Peter wrote:
The social aspect of GA is the #1 thing for many pilots (and their families). So soft field performance is key, and unless you get a turboprop that means a slow plane.
The 182 (especially TR) is the perfect counter-argument ^^
Apologies for thread drift but the Lycoming last generation FG 182, are respectable cruisers once you are around FL080. 135-140 (and a few knots more) KTAS is a reasonable block speed. With 92 USG fuel capacity they also tick the bladder busting range box.
Peter wrote:
and you might be utterly desperate after 1hrEspecially as you get older This affects males more but women get it too.
So this kind of aircraft range limitation is dangerous. And once you accept a longer range then a lot of stuff opens up. Stopping for fuel is a total waste of time, and any stopping is a reduction in safety because of the descent, the climb, and wx changing.
120kt is fine.
Agree with Peter here. To me, aircraft endurance is more about not having to refuel as often, than about flying long legs. (In EDQN, Avgas sells for 2.99€, so I fill ‘er up – full 240 liters – wherever my travels bring me, and I’m good for the next 6-ish hours.)
20 years ago, I few from Colmar to the southern Alps in a Piper Cub, 2 hours endurance i.e. 1:30 hour flight time with reserve. We took off at dawn, re-fueled half a dozen times along the way, arrived there at sunset. It was the greatest airplane fun I have ever had. Whatever Maverick might think, fun is not always proportional to speed :D It’s not the goal, it’s the way that matters!
Still, I believe that around 120kt is possibly the best compromise between relative affordability (not complex aircraft + fuel consumption of a 4-banger) and acceptable speed to indeed arrive at your destination the same week as you depart. A greater speed than the Cub extends the playgrounds significantly too. And provides a bit of defense against strong headwinds. In any case, that was my reasoning when acquiring the DR253. I miss being able to fly with open doors, though…
roznet wrote:
Counter argument: if you don’t fly too often an extra stop provide extra descent/landing/etc practice, I am always grateful to custom stop helping me practice more :):)
My dilemma exactly, when I want to be back home the same day:
- do I go to one place >2 hours away,
- or do I fly to 2-3 (or possibly more) airfields in the vicinity?
The first builds hours, the second provides practice.
The other advantage of range is that you can make an out and back flight to a place that doesn’t have fuel. My ex-Luscombe had 5 hrs fuel range. At 83 kts it still wouldn’t get you too far in a day, my furthest was about 400 miles, but it would take you somewhere say 150 miles away and back again without having to fuss with fuel, which made it more practical.
Silvaire wrote:
The other advantage of range is that you can make an out and back flight to a place that doesn’t have fuel.
Or travel places where fuel is not available or scarcely so. That is why I found the TB20 so uniquely suited to travel Greece for instance.
Fun bit: I think Robin had the same idea with the HR100. That thing has 10 hours endurance or more if you are careful. They don’t have to bother about if there is fuel where they are going and then refuel where it’s cheap. And I have a hunch that the HR100 series was the motivation for the Socata series later on. The parallels between the design of the TB20 in particular and the HR100 Tiara was just too striking.
The HR 100 range is large and some of them like the Royal have a range of over 1000nm. They are not known for being quick, like most Robin Aircraft. But also like many they have good useful load.
There are 2 Tiaras IIRC with different engines. But they are metal, so I am surprised they are not better known.
I got to like the club R1180 Aiglon, once I got used to flying with a yoke.
Hello all! long time.
I just got a PM from the forum and it reminded me that I should say hello.
This thread has quite logically diverged into all aspects of cross country VFR. Due to a nagging pressurization issue (and lack of time to deal with it), I have been flying my E400 around FL100, and this gives me another data point to share.
Speed is one thing (minus 20 knots by not going to FL200) but 170 KTAS is still quite a good speed : 400 NM before pee stop.
The other, much more annoying thing is that icing becomes a major obstacle. VFR in Europe in winter frequently means flying very low and frankly when I am travelling I prefer FL90-110. Much less traffic, smoother air and good long range WX awareness.
Before the E400 I flew 1000 hours in DA40s. Typical cruise settings were FL090 and 140+ knots at 9 or so GPH. Decent on soft fields but not a 182.
Great value, but we always arrived tired from the vibration, turbulence and noise and sometimes dehydrated and roasted.
The Extra is vibration free, the cockpit is way more comfortable and it is very easy to add sunshades (in IFR) as needed.
The ride is vastly more comfortable, so much so that I can safely say that there is no fatigue, even on long legs.
And I think it would still be a much much better experience even at 2000 ft and a speed similar to the DA40’s . Just a different league.
But wait, there’s a catch: forget about soft fields and anything below 800 meters and get ready for 4 digit fuel bills.
So yes, speed matters, my personal lower limit is the DA40’s 140-150 KTAS but the whole thing is a compromise.
You can’t have it all.
And yet I sometimes dream of a fixed gear STOL pressurized turboprop capable of 180 KTAS up high and still land anywhere…
Wait, what? DA40 140-150kts TAS? We have one in our club and it doesn’t get near these numbers.
Have taken the DA40tdi up to FL080 and at 70% it produces around 115 KTAS, quite respectable on 5.2 USGPG Jet A1.
