banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 09:23 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 63 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Long range travel time/fuel burn comparison between mode
PostPosted: 24 Oct 2017, 03:38 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 03/09/13
Posts: 910
Post Likes: +449
Location: Byron Bay,NSW Australia
Aircraft: CE525,PA31
Username Protected wrote:
I'll have another when my son goes to college. I may even move 2 in and have a baby with each. :D


Can we some how link this with deliveries of the SF50, wrap a time frame on it and all have a wager? :D

Andrew


Top

 Post subject: Re: Long range travel time/fuel burn comparison between mode
PostPosted: 24 Oct 2017, 09:03 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23612
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
I may even move 2 in and have a baby with each. :D

The PC-12 clown plane, preferred by more harems than any other plane.

Seems to me this is more ancient than modern as a relationship model, just with the "camel" replaced by "PC-12". Similar characteristics, slow and frumpy, but big and long range needing little fluids.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Long range travel time/fuel burn comparison between mode
PostPosted: 12 Dec 2017, 11:01 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/17/13
Posts: 6322
Post Likes: +5519
Location: Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Commander 680V
Summarized with later entries:

If low fuel cost per mile is your priority, this is the order:
1. TBM 900
2. PC12NG
3. Commander
4. Avanti
5. Mustang
6. CJ4
6. CJ3

If efficiency is your criteria (total fuel burn/kts):
1. TBM 900 (2.98gal/kts)
2. Avanti (3.26gal/kts)
3. Commander (3.32gal/kts)
4. PC12NG (3.49gal/kts)
5. Mustang (3.56gal/kts)
6. CJ4 (4.22gal/kts)
7. CJ3 (4.90gal/kts)

If long range speed is your criteria:
1. CJ4
2. CJ3
3. Avanti
4. Mustang
5. Commander
6. PC12NG
7. TBM 900 (slightly misleading as I’ve here used the ultra long range number for cruise speed, the TBM is capable of going much faster than this, but then range comes down)

If low fuel burn per seat is your criteria:
1. PC12NG (107gal/seat)
2. Commander (125gal/seat)
3. TBM 900 (125gal/seat)
4. Avanti (132gal/seat)
5. Mustang (199gal/seat)
6. CJ4 (222gal/seat)
7. CJ3 (250gal(seat)

If bang for buck is your criteria (efficiency x used purchase price in millions) – lower is better:
1. Commander 3.98 ($1.2 million)
2. Mustang 4.27 ($1.2 million)
3. Avanti 4.89 ($1.5 million)
1. TBM 900 8.94 ($3 million)
4. PC12NG 10.47 ($3 million)
6. CJ3 19.6 ($4 million)
5. CJ4 25.32 ($6 million)

_________________
Problem is the intelligent people are full of doubt, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Long range travel time/fuel burn comparison between mode
PostPosted: 12 Dec 2017, 11:14 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23612
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
If bang for buck is your criteria (efficiency x used purchase price in millions) – lower is better:
1. Commander 3.98 ($1.2 million)
2. Mustang 4.27 ($1.2 million)
3. Avanti 4.89 ($1.5 million)
1. TBM 900 8.94 ($3 million)
4. PC12NG 10.47 ($3 million)
6. CJ3 19.6 ($4 million)
5. CJ4 25.32 ($6 million)

The other TPE331 twins, MU2, 441, B100, Merlin, are conspicuously absent.

The TPE331 twins are going to lead the list with the cheapest one at the top as they all do about 300 knots on the same fuel flow.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Long range travel time/fuel burn comparison between mode
PostPosted: 12 Dec 2017, 11:19 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/17/13
Posts: 6322
Post Likes: +5519
Location: Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Commander 680V
Username Protected wrote:
The other TPE331 twins, MU2, 441, B100, Merlin, are conspicuously absent.

The TPE331 twins are going to lead the list with the cheapest one at the top as they all do about 300 knots on the same fuel flow.

Mike C.


Didn't want to put salt in their wounds.. :thumbup:

_________________
Problem is the intelligent people are full of doubt, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Long range travel time/fuel burn comparison between mode
PostPosted: 14 Dec 2017, 22:55 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 10/31/14
Posts: 534
Post Likes: +255
Aircraft: eclipse
Username Protected wrote:
The other TPE331 twins, MU2, 441, B100, Merlin, are conspicuously absent.

The TPE331 twins are going to lead the list with the cheapest one at the top as they all do about 300 knots on the same fuel flow.

Mike C.


Didn't want to put salt in their wounds.. :thumbup:


Adam
Is that why you didn’t include the Eclipse?

Top

 Post subject: Re: Long range travel time/fuel burn comparison between mode
PostPosted: 15 Dec 2017, 09:11 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/16/11
Posts: 11105
Post Likes: +7090
Location: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Aircraft: PC12NG, G3Tat
Adam, those numbers are still wrong.

Not a little bit wrong either.

We would not put you in finance, you'd be in marketing

_________________
---Rusty Shoe Keeper---


Top

 Post subject: Re: Long range travel time/fuel burn comparison between mode
PostPosted: 15 Dec 2017, 10:55 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/17/13
Posts: 6322
Post Likes: +5519
Location: Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Commander 680V
Michael, without having access to each aircraft's POH, do a full dissertation for every temperature at every altitude, every power setting, long range cruise or max speed cruise, every weight scenario it's not possible to be 100% exact. The numbers I got is what I could glean online, or an average from a POH or from from published materials.

They're as wrong as the source material - don't shoot the messenger. Remind me to newer invite you guys to a party! ;)

_________________
Problem is the intelligent people are full of doubt, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Long range travel time/fuel burn comparison between mode
PostPosted: 15 Dec 2017, 11:05 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23612
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
Adam, those numbers are still wrong.

Not a little bit wrong either.

How about providing better ones instead of complaining?

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Long range travel time/fuel burn comparison between mode
PostPosted: 15 Dec 2017, 11:17 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/16/11
Posts: 11105
Post Likes: +7090
Location: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Aircraft: PC12NG, G3Tat
Username Protected wrote:
Adam, those numbers are still wrong.

Not a little bit wrong either.

How about providing better ones instead of complaining?

Mike C.


If you read my prior posts, that is indeed what I did. Not complaining, just explaining that they are wrong. Totally different. What you are doing is complaining, but I'm cool with that :peace:

Now tell me exactly what the numbers above actually represent?

For a guy who prides himself on being exact, I'm surprised you did not point that out that already!!!!!!
_________________
---Rusty Shoe Keeper---


Top

 Post subject: Re: Long range travel time/fuel burn comparison between mode
PostPosted: 15 Dec 2017, 11:26 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23612
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
If you read my prior posts, that is indeed what I did.

I read all your prior posts in this thread. No numbers in any of them.

Quote:
Now tell me exactly what the numbers above actually represent?

So how do you know they are wrong if you don't know what they mean?

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Long range travel time/fuel burn comparison between mode
PostPosted: 15 Dec 2017, 11:36 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/16/11
Posts: 11105
Post Likes: +7090
Location: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Aircraft: PC12NG, G3Tat
Username Protected wrote:
I read all your prior posts in this thread. No numbers in any of them.



You are 100% correct. My bad. I thought I was in the dang Avanti thread.......

Adam Posted

Quote:
This was a comparison I did for a fictional 5000nm trip:

Turbo Commander 1000 (1700nm range, 300kts, 402pph, 3 stops ):
Time: 16.66hrs
Fuel stop time: 3hrs
TOTAL TIME: 19.66hrs
FUEL BURN: 999.6gal

Citation Mustang (1269nm range, 336kts, 540pph, 4 stops):
Time: 14.88hrs
Fuel stop time: 4hrs
TOTAL TIME: 18.88hrs
FUEL BURN: 1199.28gal

Pilatus PC12NG (1800nm range, 278kts, 360pph, 3 stops):
Time: 17.98hr
Fuel stop time: 3hrs
TOTAL TIME: 21hrs
FUEL BURN: 971gal

Piaggio Avanti (1398nm range, 364kt, 580pph, 4 stops):
Time: 13.73hrs
Fuel stop time: 4hrs
TOTAL TIME: 17.73hrs
FUEL BURN: 1188gal.

CJ4 (1800nm, 420kts, 1000pph, 3 stops):
Time: 11.9hrs
Fuel stop time: 3hrs
TOTAL TIME: 14.9hrs
FUEL BURN: 1776gal

CJ3 (1345nm, 408kts, 1096pph, 4 stops):
Time: 12.25hrs
Fuel stop time: 4hrs
Total time: 16.25hrs
Fuel burn: 2003gal.


I noted the following:

so the PC12 does 270 on 360 pph = 270/ (360/6.79)= 270/53.02 = 5.1 knts to the gal/ph?
so the Avanti does 364 on 580 pph = 364/ (580/6.79) = 364/85.42 = 4.26 knts to the gal/ph?

_________________
---Rusty Shoe Keeper---


Top

 Post subject: Re: Long range travel time/fuel burn comparison between mode
PostPosted: 15 Dec 2017, 11:55 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23612
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
so the PC12 does 270 on 360 pph = 270/ (360/6.79)= 270/53.02 = 5.1 knts to the gal/ph?

Seems about right, the numbers above were 5000 nm using 971 gallons, 5.15 nm/gal.

My question was whether this included takeoff, climb, descent, or if it was just cruise idealistically spread over the entire trip. Given the length of legs, it probably did include takeoff, climb, descent.

Quote:
so the Avanti does 364 on 580 pph = 364/ (580/6.79) = 364/85.42 = 4.26 knts to the gal/ph?

FL410 helps a lot here, as well as high true airspeed.

The PC-12 numbers average to about 53 GPH, the Avanti numbers to 43 GPH per engine, which seems perfectly reasonable for what you would get at FL410.

I think all the numbers assume operating at max altitude.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Long range travel time/fuel burn comparison between mode
PostPosted: 15 Dec 2017, 12:01 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/16/11
Posts: 11105
Post Likes: +7090
Location: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Aircraft: PC12NG, G3Tat
Yup, hence my reason for questioning his efficiency numbers.

_________________
---Rusty Shoe Keeper---


Top

 Post subject: Re: Long range travel time/fuel burn comparison between mode
PostPosted: 15 Dec 2017, 12:07 
Online


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/16/15
Posts: 2867
Post Likes: +3575
Location: Ogden UT
Aircraft: Piper M600
Seems like the M600 is left out as well, but that would really skew the results. ;)

265 KTAS on 265 pph, 1500 nm range with no alternate IFR reserves at normal cruise, 3 stops, 6 seats.

_________________
Chuck Ivester
Piper M600
Ogden UT


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 63 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024

.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.midwest2.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.tat-85x100.png.
.AAI.jpg.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.Latitude.jpg.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.Marsh.jpg.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.