wrote:
John Theune wrote:
: I'd really like to see some number to support your conclusion. By my
: estimates 100 hrs * 11 gals per hour = 1100 gal per year. RG decreases
: fuel need by 5% or 55 gal * $3.50 = 192.50 per year in fuel savings.
: From the numbers throw about by my aircraft owning buddies the delta in
: ownership costs for a retract are much more then that.

: Assumptions in above: Fuel burn is about the same for 180HP engines in
: Comanche 180 and 172s with 180HP engine. Increased speed reduces need
: for fuel by 5% by higher speed in cruise, climb fuel burn is the same.
: Big YMMV is added

Not to be too argumentative, but 5% might not be the right number. A quick
example:
http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/i...plane432.shtml
http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/i...plane427.shtml

That's a PA-28-180 vs. a PA-28-180R. Cruise of 119 kts vs. 141 kts. That's
18% improvement in speed. Others are similar around 15%. So, multiply your fuel
savings by a factor of 3 and you get $600/year. That's starting to sound more in line
with the additional costs of a gear swing every year, some more lube, and a
replacement part averaging every 5 or so.

Just food for thought.

-Cory

--

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

Very good, I was hoping somebody could come up with better numbers then
I had. It looks like from your numbers the fuel savings come close to
the extra maintenance costs so the insurance costs would swing the
balance toward the FG model cost wise. I think the extra "sex appeal"
of the RG might swing it back toward the RG side, but bottom line you
can't argue for the RG just on cost savings over FG.