Aviation MegaThread!!!!

[McCormack]

Originally Posted by I_FLY_LOW

I was bored this morning, and was poking around RCUniverse.com, when I came across this:
http://www.rcuniverse.com/market/item.cfm?itemId=809793

Great Planes/Harold Wagner Piper J-3 twin Cub (RTF)

...

I'm curious, what is the idea/advantage to adding a second engine to the plane of that size in the first place? Was it increased load? Or maybe range?

[dfwscotty]

Because he could?

Bored?

One of a kind for sure.

[I_FLY_LOW]

Originally Posted by McCormack

I'm curious, what is the idea/advantage to adding a second engine to the plane of that size in the first place? Was it increased load? Or maybe range?

Yes and hopefully yes... Practicality, eh, not so much...

[pilot815]

Originally Posted by RxZ

A doctor I know has his own plane, an older Piper I think. Anyway, he lives here in East Texas, but he has one kid in Colorado (and a second house there), one kid in Montana, and one kid in Iowa. He bought a plane last year because he said he could use it and get there faster than the airlines, whenever he wanted, and and not for that much more money, plus, way more fun than the airlines. I think he averages about 20 MPG in his plane, so aside from more maintenance and airport fees it wasn't that much more expensive than driving his truck.

Granted, with his job and no other bills he can afford the upkeep that comes with plane ownership. Kinda like a boat in my opinion, except much more useful

One day I would love to get into flying. Always been a dream of mine. Finances and family have held me back thus far, but one day...

I would be interested to know what it is exactly. From what I remember, 10-15mpg was the magical number for most single engine piston planes regardless of engine size and retractable/fixed gear. It all seemed to work out the same. This doesn't however apply to homebuilt/kit airplanes. Bigger engine meant faster speed, but higher consumption. Smaller engine meant slower speed and lower consumption. Consider that 100LL (avgas or airplane gas) is a little over $6.00 a gallon the car gas cost vs airplane gas cost is clearly sided to the car. Of course when it comes to time saved, and enjoyment the airplane wins.

[I_FLY_LOW]

I think for some, it the matter of being able to cover longer distances quicker.
You can fly from here to Oshkosh, in a j-3 sipping gas, but it'll take forever to get there.
Take a bonanza on the same trip, sure your gph is much higher, but you're in the air a fraction of the time.
Depending on how high the fuel burn, it's a wash, based on time...

[EvilGenius]

Not to mention in small aircraft, wind direction and speed plays almost as big of a part in fuel consumption.

[EvilGenius]

[chazbird]

Mooney 201's would get the equivalent of 20 mpg. About the best you'd do with a production general aviation aircraft. A homebuilt or kit plane, like a RV6 or maybe a GlasAir, could maybe, or probably, beat that. A Bonanza A36, an aircraft you and a few others would feel comfortable for long stretches, would be getting about 11-12 mpg. The engine lasts 1600 hours, and a new engine would set you back $30,000+. Overhaul maybe 2/3 that cost. So, at the minimum you're paying $88 an hour for fuel, and around $12 for the engine per hour..then there's the prop and the, and the.....AOPA is always making general aviation out to be the every man's pursuit. Not really.

[McCormack]

Originally Posted by chazbird

Mooney 201's would get the equivalent of 20 mpg. About the best you'd do with a production general aviation aircraft. A homebuilt or kit plane, like a RV6 or maybe a GlasAir, could maybe, or probably, beat that. A Bonanza A36, an aircraft you and a few others would feel comfortable for long stretches, would be getting about 11-12 mpg. The engine lasts 1600 hours, and a new engine would set you back $30,000+. Overhaul maybe 2/3 that cost. So, at the minimum you're paying $88 an hour for fuel, and around $12 for the engine per hour..then there's the prop and the, and the.....AOPA is always making general aviation out to be the every man's pursuit. Not really.

That's a good breakdown.

I can't imagine what it'd cost to fly an old warbird!

[Beemer Bob]

I think an AT-6 uses 50-60 gals per hour but any of the L birds are cheap to fly. L-14 uses about 4.5 to 5 gal per hour.

[vspeed]

Speaking of fuel economy, here's a cockpit video of a Concorde crew at work. Cool vintage stuff, 3 man crew and all.


[IMG][/IMG]

[Bigger Al]

Originally Posted by McCormack

That's a good breakdown.

I can't imagine what it'd cost to fly an old warbird!

A Hawker Sea Fury air racer running a P&W R-4360 sucks down somewhere around 500 gallons per hour of very expensive racing fuel.

[PunkinHead]

Originally Posted by Bigger Al

A Hawker Sea Fury air racer running a P&W R-4360 sucks down somewhere around 500 gallons per hour of very expensive racing fuel.

It's not just the fuel, but the maintenance. I have a friend with a P51 (although not a good enough friend that I've gotten a ride yet) and he does quite a few hours of maintenance for every hour of flight.

[Andyinhilo]

Originally Posted by McCormack

That's a good breakdown.

I can't imagine what it'd cost to fly an old warbird!

The Courtesy Aircraft site: http://courtesyaircraft.com/inventory%20table.htm has profiles on the more common of the various warbirds they sell linked on the info page for the aircraft for sale. Here is the profile for the AT-6, shows 30 gal./hr fuel burn:

http://courtesyaircraft.com/Aircraft...es/T6_prof.htm

Here is the list of profiles: http://www.courtesyaircraft.com/Aircraft%20Profiles/

[pilot815]

Originally Posted by McCormack

I can't imagine what it'd cost to fly an old warbird!

There is a guy that lives about 20 miles away from me that builds warbirds. He is known for his Yak 3's that he builds from Yak 11 airframes. He just finished a 7-8 year long project in which he built from scratch a Potez 630 observation plane from WWII.

He was telling us that the Yak 3, which he powers with an Allison V-12 is over $300/ hour in fuel alone. He does all his own maintenance, but that is time he has to put into it.