Which airplane?

I've been browsing various aircraft for ownership and cant decide. It
must easily carry 2 people with some baggage at least 600km at the
minimum cost. IFR is preferable. Engine OH costs should be minimal.
Speed/looks/noise are non-issues. Must be all-metal however.

I've seen the zenith kit airplanes and am a big fan of the CH801. The
kit with a used Lycoming costs 35000 or so (plus the cost of building
it). I've seen used but flyable C152 for $14000. That makes me wanna
relax my weight requirements.

How much does fuel cost for a C152 for a 600km journey?

Is it better to try and get an engine that can burn mogas?

I've seen car engine conversions. Are their TBO really high as in cars?

With extra tanks, how far can you go in a Mini-MAX?



Apart from these, I've seen that aircraft similar to Cessnas cost less
for not having that brand name. Beechcraft, Cherokees and Luscombes
generally cost less than Cessnas. Whats a good choice on a serious
budget? Or rather; whats the cheapest way to fly 600km or so with two
people? four people?

Ghazan Haider wrote:
: I've been browsing various aircraft for ownership and cant decide. It
: must easily carry 2 people with some baggage at least 600km at the
: minimum cost. IFR is preferable. Engine OH costs should be minimal.
: Speed/looks/noise are non-issues. Must be all-metal however.

: I've seen the zenith kit airplanes and am a big fan of the CH801. The
: kit with a used Lycoming costs 35000 or so (plus the cost of building
: it). I've seen used but flyable C152 for $14000. That makes me wanna
: relax my weight requirements.

: How much does fuel cost for a C152 for a 600km journey?

: Is it better to try and get an engine that can burn mogas?

: I've seen car engine conversions. Are their TBO really high as in cars?

: With extra tanks, how far can you go in a Mini-MAX?



: Apart from these, I've seen that aircraft similar to Cessnas cost less
: for not having that brand name. Beechcraft, Cherokees and Luscombes
: generally cost less than Cessnas. Whats a good choice on a serious
: budget? Or rather; whats the cheapest way to fly 600km or so with two
: people? four people?


I'm about as cheap as they come, and I believe that the best bang-for-the-buck
in a relatively useful airplane is the Cherokee. The Cessna 150/152 doesn't have much
range or load carrying capability for two people. The 172 has a price premium because
"everyone learned to fly in them." The Cherokee 140 (150hp) is $5-10k less than a
172, holds more gas (than a comparable year, anyway), and goes negligibly faster
requiring slightly more runway, and climbs slightly slower. The low compression ones
(150hp) are happiest on mogas (87 or better), and even some of the high-compression
ones can run 91 mogas (like our 180 hp). There are planes that go faster, haul more,
have more range, or cost less... but you usually have to pick one or two from that
list for any one plane. It'll take three people without having to be too careful, or
potentially four for a trip around the local area if you "plan light" carefully.

Just for the record, my partner and I just got back from a cross-country
(Southwest Virginia to Juneau, Alaska!) in our -180. Ran it at 60-65% power the whole
way (so it's like a 150hp at 75%)... 8.0-8.5 gph and about 112-115 kts TAS.

If you go experimental/kit, it's a whole 'nother ballgame of performance. As
far as the mogas, it depends on what you're going to do with it. If you will use it
primarily for travel, it's much less interesting, since you likely won't be able to
get mogas where you are going... so you've got at best the fillup on your home end.
You also need to make sure the fuel in your area doesn't have alcohol in it... none of
hte mogas STCs allow it. All that said, we've been very happy with ours, since we've
done lots of training with it. Perfect situation for mogas. Lots of local and
relatively short cross-countries, so you can just BYOG. I got my whole instrument
rating with about 30 hours of mogas.


-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

Ghazan Haider wrote:

How much does fuel cost for a C152 for a 600km journey?

Depends on where you buy it. You'll need about 22.5 U.S. gallons.

Is it better to try and get an engine that can burn mogas?

You can get a mogas STC for the 152.

I've seen car engine conversions. Are their TBO really high as in cars?

Not usually.

Whats a good choice on a serious
budget? Or rather; whats the cheapest way to fly 600km or so with two
people? four people?

Probably the old Hershey-bar Cherokee (150 or 160hp). That's a pretty good two
person plus luggage aircraft. It'll burn more gas than the 152, but it'll
usually make that trip without a fuel stop. It'll carry four in a pinch, but you
may have to leave the tanks less than full. If you buy one of the later 180 hp
models, that's a true four-seater.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

George Patterson wrote:
: You can get a mogas STC for the 152.

... from Petersen for 91 fuel, no?... isn't the 152 a high-compression
Lycoming O-235 at 110hp? 8.5:1 or 8.7:1 CR IIRC.

: I've seen car engine conversions. Are their TBO really high as in cars?

: Not usually.

Usually the auxiliary components and/or the packaging fail as I understand it.
Retrofitting an auto engine to an aircraft requires very careful packaging to get the
power/weight ratio comparable to an aircraft engine. That careful packaging works on
pretty slim weight margins, so engineering it well is required.

: Whats a good choice on a serious
: budget? Or rather; whats the cheapest way to fly 600km or so with two
: people? four people?

: Probably the old Hershey-bar Cherokee (150 or 160hp). That's a pretty good two
: person plus luggage aircraft. It'll burn more gas than the 152, but it'll
: usually make that trip without a fuel stop. It'll carry four in a pinch, but you
: may have to leave the tanks less than full. If you buy one of the later 180 hp
: models, that's a true four-seater.

Perhaps *slightly* more gas, but not much if flown the same speed. Speed drag
is the biggest fuel consumption in cruise, so comparing apples to apples is probably a
better range/fuel economy question. Cruising a Cherokee-160 at 115mph is about 55%
power, or pretty much the same 6-7 gph you get with a 152 at 75%. Airframe drag
determines speed.

Bottom line... going faster takes power, and power=fuel burn. The only
*significant* difference is airframe drag. I constantly have to explain that to
people saying a Cessna 150/150 has "horrible range." Actually, the only difference is
20-40 extra lbs hanging off the nose. Throttle back and you get basically the same
range. Power requirements (due to drag... the main component at cruise) go as the
*CUBE* of velocity... 2x as fast requires 8x the power. Or, the other way is that 2x
the power will get you 2^(1/3)=1.25x as fast. Going from 100hp-150hp gets you all of
1.5^(1/3)=1.14, or 14% faster at 50% more fuel burn.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

wrote:
George Patterson wrote:
: You can get a mogas STC for the 152.

... from Petersen for 91 fuel, no?... isn't the 152 a high-compression
Lycoming O-235 at 110hp? 8.5:1 or 8.7:1 CR IIRC.

The EAA offers an STC for the O-235 and the Cessna 152. There's a note that the
engine "requires modification." Usually the only engine modification required
for an STC is replacement of the fuel pump, but I do not know if that's the case
with the 152.

Retrofitting an auto engine to an aircraft requires very careful packaging to get the
power/weight ratio comparable to an aircraft engine.

Right.

The main problem typically is associated with engine speeds. Auto engines are
usually horsepower rated at high speeds (typically around 5,000 rpm). The
propellors on most aircraft need to turn at no more than about 2,700 rpm. So,
you either need to add a gearbox to reduce shaft speed (which adds weight) or
you limit the engine to 2,700 rpm. Doing the latter means that the engine only
puts out about 60% of its rated horsepower, so you need a bigger engine, which
also adds weight.

In general, builders who need lots of power go with a gearbox. They usually have
larger planes and the weight penalty is relatively small. Running an engine at
high speed with a gearbox means that it's just not going to last as long as it
would when used for normal driving.

If you're going to run the engine at prop speeds, the best thing to do is to
change out the valve train. Go with the equivalent of a 3/4 race cam, replace
the valves with lighter ones, and replace the valve springs with lighter ones.
If carburetted, a main jet change may be in order, but modern car engines are
injected anyway. You may also have to tinker with the computer. All of the
changes reduce the life expectancy of the engine.

You also have to deal with the fact that most auto engines are water-cooled.
Your cooling system will take some expert design and will (guess what) add more
weight. I know of one pretty nice looking aircraft with a Subaru 4-banger in it
that sits on the ground a lot because it overheats easily.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

: ... from Petersen for 91 fuel, no?... isn't the 152 a high-compression
: Lycoming O-235 at 110hp? 8.5:1 or 8.7:1 CR IIRC.

: The EAA offers an STC for the O-235 and the Cessna 152. There's a note that the
: engine "requires modification." Usually the only engine modification required
: for an STC is replacement of the fuel pump, but I do not know if that's the case
: with the 152.

I thought that only Petersen had any high compression STCs. I know it's the
only one offered for the Cherokee (which also had a fuel pump requirement). Learn
something new everyday... I keep telling a flight instructor friend of mine that
instructs out of his own 152 that he should either put in higher compression pistons
("sparrowhawk" 125hp with 9.5:1 IIRC) if he's burning 100LL, or switch to mogas. He's
not buying the argument...

: Retrofitting an auto engine to an aircraft requires very careful packaging to get the
: power/weight ratio comparable to an aircraft engine.

: Right.

: The main problem typically is associated with engine speeds. Auto engines are
: usually horsepower rated at high speeds (typically around 5,000 rpm). The
: propellors on most aircraft need to turn at no more than about 2,700 rpm. So,
: you either need to add a gearbox to reduce shaft speed (which adds weight) or
: you limit the engine to 2,700 rpm. Doing the latter means that the engine only
: puts out about 60% of its rated horsepower, so you need a bigger engine, which
: also adds weight.

Yeah... good news/badnews. Less displacement, but more weight with the
gearbox. Tough to make the correct engineering compromises to match a traditional
aircraft engine. Also overlooked (at least some time ago) are the longitudinal
stresses and torsional vibration on the crankshaft of a direct-drive conversion. IIRC
lots of VW conversions snapped crankshafts when driven directly. Again... aircraft
engines were designed for that, auto engines not.

: You also have to deal with the fact that most auto engines are water-cooled.
: Your cooling system will take some expert design and will (guess what) add more
: weight. I know of one pretty nice looking aircraft with a Subaru 4-banger in it
: that sits on the ground a lot because it overheats easily.

Yes, but everything else being equal, that's a *good* thing IMO. Yes it adds
complexity, some weight, and another point of failure, but the decreased thermal
stresses are good all the way around. Much lower valve temps, CHT temps, tigher
clearances, no shock cooling, lower octane requirements, less heat-induced metal
fatigue, lower cooling drag, etc. I think if I were going to *build* my own aircraft,
I'd probably try to go with a Subaru with a turbonormalizer... but then again I still
drive my '85 GL Hatchback with a 1.8L boxer daily. It'd have to be a pretty small
plane to use that engine... the 2.5 or 3.3L would be better for a hauler.

-Cory

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

I'm about as cheap as they come, and I believe that the best bang-for-the-buck
in a relatively useful airplane is the Cherokee.

Thanks for the replies. You're right about the Cherokee being the best
bang for the buck. Been looking around and the competitors seem to be
C172, Cherokee, Bonanza and Mooney shares. Flyable Cherokees can be had
for 25k, but I suppose I should expect more cost than that.

At least for range, lower wing aircraft seem to be generally better,
despite the difficulty in low speed handling and stalls (in simulators
anyway). The Cherokee in X-plane was nice, stalled the best of low-wing
planes I've seen. However the glide ratio was godaweful bad compared to
a C172 although the Cherokee is more streamlined and has similar wing
loading (I think). Why is the glide ratio so bad? Doing a gilmi glider
in this thing will be tough, considering these are old planes.

So I was looking for kit planes to compare (I'd rather pay upto 5k than
build for half a year). Saw the CH 640 and CH 801. CH640 has more
range, but the 801 holds all the other cards. The 801 is TWICE the
price of the 701 (which can about hold 3 people IMHO) and requires
engines that are 3 times the price of the Jabiru/Rotax that the 701 can
take. Makes me wanna go for a 2-seater.

Speaking of 2-seaters, there are C150s on the market at 14K. Almost
half that of a Cherokee.

Big question: how 'tough' are the low wings compared to the high wings?
The CH 801 looks tough and I'm hoping to visit the far north, where not
all landing strips are metalled or well maintained. The Cherokee has
low wheels with fairings which disqualifies it for a bushplane.

Since these are Kit EXPERIMENTAL aircraft, can I put a Jabiru 100hp on
an 801 and expect it to fly, but with climb rates of ~400? Even better
can the 701 be made to carry 800lbs?

The Cessna 150/152 doesn't have much
range or load carrying capability for two people. The 172 has a price premium because
"everyone learned to fly in them." The Cherokee 140 (150hp) is $5-10k less than a
172, holds more gas (than a comparable year, anyway), and goes negligibly faster
requiring slightly more runway, and climbs slightly slower. The low compression ones
(150hp) are happiest on mogas (87 or better), and even some of the high-compression
ones can run 91 mogas (like our 180 hp). There are planes that go faster, haul more,
have more range, or cost less... but you usually have to pick one or two from that
list for any one plane. It'll take three people without having to be too careful, or
potentially four for a trip around the local area if you "plan light" carefully.

Just for the record, my partner and I just got back from a cross-country
(Southwest Virginia to Juneau, Alaska!) in our -180. Ran it at 60-65% power the whole
way (so it's like a 150hp at 75%)... 8.0-8.5 gph and about 112-115 kts TAS.

If you go experimental/kit, it's a whole 'nother ballgame of performance. As
far as the mogas, it depends on what you're going to do with it. If you will use it
primarily for travel, it's much less interesting, since you likely won't be able to
get mogas where you are going... so you've got at best the fillup on your home end.
You also need to make sure the fuel in your area doesn't have alcohol in it... none of
hte mogas STCs allow it. All that said, we've been very happy with ours, since we've
done lots of training with it. Perfect situation for mogas. Lots of local and
relatively short cross-countries, so you can just BYOG. I got my whole instrument
rating with about 30 hours of mogas.


-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

Ghazan Haider wrote:
: Thanks for the replies. You're right about the Cherokee being the best
: bang for the buck. Been looking around and the competitors seem to be
: C172, Cherokee, Bonanza and Mooney shares. Flyable Cherokees can be had
: for 25k, but I suppose I should expect more cost than that.

I haven't looked at prices much since about 3 years ago when we bought our
Cherokee, but I would imagine a minimally equipped mid-high time PA28-140 could be had
for $25k

: At least for range, lower wing aircraft seem to be generally better,
: despite the difficulty in low speed handling and stalls (in simulators
: anyway). The Cherokee in X-plane was nice, stalled the best of low-wing
: planes I've seen. However the glide ratio was godaweful bad compared to
: a C172 although the Cherokee is more streamlined and has similar wing
: loading (I think). Why is the glide ratio so bad? Doing a gilmi glider
: in this thing will be tough, considering these are old planes.

The Cherokee has an extremely benign stall. I almost hesistate to say that it
*does* stall... you have to really provoke it with a aft loading to even get it to
break. It usually just shudders a bit, drops the nose, and auto-recovers while
sinking. The wing is a very stubby airfoil and is fairly symmetrical. Piper designed
the plane to be easy to fly (which it is). The glide ratio by the book is allegedly
the same as 172, (8:1 or so IIRC), but in reality it is not. It glides like a
polished brick. In practice, it's mostly a matter of calibrating your internal
"power-off glide distance" to a Cherokee, though. Not bad once you get dialed in.
Adding wingtips and AMR&D vortex generators help the sink rate a fair bit. Making it
that benign to stall had the tradeoff of bad sink a little more draggy airfoil.


: So I was looking for kit planes to compare (I'd rather pay upto 5k than
: build for half a year). Saw the CH 640 and CH 801. CH640 has more
: range, but the 801 holds all the other cards. The 801 is TWICE the
: price of the 701 (which can about hold 3 people IMHO) and requires
: engines that are 3 times the price of the Jabiru/Rotax that the 701 can
: take. Makes me wanna go for a 2-seater.

I can't speak for kit planes, except that probably without exception they will
have more impressive numbers than 40 year old certified designs.

: Speaking of 2-seaters, there are C150s on the market at 14K. Almost
: half that of a Cherokee.

That seems a bit low, even for C150s. I would think mid-high teens for a
comparably ragged-out C150. Remember that a C150 is not the same as a C152. 100 hp
vs. 110, less fuel range, etc. The C150 does fly happily on mogas with nothing more
than a sticker, though.

: Big question: how 'tough' are the low wings compared to the high wings?
: The CH 801 looks tough and I'm hoping to visit the far north, where not
: all landing strips are metalled or well maintained. The Cherokee has
: low wheels with fairings which disqualifies it for a bushplane.

Most $25k Cherokees won't have fairings. Ours doesn't and I routinely fly
into and out of grass strips. I had a few gravel strips on our trip to Alaska. I
certainly wouldn't call it a "bushplane," but grass strips of 2000' are doable if
you're careful. Of course ours is 180hp, so that helps get rid of some "pucker
factor."

: Since these are Kit EXPERIMENTAL aircraft, can I put a Jabiru 100hp on
: an 801 and expect it to fly, but with climb rates of ~400? Even better
: can the 701 be made to carry 800lbs?

Can't help you there.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

Aaron Coolidge wrote:

snip
That's
how this C150 was sold: a fellow asked the FBO clerk if she knew of any
C150 airplanes that rarely flew.

My understanding is that "rarely flew" is not a desirable characteristic in
an aircraft.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Peter R. wrote:

Aaron Coolidge wrote:

snip

That's
how this C150 was sold: a fellow asked the FBO clerk if she knew of any
C150 airplanes that rarely flew.


My understanding is that "rarely flew" is not a desirable characteristic in
an aircraft.


He didn't say it was, he just said it was flyable, and sold for $8,000.

--
"You can support the troops but not the president"
--Representative Tom Delay (R-TX), during the Kosovo war.