Single-engine plane with the best range?

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

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

"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

(Bob) wrote in message . com...
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.

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.

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;

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.

"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

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

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 a 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.