What would you buy with a 50k budget?

Kirk Ellis wrote:


Are half century old airplanes still viable machines? It sounds scary
buying something that is almost as old as I am.

And remember, when you start looking at fuel burns most people don't
look at gas mileage, only how much an airplane can burn. Then
inevitably they pick something like a 172, 182 or a Cherokee that are
inefficient. They have their missions but cross country isn't one
they're good at.

"Newps" wrote in message
. ..
Kirk Ellis wrote:


Are half century old airplanes still viable machines? It sounds scary
buying something that is almost as old as I am.

And remember, when you start looking at fuel burns most people don't look
at gas mileage, only how much an airplane can burn. Then inevitably they
pick something like a 172, 182 or a Cherokee that are inefficient. They
have their missions but cross country isn't one they're good at.

Yeh

C182. Just a terrible cross country machine.

Sometimes Usenet just astounds me.

Howard

On Sun, 18 May 2008 14:56:20 -0700, "Howard"

C182. Just a terrible cross country machine.

Sometimes Usenet just astounds me.


That's not how I read it at all. He said "efficiency".

Lots of folks only look at GPH, and don't give airspeed or the typical
load, proper attention.

There are airplanes that are a lot faster for just a tad more fuel,
especially with a light load. In reality, more efficient.

B A R R Y wrote:


That's not how I read it at all. He said "efficiency".

Exactly.



Lots of folks only look at GPH, and don't give airspeed or the typical
load, proper attention.

There are airplanes that are a lot faster for just a tad more fuel,
especially with a light load. In reality, more efficient.

To compare apples to apples you have to do MPG. I had a 67 182, at top
of the green, 23"/2450, it would indicate about 135 MPH in the summer
and about 140 in the winter at 4500 feet(11 mpg). That's burning about
12 to 12.5. In the Bo I indicate 145-150 MPH at 8.5 GPH at my 45%
setting of 19"/2100(17.5 mpg). At 75% like the 182 the mpg drops to 13
but your going 55 mph faster.

On Sun, 18 May 2008 15:40:57 -0600, Newps wrote:


And remember, when you start looking at fuel burns most people don't
look at gas mileage, only how much an airplane can burn. Then
inevitably they pick something like a 172, 182 or a Cherokee that are
inefficient.

A terrific point.

GPH is only half of the equation when actually going places.