BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Aug 2019, 16:10

Username Protected wrote:

I love the Baron. But, especially in a business sense, its not near as capable or safe as a turbine. 510/550(501)= capex/fuel

Yep Sam, Baron was for personal travel as was the A-36.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Aug 2019, 16:55

Username Protected wrote:

$7.54/gallon for 100LL really skews the comparison. At more reasonable prices, the results would be very different.

Even at $5.00 per gallon for 100LL, the cost per mile is $.97. Not that much less than the Mustang.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Aug 2019, 17:02

Username Protected wrote:

$7.54/gallon for 100LL really skews the comparison. At more reasonable prices, the results would be very different.

Even at $5.00 per gallon for 100LL, the cost per mile is $.97. Not that much less than the Mustang.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Aug 2019, 17:53

Very interesting. Thanks for putting this together Mark.
Here's the costs at $5.00/gal for 100LL

Attachment:

C310-510-550 Comparison.jpg

This kind of stuff makes it too easy to "justify" that Mustang that I "Need". :pilot:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Aug 2019, 17:53

Just to make it a little more murky, if you were to have a 2+ in the mix, you would find that for trips over 600nm or so, it is as efficient as the mustang, assuming you are on all the programs (fuel burn is cheaper than hobbs time, and you cut the time a good bit).

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Aug 2019, 18:08

Fuel burn on the 310 seems a bit high.

130 gal at 3.8 hours is 34gph

I’d expect closer to 110.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Aug 2019, 18:16

Username Protected wrote:

Fuel burn on the 310 seems a bit high.

130 gal at 3.8 hours is 34gph

I’d expect closer to 110.

ROP

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Aug 2019, 18:21

You run the jets LOP; why not run the 310 the same way?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Aug 2019, 18:31

Yikes the 510 is efficient.

Robert

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Aug 2019, 19:01

Username Protected wrote:

The takeaway for me was the difference in fuel C510 v C550. Wow!

2000s little engine producing 1460 lbf (PW615F)

Versus

1960s bigger engine producing 2500 lbf (JT15D-4)

The JT15D is just not an efficient engine by modern standards.

The FJ44 would compare far more favorably. I bet an M2 is not far off from Mustang due to significantly better speed.

Fuel is not the main cost in turbine flying despite the amount you use. You get it cheap, and then you go fast while using it.

Factor in winds, and the 310 can get FAR worse some days.

Assuming no wind, MU-2M with -10 engines is $0.99/nm, 180 gallons.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Aug 2019, 19:06

Username Protected wrote:

Here's the costs at $5.00/gal for 100LL

He doesn't get that at KHPN when he needs to refuel on the fuel burned on the trip.

100LL: $7.28
Jet-A: $3.69

KSAW prices are better for 100LL on the return ($5.30).

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Aug 2019, 19:21

Username Protected wrote:

You run the jets LOP; why not run the 310 the same way?

Well the reason I flew the 310 ROP was the airline canceled and I was running late. So
I wanted more speed. Normally I am a LOP guy. Didn’t even dawn on me when I posted. The point is the stang is very efficient.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Aug 2019, 19:24

Of course, cap x and engine programs aren’t being compared, but if Mark can lease each jet for the same price, that’s very interesting. Nice to just give someone the keys after flights and tell em what needs to be fixed :-)

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Aug 2019, 19:37

Meh. It all depends on the mission. 675 nm and everything can just about make a run at it. Particularly downwind. Bump it up to a 1000nm and everything changes a bit. Particularly into the wind. And payload pays a big factor.