My dream plane.
 

If I could somehow avoid flying airlines, having to be strip searched, looked suspiciously at by TSA officials with blue lamps, stand in endless lines, be routed through idiotic hubs etc for the remainder of my life, I would be the happiest man on earth. Airline travel has become my personal hell.

This prompted me to think about what kind of aircraft would I like to see manufactured that could compete with airlines in actually delivering me long distances at a reasonable cost. It obviously can't be as fast as a jetliner or it would cost too much to operate, but fast enough so that my door to door travel would be roughly in the ballpark. It must also have long range as fuel stops add time and money. It must be able to run on Mogas so I never risk getting stranded in some non-Avgas backwater.

Let's look at what is needed for really fast travel by using the Piper Aerostar as an example. As you know, it's the fastest piston twin made and could in the pressurised 700 version cruise up to 275kts on 2x350hp. That translates to roughly around 100hp per person. This leads me to these specs:

2 seat twin engine aircraft, slim design. Anything else over big vast oceans would feel uncomfortable. Full de-ice, of course. Powered by 2x turbo charged Rotaxes or maybe some lightweight turbodiesels (yet still to magically appear). It must be pressurised so it can cruise high, or else it will never achieve the speeds. With the Rotaxes as an example this equates to about 100hp/person, which is on par with the Aerostar. It would burn about 9gal/hr and I'd like a 2500nm range. At 275kts, that means about 80gal tanks and a 9hr endurance.

The cost of fuel would be about £40/hr if on mogas in the UK and about $32 in the US. I'll exclude all other costs for now. Now, this would in Europe always be more expensive than a Ryanair or an Easyjet ticket, but when you start comparing it to a full price carrier, it's probably on par. In the US it will always be cheaper.

Let's for giggles look at the fictional London to New York run via a stop in Reykjavik for fuel. Total distance 3300nm. That would use 108gal in total. With European mogas prices this would cost £533. With US mogas prices this would cost $378. Either way, pretty competitive on money considering I just had to pay £1100 for a one way ticket to the US now in high season. How about time? Well, 12hrs enroute, plus the time for refuelling/peeing at Reykjavik. No wind taken into consideration. Not bad at all and if you count your door to door time, I think this would be quicker.

Doable, right?

Wrong. What about the rest of the costs involved in operating an aircraft? Especially fixed costs that will profoundly vary the hourly (or distance) cost depending on hours used per year. Also as a rule of thumb costs per seat/mile reduce as the size of the aircraft increases.

Well, I was kind of envisaging more of an LAA or experimental type approach with owner assisted annuals etc. I'm not a great subscriber of the "include the re-spray ever 20 years in your hourly costs of operation" philosophy. If you don't include it for your car, don't include it for you aircraft. But, let's include the engines and the insurance like you suggested. I fly commercially at least 300hrs/year for work, so let's use that as a base.

What does a Rotax 914 cost? $12.000 a pop, I seem to recall but maybe it's more these days. 2000hr TBO, so two engines running 300hr per year would cost: $3600, or $12/hr. Add another $1500 for insurance and that amounts to a total of $17/hr. Let's say $20/hr and it will include oil and probably any unschedule service.

On the previously trip that would have added $240 to the cost. Paying US fuel prices, this would increase the total to $618. Still cheaper or at least on par with a commercial ticket. Obviously for the UK example, paying UK fuel prices, this has now probably gone beyond the price of a ticket. But maybe some little hotrod diesel engine will come along and fix all that;)

Hmmmm......here they go for $25.000,-.......

No Tax On Rotax

:}:}:}:}:}:}:}:}:}:}:ugh::}

Nice thought but you've missed out a few costs.......
Any sort of non-standard CofA requires overflight permits for each country enroute. Most are around $100 a pop (max 30 days) and some are huge (checkout Austria). Landing and handling at Reykjavik will also make a hole in your budget. The there are nav charges - applicable to all aircraft on that route.
The aircraft you want is already here - it's a Kingair 200 :ok:

Only $33.405 in California:

Rotaxparts.net and 800-Airwolf specializes in Rotax Parts for Ultralight and amature built aircraft. We ship worldwide and offer services in English and Espaol. We ship our rotax parts world wide. - 800-Airwolf Rotax Parts Online Store features Ultra

I like your basic concept but 2 x 100hp Rotax is never going to give a cruise speed of 275kts. I think the Tecnam P2006 is 140kts cruise isn't it?

The turbo Rotax 914 (which I have in my Europa) is 115hp but only for 5 minutes at a time (i.e. takeoff/climb)

Still the title was "dream plane" :) Perhaps 4 x Rotax 912 in a Burt Rutan canard type super-streamlined pusher config?

Also, if you want it de-iced, you presumably want IMC capability, which also means a CofA.

A King Air does sound to around fit the bill, although it's a little slow. If you can bear a single engined aeroplane like most of the rest of us, a PC12 might be better value and a lot more modern. I must admit however, the idea of routinely crossing the Atlantic with a single engine doesn't appeal to me much either.

Realistically, the speeds you want and the costs you want won't come in the same aeroplane, that's the big mismatch. Also the speeds you want demand a gas turbine engine. The rest is entirely achievable.

I did idly wonder about de-icing and adding extra tanks to a Tecnam P2006T but a quick back of envelope calculation shows that the aeroplane has neither the payload nor the excess electrical power to do that.

G

You need loads of power to get above about 150kt IAS.

With lots of good aerodynamics, and lots of fuel burn, you can get a piston to go to ~ 180kt IAS.

Certified planes are stuck with a Vs of 60kt, and unless you have flaps the size of [insert as inappropriate] it is very very hard to get an IAS more than 3x Vs. Homebuilt planes can have a higher Vs of course, as can multis.

The way to get speed is to fly high. A Jetprop does 160kt IAS at say FL270 and that is about 260kt TAS. Same story for everything else. Concorde's IAS was only a few hundred kt, IIRC. But the oxygen issue then starts, and if you want total care-free comfort you need pressurisation, which is why all that hardware is so big and pricey.

I'd like a turboprop version of my TB20, and a FL250 ceiling.

As usual I disagree with just about everything IO posted.


http://www.dynaircraft.com/files/Pla...%20quality.pdf

Rod1

When EASA get their way next year we'll all be getting dream planes - dreaming about them will be they only way we'll get to fly.

Rod - sorry, I'm with IO540 on this one.

That aeroplane has less than half the range that Adam is after, is quoting a silly high TAS by the normal salesman's device of quoting TAS at the service ceiling rather than CAS. Assuming a service ceiling of about FL250 that apparently impressive cruise figure equates to about 130kn CAS. And presumably you'd have to do that on personal oxygen since I can't see anything in that leaflet description suggesting pressurisation - that's not a lot of fun on a regular basis.

Impressive aeroplane, but it's basically a re-invented Tecnam P2006T.

G

Saying the Dyn Aero is a reinvented P2006T is a bit harsh, after all many aircraft use the Rotax, just not many twins yet.

Is the kit going to be LAA approved?

Vne 530 kts.

My ideal plane would be something like a 182 that somebody bought and maintained and put the fuel in. That would do me. For intercontinental flights I'd rather go in a passenger jet TBH.

4 seat lightweight all-composite low performance twin with Rotax 900 series engines.

It really is a great idea, but to be fair, Tecnam did do it first.

The world has space however for both the C172 and the PA28, so I'm sure it has room for both this and the P2006T. But, just as I'd expect pretty much the same performance out of the Cessna and Piper....

G

It also doesn't exist.

How many remember the DA42 being advertised with a cruise speed of 210kt IAS?

There is a long way to go from a mockup, or even a test aircraft. For example, approaching 200kt IAS, the various aerials cost about 10kt.

Twins are hardly faster - if you want any kind of fuel economy. They lose out badly on MPG because the 2nd engine has to be carried, and both engines are now out in the airflow, and since you lose a big chunk of each wing, you have to have longer wings which means more drag. And because the whole plane weighs more, you need even bigger wings :) The end result is a bit quicker, say 10%, for 2x the fuel flow.

The Tecnam twin should eventually find sales into the FTO (ATPL) business but few private sales because it doesn't make sense compared to a decent single. Twins don't make much sense until you get to a C421 or similar where you get a big plane with a lot of payload and pressurised comfort. Below that you have the Aztec; ideal for cloud drilling under "VFR" to avoid the route charges ;) The market for these is now approaching zilch, due to the avgas cost.

What you really want is one of these :)

- but has a range of circa 700nm?

What you really want is one of these kestrel Aircraft - albeit still has a range of 1400nm but better then the JP and the TBM?

The Diamond Twinstar originally claimed amazing performance and fuel consumption of 200 kts at 12K and range able to fly John o Groats to Ireland direct.
Sadly those claims were unfounded.
There were again claims that a mini low cost turbine was being developed for mooney but that also appears to have vanished.

For me that has to be the way ahead in the form of a low cost mini turbine!

What does the kestrel do that the TBM doesnt already do thereabouts?

Pace

Can you actually buy one yet though?

A lot more - see the site.

Whether you fly much more than say 800-900nm in Europe is another matter, because you probably need Customs, etc. and there aren't that many airports.

The Kestrel looks very good, and I have a pic right here above my desk :) No, you can't buy one and won't be able to for quite a while. My concern would be that the TBM is too well established. I wonder if the new Honeywell engine will retain the performance edge it had over the TBM, with the original PT6? Don't ask me what I think of Honeywell as a company...

10540

But as you said the aircraft is not in production to confirm those figures.

Diamond claimed amazing fuel consumption and speed figures pre production from certain test aircraft.

The production aircraft never came anywhere near.

I am sure it will be a lovely looking aircraft but I doubt there will be much in it between the TBM850 and Kestril.
TBM will win hands down on residual values and as a tried and tested product.

Addendum sorry wrong plane :)
My concern with any Bast+rd aircraft or modified ones like the Citation (Eagles) is that they are not approved by manufacturers and take a huge hit on residuals

Pace

A prototype of the Kestrel has been flying for a few years, with a PT6, so to that extent its performance was known. I am happy that in its PT6 version it would have outperformed a TBM substantially.

Also, Epic Aircraft, who had a bust-up with Kestrel and went off doing their own thing with an apparently identical design, then went bust, but their website is still live, made a quantity of these, which are being flown by owners who got them under a "50% homebuilt" scheme.

The TBM850 is indeed well established and people in this business are very conservative. Being #2 is never easy, but there are ways to break down such barriers. The TBM has set a very high bar with its superb build quality, and Kestrel cannot go in below that, not in that price bracket ($3M+).

Whereas a Jetprop is much cheaper that any of these. The purchase price and the operating cost are about 50% down, but performance is similar (practically speaking). But the JP is still a "Piper".

It didn't suprise me that Diamond came nowhere even close on the DA42. Their business integrity is fully in line with GA practices - as most of their customers will tell you ;)

How much difference in terms of speed would you achieve in the Robin design if the fuselage was made narrow by having tandem seats?

How many hours of flying AND SITTING could you support in a cockpit not even large enough for side by side seating?

I think you mean "... could you stand (!) in a cockpit... " :>)

Well, the Tecnam does 140kts but thats for a 4-place aircraft and a bulky airframe and flying low. If you design it for 2, keep it really slim, and able to fly high, i.e. pressurised (the key to high speeds), I can't see it being impossible. If the Aerostar can do it with 700hp and 6 seats (115hp per person), then a 200hp 2 seater should be able to get pretty close. The key to the Aerostar being so fast was that the frontal area of it was small - it was cramped.

The whole gas turbine thing is a dead end if you want low cost. As much as I'd like to, until someone starts selling a certified turboprop engine for about the same as a Rotax, it's just not feasible. And even so, with the fuel flow, it's a hard sell. King Air 200's? Yeah, nice, if you want to pay $10.000 for a one way ticket.

And IO, if money was no object, this is what I want. I can't believe you keep a spot for a Jetprop in your heart, when this beauty is around for the same cost! 1600nm range!

http://www.adamfrisch.com/images/extra1

“It also doesn't exist.”

If by does not exist you mean it is flying, has been for months and is exceeding book fig’s…:rolleyes:

Rod1

Rod, will it be IFR certified?

Nah! Go the whole hog. Chichester Miles Leopard.
D.O.

AdamFrisch - The Extra 500 is very new. I think only 1 or 2 are flying. One sees them around shows, and occassionally out somewhere; I spotted one at Losinj LDLO last year. It looks like a very good plane, with a great range and importantly with a wide tradeoff between payload and range which is always a good thing to have.

But much depends on what you think of the company's financial condition. They have gone bust once or twice recently. With the E500 it is not like Piper going bust or Cessna going bust, or even Socata going bust. This plane is just too different from others that if you lost parts support you would have problems keeping it on the road legitimately.

I do wish them the best; it looks a great product. Their very intelligent chief pilot / salesman always tries to sell me one, which is 100% more than I can say for the arrogant tw*ts staffing the Cirrus and Diamond stands :)

The basic issue with turbines is that their MPG falls about 30% short of piston engines. Only the massive jet engines on things like the 787 deliver a specific fuel consumption which matches that of an IO540. Amusingly, the fuel burn per passenger kilometre of a 787 is about the same as that of a TB20 with 4 people :) And I can have one very attractive hostess which is a whole lot more than you will get on a 787 these days, unless it is a Thai operated one :) :)

If you do a straight turboprop conversion of a SEP, and keep the same size fuel tanks, you tend to lose some 30% on the range. Some of this can be clawed back via an improved TAS gain by flying higher than before, like you can do on the Jetprop PA46 conversion, but even a JP will not quite reach the absolute best economy range of the original Malibu which is probably about 1600nm to zero fuel. I think a JP can do about 1400nm to ZF.

Range is really important for serious flying. The TB20 is about 1350nm to ZF (FL100-140) and you can do vastly more with that than if you had e.g. 900nm to ZF, because due to the lack of airports in Europe one has to make such a generous provision for diversions etc that the usable range is way less than the ZF range, never mind legal IFR reserves which are much too tight anyway. The longest flight I would do is about 950nm.

Rod - why is that company's brochure all computer generated graphics, and poor quality ones too? Are they expecting somebody to put up some cash?

Beagle Basset
 

I had thought that the Beagle Basset might do. Unfortunately the Basset doesn't have the range (1,409 NM). I am also not sure whether there were any pressurised version. The civilian version is the Beagle B.206 Series 2.

http://server.microlite23.com/northo...wpf247351f.png

What about a velocity aircraft might be even faster if it was a twin pusher ?
maybe a couple of big rotax's ?
They look great and quite sleak

Velocity Aircraft

Yeah, Velocity has a demo TIO-550 powered rocket with the short wing and it does 290kts at FL250. That's turboprop speeds. But, it's a single and I would not feel comfortable flying long range over water with just one engine.

Yeah Im liking that TBM850 anyone fancy a groupshare :E:E

IO – Just got the cash, web site is completely new and ½ finished. This is intended to be a C of A machine so certification will be expensive even if operating costs are not. The kit version is only a 1st step but the test flying is going very well. For the UK, with its potential for quite long water crossings, a twin which can match or out perform a Cirrus will sell. The aircraft is heavily based on their very successful 4 seater.

See below for flight test and comparison chart;

Twin-R

http://www.pprune.org/private-flying...st-flight.html

Not bad for an aircraft which does not exist:ugh:

Rod1

Well it looks good so I hope they make a success out of it. :)

No-one has mentioned the Cessna P210 Golden Eagle yet - turbine, pressurised, fantastic range etc.?

On the topic of high promises, I am surprised no-one has mentioned the latest talk of town

Pipistrel Aircraft Panthera | Pipistrel

I know it doesn't fit the wishes of Adam, but it is a very interesting project if they can deliver the numbers on fuel-burn and speed (200kts and 10 GPH). I am sceptical, but must admit that their current Virus SW model seems pretty efficient.

(I am however sure Adam will appreciate their plans for a hybrid version)

I thought that the Extra 500 had one serious problem for an aircraft to be flown IFR in Europe: MTOW 4.696 lbs / 2.130 kg