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

Resource for choosing a plane?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old January 6th 06, 06:12 AM posted to rec.aviation.owning
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Resource for choosing a plane?

wrote in message
news%[email protected]

[snip]
As to questions of added costs associated with retractable gear and CS
prop:
RG will probably end up costing $200-300 extra per year for hull
insurance.
Based on our experience (normally aspirated 1979 Arrow IV) extra
maintenance averages about $250/year. However, we save about $1500 per
year
in fuel costs (flying 150 hrs), compared to similar performance FG
aircraft
(e.g. C-182, Dakota). The CS prop probably costs about $1.50-2.00/hr in
extra maintenance costs (largely the cost of overhaul). However, it is a
must for turbocharged aircraft.


Elliott:

Thanks, that's the sort of rough numbers I've been looking for viz c/s vs
fixed prop, retract vs fixed gear, etc. That sounds like, all told $1K /
year "extra" for the retract (ins + mx) and c/s prop (mx).

Is your $10/hr "savings" based on going the same speed but burning ~2.5 - 3
gph less to do it in a retract (less drag, I assume)? I'm still getting a
feel for performance comparisons (hence this thread!), I don't want to make
a bad assumption on what you're saying....

What about turbo vs normal aspiration? Another poster suggested ~$40K for
an overhaul of a (specific model) t/c engine, which seems to be ~2x what
I've read elsewhere. What about annual & "surprise" mx cost differences?

If I'm understanding you correctly, the differences (not including turbo)
should be about a wash for flying 100 hrs/yr. Even if it's not (or if I
fall into the apparently common category of overestimating my annual
flying), $1K / yr extra doesn't scare me....

Thanks!

--
Doug
"Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight
Zone"
(my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change
to contact me)



Ads
  #32  
Old January 6th 06, 06:20 AM posted to rec.aviation.owning
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Resource for choosing a plane?

Heh. Those two titles just arrived from Amazon today. "The Illustrated
Buyer's Guide to Used Airplanes"
by Bill Clarke is on backorder, they tell me to expect it in a week or
two.... I've got LOTS of reading & learning yet to do before I write a
check....

Thanks!

--
Doug
"Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight
Zone"
(my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change
to contact me)

"Mike Noel" wrote in message
. ..
You might check some of the 'Buying an Airplane' books at your local
bookstore. 'Buying and owning your own airplane' by Ellis and 'Airplane
Ownership' by Wanttaja have some useful info.

--
Best Regards,
Mike



  #33  
Old January 6th 06, 12:50 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Resource for choosing a plane?

wrote:
: Actually, the Continental TSIO-360 is a 6 cyl engine. Otherwise, I think
: Jay's comments are accurate. The Turbo Dakota is really much more a fixed
: gear version of the Turbo Arrow. (Same engine, airframe, similar useful
: load, but quite a bit slower due to the fixed gear.)

My mechanic owns a Turbo Arrow with the TSIO-360 in it. He loves it, but I
wouldn't consider an aircraft with that engine in it for anything I would own. It's
not really all that high-strung, it's just abused in its implementation. It's
essentially a beefed up C-172 O-300 engine. IIRC, 210hp at 7:1 CR. It needs the
turbo to make marginally more HP than a Lycoming IO-360 on the same displacement.
Stock "wastegate" blows goats (and cylinders)... throttled compressed intake gasses is
a horribly stupid idea. It was extremely twitchy and easy to overboost with the stock
system, and only marginally better with the aftermarket wastegate controller he added.

In almost all situations (except for all-out automotive performance and
aircraft useage), turbochargers on gasoline engines are a dumb idea. I'm not opposed
to owning an aircraft with one, but it would be turbo-normalized at most... no
full-time turbo since you have to throw away HP with CR just to gain it back (and
burn more fuel, require more octane, and cook your jugs).

Maybe something with an aftermarket turbo-normalizer? Comanche-260?

My opinion... YMMV

-Cory

--

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

  #34  
Old January 6th 06, 04:11 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Resource for choosing a plane?

wrote)
In almost all situations (except for all-out automotive performance and
aircraft useage), turbochargers on gasoline engines are a dumb idea. I'm
not opposed to owning an aircraft with one, but it would be
turbo-normalized at most... no full-time turbo since you have to throw
away HP with CR just to gain it back (and burn more fuel, require more
octane, and cook your jugs).



What is CR?


Montblack

  #35  
Old January 6th 06, 04:25 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Resource for choosing a plane?

Montblack wrote:
: wrote)
: In almost all situations (except for all-out automotive performance and
: aircraft useage), turbochargers on gasoline engines are a dumb idea. I'm
: not opposed to owning an aircraft with one, but it would be
: turbo-normalized at most... no full-time turbo since you have to throw
: away HP with CR just to gain it back (and burn more fuel, require more
: octane, and cook your jugs).


: What is CR?

Compression Ratio. The TSIO-360 runs I think a 7:1 compression ratio vs. the
8.5 (8.9?)-ish for the normally-aspirated Lyc IO-360.

-Cory

--

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

  #36  
Old January 6th 06, 05:26 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Resource for choosing a plane?

wrote)
What is CR?


Compression Ratio. The TSIO-360 runs I think a 7:1 compression ratio
vs. the 8.5 (8.9?)-ish for the normally-aspirated Lyc IO-360.



Thanks. I know what compresion ratio is and knew what the numbers were, I've
just never seen CR like that before. My mind was all over the map trying to
figure that one out - and it was right in front of me. Doh!


Montblack

  #37  
Old January 7th 06, 05:48 AM posted to rec.aviation.owning
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Resource for choosing a plane?


On 5-Jan-2006, "Douglas Paterson" wrote:

Is your $10/hr "savings" based on going the same speed but burning ~2.5 -
3 gph less to do it in a retract (less drag, I assume)? I'm still getting
a feel for performance comparisons (hence this thread!), I don't want to
make a bad assumption on what you're saying....


Yes. Our 200 HP Arrow delivers about the same cruise and climb performance
as a 235 HP C-182 or Dakota, and burns about 3 GPH less per hour. That is a
BIG difference with today's fuel costs. Of course, some of the 182s and
Dakotas can use less expensive mogas, but only if you have a reliable and
reasonably convenient source. The 182 and Dakota also have a higher useful
load, but much of that is eaten up by the requirement to carry much more
fuel for a given mission, especially with IFR reserves (and particularly in
the West where it can be an hour's cruise between a destination and a
workable IFR alternate).



What about turbo vs normal aspiration? Another poster suggested ~$40K for
an overhaul of a (specific model) t/c engine, which seems to be ~2x what
I've read elsewhere. What about annual & "surprise" mx cost differences?


I've never owned a TC airplane, so can't give you even antecdotal numbers
for comparison. We recently put a factory rebuilt ("zero time") engine in
the Arrow. Total cost worked out to around $23K, including removal and
reinstallation, new oil lines, and that sort of stuff. We also overhauled
the prop at the same time, which cost an additional $3K or so. I imagine
that costs for a Continental TSIO-360 would be a bit higher. However, you
will probably get fewer hours out of a TC engine simply because they spend
more time putting out higher power, and at higher temps. We got over 2000
hours out of our "old" Lyc. IO-360 engine without any big maintenance costs.
(Never had to pull a cylinder, etc.) I doubt that a Continental TSIO-360
would be able to deliver that kind of service. There is a good article that
touches on this by Richard Collins in the December edition of Flying
Magazine.


If I'm understanding you correctly, the differences (not including turbo)
should be about a wash for flying 100 hrs/yr. Even if it's not (or if I
fall into the apparently common category of overestimating my annual

flying), $1K / yr extra doesn't scare me....

As long as you remember to put the gear down for landing.... Actually, the
real cost potential for RG is not routine maintenance but rather the
consequences of gear failure (i.e. failure to extend/lock) for landing.
This is true for both human error and mechanical failure. That is why you
pay higher insurance premiums for the RG. We had just such an instance a
few years ago in the Arrow when the nosewheel failed to fully extend. A
backed-out bolt in the gear scissors got hung up on the gear trunion.
Anyway, all repairs were covered by insurance, and our premiums didn't even
go up the next year. (It helped that the pilot -- a partner, not me -- was
able to stop the engine with the prop horizontal prior to landing, so there
was no engine/prop damage.)

The way I see it, since the likelihood of injury or death in a gear failure
incident in a light single is very low, the risk is purely financial, and
that is covered by insurance.

--
-Elliott Drucker
  #38  
Old January 8th 06, 07:05 AM posted to rec.aviation.owning
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Resource for choosing a plane?

wrote in message
news:[email protected]

[snipped great discussion of extra costs associated w/ complex vs
non-complex SEL]

Elliott:

Great info, thanks!!

--
Doug
"Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight
Zone"
(my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change
to contact me)



 




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
Passenger crash-lands plane after pilot suffers heart attack R.L. Piloting 7 May 7th 05 11:17 PM
Navy sues man for plane he recovered in swamp marc Owning 6 March 29th 04 12:06 AM
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ Dr. Guenther Eichhorn Aerobatics 0 October 1st 03 07:27 AM
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ Dr. Guenther Eichhorn Aerobatics 0 September 1st 03 07:27 AM
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ Dr. Guenther Eichhorn Aerobatics 0 August 1st 03 07:27 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.