Hummer vs Skylane

[Guy Byars]

I just realized that my Skylane gets about the same gas mileage as a Hummer.
I burn about 13gal per hour and go about 130 knots... 10nm per gallon, or
11.5 miles per gallon. Now granted I am going in a straight line, and 3
times as fast, but still that is awful mileage. Now my old Cessna 140 did
a lot better, 105mph at 5gph... more like about 20 miles per gallon.

Can anyone boast better mileage?

[Nathan Young]

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:39:59 GMT, "Guy Byars" >
wrote:

>I just realized that my Skylane gets about the same gas mileage as a Hummer.
>I burn about 13gal per hour and go about 130 knots... 10nm per gallon, or
>11.5 miles per gallon. Now granted I am going in a straight line, and 3
>times as fast, but still that is awful mileage. Now my old Cessna 140 did
>a lot better, 105mph at 5gph... more like about 20 miles per gallon.

My 5.9L Durango gets about 13.5 avg statute mpg (mix of hwy + city).
My PA28-180 gets about 145 statute mph on 10gph = 14.5mpg, so the
plane gets better mileage than the truck. Too bad 100LL is >$1.00
more expensive than 87 octane. (I just paid $4.04 last week, ouch).

Drag is proportional to speed squared, so the faster you go - the more
difficult it is to maintain a good mpg.

Having said this, many of the glass homebuilts have impressive drag
coefficients and as a result, fly fast on little gas. The Quickie
Q200 and Super Pulsar are both examples of planes that can approach
180mph on 6gph = 30mpg.

-Nathan

[Michelle P]

At the present price of auto gas 2.20/gal and Avgas $2.91/gal flying to
work is about a wash over driving. I save and hour a day.
Cost for fly Fuel only $17.46. Cost to drive Fuel only $14.14.
I fly to work whenever possible.
Michelle

Guy Byars wrote:

>I just realized that my Skylane gets about the same gas mileage as a Hummer.
>I burn about 13gal per hour and go about 130 knots... 10nm per gallon, or
>11.5 miles per gallon. Now granted I am going in a straight line, and 3
>times as fast, but still that is awful mileage. Now my old Cessna 140 did
>a lot better, 105mph at 5gph... more like about 20 miles per gallon.
>
>Can anyone boast better mileage?
>
>
>
>

[Newps]

Guy Byars wrote:
> I just realized that my Skylane gets about the same gas mileage as a Hummer.
> I burn about 13gal per hour and go about 130 knots... 10nm per gallon, or
> 11.5 miles per gallon. Now granted I am going in a straight line, and 3
> times as fast, but still that is awful mileage. Now my old Cessna 140 did
> a lot better, 105mph at 5gph... more like about 20 miles per gallon.

But the 182 looks good while converting all that money to noise. The
Hummer is a god awful looking contraption. More befitting a low wing
driver.

[Paul kgyy]

My low wing Arrow gets about 14mpg at 75%, 100 ROP, 175 mph. If I'm
willing to accept 150 and run LOP, I can get it all the way up to 16
mpg. But I don't own a car.

The best solution is always to have tailwinds.

[Darrel Toepfer]

Aaron Coolidge wrote:

> My car mechanic's speedboat gets 1 MPG.

Course nautical miles are longer than statue miles...

Not that, that helps much...

[[email protected]]

On 14-Jul-2005, "Paul kgyy" > wrote:

> My low wing Arrow gets about 14mpg at 75%, 100 ROP, 175 mph. If I'm
> willing to accept 150 and run LOP, I can get it all the way up to 16
> mpg.

175 mph = 152 kts. I presume you have a Turbo Arrow, since the top cruise
speed (75%) for a normally aspirated version is around 141 kts.

Our normally aspirated Arrow IV cruises at 135 kts, 65%, 9.4 gph (just LOP)
at around 8000 ft. That works out to 16.5 statute mpg. Out of curiosity, I
recently compared fuel consumption for an extended XC with what my Dodge
Caravan (which gets about 22 mpg highway) would have consumed for the same
trip by Interstate highways. The numbers came out pretty close: 199 gallons
of avgas for the Arrow vs. 187 gallons of mogas for the Dodge. The kicker
is that the round-trip highway mileage would have been 4134 sm compared to
3515 great circle sm.

Yes, the avgas cost maybe $120 or so more than the mogas would have, but in
the Arrow all of the legs between destinations were less than a day, while
by car I would have had to pay for several nights' lodging on the way. And,
I figure my time is worth more than the few pennies per mile extra it costs
to get there in one third the time (or less) by air.
--
-Elliott Drucker

[Mark Hansen]

On 7/14/2005 08:54, wrote:

> On 14-Jul-2005, "Paul kgyy" > wrote:
>
>> My low wing Arrow gets about 14mpg at 75%, 100 ROP, 175 mph. If I'm
>> willing to accept 150 and run LOP, I can get it all the way up to 16
>> mpg.
>
> 175 mph = 152 kts. I presume you have a Turbo Arrow, since the top cruise
> speed (75%) for a normally aspirated version is around 141 kts.
>
> Our normally aspirated Arrow IV cruises at 135 kts, 65%, 9.4 gph (just LOP)
> at around 8000 ft. That works out to 16.5 statute mpg. Out of curiosity, I
> recently compared fuel consumption for an extended XC with what my Dodge
> Caravan (which gets about 22 mpg highway) would have consumed for the same
> trip by Interstate highways. The numbers came out pretty close: 199 gallons
> of avgas for the Arrow vs. 187 gallons of mogas for the Dodge. The kicker
> is that the round-trip highway mileage would have been 4134 sm compared to
> 3515 great circle sm.
>
> Yes, the avgas cost maybe $120 or so more than the mogas would have, but in
> the Arrow all of the legs between destinations were less than a day, while
> by car I would have had to pay for several nights' lodging on the way. And,
> I figure my time is worth more than the few pennies per mile extra it costs
> to get there in one third the time (or less) by air.

Plus ... you're flying rather than driving! ;-)

.... a bargain at twice the cost

--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
Sacramento, CA

[Mike Rapoport]

IMHO the H1 Hummer looks good but the H2 does not.

Mike
MU-2


"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Guy Byars wrote:
>> I just realized that my Skylane gets about the same gas mileage as a
>> Hummer.
>> I burn about 13gal per hour and go about 130 knots... 10nm per gallon, or
>> 11.5 miles per gallon. Now granted I am going in a straight line, and 3
>> times as fast, but still that is awful mileage. Now my old Cessna 140
>> did
>> a lot better, 105mph at 5gph... more like about 20 miles per gallon.
>
> But the 182 looks good while converting all that money to noise. The
> Hummer is a god awful looking contraption. More befitting a low wing
> driver.

[Blanche]

I use a cost per mile for comparison...I get about 320 sm in the car for
a fill-up of about $31.50 or a bit over 10 cents/mile. In the cherokee 180
best guess always depends on the winds but let's assume 120 sm (yes, statute
miles -- similar comparisons and such) at 8 gph. I'm paying $3.00/gal
so that's $24/hr or $24/120 sm. which works out to 20 cents/mile.

So it costs double to fly as to drive, assuming straight line.

But what isn't included in here is cost of my time. For example, a day-trip
from Denver to Sante Fe (or Taos) is not practical in a car but
perfectly doable in the cherokee.

[Tina Marie]

In article >, Nathan Young wrote:
> plane gets better mileage than the truck. Too bad 100LL is >$1.00
> more expensive than 87 octane. (I just paid $4.04 last week, ouch).

I paid $4.21 at TraJen in Austin last weekend. And that was the
cheap gas on the field - Signature was $4.40.

Tina Marie

--
http://www.tripacerdriver.com "...One of the main causes
of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way
to indicate successful termination of their C programs." (Robert Firth)

[nobody]

They only charge that much because the weather is so
nice and cool here :-)

You could have refueled in Georgetown (KGTU) at $2.75 per
gallon, or at Burnet (KBMQ) for a bit less than that.

Ronnie
Austin, TX

"Tina Marie" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Nathan Young
> wrote:
>> plane gets better mileage than the truck. Too bad 100LL is >$1.00
>> more expensive than 87 octane. (I just paid $4.04 last week, ouch).
>
> I paid $4.21 at TraJen in Austin last weekend. And that was the
> cheap gas on the field - Signature was $4.40.
>
> Tina Marie
>
> --
> http://www.tripacerdriver.com "...One of the main causes
> of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way
> to indicate successful termination of their C programs." (Robert Firth)

[Nathan Young]

On 14 Jul 2005 07:08:34 -0700, "Paul kgyy" >
wrote:

>My low wing Arrow gets about 14mpg at 75%, 100 ROP, 175 mph. If I'm
>willing to accept 150 and run LOP, I can get it all the way up to 16
>mpg. But I don't own a car.

175mph is motoring for an Arrow. T-Arrow? Or do you have speed mods?

[Dan Luke]

"Guy Byars" wrote:

>I just realized that my Skylane gets about the same gas mileage as a
>Hummer.
> I burn about 13gal per hour and go about 130 knots... 10nm per gallon,
> or
> 11.5 miles per gallon.

157 mph on 10.5 gph. = 14.9 mpg.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Carl Orton]

As they say in racing, "Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go?"


"Guy Byars" > wrote in message
. ..
>I just realized that my Skylane gets about the same gas mileage as a
>Hummer.
> I burn about 13gal per hour and go about 130 knots... 10nm per gallon, or
> 11.5 miles per gallon. Now granted I am going in a straight line, and 3
> times as fast, but still that is awful mileage. Now my old Cessna 140
> did
> a lot better, 105mph at 5gph... more like about 20 miles per gallon.
>
> Can anyone boast better mileage?
>
>

[bill hunter]

I typically get better speeds than that at 65% when over 10000 ft in my
turbo T tail. Typically 16mph, and 180 to 200 mph TAS. Its really fun at the
end of a trip when you cut the throttle way back, and cruise down at Vno
while sipping gas.
My E6B says that I can get 175mph at 5000 ft and 20C when my IAS is 140 kts,
and I don't even need oxygen.

"Nathan Young" > wrote in message
...
> On 14 Jul 2005 07:08:34 -0700, "Paul kgyy" >
> wrote:
>
>>My low wing Arrow gets about 14mpg at 75%, 100 ROP, 175 mph. If I'm
>>willing to accept 150 and run LOP, I can get it all the way up to 16
>>mpg. But I don't own a car.
>
> 175mph is motoring for an Arrow. T-Arrow? Or do you have speed mods?

[Steve Foley]

If I flew that slowly, I'd fall out of the sky!

"bill hunter" > wrote in message
...
> Typically 16mph,

[Paul kgyy]

It's a 69 model, normally aspirated, 200 hp, no speed mods. I can get
175 if I'm alone on board, 7000 ft and run "best power" at 75% and
about 100 ROP. The 69-71 models were the fastest. Earlier ones had
180 hp, and starting in 1972 they made them bigger but used the same
200 hp engine.

[Robert M. Gary]

Mooney. 150 knots on 10 gal/hr. About 18 mpg.

[bill hunter]

obviously 16mpg, but it would be neat if it could fly that slow.
"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
news:LrPBe.9$Im3.5@trndny07...
> If I flew that slowly, I'd fall out of the sky!
>
> "bill hunter" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Typically 16mph,
>
>

[Judah]

"Guy Byars" > wrote in
:

> I just realized that my Skylane gets about the same gas mileage as a
> Hummer. I burn about 13gal per hour and go about 130 knots... 10nm per
> gallon, or 11.5 miles per gallon. Now granted I am going in a
> straight line, and 3 times as fast, but still that is awful mileage.
> Now my old Cessna 140 did a lot better, 105mph at 5gph... more like
> about 20 miles per gallon.
>
> Can anyone boast better mileage?
>
>

Sure, my car gets much better mileage than your Hummer.

But it doesn't matter because no matter how hard I pull back on the
steering wheel, the damn thing stays on the ground!

[Newps]

And to top it off this was the annual work party weekend at our
wilderness airstrip about 40 SE of Kalispell. I am this close to
selling my 182 and buying an S35 Bonanza that was there. I am looking
at some performance numbers now and if the Bo doesn't give away too much
short field performance I am going to buy it.



Mike Rapoport wrote:

> IMHO the H1 Hummer looks good but the H2 does not.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Guy Byars wrote:
>>
>>>I just realized that my Skylane gets about the same gas mileage as a
>>>Hummer.
>>>I burn about 13gal per hour and go about 130 knots... 10nm per gallon, or
>>>11.5 miles per gallon. Now granted I am going in a straight line, and 3
>>>times as fast, but still that is awful mileage. Now my old Cessna 140
>>>did
>>>a lot better, 105mph at 5gph... more like about 20 miles per gallon.
>>
>>But the 182 looks good while converting all that money to noise. The
>>Hummer is a god awful looking contraption. More befitting a low wing
>>driver.
>
>
>

[john smith]

Newps wrote:
> And to top it off this was the annual work party weekend at our
> wilderness airstrip about 40 SE of Kalispell. I am this close to
> selling my 182 and buying an S35 Bonanza that was there. I am looking
> at some performance numbers now and if the Bo doesn't give away too much
> short field performance I am going to buy it.

Do a W&B/C&G comparison for full and empty weights before you sell the 182.

[Newps]

john smith wrote:

> Newps wrote:
>
>> And to top it off this was the annual work party weekend at our
>> wilderness airstrip about 40 SE of Kalispell. I am this close to
>> selling my 182 and buying an S35 Bonanza that was there. I am looking
>> at some performance numbers now and if the Bo doesn't give away too
>> much short field performance I am going to buy it.
>
>
> Do a W&B/C&G comparison for full and empty weights before you sell the 182.

That's one of the items I'm going to do. The Bo has more useful load
although I don't have to run CG numbers on my 182. It can't be loaded
out either the front or rear CG, full tanks or empty. The Bo has a much
larger baggage area and I really like the ability to remove the rear
seats individually.

[john smith]

Newps wrote:
> That's one of the items I'm going to do. The Bo has more useful load
> although I don't have to run CG numbers on my 182. It can't be loaded
> out either the front or rear CG, full tanks or empty. The Bo has a much
> larger baggage area and I really like the ability to remove the rear
> seats individually.

The Bo's C/G moves aft with fuel burn, making it easy to get outside the
envelope. I have had to leave people behind because the C/G was
calculated to be beyond the aft limit for landing.

[George Patterson]

Newps wrote:
>
> I am looking
> at some performance numbers now and if the Bo doesn't give away too much
> short field performance I am going to buy it.

Had a chance to buy a Bo once and missed it. Go for it.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[Chuck]

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 13:37:40 -0500, Tina Marie
> wrote:

>In article >, Nathan Young wrote:
>> plane gets better mileage than the truck. Too bad 100LL is >$1.00
>> more expensive than 87 octane. (I just paid $4.04 last week, ouch).
>
>I paid $4.21 at TraJen in Austin last weekend. And that was the
>cheap gas on the field - Signature was $4.40.
>
>Tina Marie

WHEW!

Did you get taken!!!

Its still $2.85 most places around San Antonio -- just south of you.

In fact, I tanked at New Braunfels two days ago at that price. It
might be worth your while to fly south a few minutes and get gas at
KBAZ.


Chuck

[Darrel Toepfer]

Chuck wrote:
> Tina Marie wrote:

>>I paid $4.21 at TraJen in Austin last weekend. And that was the
>>cheap gas on the field - Signature was $4.40.
>
> WHEW!
>
> Did you get taken!!!
>
> Its still $2.85 most places around San Antonio -- just south of you.
>
> In fact, I tanked at New Braunfels two days ago at that price. It
> might be worth your while to fly south a few minutes and get gas at
> KBAZ.

Yep cheaper further south you geaux, $3.45 at San Marcos KHYI

[Tina Marie]

In article >, Chuck wrote:
> Did you get taken!!!
>
> Its still $2.85 most places around San Antonio -- just south of you.

Yeah, but we were headed for a book signing 12 miles from AUS.

Tina Marie
--
http://www.tripacerdriver.com "...One of the main causes
of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way
to indicate successful termination of their C programs." (Robert Firth)