Single-engine plane with the best range?

[Bob]

Hello,

I've been reading news on flying for quite a while and these seems to
be the most well-informed groups (the googles)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

[Bob Gardner]

The range for any aircraft is dependent on power setting (and fuel
available, of course). If speed is not important, you could operate at
50-percent of max power and get astounding range...but few pilots are
willing to make that tradeoff.

Bob Gardner

"Bob" > wrote in message
om...
> Hello,
>
> I've been reading news on flying for quite a while and these seems to
> be the most well-informed groups (the googles)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

[Mike O'Malley]

"Bob" > wrote in message
om...
> Hello,
>
<snip>

> 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$)

Well, off the top of my head, for a single if you're concerned with range,
my first suggestion would be a Comanche 260, or possibly a 180. They're
flying gas cans, have decent cruise speed, but will be a bit higher than 40
grand. In fact, if you're limiting yourself to sub 40,000 USD, you're
pretty much going to be looking at a 172 with long range tanks, or a
Warrior. You might be able to find a Cherokee 180 in that price range too.

That's just what first comes to my mind when I think of long range piston
singles though.

--
Mike

[Kees Mies]

(Bob) wrote in message >...
> Hello,
>
> I've been reading news on flying for quite a while and these seems to
> be the most well-informed groups (the googles)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

Hi Bob,

If speed, or payload are not the main issues try one of the Morane
Saulnier Rallye Series.
Some have long range tanks. My Rallye has about 90 ltr usable fuel
giving it a range of about 430 mls, the long range versions can take
about twice the fuel if I remember well.
Rallyes have good crosswind handling( 22kts demonstrated) are safe and
really STOL.
Many are used as tow planes for gliders.
There are drawbacks though, they are noisy, not very comfortable and
ugly too.
Probably you can find one for (far)less than 40K.
Check www.flyrallye.com for more info on these amazing aircraft.

Succes,
Kees.

[Stealth Pilot]

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 20:59:55 GMT, "Bob Gardner" >
wrote:

>The range for any aircraft is dependent on power setting (and fuel
>available, of course). If speed is not important, you could operate at
>50-percent of max power and get astounding range...but few pilots are
>willing to make that tradeoff.
>
>Bob Gardner
>

bob my experience doesnt support that.

I fly a Wittman W8 tailwind with an O-200.

flying between Ceduna and Forrest via Nullabor Homestead is about 297
nautical miles.
I have made the flight with two settings.
-at reduced rpm (about 1800rpm) and about 70 knots. (in company with a
piper cub)
-at cruise rpm (2500 rpm) and 114 knots.
weight and aircraft trim was just about the same.

believe it or not the fuel consumed was the same.

reducing your rpm gets you more time aloft but does not increase your
range.
it seems to take the same amount of energy to move the aircraft the
distance. all you vary with rpm is the rate of energy conversion and
the air speed.

another point pertinent to the original posters question.

the fuel bill for a thorp T18 with an O-360 engine and a W8 Tailwind
with an O-200 engine is about the same for the flight across
australia.
the thorp cruises around 180 knots and does the trip in 1 day. I
cruise at 114 knots and it takes 2 days.
it astounds me that the fuel consumed is about the same.

of course these flights are made upside down (downunder) and our
Lycoming and Continental engines might be different from yours.
....and these are both taildraggers. :-)
ymmv
Stealth Pilot
Australia.

[Dennis O'Connor]

For your going into back woods airports, especially in the winter, I suggest
a high wing aircraft... For fuel economy, ability to get parts, and every
mechanic at every small airport knowing the airplane (and having small parts
on hand), a Skyhawk (Cessna 172) is what I would suggest... For flying in
the winter the Skyhawk has one of the best heater systems in the business...
While, there are planes that will fly farther per gallon of gas, etc., range
is not your only need in that part of the continent - easy handling, good in
ifr conditions, strong strut braced wing for rough air, ability to handle
ice, reliability of systems, reasonable speed and still get in and out of
short strips, etc... And, you can have long range tanks added to the
airplane, and even a cabin tank if extreme range is necessary... I could go
on and on, but these are the major points as I see them...
denny

"Bob" > wrote in message
om...
> 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;

[Dennis O'Connor]

Your experience in the first example is due to the wing needing to fly
within a certain L/D for efficiency and your cooling drag... As your speed
goes up so does your cooling drag... As your speed goes down, the airfoil
L/D ratio deteriorates with increasing angle of attack...

A simple look at the manufacturers range curves for fast aircraft shows that
there a peak in the range plot at some point on the power curve... Since
the curve is a mountain (or valley, depending on how the ordinate and
abcissa are set up) there will be two points down from the peak, one at a
higher power setting and one at a lower power setting where the range is
exactly the same, and that is likely what happened to your high power / low
power example...

As far as fuel burn between a fast airplane and a slow one, that is apples
and oranges....

Now range for fast aircraft is strongly affected by the airfoil
characteristics... Slippery airfoils have a sharp rise in the drag as the
AOA is increased to compensate for lower airspeeds and lower lift... Fatter
airfoils have a lower rise in their drag with increasing AOA... My Apache is
a case in point... The lower the power setting the longer the range, mostly
because it's fat airfoil just loves high angles of attack...
- and because cooling drag , goes down rapidly with decreasing speed. and
vice versa -

Example at sea level:
75% = 940 miles
65% = 1040 miles
55% = 1130 miles
45% = 1220 miles

While I don't have a handbook for a Lancair IVP, or a Glasair III, I'm
willing to bet that there is a range peak with decreasing power between
roughly 68% and 63% and then it goes downhill from there because these
laminar flow wings have to fly inside the L/D bucket or the drag goes sky
high......
denny

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message >
> bob my experience doesnt support that.
>
> I fly a Wittman W8 tailwind with an O-200.
>
> flying between Ceduna and Forrest via Nullabor Homestead is about 297
> nautical miles.
> I have made the flight with two settings.
> -at reduced rpm (about 1800rpm) and about 70 knots. (in company with a
> piper cub)
> -at cruise rpm (2500 rpm) and 114 knots.
> weight and aircraft trim was just about the same.
>
> believe it or not the fuel consumed was the same.

[Peter Duniho]

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
> [...] it seems to take the same amount of energy to move the aircraft the
> distance. all you vary with rpm is the rate of energy conversion and
> the air speed.

I don't know how you did your test, or what the specific airspeeds are for
the Tailwind, but generally speaking, Bob's statement was exactly correct.

It does not take the same amount of energy to move the aircraft a given
distance. The amount of energy depends on a variety of things, but the
biggest variable in the equation is airspeed (most other factors are
constant). The least amount of fuel will be used at the airspeed that
corresponds to maximum lift-to-drag ratio, and for most aircraft, this
airspeed is well below the normal cruising airspeed.

This is because in level cruise flight, lift is constant, so at L/Dmax, drag
as at a minimum, and drag is what the fuel you're burning is working
against. Less drag means less fuel required, even for the same distance.

I doubt that the Tailwind's L/Dmax is at or above 114 knots (though, there's
no theoretical reason it couldn't be, I guess), which means that there IS a
speed below 114 knots at which fuel consumption would have been less. Of
course, if 70 knots is below *that* speed, then what you found was the
increase in drag that occurs as you slow down further below L/Dmax.

Another possibility, of course, is that you simply forgot to lean the engine
properly during your test.

Bottom line: maximum range is found at L/Dmax, and this airspeed is almost
always significantly slower than normal cruise speed. In most aircraft, you
can significantly increase your range simply by flying slower.

(The above is all only valid in no-wind conditions...add a tailwind or
headwind and it becomes more complicated, since you need to speed up in a
headwind and slow down in a tailwind in order to achieve best range).

Pete

[Dennis O'Connor]

Good explanantion, Pete... For those interested in these topics I suggest
they start with Alex Strojniks three books on laminar flow aircraft, and
delve into Martin Hollmans series on Modern Aircraft Design... Then they
can google on Kent Phaser, Barnaby Wainfan, and Harry Riblett, for more
information..
denny
"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
> ...
> > [...] it seems to take the same amount of energy to move the aircraft
the
> > distance. all you vary with rpm is the rate of energy conversion and
> > the air speed.
>
> I don't know how you did your test, or what the specific airspeeds are for
> the Tailwind, but generally speaking, Bob's statement was exactly correct.
>
> It does not take the same amount of energy to move the aircraft a given
> distance. The amount of energy depends on a variety of things, but the
> biggest variable in the equation is airspeed (most other factors are
> constant). The least amount of fuel will be used at the airspeed that
> corresponds to maximum lift-to-drag ratio, and for most aircraft, this
> airspeed is well below the normal cruising airspeed.
>
> This is because in level cruise flight, lift is constant, so at L/Dmax,
drag
> as at a minimum, and drag is what the fuel you're burning is working
> against. Less drag means less fuel required, even for the same distance.
>
> I doubt that the Tailwind's L/Dmax is at or above 114 knots (though,
there's
> no theoretical reason it couldn't be, I guess), which means that there IS
a
> speed below 114 knots at which fuel consumption would have been less. Of
> course, if 70 knots is below *that* speed, then what you found was the
> increase in drag that occurs as you slow down further below L/Dmax.
>
> Another possibility, of course, is that you simply forgot to lean the
engine
> properly during your test.
>
> Bottom line: maximum range is found at L/Dmax, and this airspeed is almost
> always significantly slower than normal cruise speed. In most aircraft,
you
> can significantly increase your range simply by flying slower.
>
> (The above is all only valid in no-wind conditions...add a tailwind or
> headwind and it becomes more complicated, since you need to speed up in a
> headwind and slow down in a tailwind in order to achieve best range).
>
> Pete
>
>

[Bob Gardner]

Using a 172P POH as an example, at 8000 feet density altitude and 75
percent, the range is eyeballed as 575 nm; at 65 percent it is 640; at 55
percent it is 680, all based on 50 gallons available with reserve. With 62
gallons available (with reserve), the numbers are: 75 percent 755 nm, at 65
percent 820, and at 55 percent 870. Sure looks to me as though reducing the
power setting increases range, as does carrying more fuel.

Bob Gardner

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 20:59:55 GMT, "Bob Gardner" >
> wrote:
>
> >The range for any aircraft is dependent on power setting (and fuel
> >available, of course). If speed is not important, you could operate at
> >50-percent of max power and get astounding range...but few pilots are
> >willing to make that tradeoff.
> >
> >Bob Gardner
> >
>
> bob my experience doesnt support that.
>
> I fly a Wittman W8 tailwind with an O-200.
>
> flying between Ceduna and Forrest via Nullabor Homestead is about 297
> nautical miles.
> I have made the flight with two settings.
> -at reduced rpm (about 1800rpm) and about 70 knots. (in company with a
> piper cub)
> -at cruise rpm (2500 rpm) and 114 knots.
> weight and aircraft trim was just about the same.
>
> believe it or not the fuel consumed was the same.
>
> reducing your rpm gets you more time aloft but does not increase your
> range.
> it seems to take the same amount of energy to move the aircraft the
> distance. all you vary with rpm is the rate of energy conversion and
> the air speed.
>
> another point pertinent to the original posters question.
>
> the fuel bill for a thorp T18 with an O-360 engine and a W8 Tailwind
> with an O-200 engine is about the same for the flight across
> australia.
> the thorp cruises around 180 knots and does the trip in 1 day. I
> cruise at 114 knots and it takes 2 days.
> it astounds me that the fuel consumed is about the same.
>
> of course these flights are made upside down (downunder) and our
> Lycoming and Continental engines might be different from yours.
> ...and these are both taildraggers. :-)
> ymmv
> Stealth Pilot
> Australia.
>
>

[Rick Durden]

Bob,

As a number of the airstrips you are dealing with may not be paved,
you will probably want to use a high wing airplane to reduce the
chance of damage to the wing from stones and debris during takeoff and
landing.

That aside, it will be cheaper for you to travel by airline than by
general aviation airplane, so you will probably not save your clients
any money, unless the value of your time is factored in and you can
somehow do it faster in a light single.

For long legged single engine airplanes look at a late model Cessna
210 or Cessna 182RG, either turbocharged or normally aspirated. The
182RG series has a great deal of range at about 150 knots, the
turbocharged version is faster and gives you more flexibility with
altitude, wind and weather, which may be a factor in your area. The
210 cruises at about 170 knots, with the turbo version getting over
200 at high altitude.

The range charts in the POHs for the various airplanes will give you
some guidance of range versus power setting. You can substantially
increase range at lower power settings, although the speed reduction
is sometimes so great that it can be faster to stop for fuel.

Best of luck in the search,
Rick

(Bob) wrote in message >...
> Hello,
>
> I've been reading news on flying for quite a while and these seems to
> be the most well-informed groups (the googles)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

[Teacherjh]

>>
That aside, it will be cheaper for you to travel by airline than by
general aviation airplane
<<

Depends where he's going, and when.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[G.R. Patterson III]

Rick Durden wrote:
>
> That aside, it will be cheaper for you to travel by airline than by
> general aviation airplane, so you will probably not save your clients
> any money, unless the value of your time is factored in and you can
> somehow do it faster in a light single.

Only maybe. Even in the States, this is only true if you're traveling between
major cities or booking well in advance. I just checked Delta's price for Newark,
NJ to Knoxville, TN, leaving tomorrow and returning three days later. They want
$1,115.90 for coach. United wants $1,013.90. Continental wants $1,038.74. American
flies through Chicago.

By contrast, the loaded cost of my aircraft is about $60/hr and I average about
6 flight hours each way. That's about $720. One of the local airports charges
$78/hr to rent a 180hp Cessna 172. That's a faster airplane than mine, and I'd
guess the cost of the trip would be around $850. Even renting the Archer at
$89/hr would save me money over Delta.

Throw in the fact that I can leave from a local field instead of having to get
transport into Newark (last time I flew out of there, the limo fee was about
$45 each way), and there's not much contest.

George Patterson
A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that
you look forward to the trip.

[Mike O'Malley]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Rick Durden wrote:
> >
> > That aside, it will be cheaper for you to travel by airline than by
> > general aviation airplane, so you will probably not save your clients
> > any money, unless the value of your time is factored in and you can
> > somehow do it faster in a light single.
>
> Only maybe. Even in the States, this is only true if you're traveling between
> major cities or booking well in advance. I just checked Delta's price for
Newark,
> NJ to Knoxville, TN, leaving tomorrow and returning three days later. They
want
> $1,115.90 for coach. United wants $1,013.90. Continental wants $1,038.74.
American
> flies through Chicago.
>
> By contrast, the loaded cost of my aircraft is about $60/hr and I average
about
> 6 flight hours each way. That's about $720. One of the local airports charges
> $78/hr to rent a 180hp Cessna 172. That's a faster airplane than mine, and I'd
> guess the cost of the trip would be around $850. Even renting the Archer at
> $89/hr would save me money over Delta.
>
> Throw in the fact that I can leave from a local field instead of having to get
> transport into Newark (last time I flew out of there, the limo fee was about
> $45 each way), and there's not much contest.
>

Don't forget, the more people you bring with you makes it an even better deal,
you and a significant other want to take your trip, you're looking at 2 grand.
You plane- same cost, and an even better deal per seat.

Can you tell I've made a similar pithc before?

[Rick Durden]

George,

What is the total time each way, general aviation and airline? Figure
in the value of your time as well, unless it is a pleasure trip, and
sadly, it's almost always cheaper to fly the airlines when you by
yourself....I can only justify general aviation travel when it is to a
remote location where airlines requires a long rental car drive and
the distance is under about 500 miles. When flying on business, I
have to calculate the cost of the travel as well as my time, and I
generally can't justify taking the more expensive route.

If more than one person is involved in the trip, general aviation may
become cheaper. Then, if someone is going with me, it's usually
cheaper to take g.a. aircraft. If two or more are going with me, we
always beat the airline fares by a fairly wide margin, even using a
twin.

With airfares from Grand Rapids to Denver, round trip, of under $300,
I can't even begin to compete with a g.a. airplane. On short notice,
as you pointed out, the airlines get more expensive, but if I'm trying
to rent on short notice, it's rare I can get my hands on an airplane.
Then again, if I can, here in the Great Lakes area, I use a twin when
going over the lakes, so the rental rapidly exceeds the cost of
airline travel, again unless I'm going to someplace out of the way.

All the best,
Rick

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message >...
> Rick Durden wrote:
> >
> > That aside, it will be cheaper for you to travel by airline than by
> > general aviation airplane, so you will probably not save your clients
> > any money, unless the value of your time is factored in and you can
> > somehow do it faster in a light single.
>
> Only maybe. Even in the States, this is only true if you're traveling between
> major cities or booking well in advance. I just checked Delta's price for Newark,
> NJ to Knoxville, TN, leaving tomorrow and returning three days later. They want
> $1,115.90 for coach. United wants $1,013.90. Continental wants $1,038.74. American
> flies through Chicago.
>
> By contrast, the loaded cost of my aircraft is about $60/hr and I average about
> 6 flight hours each way. That's about $720. One of the local airports charges
> $78/hr to rent a 180hp Cessna 172. That's a faster airplane than mine, and I'd
> guess the cost of the trip would be around $850. Even renting the Archer at
> $89/hr would save me money over Delta.
>
> Throw in the fact that I can leave from a local field instead of having to get
> transport into Newark (last time I flew out of there, the limo fee was about
> $45 each way), and there's not much contest.
>
> George Patterson
> A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that
> you look forward to the trip.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Rick Durden wrote:
>
> George,
>
> What is the total time each way, general aviation and airline?

Varies. With the advance time you have to show up for security and such, I can
make about the same time or better. United is fastest at 4 hours from takeoff in
NJ to landing in TN, but I'd have to be at the airport at about 5am for that
flight. Delta is 4.5 hours leaving mid-morning. Continental is 6 hours with two
changes.

I take about 6.5 from takeoff in NJ to landing in TN.

George Patterson
A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that
you look forward to the trip.

[Stealth Pilot]

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:09:35 GMT, "Bob Gardner" >
wrote:

>Using a 172P POH as an example, at 8000 feet density altitude and 75
>percent, the range is eyeballed as 575 nm; at 65 percent it is 640; at 55
>percent it is 680, all based on 50 gallons available with reserve. With 62
>gallons available (with reserve), the numbers are: 75 percent 755 nm, at 65
>percent 820, and at 55 percent 870. Sure looks to me as though reducing the
>power setting increases range, as does carrying more fuel.
>
>Bob Gardner
>

I suppose the lesson here is that compensating factors for SOME
aircraft can negate the theoretical advantages for different settings.

The engine in my case was leaned to peak rpm in both cases.

for the guy who asked the original question. doing your research
certainly pays.

Stealth Pilot
Australia.

[Peter Duniho]

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
> I suppose the lesson here is that compensating factors for SOME
> aircraft can negate the theoretical advantages for different settings.

"Compensating factors"? Such as, for example?

In your particular case, I can well believe that you found the same fuel
consumption at 114 knots as at 70 knots. However, that simply means that
you selected the wrong airspeed for best range. Your airplane is not immune
to the laws of physics.

Pete

[Stealth Pilot]

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 10:59:25 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
>> I suppose the lesson here is that compensating factors for SOME
>> aircraft can negate the theoretical advantages for different settings.
>
>"Compensating factors"? Such as, for example?
>
>In your particular case, I can well believe that you found the same fuel
>consumption at 114 knots as at 70 knots. However, that simply means that
>you selected the wrong airspeed for best range. Your airplane is not immune
>to the laws of physics.
>
>Pete
>
never hinted that it was immune from anything. it is just a Wittman W8
Tailwind. in my case pete the engine firewall forward is a standard
cessna 150 installation. it behaves a litte differently from a cessna
150.

the overall performance of an aircraft is the result of the
performance of a lot of its component systems. selecting one in
isolation wont necessarily give you a clue as to the final figures for
the overall aircraft.

btw I wasnt making any attempt at best range. I was merely flying
across 300 miles of desert with a chap in a piper cub for moral
support. you do assume a lot in some of your comments.

now instead of leaping down my throat can you give the guy who asked
the original question some assistance in selecting a suitable
aircraft?

Stealth Pilot
Australia

[Peter Duniho]

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
> never hinted that it was immune from anything.

True, you didn't hint at it. You just came right out and claimed it. Bob
wrote "the range for any aircraft is dependent on power setting", and you
wrote "my experience doesnt [sic] support that". When in fact the range for
any aircraft IS dependent on power setting.

Bob's statement was somewhat inaccurate in that 50% power may or may not
produce best range, and may not even be better range than normal cruise.
But it's impossible that your experience would contradict that the range is
dependent on power setting, because range DOES depend on power setting.

> [...]
> the overall performance of an aircraft is the result of the
> performance of a lot of its component systems. selecting one in
> isolation wont necessarily give you a clue as to the final figures for
> the overall aircraft.

The basic aerodynamic characteristic -- namely, the fact that there's a
L/Dmax, and that flying slower or faster than that speed causes an increase
in drag -- is immutable. The specifics may indeed change based on "the
performance of a lot of its component systems", but the fact will always
remain that there will always been a speed at which the least drag occurs,
and that flying above or below that speed will result in more fuel consumed
for the same distance.

> btw I wasnt making any attempt at best range. I was merely flying
> across 300 miles of desert with a chap in a piper cub for moral
> support. you do assume a lot in some of your comments.

Such as? All I have done is disagree with statements that YOU MADE. I made
no assumptions, I took your false statements at face value and explained why
they MUST be false. I never said that you were making an attempt at best
range. What I said was that your experience could not have contradicted the
FACT that range depends on power setting.

> now instead of leaping down my throat can you give the guy who asked
> the original question some assistance in selecting a suitable
> aircraft?

His question is far too broad for any answer to be useful. I tried to make
a sensible reply when his first post showed up, and found that there was not
enough information in his original question to provide any concise answer.
I doubt he was looking for the three-page reply it would have required, nor
did I have any interest in spending that much time writing such a reply.

IMHO, he has been provided plenty of *accurate* information in this
thread -- your own posts notwithstanding -- to inform him regarding the
issues specific to range, and a few different types of aircraft that might
suit his needs. His budget is going to be the limiting factor in any case,
and with only $40K to spend, none of the aircraft he might consider is going
to go all that far with one fillup.

Pete

[Stealth Pilot]

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 12:19:52 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
>> never hinted that it was immune from anything.
>
>True, you didn't hint at it. You just came right out and claimed it. Bob
>wrote "the range for any aircraft is dependent on power setting", and you
>wrote "my experience doesnt [sic] support that". When in fact the range for
>any aircraft IS dependent on power setting.
>
>Bob's statement was somewhat inaccurate in that 50% power may or may not
>produce best range, and may not even be better range than normal cruise.
>But it's impossible that your experience would contradict that the range is
>dependent on power setting, because range DOES depend on power setting.
>

peter
the time, the duration, that an aircraft can remain airborne is
dependent on power setting. not necessarily the range achieved.

what I posted were some factual observations. dispute them if you
will, they still remain what I observed.
ymmv
Stealth Pilot
Australia

[Peter Duniho]

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
> the time, the duration, that an aircraft can remain airborne is
> dependent on power setting. not necessarily the range achieved.

It affects both.

> what I posted were some factual observations. dispute them if you
> will, they still remain what I observed.

I'm not disputing your observations. I'm disputing that they have any
bearing at the question in hand, and in particular, your claim that they
somehow disprove the fact that for any airplane, an increase in range can be
had by reducing the power setting below the normal cruise setting.

Pete

[Stealth Pilot]

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 10:27:19 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
>> the time, the duration, that an aircraft can remain airborne is
>> dependent on power setting. not necessarily the range achieved.
>
>It affects both.
>
>> what I posted were some factual observations. dispute them if you
>> will, they still remain what I observed.
>
>I'm not disputing your observations. I'm disputing that they have any
>bearing at the question in hand, and in particular, your claim that they
>somehow disprove the fact that for any airplane, an increase in range can be
>had by reducing the power setting below the normal cruise setting.
>
>Pete
>

ok my last post on this.
I had a think about your thought of different cooling drag being the
reason for the identical fuel burns at the different airspeeds. If you
ever get to fly a Tailwind take up the offer. You will experience an
aircraft with a significantly increased induced drag influence
compared to the higher aspect ratio Cessnas/commercial stuff that you
seem to be basing your comments on. It seems to me that induced drag
builds up quicker in the Tailwind at slower speeds than in the
commercial offerings.
I accept the cooling drag comment but think it is less significant
than induced drag as part of the answer.

"the fact that for any airplane, an increase in range can be
had by reducing the power setting below the normal cruise setting"

I will warn you that you are in for a surprise which may cost you the
aircraft in the right (wrong) conditions.
This was covered ad nauseum in my commercial pilot studies under
aircraft performance. I'll give a brief reiteration here.
If you have a look at the Cessna POH for the 150M you will find your
range profile graph on page 5-15. what you indicate is correct - for
the conditions that the graph was made for, which is for zero wind
conditions.
two pages over you will find a more useful graph which just gives just
endurance. you use this for calculating range in the more usual
condition of having a wind component.

CPL theory (and demonstrated calcs) says that for a tailwind or no
wind you fly slower to increase range.

for a headwind you fly faster!

I'll leave it for you to work out why.
Stealth Pilot
(...returning to my uni studies)

[TripFarmer]

I can go about 900 in my 235 but my bladder wouldn't be able to make it nearly
that far.


Trip


In article >,
says...
>
>On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 10:27:19 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:
>
>>"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
>>> the time, the duration, that an aircraft can remain airborne is
>>> dependent on power setting. not necessarily the range achieved.
>>
>>It affects both.
>>
>>> what I posted were some factual observations. dispute them if you
>>> will, they still remain what I observed.
>>
>>I'm not disputing your observations. I'm disputing that they have any
>>bearing at the question in hand, and in particular, your claim that they
>>somehow disprove the fact that for any airplane, an increase in range can be
>>had by reducing the power setting below the normal cruise setting.
>>
>>Pete
>>
>
>ok my last post on this.
>I had a think about your thought of different cooling drag being the
>reason for the identical fuel burns at the different airspeeds. If you
>ever get to fly a Tailwind take up the offer. You will experience an
>aircraft with a significantly increased induced drag influence
>compared to the higher aspect ratio Cessnas/commercial stuff that you
>seem to be basing your comments on. It seems to me that induced drag
>builds up quicker in the Tailwind at slower speeds than in the
>commercial offerings.
>I accept the cooling drag comment but think it is less significant
>than induced drag as part of the answer.
>
>"the fact that for any airplane, an increase in range can be
>had by reducing the power setting below the normal cruise setting"
>
>I will warn you that you are in for a surprise which may cost you the
>aircraft in the right (wrong) conditions.
>This was covered ad nauseum in my commercial pilot studies under
>aircraft performance. I'll give a brief reiteration here.
>If you have a look at the Cessna POH for the 150M you will find your
>range profile graph on page 5-15. what you indicate is correct - for
>the conditions that the graph was made for, which is for zero wind
>conditions.
>two pages over you will find a more useful graph which just gives just
>endurance. you use this for calculating range in the more usual
>condition of having a wind component.
>
>CPL theory (and demonstrated calcs) says that for a tailwind or no
>wind you fly slower to increase range.
>
>for a headwind you fly faster!
>
>I'll leave it for you to work out why.
>Stealth Pilot
>(...returning to my uni studies)

[Peter Duniho]

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
> ok my last post on this.

You should've stopped a long time ago.

> I had a think about your thought of different cooling drag being the
> reason for the identical fuel burns at the different airspeeds.

I never made any comment about cooling drag.

> If you ever get to fly a Tailwind take up the offer. You will experience
an
> aircraft with a significantly increased induced drag influence
> compared to the higher aspect ratio Cessnas/commercial stuff that you
> seem to be basing your comments on.

You are talking gibberish.

> It seems to me that induced drag
> builds up quicker in the Tailwind at slower speeds than in the
> commercial offerings.

"builds up quicker...at slower speeds"? What is that supposed to mean?

It is true that there is more induced drag at slower speeds, for any
aircraft. It is also true that the exact amount of induced drag will vary
from airplane to airplane, and indeed even from weight to weight for the
same aircraft. But the nature of the curves for induced drag and parasitic
drag are always the same, and they always result in a single L/Dmax
airspeed.

FOR ANY AIRPLANE.

> I will warn you that you are in for a surprise which may cost you the
> aircraft in the right (wrong) conditions.

Doubtful.

> This was covered ad nauseum in my commercial pilot studies under
> aircraft performance.

Something was covered. You should have paid better attention when it was.

> I'll give a brief reiteration here.
> If you have a look at the Cessna POH for the 150M you will find your
> range profile graph on page 5-15. what you indicate is correct - for
> the conditions that the graph was made for, which is for zero wind
> conditions.

Yes. So?

> two pages over you will find a more useful graph which just gives just
> endurance. you use this for calculating range in the more usual
> condition of having a wind component.

Endurance and range are two completely different things. You cannot depend
on endurance numbers to provide range numbers, unless you also take into
account the differences in airspeed. Best endurance will NOT be the same
airspeed as best range.

> CPL theory (and demonstrated calcs) says that for a tailwind or no
> wind you fly slower to increase range.
>
> for a headwind you fly faster!
>
> I'll leave it for you to work out why.

Do you have a point? I said several posts ago this exact thing. Sounds to
me like you're just making my point for me. Or maybe you're just copying my
posts, trying to make it look like you have an original thought. I'm not
really sure which.

However, it also appears that you are misunderstanding the general truth
regarding how to deal with tailwinds and headwinds. For a given no-wind
power setting, it is true that you should fly faster (and with more power)
in a headwind and slower (and with less power) in a tailwind to compensate.
However, you will not achieve the same range as in no-wind conditions.

In a headwind in particular, your best range airspeed most likely will still
be less than the normal cruise airspeed. It all depends on the headwind,
but for typical, light headwinds the change due to wind does not overwhelm
the need to fly closer to the L/Dmax airspeed. Even in a headwind, best
range airspeed is usually found below normal cruise.

It is simply not true that even in a headwind, one needs to fly faster than
normal cruise to achieve best range, nor would that be relevant at all to
this discussion even if it were.

Pete