18 Apr 2024, 18:58 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
| Username Protected |
Message |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Long range travel time/fuel burn comparison between models.  Posted: 12 Oct 2017, 19:50 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
Joined: 12/17/13
Posts: 6355
Post Likes: +5538
Location: Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Commander 680V
|
|
As I sit here abroad, as usual I daydream about flying myself to any destination in the world in my own plane. At the moment I'm about 5000nm away from my home in LA. So I started doing some calculations for fun; how long it would take, how many stops I'd have to do and how much fuel I'd burn if I'd done this trip in various planes with roughly similar seating capacity. I've calculated for 1hr IFR reserves and not accounted for climb power burn, just counted the cruise fuel flow to do the 5000nm. Each fuel stop I counted as 1hr. Here we go: Turbo Commander 1000 (1700nm range, 300kts, 402pph, 3 stops ): Time: 16.66hrs Fuel stop time: 3hrs TOTAL TIME: 19.66hrs
FUEL BURN: 999.6galCitation Mustang (1269nm range, 336kts, 540pph, 4 stops): Time: 14.88hrs Fuel stop time: 4hrs TOTAL TIME: 18.88hrs
FUEL BURN: 1199.28galPilatus PC12NG (1800nm range, 278kts, 360pph, 3 stops): Time: 17.98hr Fuel stop time: 3hrs TOTAL TIME: 21hrs
FUEL BURN: 971galPiaggio Avanti (1398nm range, 364kt, 580pph, 4 stops): Time: 13.73hrs Fuel stop time: 4hrs TOTAL TIME: 17.73hrs
FUEL BURN: 1188gal.Cessna Citation CJ4 (1800nm, 420kts, 1000pph, 3 stops): Time: 11.9hrs Fuel stop time: 3hrs TOTAL TIME: 14.9hrs
FUEL BURN: 1776galPerhaps not surprisingly is that the CJ4 will get you there the quickest. But it will do so at almost 1.5 times as much fuel as the Avanti, whilst only being 2.5hrs quicker. Or twice as much as the slower turboprops, whilst carrying the same amount of people. Perhaps even more surprising is that the Citation Mustang will burn more fuel and take longer to get there compared to the Avanti. Completely unsurprisingly, the PC12 will get you there with the lowest fuel burn, followed by the Commander. If low fuel cost per mile is your priority, this is the order:1. PC12NG 2. Commander 3. Avanti 4. Mustang 5. CJ4 I f efficiency is your criteria (total fuel burn/kts):1. Avanti (3.26gal/kts) 2. Commander (3.32gal/kts) 3. PC12NG (3.49gal/kts) 4. Mustang (3.56gal/kts) 5. CJ4 (4.22gal/kts) If speed is your criteria:1. CJ4 2. Avanti 3. Mustang 4. Commander 5. PC12NG If low fuel burn per seat is your criteria:1. PC12NG 2. Commander 3. Avanti 4. Mustang 5. CJ4 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) 4. PC12NG 10.47 ($3 million) 5. CJ4 25.32 ($6 million) I guess there are no real surprises here. The Avanti, with it's low drag airframe, is hard to beat when it comes to efficiency. And turboprops still win out over jets. Hope you enjoyed this little mind exercise! 
_________________
Problem is the intelligent people are full of doubt, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.
Last edited on 12 Oct 2017, 20:57, edited 7 times in total.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Long range travel time/fuel burn comparison between mode Posted: 12 Oct 2017, 20:00 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 10/26/16
Posts: 496
Post Likes: +692
|
|
|
You've your CJ4 burning a tad too much at too slow of a speed. Think 420knots at 1000lb an hour at ceiling. At 1400lb it blow right thru 450knots.
Last edited on 12 Oct 2017, 20:01, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Long range travel time/fuel burn comparison between mode Posted: 12 Oct 2017, 20:00 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/09/15
Posts: 295
Post Likes: +207
Location: New York, NY
Aircraft: A36
|
|
|
Very enjoyable little mind excercise, thanks. Though I think you may have a typo in the fuel stop times for the CJ4. Which, incidentally, is why my fantasy hangar includes a G650. Who wants to make fuel stops when flying 5000nm...
Safe travels home.
Ken
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Long range travel time/fuel burn comparison between mode Posted: 12 Oct 2017, 20:02 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/17/13
Posts: 6355
Post Likes: +5538
Location: Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Commander 680V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: You've your CJ4 burning a tad too much at too slow of a speed. Think 420knots at 1000lb an hour at ceiling. At 1400lb it blow right thru 450knots. Thanks, had a hard time finding correct performance numbers for it. I will correct it now.
_________________
Problem is the intelligent people are full of doubt, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Long range travel time/fuel burn comparison between mode Posted: 15 Oct 2017, 10:17 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/17/13
Posts: 6355
Post Likes: +5538
Location: Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Commander 680V
|
|
|
Alex - what is the fuel burn of the CJ3 and the fuel capacity? I'll do the calculations.
TBM 900 long range (1683nm range, 252kts, 253pph, 3 stops):
Time: 19.84
Fuel stop time: 3hrs
Total time: 22.84
Fuel burn: 754gal.
My plane (with the optional aux tanks not yet installed):
680V (1467nm, 235kts, 402pph, 4 stops):
Time: 21.27hrs
Fuel stop time: 4hrs
Total time: 25.27hrs
Fuel burn: 1276gal.
As you can see, not the most efficient.
_________________
Problem is the intelligent people are full of doubt, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Long range travel time/fuel burn comparison between mode Posted: 15 Oct 2017, 11:21 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/31/09
Posts: 5233
Post Likes: +3026
Location: Northern NJ
Aircraft: SR22;CJ2+;C510
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Alex - what is the fuel burn of the CJ3 and the fuel capacity? I'll do the calculations.
. Attachment: 5A145066-AC4D-4A18-9879-C57205D0BD47.png Attachment: CBC655D8-2DA9-40BF-B6B3-E627E7A109BD.png Attachment: E46DA50F-1381-486B-BE3A-90015A8691AE.png Attachment: 71F46625-0C69-4B67-A5E3-3FFF1C1196B2.png Attachment: 92CAFBFA-257D-41B3-9C32-AF1F9FDBE006.png
Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.
_________________
Allen
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Long range travel time/fuel burn comparison between mode Posted: 15 Oct 2017, 18:02 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/23/08
Posts: 6059
Post Likes: +703
Location: CMB7, Ottawa, Canada
Aircraft: TBM - C185 - T206
|
|
Come on Adam, Nobody flys 252 kts in long range mode in the TBM unless you really need the non stop range. Make an extra fuel stop and go 325 kts. BTW, Daher flys the TBM 910/930 from France to Florida in 16 hrs flight time and its 4800 nm. Username Protected wrote: Alex - what is the fuel burn of the CJ3 and the fuel capacity? I'll do the calculations.
TBM 900 long range (1683nm range, 252kts, 253pph, 3 stops):
Time: 19.84
Fuel stop time: 3hrs
Total time: 22.84
Fuel burn: 754gal.
My plane (with the optional aux tanks not yet installed):
680V (1467nm, 235kts, 402pph, 4 stops):
Time: 21.27hrs
Fuel stop time: 4hrs
Total time: 25.27hrs
Fuel burn: 1276gal.
As you can see, not the most efficient.
_________________
Former Baron 58 owner.
Pistons engines are for tractors.
Marc Bourdon
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Long range travel time/fuel burn comparison between mode Posted: 15 Oct 2017, 20:04 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/17/13
Posts: 6355
Post Likes: +5538
Location: Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Commander 680V
|
|
CJ3 (1345nm, 408kts, 1096pph, 4 stops): Time: 12.25hrs Fuel stop time: 4hrs Total time: 16.25hrs
Fuel burn: 2003gal.Username Protected wrote: Come on Adam,
Nobody flys 252 kts in long range mode in the TBM unless you really need the non stop range.
Make an extra fuel stop and go 325 kts.
BTW, Daher flys the TBM 910/930 from France to Florida in 16 hrs flight time and its 4800 nm. What is the fuel burn at 325kts?
_________________
Problem is the intelligent people are full of doubt, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Long range travel time/fuel burn comparison between mode Posted: 15 Oct 2017, 21:30 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/23/08
Posts: 6059
Post Likes: +703
Location: CMB7, Ottawa, Canada
Aircraft: TBM - C185 - T206
|
|
64 gph @ FL280 / ISA Username Protected wrote: Come on Adam,
Nobody flys 252 kts in long range mode in the TBM unless you really need the non stop range.
Make an extra fuel stop and go 325 kts.
BTW, Daher flys the TBM 910/930 from France to Florida in 16 hrs flight time and its 4800 nm. What is the fuel burn at 325kts?
_________________
Former Baron 58 owner.
Pistons engines are for tractors.
Marc Bourdon
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Long range travel time/fuel burn comparison between mode Posted: 15 Oct 2017, 21:50 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/17/13
Posts: 6355
Post Likes: +5538
Location: Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Commander 680V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: 64 gph @ FL280 / ISA
But then range drops down to less than 1200nm according to my calculations. They hold 291gals, right? BTW, the Merlin III models can do it with just 2 stops, the only one with that few: Merlin III (2700nm, 280kts, 402pph, 2 stops): Time: 17.85hrs Fuel stop time: 2hrs Total time: 19.85hrs
Fuel burn: 1071gal.
_________________
Problem is the intelligent people are full of doubt, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Long range travel time/fuel burn comparison between mode Posted: 15 Oct 2017, 22:42 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 07/11/11
Posts: 2252
Post Likes: +2215
Location: Queretaro / Woodlands
Aircraft: C525 BE40 D1K Waco
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Come on Adam,
Nobody flys 252 kts in long range mode in the TBM unless you really need the non stop range.
Make an extra fuel stop and go 325 kts.
BTW, Daher flys the TBM 910/930 from France to Florida in 16 hrs flight time and its 4800 nm. What is the fuel burn at 325kts?
I figure one stop less and 1500 lbs with Winglets.
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... xas-france
http://tamarackaero.com/insights/2016/1 ... zt-to-ksfb
BTW, I spoke to Brian about his pirep and also took a demo flight on the winglet equipped CJ3. Once we leveled off at FL450 in 23 minutes on an ISA +16 day (it was ISA +14 at FL350 and ISA +9 at FL410), we reached MMO in 8 minutes and then maintained it with economy cruise settings. It's a different airplane.
Last edited on 15 Oct 2017, 22:53, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Long range travel time/fuel burn comparison between mode Posted: 15 Oct 2017, 23:24 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 10/31/14
Posts: 534
Post Likes: +255
Aircraft: eclipse
|
|
|
Adam
Using your method
EA50 (1276nm, 349kts, 365pph, 4 stops)
Time 14.33hrs
Fuel stop time 4 hours
Total time 18.33
Fuel burn: 735gal
|
|
| Top |
|
|
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
|
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
|
|
|
|
