A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Owning
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Cost of ownership question



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 30th 04, 01:25 PM
Matt Whiting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

C Kingsbury wrote:
wrote in message
news:3aJAd.24094$h.20346@trnddc04...

On 29-Dec-2004, Helen Woods wrote:

Another factor in relative efficiency is retractable vs fixed gear. A 200
hp 4-place retractable will have about the same speed as a 240 hp 4-place
fixed gear plane. Think Arrow vs Dakota or Cardinal RG vs C-182. In
cruise, the RG will probably burn about 3 gph less than the FG. At 150
hours/year and $3.00/gal, that's $1,350/year. Much, much more than the
extra cost of maintenance likely required for the RG and possibly slightly
higher insurance premiums. So you end up saving money with the RG, as


long

as you remember to lower the gear for landing!



All true, but when it comes to hauling a load, there's no substitute for
horsepower. A Dakota or 182 are fill-the-seats-and-tanks airplanes, which
the Arrow and Cardinal RG are certainly not.


Actually, the Arrow I now fly in a club has a greater full fuel useful
load than did my 182. Now its full fuel is 50 gallons rather than 84
(or was it 88, I forgot for the 182 with LR tanks), but it still carries
a surprising amount. The downside is that the 180 HP is really
noticeable at gross weight. It climbs about like a C-150. I really
miss the 182 on TO and climb. The Arrow is marginally faster in cruise,
but not by much. The win is that it burns about 9 GPH at 125 knots
rather than 12.


Matt

  #2  
Old December 31st 04, 05:22 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


On 30-Dec-2004, Matt Whiting wrote:

Actually, the Arrow I now fly in a club has a greater full fuel useful
load than did my 182. Now its full fuel is 50 gallons rather than 84
(or was it 88, I forgot for the 182 with LR tanks), but it still carries
a surprising amount. The downside is that the 180 HP is really
noticeable at gross weight. It climbs about like a C-150. I really
miss the 182 on TO and climb. The Arrow is marginally faster in cruise,
but not by much. The win is that it burns about 9 GPH at 125 knots
rather than 12.



My Arrow IV has a useful load of 980 lbs. With full tanks (72 gal usable)
VFR range (1 hr reserve) is about 900 nm. With fuel limited to 50 gal
usable payload is a solid 680 lbs. I get 135 kts on 9.4 gph at 65% cruise
(at 9000 ft.) There is a big efficiency difference between the 200 hp and
180 hp engines.

--
-Elliott Drucker
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
True cost of ownership Lou Parker Owning 8 October 19th 04 11:53 PM
cost of ownership The Weiss Family Owning 74 May 28th 04 11:58 AM
Annual Cost of Ownership Tom Hyslip Owning 6 March 3rd 04 01:24 PM
Question about the F-22 and cost. Scott Ferrin Military Aviation 41 February 23rd 04 01:05 AM
Another ownership question Wendy Owning 35 November 21st 03 03:20 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.