Uh, Tom is right on this one... If you accurately enter your route on fltplan.com, it accounts for everything, so the wheels down time plus the two leg times equals total block time. Pretty straightforward. Looks like Tom has shown you an example.

Here's my last flight with stop at KAPA: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N52 ... /KCPS/KAPA

Note it was close to straight in, didn't get a STAR or significant vectoring. Ground speed picks up in the descent for a while, partially offsetting the lower groundspeed lower in the descent. Etc.

Total ground time was 49 minutes per flightaware. Could get that down if I had let them know ahead I was coming and wanted a quick turn. But had the family, wife likes a stretch, and since I hadn't called ahead this time I was number 2 on the fuel truck.

Conceding your point to some degree, there was weather developing over the front range so climb out was not as direct as it could have been. But still only makes a couple minutes difference.

A faster plane into the headwind will often make a bigger difference on total block time than not stopping, FWIW.

...and you're not expressing an opinion when you say that people want to sit for 6 hours within an aluminum can going slower? A lot of what anybody writes here is opinion.

You were making the point that one couldn't possibly make a 30-minute stop without adding much more than 30 minutes to the overall flight time. But, as I pointed out, that's actually incorrect. A 30-minute stop may result in less than 30 minutes added to the block time, depending upon the altitudes the stop opens up for use.

The PC-12 is a nice plane. But, alas, for many potential owners, it would be quite wasteful. According to Business and Commercial Aviation, the PC-12 runs up direct costs almost 60% higher than an Eclipse on a typical 600 nm trip even though it takes it 35% longer to get to the destination. If I were flying that plane, I'd be paying to haul around a bunch of empty seats. Paying in money, paying in time, paying in slower speed, paying in lower altitudes, paying in more weather exposure, paying in noisier environment.

You have a great plane--I'm sure everybody here thinks so--but it is not the right plane for every mission nor every owner. If you don't need that much seating capacity, other choices that are faster, quieter and fly higher are more attractive.

Ken

if two planes are traveling the same course, at FL280, and one stops for fuel, i think 30mins is a bit aggressive, as Jason is pointing out ( or at least i think this is the point) assuming a 1000fpm descent/climb, then you just lost your 30 mins

an additional 30mins on the ground is a 1hr fuel stop- the time on the ground is only a portion of the total decision made

I guess that makes you the student since I've proven you wrong.

So that leaves 22 minutes for the MU2 ASSUMING no vectors, no traffic. I don't know about you but I never fly a full arrival. I get vectored here and there and told to slow down etc. Same with a departure procedure.

Simply put..... It cannot be done. I've waited to 10+ minutes for the FBO guy to get the computer working properly to charge my credit card. Hell, last week in Tulsa I spent 10 minutes arguing with the FBO guy about the fuel price he'd promised me the night before. He totally tried to re-neg. I don't know what it is about aviation that attracts bad business people.

I charge myself $1K every time I turn my engine on. A stop not only costs time but it also costs money. Endurance is the best speed mod.

Of course, 2 pilot jets have endurance and speed. Best of both worlds. But that then comes with other downsides that can be debated.

1. Going slower than what?

The only point of this discussion is "range vs. top end speed" with regard to long distance flights.

A PC12 isn't for you. That's fine. That's not what we're talking about. Make it a comparison between "Vehicle A and Vehicle B". Vehicle A has a lot more Range than Vehicle B. Vehicle B however has a higher top end speed. Take "number of seats" and "acquisition cost" out of the equations. It's Tortoise vs. Hare.

Guess I'm not seeing the math here. Can you help? Unless you are stopping at a busy airport which is stupid for so many reasons, the longest portion is just ground time.

Math posted above

Ken[/quote] Jets need to carry a lot of gas to make any sense. "Short range jet" makes no sense to me which is why I never bought one. I guarantee every "short range jet" spends 50%+ of every flight below FL300.[/quote]
Jason
Last trip coming out NY busy airspace 1:57 at or above Fl 30 and 49 minutes below or 31%
It would be more above 30k if I didn't get a step climb out of NY

"If"........ That's the word that throws a wrench in this whole debate for the "pro fuel stop" folks.

Every fuel stop will be different.

Every cruise at FL280 will be the same.

Not so. This is about "westbound", so headwinds are a factor. Winds at FL280 may be strong and one can actually gain some fair bit of time in the descent/climb portion where lower.

Every flight is different. Even the ones that simply sit at FL280.

OK, here's the flight you posted:



A VLJ can make the flight from KPDK to KVGT in 5:10, an hour faster than you did it even with 30 minutes on the ground for a fuel stop. And it does it burning less fuel than you. We get to stretch our legs half way, and we still beat you by an hour .


True.

Ken

Ken, assuming no wind, what is your max range (real) with full fuel as well as payload.

I'm curious as the Eclipse interests me. One of the reasons that the Pilatus can do a 6 hour leg is because of the bathroom. It's all 'number' capable.

As to Charles, I definitely love to stop at interesting places but my stops just don't happen to have cheap JetA. I've already chosen my destination so getting there is my primary motive.

Poor math. Lacking variables such as distance covered.

So I don't have a turbo prop or jet, but let's use my Lancair, it is somewhat close in speeds.
Assume 1000fpm as said. I climb at about 190ktas cruise at 245ktas because I am cheap and fly way lop, and descend about 265ktas. Spend 28mins in the descent at 265ktas and cover 123.6nm, spend 28 mins in the climb at 190ktas cover 88.6nm. Total 212.26nm.or spend 56 mins at cruise at 245 cover 228.6nm. Difference 16.4nm. At 245ktas 4.01 mins difference. Time spent in the descent will be less because should start about 90 miles out at about 1600fpm. So time difference will be slightly longer, but I used the 1000fpm as the previous example. Maybe you are getting over the airport and spiraling down, then take off and spiral up to altitude before you start on your way? Time lost in the climb and descent is minimal. I've done 1000gal stops in 20mins ground time. I do this for a living. We don't make tech stops at big airports. Think KGRI, KSLN.
In the winter with strong headwinds we fly cruise at .90 and fuel stop vs fly .84 and try nonstop. It's faster for actual arrival time.

As far as you and I go we are comparing PC12 to MU2. So wherever you would cruise..... I would cruise.

I have flown 1300NM at 16,500'. It was faster on FA than cruising at FL280 non stop. But then I landed at APA for gas and lunch. So was it really faster? I don't know. I'd still rather go non stop if I can make it non stop.

I assume you have 6 on board with bags etc?

You're getting silly. I never fly alone. I always have a group. VLJ's won't work for me. I could have saved a million $$ and bought a Phenom 100. Phenom 100 can't carry anything. I DON'T WANT TO STOP. I don't need to stretch my legs. I have a Pilatus. Next step UP from a Pilatus is a CJ3.

Do you look forward to your Nascar style fuel stops? Gimme a break.

How many times does an Eclipse with 6 on board need to stop on a 1500NM trip? How about a 2200NM trip?