Log in

View Full Version : Small plane with the best range?


Bob
February 16th 04, 08:01 PM
Hello,

I've been reading news on flying for quite a while and these seems to
be the most well-informed groups (the googles)writer on the net. I
would therefore like to have your personnal opinion on a question. I
live in Northern Quebec (Yes, I'm french speaking so forgive the
spelling mistakes) and practice as a lawyer in the Nordic region of
Quebec with native people (no road access), we always travel by plane
(Gruman G-1, dash-8 or twin otter) and, as everyone, I am limited to
the schedule of these companies. I would like to fly my own plane to
these community; I would be able to charge less to my client for
travelling, I would be able to use these portion of flying as tax
deductible (and parts of the plane expense) and that would give me the
possibility of mixing my career with flying. My town airport as a
10000 feet (yes almost two miles, it used to be military) airstrip and
we are located at 1016 feet ASL. The kind of places I would like to
go are Great-Whale (500 statute miles), Chisasibi (300 statute miles),
Kuujuaq(800 statute miles) and Puvirnituq (850 statute miles ), of
course I will be able to fuel between these objectives. My question
finally!

-From your personnal opinion what is the best small single-engine
plane for this kind of use?

-The number of seats is irrelevant, I don't intent to carry
passengers;
-the payload is irrelevant( except for fuel), I travel light;
-the speed is not a major item;
-I don't like taildagger, the crosswind can be strong up there;
-range is the major item, avgas or mogas is harder to get in the small
airport the northern community (You often have to buy the whole 45
gallons drum)so refuelling is very time-consuming;
-Price range would be less than 55,000 canadian $ (about 40,000 us$)

If you need more precision do not hesitate to contact me

Thank you very much for your collaboration,

Yours Truly

Bob

Province of Quebec, Canada

Roy Smith
February 16th 04, 08:51 PM
(Bob) wrote:
> -The number of seats is irrelevant, I don't intent to carry
> passengers;
> -the payload is irrelevant( except for fuel), I travel light;
> -the speed is not a major item;
> -I don't like taildagger, the crosswind can be strong up there;
> -range is the major item, avgas or mogas is harder to get in the small
> airport the northern community (You often have to buy the whole 45
> gallons drum)so refuelling is very time-consuming;
> -Price range would be less than 55,000 canadian $ (about 40,000 us$)

Try to find a 172 with the optional 50 gallon long-range tanks. At 45%
power (about 95 KTAS), you get 750 nm (860 statute mile) range with 45
minute reserve. I suspect if you can find one for 40,000 USD, though,
it'll be in pretty sorry shape.

You could tear out the back seats and replace them with an additional
gas tank. Probably double your range doing that, but now you're into
custom modifications and that's sure to blow your budget.

I think some model years of the 172 offered tanks even bigger than 50
gallons, but those will be harder to find and probably command a premium
price.

Advantages of the 172 is it's very easy to fly, has simple mechanical
systems, and very rugged landing gear (good for unpaved runways). It's
about the most common light airplane in the world so parts are easy to
get and most mechanics are familiar with them.

Kyler Laird
February 16th 04, 10:11 PM
(Bob) writes:

>The kind of places I would like to
>go are Great-Whale (500 statute miles), Chisasibi (300 statute miles),
>Kuujuaq(800 statute miles) and Puvirnituq (850 statute miles ), of
>course I will be able to fuel between these objectives.

>-range is the major item, avgas or mogas is harder to get in the small
>airport the northern community (You often have to buy the whole 45
>gallons drum)so refuelling is very time-consuming;

So are you saying that you'd like to be able to go to Puvirnituq and
back (1700 sm) without refueling? That *is* quite a distance. The
planes I'm around are only suited for going about half that distance.

Is kerosene (jet fuel) much easier to acquire in such places? There
are single-engine turboprops and diesels that will run on that.

--kyler

Orval Fairbairn
February 17th 04, 03:21 AM
In article >,
Roy Smith > wrote:

> (Bob) wrote:
> > -The number of seats is irrelevant, I don't intent to carry
> > passengers;
> > -the payload is irrelevant( except for fuel), I travel light;
> > -the speed is not a major item;
> > -I don't like taildagger, the crosswind can be strong up there;
> > -range is the major item, avgas or mogas is harder to get in the small
> > airport the northern community (You often have to buy the whole 45
> > gallons drum)so refuelling is very time-consuming;
> > -Price range would be less than 55,000 canadian $ (about 40,000 us$)
>
> Try to find a 172 with the optional 50 gallon long-range tanks. At 45%
> power (about 95 KTAS), you get 750 nm (860 statute mile) range with 45
> minute reserve. I suspect if you can find one for 40,000 USD, though,
> it'll be in pretty sorry shape.
>
> You could tear out the back seats and replace them with an additional
> gas tank. Probably double your range doing that, but now you're into
> custom modifications and that's sure to blow your budget.
>
> I think some model years of the 172 offered tanks even bigger than 50
> gallons, but those will be harder to find and probably command a premium
> price.
>
> Advantages of the 172 is it's very easy to fly, has simple mechanical
> systems, and very rugged landing gear (good for unpaved runways). It's
> about the most common light airplane in the world so parts are easy to
> get and most mechanics are familiar with them.

I would go with either a Bonanza or a Comanche (both with installed tip
tanks). Either one has more than enough range to satisfy the mission,
plus reasonable speed.

Bob
February 19th 04, 10:11 PM
Bonjour bernard,

effectivement je n'ai pas presentement l'experience pour affronter les
temperature les plus extreme il est bien certain que je ne ferai pas
une utilisation exclusive de ce moyen de transport tant que je n'aurai
pas acquis l'experience necessaire et je continuerai d'utiliser les
avions commerciaux dans les periodes ou la temperature est plus
difficile. Nous utilisons les aeroport de l'abitibi-temiscamingue.

merci et bonne journee

Bob







"Bernard Bélisle" > wrote in message news:<XGfYb.356$G3.3593@localhost>...
> De quel aéroport vous partez et quelles sont vos qualifications en tant que
> pilote?
> Dans le nord c'est important à cause des sautes d'humeur de la météo. À ce
> moment il me sera plus facile de vous répondre
>

Jay Smith
February 20th 04, 03:57 AM
Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> I would go with either a Bonanza or a Comanche (both with installed tip
> tanks). Either one has more than enough range to satisfy the mission,
> plus reasonable speed.

V35 Bonanza with tip tanks... 125 US gallons.
18 gph at 160 kts gives 1040 nm or seven hours to zero fuel.

Google