Single-engine plane with the best range?

Bob,

As a number of the airstrips you are dealing with may not be paved,
you will probably want to use a high wing airplane to reduce the
chance of damage to the wing from stones and debris during takeoff and
landing.

That aside, it will be cheaper for you to travel by airline than by
general aviation airplane, so you will probably not save your clients
any money, unless the value of your time is factored in and you can
somehow do it faster in a light single.

For long legged single engine airplanes look at a late model Cessna
210 or Cessna 182RG, either turbocharged or normally aspirated. The
182RG series has a great deal of range at about 150 knots, the
turbocharged version is faster and gives you more flexibility with
altitude, wind and weather, which may be a factor in your area. The
210 cruises at about 170 knots, with the turbo version getting over
200 at high altitude.

The range charts in the POHs for the various airplanes will give you
some guidance of range versus power setting. You can substantially
increase range at lower power settings, although the speed reduction
is sometimes so great that it can be faster to stop for fuel.

Best of luck in the search,
Rick

(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

That aside, it will be cheaper for you to travel by airline than by
general aviation airplane


Depends where he's going, and when.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Rick Durden wrote:

That aside, it will be cheaper for you to travel by airline than by
general aviation airplane, so you will probably not save your clients
any money, unless the value of your time is factored in and you can
somehow do it faster in a light single.

Only maybe. Even in the States, this is only true if you're traveling between
major cities or booking well in advance. I just checked Delta's price for Newark,
NJ to Knoxville, TN, leaving tomorrow and returning three days later. They want
$1,115.90 for coach. United wants $1,013.90. Continental wants $1,038.74. American
flies through Chicago.

By contrast, the loaded cost of my aircraft is about $60/hr and I average about
6 flight hours each way. That's about $720. One of the local airports charges
$78/hr to rent a 180hp Cessna 172. That's a faster airplane than mine, and I'd
guess the cost of the trip would be around $850. Even renting the Archer at
$89/hr would save me money over Delta.

Throw in the fact that I can leave from a local field instead of having to get
transport into Newark (last time I flew out of there, the limo fee was about
$45 each way), and there's not much contest.

George Patterson
A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that
you look forward to the trip.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Rick Durden wrote:

That aside, it will be cheaper for you to travel by airline than by
general aviation airplane, so you will probably not save your clients
any money, unless the value of your time is factored in and you can
somehow do it faster in a light single.

Only maybe. Even in the States, this is only true if you're traveling between
major cities or booking well in advance. I just checked Delta's price for
Newark,
NJ to Knoxville, TN, leaving tomorrow and returning three days later. They
want
$1,115.90 for coach. United wants $1,013.90. Continental wants $1,038.74.
American
flies through Chicago.

By contrast, the loaded cost of my aircraft is about $60/hr and I average
about
6 flight hours each way. That's about $720. One of the local airports charges
$78/hr to rent a 180hp Cessna 172. That's a faster airplane than mine, and I'd
guess the cost of the trip would be around $850. Even renting the Archer at
$89/hr would save me money over Delta.

Throw in the fact that I can leave from a local field instead of having to get
transport into Newark (last time I flew out of there, the limo fee was about
$45 each way), and there's not much contest.


Don't forget, the more people you bring with you makes it an even better deal,
you and a significant other want to take your trip, you're looking at 2 grand.
You plane- same cost, and an even better deal per seat.

Can you tell I've made a similar pithc before?

George,

What is the total time each way, general aviation and airline? Figure
in the value of your time as well, unless it is a pleasure trip, and
sadly, it's almost always cheaper to fly the airlines when you by
yourself....I can only justify general aviation travel when it is to a
remote location where airlines requires a long rental car drive and
the distance is under about 500 miles. When flying on business, I
have to calculate the cost of the travel as well as my time, and I
generally can't justify taking the more expensive route.

If more than one person is involved in the trip, general aviation may
become cheaper. Then, if someone is going with me, it's usually
cheaper to take g.a. aircraft. If two or more are going with me, we
always beat the airline fares by a fairly wide margin, even using a
twin.

With airfares from Grand Rapids to Denver, round trip, of under $300,
I can't even begin to compete with a g.a. airplane. On short notice,
as you pointed out, the airlines get more expensive, but if I'm trying
to rent on short notice, it's rare I can get my hands on an airplane.
Then again, if I can, here in the Great Lakes area, I use a twin when
going over the lakes, so the rental rapidly exceeds the cost of
airline travel, again unless I'm going to someplace out of the way.

All the best,
Rick

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message ...
Rick Durden wrote:

That aside, it will be cheaper for you to travel by airline than by
general aviation airplane, so you will probably not save your clients
any money, unless the value of your time is factored in and you can
somehow do it faster in a light single.

Only maybe. Even in the States, this is only true if you're traveling between
major cities or booking well in advance. I just checked Delta's price for Newark,
NJ to Knoxville, TN, leaving tomorrow and returning three days later. They want
$1,115.90 for coach. United wants $1,013.90. Continental wants $1,038.74. American
flies through Chicago.

By contrast, the loaded cost of my aircraft is about $60/hr and I average about
6 flight hours each way. That's about $720. One of the local airports charges
$78/hr to rent a 180hp Cessna 172. That's a faster airplane than mine, and I'd
guess the cost of the trip would be around $850. Even renting the Archer at
$89/hr would save me money over Delta.

Throw in the fact that I can leave from a local field instead of having to get
transport into Newark (last time I flew out of there, the limo fee was about
$45 each way), and there's not much contest.

George Patterson
A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that
you look forward to the trip.

Rick Durden wrote:

George,

What is the total time each way, general aviation and airline?

Varies. With the advance time you have to show up for security and such, I can
make about the same time or better. United is fastest at 4 hours from takeoff in
NJ to landing in TN, but I'd have to be at the airport at about 5am for that
flight. Delta is 4.5 hours leaving mid-morning. Continental is 6 hours with two
changes.

I take about 6.5 from takeoff in NJ to landing in TN.

George Patterson
A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that
you look forward to the trip.

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:09:35 GMT, "Bob Gardner"
wrote:

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


I suppose the lesson here is that compensating factors for SOME
aircraft can negate the theoretical advantages for different settings.

The engine in my case was leaned to peak rpm in both cases.

for the guy who asked the original question. doing your research
certainly pays.

Stealth Pilot
Australia.

"Stealth Pilot" wrote in message
news
I suppose the lesson here is that compensating factors for SOME
aircraft can negate the theoretical advantages for different settings.

"Compensating factors"? Such as, for example?

In your particular case, I can well believe that you found the same fuel
consumption at 114 knots as at 70 knots. However, that simply means that
you selected the wrong airspeed for best range. Your airplane is not immune
to the laws of physics.

Pete

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 10:59:25 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"Stealth Pilot" wrote in message
news
I suppose the lesson here is that compensating factors for SOME
aircraft can negate the theoretical advantages for different settings.

"Compensating factors"? Such as, for example?

In your particular case, I can well believe that you found the same fuel
consumption at 114 knots as at 70 knots. However, that simply means that
you selected the wrong airspeed for best range. Your airplane is not immune
to the laws of physics.

Pete

never hinted that it was immune from anything. it is just a Wittman W8
Tailwind. in my case pete the engine firewall forward is a standard
cessna 150 installation. it behaves a litte differently from a cessna
150.

the overall performance of an aircraft is the result of the
performance of a lot of its component systems. selecting one in
isolation wont necessarily give you a clue as to the final figures for
the overall aircraft.

btw I wasnt making any attempt at best range. I was merely flying
across 300 miles of desert with a chap in a piper cub for moral
support. you do assume a lot in some of your comments.

now instead of leaping down my throat can you give the guy who asked
the original question some assistance in selecting a suitable
aircraft?

Stealth Pilot
Australia

"Stealth Pilot" wrote in message
...
never hinted that it was immune from anything.

True, you didn't hint at it. You just came right out and claimed it. Bob
wrote "the range for any aircraft is dependent on power setting", and you
wrote "my experience doesnt [sic] support that". When in fact the range for
any aircraft IS dependent on power setting.

Bob's statement was somewhat inaccurate in that 50% power may or may not
produce best range, and may not even be better range than normal cruise.
But it's impossible that your experience would contradict that the range is
dependent on power setting, because range DOES depend on power setting.

[...]
the overall performance of an aircraft is the result of the
performance of a lot of its component systems. selecting one in
isolation wont necessarily give you a clue as to the final figures for
the overall aircraft.

The basic aerodynamic characteristic -- namely, the fact that there's a
L/Dmax, and that flying slower or faster than that speed causes an increase
in drag -- is immutable. The specifics may indeed change based on "the
performance of a lot of its component systems", but the fact will always
remain that there will always been a speed at which the least drag occurs,
and that flying above or below that speed will result in more fuel consumed
for the same distance.

btw I wasnt making any attempt at best range. I was merely flying
across 300 miles of desert with a chap in a piper cub for moral
support. you do assume a lot in some of your comments.

Such as? All I have done is disagree with statements that YOU MADE. I made
no assumptions, I took your false statements at face value and explained why
they MUST be false. I never said that you were making an attempt at best
range. What I said was that your experience could not have contradicted the
FACT that range depends on power setting.

now instead of leaping down my throat can you give the guy who asked
the original question some assistance in selecting a suitable
aircraft?

His question is far too broad for any answer to be useful. I tried to make
a sensible reply when his first post showed up, and found that there was not
enough information in his original question to provide any concise answer.
I doubt he was looking for the three-page reply it would have required, nor
did I have any interest in spending that much time writing such a reply.

IMHO, he has been provided plenty of *accurate* information in this
thread -- your own posts notwithstanding -- to inform him regarding the
issues specific to range, and a few different types of aircraft that might
suit his needs. His budget is going to be the limiting factor in any case,
and with only $40K to spend, none of the aircraft he might consider is going
to go all that far with one fillup.

Pete