what is the most economical piston (single/twin) aircraft
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tecnam P2006T with the Rotaxes. And in pure fuel burn, the Aerostar is one of the most efficient due to its sleek low frontal area with its thin, short wings. As for singles, I don' really know, but the Mooneys have always been good on fuel.
The Cri-Cri is an fuel efficient twin. So is a Boeing 757. High miles per gallon is no use if it doesn't accomplish some desired task like carrying X number of people from A to B. Or alternately amusing a single pilot for one hour while going nowhere. Its harder than it seems to calculate and compare efficiency.
The Vari-Eze is a notably efficient single (195 mph/two pax/6.5 gph) and if miles per gallon at useful speed was my primary goal, that's what I'd be flying.
The Vari-Eze is a notably efficient single (195 mph/two pax/6.5 gph) and if miles per gallon at useful speed was my primary goal, that's what I'd be flying.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: BFS
Posts: 1,177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the greatest of respect this question shows a bit of ignorance of aircraft in general.
Define economical. Yes a diamond twin star sips fuel. But it's unreliable and maintenance intensive. Plus depreciates like a brand new Vauxhall.
Tecnam sips fuel also, if you like rotax engines. Very slow and it has no legs and poor range payload. It's a training/ survey machine pure and simple.
By the same argument an old Aztec is economical. Burns more gas, doesn't depreciate.
What do you want your aircraft to actually do?
Define economical. Yes a diamond twin star sips fuel. But it's unreliable and maintenance intensive. Plus depreciates like a brand new Vauxhall.
Tecnam sips fuel also, if you like rotax engines. Very slow and it has no legs and poor range payload. It's a training/ survey machine pure and simple.
By the same argument an old Aztec is economical. Burns more gas, doesn't depreciate.
What do you want your aircraft to actually do?
Last edited by silverknapper; 6th Mar 2013 at 19:44.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: S Warwickshire
Posts: 1,214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You need to define the mission more closely to get a meaningful answer.
Are you factoring speed and payload.
Helium filled balloons will give you infinite MPG but rather limited utility.
Motor gliders and electric motors are very energy efficient
(see the winner of the CAFE Green Flight Challenge). That gave the equivalent of 400 passenger miles per USG at over 100mph, but still has some way to go before it's a practical solution.
A Boeing 747 gives over 100 passenger miles per gallon on a long haul flight.
Fuel costs are typically only 30-40% of the operating cost of a light aircraft, so getting the last ounce of efficiency may compromise other aspects and not give you a nett benefit.
Are you factoring speed and payload.
Helium filled balloons will give you infinite MPG but rather limited utility.
Motor gliders and electric motors are very energy efficient
(see the winner of the CAFE Green Flight Challenge). That gave the equivalent of 400 passenger miles per USG at over 100mph, but still has some way to go before it's a practical solution.
A Boeing 747 gives over 100 passenger miles per gallon on a long haul flight.
Fuel costs are typically only 30-40% of the operating cost of a light aircraft, so getting the last ounce of efficiency may compromise other aspects and not give you a nett benefit.
I didn't know there was a twin MCR, but I was going to suggest the related Colomban Luciole which drinks 4.5 litres/hour at 80 knots. Single place. If I had time, I'd build one.
Motorgliders probably score better.
Motorgliders probably score better.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mark
Point taken but how many really know what their per hour cost really is ? Owners are notorious stick head in the sand creatures!
There are fixed costs which are there regardless of the hours flown and direct operating costs.
Whack in the depreciation/ finance costs and most would be horrified at the actual hourly rate they are paying especially if their annual usage is low!
The saying that if it flies floats or flucks rent dont buy holds true unless your usage is 200-300 hrs per year.
Direct operating costs are important not so much in the whole picture of things but whether a decision is taken to use the aircraft for work that does not warrant that level of expense.
If you are looking at a certain trip there is competition! Is the aircraft cost effective against the competition?
Cost effective is not just a financial consideration but a time one too and reliability of actually getting to your destination.
Its no good having a gas sipping twin which is not approved for flight into known icing etc etc etc.
So its really a matter of choosing the right aircraft for the mission profile you have! If your mission profile is pulling back the curtains on a Sunday morning and its go to sleep unless you see a clear blue sky thats one thing if its to use your aircraft as a reliable business tool that is another!
Pure point to point speed plus fuel used is not the true picture
Pace
Point taken but how many really know what their per hour cost really is ? Owners are notorious stick head in the sand creatures!
There are fixed costs which are there regardless of the hours flown and direct operating costs.
Whack in the depreciation/ finance costs and most would be horrified at the actual hourly rate they are paying especially if their annual usage is low!
The saying that if it flies floats or flucks rent dont buy holds true unless your usage is 200-300 hrs per year.
Direct operating costs are important not so much in the whole picture of things but whether a decision is taken to use the aircraft for work that does not warrant that level of expense.
If you are looking at a certain trip there is competition! Is the aircraft cost effective against the competition?
Cost effective is not just a financial consideration but a time one too and reliability of actually getting to your destination.
Its no good having a gas sipping twin which is not approved for flight into known icing etc etc etc.
So its really a matter of choosing the right aircraft for the mission profile you have! If your mission profile is pulling back the curtains on a Sunday morning and its go to sleep unless you see a clear blue sky thats one thing if its to use your aircraft as a reliable business tool that is another!
Pure point to point speed plus fuel used is not the true picture
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 6th Mar 2013 at 21:25.
Point taken but how many really know what their per hour cost really is ?
I actually knew a guy until recently who flew his pre-war Cub zero hours per year. Other people flew it free of charge but he couldn't any more. He died in his 90s, enjoying life to the end
Last edited by Silvaire1; 6th Mar 2013 at 21:32.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silvaire
Totally agree but how many of those pilots say that their aircraft only costs them £90 per hour when in reality its £300 per hour.
Yes many might choose a more expensive option because it has benefits in other ways than living in a cheap hotel but do not con themselves into thinking the cheap hotel is more expensive
Pace
Totally agree but how many of those pilots say that their aircraft only costs them £90 per hour when in reality its £300 per hour.
Yes many might choose a more expensive option because it has benefits in other ways than living in a cheap hotel but do not con themselves into thinking the cheap hotel is more expensive
Pace
My two cost the equivalent of about £7500/year combined. The affordability of that number is the only aircraft economy I care about. Most of expense is storage and if times get really tough and I couldn't afford fuel I'd rent the house and sleep in the hangar with the planes. 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wales
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi, for economy you would need to choose a Low Drag aircraft, so that the Thrust is most efficiently used... Hence a low fuel consumption.
This seems to point to a High L/D ratio, which is only available to Motor Gliders or powered Sailplanes, which achieve 30:1 and 45:1 respectively.
A typical Cessna has about 15:1 in comparison.
If you factor in the cost of hangerage, the detachable wings make for easy storage in a trailer. Also the cost of an annual service can be considerably less for Gliders, as there are so many less bits to go wrong.
This seems to point to a High L/D ratio, which is only available to Motor Gliders or powered Sailplanes, which achieve 30:1 and 45:1 respectively.
A typical Cessna has about 15:1 in comparison.
If you factor in the cost of hangerage, the detachable wings make for easy storage in a trailer. Also the cost of an annual service can be considerably less for Gliders, as there are so many less bits to go wrong.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Nearest Bombardier AMO
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now, how to go about converting that MCR TwinR - thingies' trike undercarriage to a taildragger setup, thus ending up with something that almost looks like a real aircraft?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we are talking twins the bottom fell out of the market due to the massive fuel cost now of Avgas.
Pilots do not want gas guzzling twins which are relatively slow.
On the flip side of the coin MOST pilots choose a twin for most weather flying day and night and that also includes the threat of Ice.
Hence some of the new generation Rotax powered twins which do not really have weather capability do not hack it!
The latest engined twin star running Jet A1 does.
Cirrus have their single engined jet on the horizon albeit negating the single engine drawback with a BRS system
and the Eclipse appears to be coming up to the mark with the total.
Avgas driven twins? Very limited although you can pick them up for next to nothing! Twin Comm?
Pace
Pilots do not want gas guzzling twins which are relatively slow.
On the flip side of the coin MOST pilots choose a twin for most weather flying day and night and that also includes the threat of Ice.
Hence some of the new generation Rotax powered twins which do not really have weather capability do not hack it!
The latest engined twin star running Jet A1 does.
Cirrus have their single engined jet on the horizon albeit negating the single engine drawback with a BRS system
and the Eclipse appears to be coming up to the mark with the total.
Avgas driven twins? Very limited although you can pick them up for next to nothing! Twin Comm?
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 7th Mar 2013 at 11:22.
Well I was looking at a Tecnam, but the price grew to circa £125K as the pound is weak, So I bought a Bulldog for heaps & heaps less! True the Tecnam is far more economical, but I think that the money I saved will buy my Avgas for the rest of my life .
Plus the Bulldog is much more fun.... aerobatic, IFR, night etc.
.Plus the Bulldog is much more fun.... aerobatic, IFR, night etc.
Just wondering aloud... the most efficient aircraft tend to be relatively slow with a lot of whetted surface area. Gliders need a low min-sink rate in order to catch lift, and they need to be able to fly slowly enough to make safe forced landings as a matter of course.
If you set out to design a small efficient aircraft with class A rather than motorglider stall speeds, sink speeds etc... would it still look like a motorglider?
If you set out to design a small efficient aircraft with class A rather than motorglider stall speeds, sink speeds etc... would it still look like a motorglider?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Marlow UK
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cirrus have their single engined jet on the horizon albeit negating the single engine drawback with a BRS system
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think longer wings, more wetted area, gliders etc will add drag at low altitudes, but will increase in efficiency the higher you go. And the opposite for aircraft wit less front surface. So down low the smaller and the higher you can make the wing loading, the better. Up high it's the opposite.
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Barbados
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cheapest per hour in the air?
Cheapest per mile over the ground?
Cheapest per passenger mile?
Flying need not be expensive - I bought my Archer last year expecting a cost in the B$300-400/hr range for 50-75/hrs per year - one thing was a fear that I wouldn't fly it enough and it would have maintenance issues as a result, so decided to let others rent it, expecting an hour or two a month.
Turns out I can rent it for closer to 150hrs per year at B$400 - it generates a profit that offsets my cost - even with my five figure insurance premium engine fund, hefty remote location annual costs (shipping parts, duties, customs broker fees etc) and $15/USG fuel it costs very little - I'll not say how much per hour (you'll not belive it), but it's less per hour than I paid for a frothy coffee last time I was in London.
According to my sensitivty analysis when I cut the hourly rate in the summer, my flying will become cheaper with greater utilisation - would like to get to 350/hrs per year.
The cheapest airplane is the one that is commercially utilised (in my case I am in the relatively unique position of being a virtually monopoly position (one of only three four place singles available for rent in the country - there are only six GA single airplanes, one's a microlight and two haven't flown for a couple fo years) came as a surprise to me - so I too can say that the difference between what I expected it to cost and what it actually cost are hundreds of dollars apart.
Cheapest per mile over the ground?
Cheapest per passenger mile?
Flying need not be expensive - I bought my Archer last year expecting a cost in the B$300-400/hr range for 50-75/hrs per year - one thing was a fear that I wouldn't fly it enough and it would have maintenance issues as a result, so decided to let others rent it, expecting an hour or two a month.
Turns out I can rent it for closer to 150hrs per year at B$400 - it generates a profit that offsets my cost - even with my five figure insurance premium engine fund, hefty remote location annual costs (shipping parts, duties, customs broker fees etc) and $15/USG fuel it costs very little - I'll not say how much per hour (you'll not belive it), but it's less per hour than I paid for a frothy coffee last time I was in London.
According to my sensitivty analysis when I cut the hourly rate in the summer, my flying will become cheaper with greater utilisation - would like to get to 350/hrs per year.
The cheapest airplane is the one that is commercially utilised (in my case I am in the relatively unique position of being a virtually monopoly position (one of only three four place singles available for rent in the country - there are only six GA single airplanes, one's a microlight and two haven't flown for a couple fo years) came as a surprise to me - so I too can say that the difference between what I expected it to cost and what it actually cost are hundreds of dollars apart.