29 Mar 2024, 07:58 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Long range travel time/fuel burn comparison between mode Posted: 24 Oct 2017, 03:38 |
|
|
|
|
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. Can we some how link this with deliveries of the SF50, wrap a time frame on it and all have a wager? Andrew
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Long range travel time/fuel burn comparison between mode Posted: 24 Oct 2017, 09:03 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23615 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 |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Long range travel time/fuel burn comparison between mode Posted: 12 Dec 2017, 11:14 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23615 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 |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Long range travel time/fuel burn comparison between mode Posted: 12 Dec 2017, 11:19 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/17/13 Posts: 6322 Post Likes: +5522 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..
_________________ 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: 14 Dec 2017, 22:55 |
|
|
|
|
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..
Adam Is that why you didn’t include the Eclipse?
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Long range travel time/fuel burn comparison between mode Posted: 15 Dec 2017, 10:55 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/17/13 Posts: 6322 Post Likes: +5522 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 |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Long range travel time/fuel burn comparison between mode Posted: 15 Dec 2017, 11:05 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23615 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 |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Long range travel time/fuel burn comparison between mode Posted: 15 Dec 2017, 11:17 |
|
|
|
|
|
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
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 |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Long range travel time/fuel burn comparison between mode Posted: 15 Dec 2017, 11:26 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23615 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 |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Long range travel time/fuel burn comparison between mode Posted: 15 Dec 2017, 11:36 |
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Long range travel time/fuel burn comparison between mode Posted: 15 Dec 2017, 11:55 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23615 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 |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Long range travel time/fuel burn comparison between mode Posted: 15 Dec 2017, 12:07 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/16/15 Posts: 2868 Post Likes: +3578 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 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
|