T67M Running Costs
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: On top of a hill
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T67M Running Costs
Hello all,
I have a friend who is looking to purchase a T67M in the near future. I've done a lot of flying in the 160 model but never the 260 and for comparison, I'd be interested in finding out what the running costs of the 260 are (both in terms of fuel consumption and maintenance etc). I have my suspicions, but some hard numbers from someone familiar with the aircraft would be extremely useful!
Thanks!
I have a friend who is looking to purchase a T67M in the near future. I've done a lot of flying in the 160 model but never the 260 and for comparison, I'd be interested in finding out what the running costs of the 260 are (both in terms of fuel consumption and maintenance etc). I have my suspicions, but some hard numbers from someone familiar with the aircraft would be extremely useful!
Thanks!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,006
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More??
Its got to be 13-15 GPH and its an IO 540 so the engine and prop running costs will be more than the IO360 160 (double would probably cover it).
Which is a shame because the 260 firefly is lovely for aeros. The 160m is barely capable of takeoff and aeros is a protracted and always downhill affair.
If you arent doing aeros then the 160 is a fine cross country machine and its doubtful you'd need the 260.
Its got to be 13-15 GPH and its an IO 540 so the engine and prop running costs will be more than the IO360 160 (double would probably cover it).
Which is a shame because the 260 firefly is lovely for aeros. The 160m is barely capable of takeoff and aeros is a protracted and always downhill affair.
If you arent doing aeros then the 160 is a fine cross country machine and its doubtful you'd need the 260.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: On top of a hill
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks guys. That's pretty much confirmed my suspicions!
The intention is to keep the aircraft with a club, who will use it for both solo hire (read cross country) and training, with regular doses of aerobatics thrown in too. The 160 is a nice all rounder and probably the better choice I guess. A shame as the 260 would be great fun (especially when it came to aeros), but I fear that the higher cost could well discourage use to the point where it just wouldn't be a viable proposition...
The intention is to keep the aircraft with a club, who will use it for both solo hire (read cross country) and training, with regular doses of aerobatics thrown in too. The 160 is a nice all rounder and probably the better choice I guess. A shame as the 260 would be great fun (especially when it came to aeros), but I fear that the higher cost could well discourage use to the point where it just wouldn't be a viable proposition...
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK, mainly
Age: 39
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 160 is nicely balanced, but the sheer grunt of the 260 is always worth it 
FWIW we used to run them at 120kts for planning (21"/2600rpm) and get 12gph without leaning. Far better was possible if we pulled the prop back a bit and leaned, but someone else was paying for the fuel!! Maybe consider the 200 version as a balance?
FWIW we used to run them at 120kts for planning (21"/2600rpm) and get 12gph without leaning. Far better was possible if we pulled the prop back a bit and leaned, but someone else was paying for the fuel!! Maybe consider the 200 version as a balance?
