching
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, Right Seat Captain, lilfssister, North Shore
Re: Number Crunching
Is 400hr/year realistic? I know several aircraft owners who seldom get 100hr/year because they are too busy with their job, or it is too far to drive to the airport, or any number of other reasons. Unfortunately, they have good intentions, but they don't fly enough to justify ownership from a financial standpoint. Something to keep in mind.
Also, I'm sure you would be able to instruct evenings or weekends only if you wanted to. That way you could keep your current job. You won't get 600 instructing hours a year, but it might be the best of both worlds.
Also, I'm sure you would be able to instruct evenings or weekends only if you wanted to. That way you could keep your current job. You won't get 600 instructing hours a year, but it might be the best of both worlds.
Re: Number Crunching
Thanks for your reply. You are probably right, 400 hours a year is unrealistic with a full time job. I do a lot of leisure flying (if I can fly somewhere instead of drive, i'll always fly then use a cab to get to where I need to go). If I had 1 or 2 partners I still think it would make more sense economically to partner up.jschnurr wrote:Is 400hr/year realistic? I know several aircraft owners who seldom get 100hr/year because they are too busy with their job, or it is too far to drive to the airport, or any number of other reasons. Unfortunately, they have good intentions, but they don't fly enough to justify ownership from a financial standpoint. Something to keep in mind.
Also, I'm sure you would be able to instruct evenings or weekends only if you wanted to. That way you could keep your current job. You won't get 600 instructing hours a year, but it might be the best of both worlds.
I intend to fly a 150 to Florida in December (after Christmas) instead of driving/airline.
An instructors rating costs around $7000; it is difficult to find students unless you spend most of your time waiting for a student to walk in (or a familiarizing flight). I'd rather pay out of my own pocket and fly for fun. Not to mention, if I were to teach students I'd want to give them the best quality of training (not likely if I have a full time job, and use my weekends to work. It'd become a drain over time).
-
Deltawidget
- Rank 3
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2011 7:33 am
Re: Number Crunching
Hi Dan,
I partnered up with 3 others on a Cherokee and it has been a good experience despite having some major repairs to do.
Roughly speaking, if you fly more than 150hrs in the year, it makes sense to buy, but if you really want to keep costs to a minimum, partner up with other time builders and get the plane running a solid 400 hours or more in the year, and that way you're amortizing far more of your fixed costs over flight hours. Schedule permitting, you may be able to accommodate up to 3 "time building" students and only have minimal scheduling issues.
In our partnership we have done about 450 hours in the year and have had basically no problem with availability (just use google calendar). Your math and estimates look pretty good but just make sure you have a few thousand sitting around at all times for when stuff breaks - and yes, things will break. Have that rainy day fund available from the get-go
A good pre-purchase is a must. And look for something that has been running regularly, and not sitting around because the owner has lost a medical or cant afford to fly. i.e. if it says 400SMOH but was overhauled in 1975, run. The engine that has 1500hrs that has been running 400hrs per year is a better deal almost guaranteed.
Some things to consider when buying:
1.) depreciation of the aircraft - you will likely give back some of the "savings" from operating the aircraft when you decide to sell, either because the aircraft has higher hours and justifies a lower price or because the market is still soft (I dont foresee it turning around any time soon)
2.) Lots to learn about aircraft ownership - maybe you can partner with someone who has experience with owning an aircraft. It's not difficult, but, not as easy as owning a car
Whether you buy block time or partner is really just risk/reward tradeoff. With a good plane and average (historical) maintenance, the ownership can probably save you a solid 25-30% of what you would pay renting when you take into account all costs. For instance, all things included, our Cherokee runs about $120/hr (including money set aside for an eventual overhaul of the engine ($20/hr), prop, fuel, insurance, tiedown, everything!) whereas the rental rate is about $147+HST for the cherokee at most fields...
Don't expect a homerun when it comes to ownership. About 25% savings after all costs/depreciation is a conservative estimate. The "real" pluses for ownership are scheduling flexibility and availability, the actual ownership experience and opportunity to really learn about your aircraft, and the ability to fly where you want are key benefits not to be overlooked. One of my partners said that even if the amount we had to pay was the same as the school's rental rate, the experience of ownership and the long cross countries he has been able to do are worth it.
I partnered up with 3 others on a Cherokee and it has been a good experience despite having some major repairs to do.
Roughly speaking, if you fly more than 150hrs in the year, it makes sense to buy, but if you really want to keep costs to a minimum, partner up with other time builders and get the plane running a solid 400 hours or more in the year, and that way you're amortizing far more of your fixed costs over flight hours. Schedule permitting, you may be able to accommodate up to 3 "time building" students and only have minimal scheduling issues.
In our partnership we have done about 450 hours in the year and have had basically no problem with availability (just use google calendar). Your math and estimates look pretty good but just make sure you have a few thousand sitting around at all times for when stuff breaks - and yes, things will break. Have that rainy day fund available from the get-go
A good pre-purchase is a must. And look for something that has been running regularly, and not sitting around because the owner has lost a medical or cant afford to fly. i.e. if it says 400SMOH but was overhauled in 1975, run. The engine that has 1500hrs that has been running 400hrs per year is a better deal almost guaranteed.
Some things to consider when buying:
1.) depreciation of the aircraft - you will likely give back some of the "savings" from operating the aircraft when you decide to sell, either because the aircraft has higher hours and justifies a lower price or because the market is still soft (I dont foresee it turning around any time soon)
2.) Lots to learn about aircraft ownership - maybe you can partner with someone who has experience with owning an aircraft. It's not difficult, but, not as easy as owning a car
Whether you buy block time or partner is really just risk/reward tradeoff. With a good plane and average (historical) maintenance, the ownership can probably save you a solid 25-30% of what you would pay renting when you take into account all costs. For instance, all things included, our Cherokee runs about $120/hr (including money set aside for an eventual overhaul of the engine ($20/hr), prop, fuel, insurance, tiedown, everything!) whereas the rental rate is about $147+HST for the cherokee at most fields...
Don't expect a homerun when it comes to ownership. About 25% savings after all costs/depreciation is a conservative estimate. The "real" pluses for ownership are scheduling flexibility and availability, the actual ownership experience and opportunity to really learn about your aircraft, and the ability to fly where you want are key benefits not to be overlooked. One of my partners said that even if the amount we had to pay was the same as the school's rental rate, the experience of ownership and the long cross countries he has been able to do are worth it.
Re: Number Crunching
Dave:
I bought a C150 four years ago for the purposes of time building and thought I would lease it back to a local flying school so it would be flown as a time builder when I did not need to use it.
I charged $50/hr dry for block time...a number which was intended to provide me with a 10% "profit" intended to compensate me for the capital expense of paying for the aircraft up front and then dropping about $8,000 to put a transponder and new GPS come in it in place of the Cessna 300 Nav/VOR POS. In reality I lost every penny on the radios and transponder when I sold it and my op costs were pretty close to $50/hr dry.
Couple of observations:
a) Your utilization rate of 400hrs per year seems high (as others have said), especially in light of your plan to park it outside (I am assuming that is why you are paying $100/m to park). To log 400hrs a year you need to average 8hrs per week 52 weeks a year...consider that you will take trips that do not entail flying, inclement weather and maintenance downtime (arbitrarily 10weeks out of the year). Taking 400hrs over 42 weeks per year is 10hrs per week...which is a lot of flying if you have a day job...
I agree with Deltawidget who suggests the real perks of ownership are the freedom to come and go as you wish and to fly somewhere for two hours, park for a week and fly home without worrying about minimum Hobbs times for rentals. The experience of aircraft ownership is also invaluable because it forces you to learn how to comply with all the regulations (annual inspections, annual airworthiness form etc).
If your current block time rentals affords you the come and go freedom mentioned above then I would severely question buying since the economics of aircraft ownership rarely make economic sense if everyone is being honest with themselves.
b) I would also urge you to be realistic with yourself in terms of what you can and cannot do with your airplane, whether it be a C150, a Cherokee 140 or Piper Mirage.
Your stated desire to fly from home base (southern Ontario?) to Florida in late December in lieu of taking a commercial flight. Hey, this sounds like a fun trip – but be honest with yourself. How highly do you rate your chances of making there and home without being weathered out or grounded due to a maintenance issue? Before dropping a pile of coin to owning something (the market for aircraft slows to a crawl in the winter…BELIEVE ME) take this winter as your case study and monitor the weather closely during the period when you would propose to travel. Select your route and then test whether you would have been able to make it down and back as effortlessly as if you had flown commercially. I suspect you will be confronted with the reality that a trip, such as the one you propose, over 1000+ miles cannot be reliably completed in a C150 when you have brackets on your time.
With that in your mind, further ask how will the questionable reliability of your C150 transport impact your ability to enjoy your vacation? Could you afford to either miss 1, 2 3 or 4 days of work with little prior notice as you pick your way home using a long route to detour past weather, or else are forced to abandon your aircraft somewhere, fly home commercially, only to return for your bird sometime later? (I can tell you from first-hand experience about a ten hour air time cross country from CYYC to DFW that I took this spring in my fully IFR Mooney 231. What took me one long (6am to 8pm) day to do on the way down took me three days of start and stop flying during the last week of April this year. Very frustrating and three additional days in a hotel that I had not budgeted for along the way.)
In terms of maintenance and operational issues:
1) Deltawidget’s point about regular flying and elapsed calendar time since overhaul is bang on the money! Aircraft engines that sit, and don’t log flight time deteriorate no matter how little time has elapsed SMOH. I once had a mechanic tell me that an engine that was 16-17yrs SMOH should be considered “run out” since it was only a matter of time till something nasty happened inside the engine that would require a rebuild (if it didn’t then you just got lucky). My personal limit? The C150 I bought had 180hrs over 12yrs before I bought it. However it has averaged about 30hrs a year in the few years leading up to my buying it.
2) Buy a bird with "long range" tanks. The standard 22.5gal (useable) tanks running at 5.5-6gal per hour sounds okay...3.75hrs in flight, but that is time to tanks dry.
Deduct VFR night reserves and you are looking at 3hrs...in a C150 at 85-90kts you are talking 270nm in still air. If you buy me a beer I will tell you about a lovely cross country I flew VFR from CYXE to CEN4 in a C150 bucking a 25kt head wind that took me 5.5hrs of air time, one enroute fueling stop and an anxious run the last couple of hours when I just on the edge of running into my reserves for arrival. Long range tanks give you another couple of hours...very worthwhile if your plan is to cruise around and build time on long cross countries while minimizing the delays associated with land, refuel, take off.
3) Oil Filter versus Oil Screen: The standard C150 has a suggested oil change interval every 25hrs when it is equipped with the factory original rock screen oil filter...the aftermarket STC'd spin on oil filter kit boosts that to 50hrs. It is a $150 part plus an hour of labor to install, but worth its weight in gold and should save you about $400 for two extra oil changes every 100 operating hrs.
4) MOGAS STC: There are lots of people on the “pro” and “con” side on this issue. I did my own research and this was my conclusion…
Cost savings argument aside the O-200 engine chokes on the lead in 100LL (which is 4 times the amount found in the old 80/87 “red gas”). In my case the lead would cause values to stick periodically and unpredictably meaning the plane would fly happily one day and then snort, fart, and fail the mag check the next morning during run up requiring a trip to the AME so that the values could be cleaned – usually canceling my plans to go flying for a couple of days.
You can delay the build up by leaning the engine to the nuts and running additives in your fuel...but you will eventually have problems with 100LL (if in doubt read the background as to why Cessna updated the C152 to the O-235 engine – it was intended to address the lead issue inherent in the move to 100LL as the primary engine fuel).
I bought the MOGAS STC from Petersen, had it put on the airplane and then ran Shell Gold (Premium) MOGAS in the thing on the advice of my AME...it was legal to use regular car gas (87 octane), but his rationale was that Premium (91-92octane depending on who is selling it) had a better additives package and burned better... The exhaust made the plane smell like a lawn mower, but she ran great and started surprisingly easy....the only issue with this plan today is that ethanol was mandate for including in the Alberta MOGAS supply since 2010. Some provinces require 5%-10% be added to the MOGAS base stock... so it is getting to be unavoidable in most MOGAS sources. Since it is prohibited by the STC and is inadvisable (the ethanol in MOGAS scavenges moisture from the air resulting in water in the gas) you need to be sure about your source and test each batch. (Another reason to run Premium is that some gas companies get around the ethanol requirement by adding ethanol full time to the "regular" 87 octane stuff and keep the 91/92 Premium blend clear of ethanol for the luxury car drivers (I think high output BMW engines recommend against ethanol fuels) however there are no guarantees so check before you fill up.)
Also transportation of the MOGAS from local gas station to airport was a colossal pain in the ass (few fields sell MOGAS unless there is lots of Ultralight traffic). This means using several 20L jerry cans to fill up…messy and not very convenient. For a time I used the Canadian Tire's Flow and Go system which held 47L (so about 1/2 tanks for a C150) , but the hand pump wasn't strong enough to move gas from ground level into the wing tanks so you needed to hoist the fuel tank onto the wing for fueling. Very heaving and unwieldy on a step ladder...If you own a pickup truck I would recommend investing in a fueling system the box and using that.
Happily MOGAS will cut your fuel expense by about 30% - which is a "nice" to have feature, but was not the primary motivation for moving to this fuel so much as reducing the lead fouling issue.
Re reading your original posting, I would say that either option #2 or option #3 sound most promising…In the case of #2 you are getting virtual limitless access to exactly what you proport to want to buy. In the case of option #4 – a new engine…how can that be bad? It will take 100hrs flying before the lead issue crops up.
Last comment, if you are renting make sure you have a letter of authorization from the owner when you cross the border into the USA. A bust between your licence and the registration (and they check) will have the customs guys asking you if you have permission to use the aircraft…easier to be ready for this question.
Good luck, have fun and PM with questions.
I bought a C150 four years ago for the purposes of time building and thought I would lease it back to a local flying school so it would be flown as a time builder when I did not need to use it.
I charged $50/hr dry for block time...a number which was intended to provide me with a 10% "profit" intended to compensate me for the capital expense of paying for the aircraft up front and then dropping about $8,000 to put a transponder and new GPS come in it in place of the Cessna 300 Nav/VOR POS. In reality I lost every penny on the radios and transponder when I sold it and my op costs were pretty close to $50/hr dry.
Couple of observations:
a) Your utilization rate of 400hrs per year seems high (as others have said), especially in light of your plan to park it outside (I am assuming that is why you are paying $100/m to park). To log 400hrs a year you need to average 8hrs per week 52 weeks a year...consider that you will take trips that do not entail flying, inclement weather and maintenance downtime (arbitrarily 10weeks out of the year). Taking 400hrs over 42 weeks per year is 10hrs per week...which is a lot of flying if you have a day job...
I agree with Deltawidget who suggests the real perks of ownership are the freedom to come and go as you wish and to fly somewhere for two hours, park for a week and fly home without worrying about minimum Hobbs times for rentals. The experience of aircraft ownership is also invaluable because it forces you to learn how to comply with all the regulations (annual inspections, annual airworthiness form etc).
If your current block time rentals affords you the come and go freedom mentioned above then I would severely question buying since the economics of aircraft ownership rarely make economic sense if everyone is being honest with themselves.
b) I would also urge you to be realistic with yourself in terms of what you can and cannot do with your airplane, whether it be a C150, a Cherokee 140 or Piper Mirage.
Your stated desire to fly from home base (southern Ontario?) to Florida in late December in lieu of taking a commercial flight. Hey, this sounds like a fun trip – but be honest with yourself. How highly do you rate your chances of making there and home without being weathered out or grounded due to a maintenance issue? Before dropping a pile of coin to owning something (the market for aircraft slows to a crawl in the winter…BELIEVE ME) take this winter as your case study and monitor the weather closely during the period when you would propose to travel. Select your route and then test whether you would have been able to make it down and back as effortlessly as if you had flown commercially. I suspect you will be confronted with the reality that a trip, such as the one you propose, over 1000+ miles cannot be reliably completed in a C150 when you have brackets on your time.
With that in your mind, further ask how will the questionable reliability of your C150 transport impact your ability to enjoy your vacation? Could you afford to either miss 1, 2 3 or 4 days of work with little prior notice as you pick your way home using a long route to detour past weather, or else are forced to abandon your aircraft somewhere, fly home commercially, only to return for your bird sometime later? (I can tell you from first-hand experience about a ten hour air time cross country from CYYC to DFW that I took this spring in my fully IFR Mooney 231. What took me one long (6am to 8pm) day to do on the way down took me three days of start and stop flying during the last week of April this year. Very frustrating and three additional days in a hotel that I had not budgeted for along the way.)
In terms of maintenance and operational issues:
1) Deltawidget’s point about regular flying and elapsed calendar time since overhaul is bang on the money! Aircraft engines that sit, and don’t log flight time deteriorate no matter how little time has elapsed SMOH. I once had a mechanic tell me that an engine that was 16-17yrs SMOH should be considered “run out” since it was only a matter of time till something nasty happened inside the engine that would require a rebuild (if it didn’t then you just got lucky). My personal limit? The C150 I bought had 180hrs over 12yrs before I bought it. However it has averaged about 30hrs a year in the few years leading up to my buying it.
2) Buy a bird with "long range" tanks. The standard 22.5gal (useable) tanks running at 5.5-6gal per hour sounds okay...3.75hrs in flight, but that is time to tanks dry.
Deduct VFR night reserves and you are looking at 3hrs...in a C150 at 85-90kts you are talking 270nm in still air. If you buy me a beer I will tell you about a lovely cross country I flew VFR from CYXE to CEN4 in a C150 bucking a 25kt head wind that took me 5.5hrs of air time, one enroute fueling stop and an anxious run the last couple of hours when I just on the edge of running into my reserves for arrival. Long range tanks give you another couple of hours...very worthwhile if your plan is to cruise around and build time on long cross countries while minimizing the delays associated with land, refuel, take off.
3) Oil Filter versus Oil Screen: The standard C150 has a suggested oil change interval every 25hrs when it is equipped with the factory original rock screen oil filter...the aftermarket STC'd spin on oil filter kit boosts that to 50hrs. It is a $150 part plus an hour of labor to install, but worth its weight in gold and should save you about $400 for two extra oil changes every 100 operating hrs.
4) MOGAS STC: There are lots of people on the “pro” and “con” side on this issue. I did my own research and this was my conclusion…
Cost savings argument aside the O-200 engine chokes on the lead in 100LL (which is 4 times the amount found in the old 80/87 “red gas”). In my case the lead would cause values to stick periodically and unpredictably meaning the plane would fly happily one day and then snort, fart, and fail the mag check the next morning during run up requiring a trip to the AME so that the values could be cleaned – usually canceling my plans to go flying for a couple of days.
You can delay the build up by leaning the engine to the nuts and running additives in your fuel...but you will eventually have problems with 100LL (if in doubt read the background as to why Cessna updated the C152 to the O-235 engine – it was intended to address the lead issue inherent in the move to 100LL as the primary engine fuel).
I bought the MOGAS STC from Petersen, had it put on the airplane and then ran Shell Gold (Premium) MOGAS in the thing on the advice of my AME...it was legal to use regular car gas (87 octane), but his rationale was that Premium (91-92octane depending on who is selling it) had a better additives package and burned better... The exhaust made the plane smell like a lawn mower, but she ran great and started surprisingly easy....the only issue with this plan today is that ethanol was mandate for including in the Alberta MOGAS supply since 2010. Some provinces require 5%-10% be added to the MOGAS base stock... so it is getting to be unavoidable in most MOGAS sources. Since it is prohibited by the STC and is inadvisable (the ethanol in MOGAS scavenges moisture from the air resulting in water in the gas) you need to be sure about your source and test each batch. (Another reason to run Premium is that some gas companies get around the ethanol requirement by adding ethanol full time to the "regular" 87 octane stuff and keep the 91/92 Premium blend clear of ethanol for the luxury car drivers (I think high output BMW engines recommend against ethanol fuels) however there are no guarantees so check before you fill up.)
Also transportation of the MOGAS from local gas station to airport was a colossal pain in the ass (few fields sell MOGAS unless there is lots of Ultralight traffic). This means using several 20L jerry cans to fill up…messy and not very convenient. For a time I used the Canadian Tire's Flow and Go system which held 47L (so about 1/2 tanks for a C150) , but the hand pump wasn't strong enough to move gas from ground level into the wing tanks so you needed to hoist the fuel tank onto the wing for fueling. Very heaving and unwieldy on a step ladder...If you own a pickup truck I would recommend investing in a fueling system the box and using that.
Happily MOGAS will cut your fuel expense by about 30% - which is a "nice" to have feature, but was not the primary motivation for moving to this fuel so much as reducing the lead fouling issue.
Re reading your original posting, I would say that either option #2 or option #3 sound most promising…In the case of #2 you are getting virtual limitless access to exactly what you proport to want to buy. In the case of option #4 – a new engine…how can that be bad? It will take 100hrs flying before the lead issue crops up.
Last comment, if you are renting make sure you have a letter of authorization from the owner when you cross the border into the USA. A bust between your licence and the registration (and they check) will have the customs guys asking you if you have permission to use the aircraft…easier to be ready for this question.
Good luck, have fun and PM with questions.
-
Beefitarian
- Top Poster
- Posts: 6610
- Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:53 am
- Location: A couple of meters away from others.
Thanks for the post JAHinyyc.
What are the extra costs in running a C-172 or even C-185 or similar instead? There might be some value in the extra speed if you're going places as you might get farther per dollar of cost. How difficult is it to figure out the miles per dollar comparison between the different sizes?
What are the extra costs in running a C-172 or even C-185 or similar instead? There might be some value in the extra speed if you're going places as you might get farther per dollar of cost. How difficult is it to figure out the miles per dollar comparison between the different sizes?
-
Deltawidget
- Rank 3
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2011 7:33 am
Re: Number Crunching
You're in luck! I just happened to be doing this calculation trying to figure out if we should either a.) get wheel pants and speed mods for our cherokee b.) stay as is or c.) upgrade to something faster or more fuel efficient. Here are some efficiency numbers for some popular types.
Oh - for the original poster who wants to fly to Florida - great idea as long as you leave yourself plenty of time for weather and also consider the possibility that you may get stranded somewhere for days and could have to take an airline flight home and pick up the plane some other time, there are plently of people this has happened to, especially if they need to get home.
Additionally, you may be shocked to find out the efficiency of most planes is about 15MPG as you will see below, well below most cars these days (30mpg?). Please note, these figures are from plane and pilot mag website which in turn gets these from the manufacturer's poh - and we all know the poh's can be generous on their cruise numbers. Figures are in Knots per Gallon. Multiply by 1.2 for mpg.
@75% power for all...
[4 seaters]
Diamond DA40 - 150kts@10Gph = 15 kts per gallon
Cirrus SR20 - 160kts@10.4gph = 15.4 kts per gallon
PA24-180 (Piper Comanche) - 139kts@9.5gph = 14.6 kts per gallon
PA28-161 (Piper Warrior) - 121 kts @ 8.4gph = 14.4 kts per gallon
C177 (Cardinal) - 123 kts @ 10.1gph = 12.2 kts per gallon
C182 - 140kts @ 13.5gph = 10.4 kts per gallon
C172 - 122 kts @ 9.2gph = 13.3 kts per gallon
[2 seaters]
Diamond DA20 - 138kts@6.6gph = 20.9kts per gallon
Cessna 162 skycatcher - 116kts@5.5gph - 21 kts per gallon
PA38 (Piper Tomahawk) - 98 kts @ 6.5gph = 15.1 kts per gallon
In general, if you run at 65% instead of 75%, fuel efficiency improves by about 5-10% or so..
I think one of the most efficient aircraft ive come across is the DA20. Run that thing around 50% power and you get the equivalent of 26kts per gallon (around 30mpg) - the DA20 is one of the few aircraft ive come across that has efficiency numbers (as measured by mpg) similar to a car.
Oh - for the original poster who wants to fly to Florida - great idea as long as you leave yourself plenty of time for weather and also consider the possibility that you may get stranded somewhere for days and could have to take an airline flight home and pick up the plane some other time, there are plently of people this has happened to, especially if they need to get home.
Additionally, you may be shocked to find out the efficiency of most planes is about 15MPG as you will see below, well below most cars these days (30mpg?). Please note, these figures are from plane and pilot mag website which in turn gets these from the manufacturer's poh - and we all know the poh's can be generous on their cruise numbers. Figures are in Knots per Gallon. Multiply by 1.2 for mpg.
@75% power for all...
[4 seaters]
Diamond DA40 - 150kts@10Gph = 15 kts per gallon
Cirrus SR20 - 160kts@10.4gph = 15.4 kts per gallon
PA24-180 (Piper Comanche) - 139kts@9.5gph = 14.6 kts per gallon
PA28-161 (Piper Warrior) - 121 kts @ 8.4gph = 14.4 kts per gallon
C177 (Cardinal) - 123 kts @ 10.1gph = 12.2 kts per gallon
C182 - 140kts @ 13.5gph = 10.4 kts per gallon
C172 - 122 kts @ 9.2gph = 13.3 kts per gallon
[2 seaters]
Diamond DA20 - 138kts@6.6gph = 20.9kts per gallon
Cessna 162 skycatcher - 116kts@5.5gph - 21 kts per gallon
PA38 (Piper Tomahawk) - 98 kts @ 6.5gph = 15.1 kts per gallon
In general, if you run at 65% instead of 75%, fuel efficiency improves by about 5-10% or so..
I think one of the most efficient aircraft ive come across is the DA20. Run that thing around 50% power and you get the equivalent of 26kts per gallon (around 30mpg) - the DA20 is one of the few aircraft ive come across that has efficiency numbers (as measured by mpg) similar to a car.
-
Deltawidget
- Rank 3
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2011 7:33 am
Re: Number Crunching
Beef,
For the most part, larger aircraft like the C185, although they get places faster their fuel burn eats up the difference.
Additionally, extra costs for larger aircraft include:
- more for insurance (hull value is more)
- more in terms of fuel burn relative to 2 seaters - you're hauling around 2 extra seats which are generally empty and you pay for that
- more for constant speed props
- potentially more mags and cylinders to go bad or overhaul
- more "shtuff" to break
If you can pick up a DA20 at a good price, run it at 45-50% power, and manage to sell it for around what you paid (no guarantee) all in all, you'll probably save the most money at the end of the day... But the biggest setback with the '20 is it's not IFR certified. If you get stuck in IMC somewhere between here and FL, you're stuck (legally).
For the most part, larger aircraft like the C185, although they get places faster their fuel burn eats up the difference.
Additionally, extra costs for larger aircraft include:
- more for insurance (hull value is more)
- more in terms of fuel burn relative to 2 seaters - you're hauling around 2 extra seats which are generally empty and you pay for that
- more for constant speed props
- potentially more mags and cylinders to go bad or overhaul
- more "shtuff" to break
If you can pick up a DA20 at a good price, run it at 45-50% power, and manage to sell it for around what you paid (no guarantee) all in all, you'll probably save the most money at the end of the day... But the biggest setback with the '20 is it's not IFR certified. If you get stuck in IMC somewhere between here and FL, you're stuck (legally).
-
Beefitarian
- Top Poster
- Posts: 6610
- Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:53 am
- Location: A couple of meters away from others.
Re: Number Crunching
In the November 2008 edition of Aviation Consumer magazine the editorial staff did a fuel economy calculation and comparison exercise.
There methodology was to take the POH speeds and fuel burns and convert them into mile per gallon (MPG) ratings to compare various aircraft with a Lincoln Navigator. (There are obviously issues with this being a purely paper analysis since real world values will vary somewhat.)
For "economy" flight they used 55%-65% power and "go fast" power was 75%. The basic conclusion, going fast was invariably less efficient relative to distance covered.
Without reproducing the entire article, the various aircraft in this thread ranked as follows:
#1 DA20 (with Rotax engine) 28.9MPG Economy 27.3MPG Go Fast
#2 DA20 (with Cont IO-240) 20.7MPG Economy 19.3MPG Go Fast
#3 C152 (O-235) 20.2MPG Economy 17.2MPG Go Fast
#4 C150 (O-200) 19.7MPG Economy 15.8MPG Go Fast
#7 M231 (TSIO-360) 18MPG Economy 13.91MPG Go Fast
#11 C172R (IO-360 fuel inj) 15.4MPG Economy 13.52MPG Go Fast
#15 C172L (O-360 carb) 14.6MPG Economy 12.8MPG Go Fast
#26 Lincoln Navigator5.4L V8 13MPG Economy 10.55MPG Go Fast
*** Data was not provided for the C185, however the C182P was analysed and came in #33 with 11.8/10MPG respectively
There methodology was to take the POH speeds and fuel burns and convert them into mile per gallon (MPG) ratings to compare various aircraft with a Lincoln Navigator. (There are obviously issues with this being a purely paper analysis since real world values will vary somewhat.)
For "economy" flight they used 55%-65% power and "go fast" power was 75%. The basic conclusion, going fast was invariably less efficient relative to distance covered.
Without reproducing the entire article, the various aircraft in this thread ranked as follows:
#1 DA20 (with Rotax engine) 28.9MPG Economy 27.3MPG Go Fast
#2 DA20 (with Cont IO-240) 20.7MPG Economy 19.3MPG Go Fast
#3 C152 (O-235) 20.2MPG Economy 17.2MPG Go Fast
#4 C150 (O-200) 19.7MPG Economy 15.8MPG Go Fast
#7 M231 (TSIO-360) 18MPG Economy 13.91MPG Go Fast
#11 C172R (IO-360 fuel inj) 15.4MPG Economy 13.52MPG Go Fast
#15 C172L (O-360 carb) 14.6MPG Economy 12.8MPG Go Fast
#26 Lincoln Navigator5.4L V8 13MPG Economy 10.55MPG Go Fast
*** Data was not provided for the C185, however the C182P was analysed and came in #33 with 11.8/10MPG respectively
Last edited by JAHinYYC on Wed Oct 26, 2011 9:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Beefitarian
- Top Poster
- Posts: 6610
- Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:53 am
- Location: A couple of meters away from others.
-
Beefitarian
- Top Poster
- Posts: 6610
- Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:53 am
- Location: A couple of meters away from others.
I just did a rough calculation on a 1976 Lance from the specs on Plane and pilot's site.
http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraf ... lance.html
Fuel (gals.): 94
PERFORMANCE
Cruise speed (kts.):
75% power: 158
65% power: 148
Max range (w/ reserve) (nm):
75% power: 700
65% power: 800
800 / 94 = 8.5106383 That should be near the nautical miles per gallon economy. Did I do that right?
You will get there much faster than the Lincoln though.
http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraf ... lance.html
Fuel (gals.): 94
PERFORMANCE
Cruise speed (kts.):
75% power: 158
65% power: 148
Max range (w/ reserve) (nm):
75% power: 700
65% power: 800
800 / 94 = 8.5106383 That should be near the nautical miles per gallon economy. Did I do that right?
You will get there much faster than the Lincoln though.
Re: Number Crunching
Beef replying to your 8:22am posting...
The Aviation Consumer article which I reference above has the Piper Saratoga SP (a Lance with a Lyc. IO 540 engine) as the second worst for fuel economy...
Using the same method of data summary: 10.9MPG Economy and 10.2MPG Go Fast.
As mentioned this was 38 out of 39 aircraft reviewed and was second worst behind the Socata TB21.
The Aviation Consumer article which I reference above has the Piper Saratoga SP (a Lance with a Lyc. IO 540 engine) as the second worst for fuel economy...
Using the same method of data summary: 10.9MPG Economy and 10.2MPG Go Fast.
As mentioned this was 38 out of 39 aircraft reviewed and was second worst behind the Socata TB21.
-
Beefitarian
- Top Poster
- Posts: 6610
- Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:53 am
- Location: A couple of meters away from others.
I guess I should find a socata then. I don't want to be second.
