hindsight2020
Final Approach
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Messages
- 6,739
- Display Name
Display name:
hindsight2020
Alright folks,
After creating my very own excel spreadsheet (pretty nifty little applet I ended up with), I've decided to get some external POVs on my current dilema.
I am faced with the possibility of having to travel once a month for work (military duty, not all reimbursable..that's for another thread) and started doing some math. Here's the scenario:
306NM one-way, flying direct. Commercial flying is out due to cost and lack of non-stops (neither origin nor destination is a commercial hub= $$$, and the non-reimbursable thing). Driving a 20mpg vehicle takes 8 hours driving one way and 'X' gas cost round trip. Currently own a C-150 (paid off). High time engine. May or may not cut the mustard of doing this once a month. Gyros are not ready for IFR. DG has such bad friction I can't make a turn to a heading in VMC without it instantly lagging 30-40 degrees per 90 deg turn. In the pattern I can "lap" the DG after three touch and goes. I digress. Looking to justify the purchase of a different aircraft in lieu of sinking money into engine and gyros, and decided to incorporate this potential transportation need in order to compare the relative operating cost wrt to my future commutes and desire for aircraft ownership for recreational purposes outright.
Took three samples. C150 @ 85KTGS/6GPH, C172M @ 100KTGS/9GPH, RV-6A @ 140KTGS/9GPH. For the scenario fuel wise, the equivalent of one tankful in mogas due to availability at home field before starting the trip, the rest in 100LL.The results of my applet were rather puzzling...
Turns out with the C150 I shave 8 hours total off the trip versus driving. Stop in the middle required due to short legs so the ETE doesn't account for that stop. At any rate, 4 hours shaved one-way alone puts a smile on my face. 8 hours one way x2 every month driving sounds like a commute that would get old real quick. I don't want to hate the job because of the commute.
So turns out I'd spend $27 extra dollars flying the C-150 in lieu of driving for the benefit of shaving 8 hours of traveling round-trip from the commute. That sounds awesome! Then I got to the C-172 and the results were not as fantastic. I shaved only ONE extra hour round trip over and above the C-150 time, but my additional-cost-over-driving TRIPLED from the C-150 figure, for just ONE additional hour round trip saved over the C-150. WTH?!?! Yeah, figures burning 9GPH and going 100GS didn't help. But, am I giving the 172 a fair shake with that performance fig? Making it a 110GS/8.5GPH helped a little, making the increase in cost-beyond-driving a 76% above the -150 cost. That's still pretty lame. And I still don't know what figure one can rely on for a C-172, and I've flown the things ad nauseam. People's cruise figures are all over kingdom come. 100, 130(yeah right) and everything in between. So I don't know. At any rate..
Then I get to the RV and of course the math goes out the window. That thing is just ridiculous. First of all, the trip can be accomplished non-stop (so can the 172 with a sturdy bladder..or empty bottles )so by eliminating one less partial 100LL fuel-up, I can do one trip on mogas and one on 100LL. Combined that with a rather conservative 140KTGS and I get...wait for it.... a cost of ONE DOLLAR ABOVE driving for the opportunity cost of shaving ELEVEN and a HALF HOURS ROUND TRIP from driving. I about fell off my chair.
So it became clear what I want (the RV...). Now of course, comes the capital outlay of these aircraft. Clearly the 172 and RV would have to be financed, so there goes the savings, case closed. By that measure, the 150 wins by miles...until the engine gives out next week of course..... But, I'm not inclined to make the 150 a long term asset due to outright mission profile desires. Also, said mission does not require a third seat, so there may be other 2 seaters (experimentals preferred) out there I've missed that could take the place of the C172 in my analysis and provide a cheaper alternative to the RV-6A (the ideal), while releasing my soul from the catacombs of cruising along @ traffic pattern speeds and dead gyros (the 150) just because I happen to swim in the 2-seat market.
I open the floor for suggestions or ideas from the as usual surprisingly insightful and colorful POA crowd...
After creating my very own excel spreadsheet (pretty nifty little applet I ended up with), I've decided to get some external POVs on my current dilema.
I am faced with the possibility of having to travel once a month for work (military duty, not all reimbursable..that's for another thread) and started doing some math. Here's the scenario:
306NM one-way, flying direct. Commercial flying is out due to cost and lack of non-stops (neither origin nor destination is a commercial hub= $$$, and the non-reimbursable thing). Driving a 20mpg vehicle takes 8 hours driving one way and 'X' gas cost round trip. Currently own a C-150 (paid off). High time engine. May or may not cut the mustard of doing this once a month. Gyros are not ready for IFR. DG has such bad friction I can't make a turn to a heading in VMC without it instantly lagging 30-40 degrees per 90 deg turn. In the pattern I can "lap" the DG after three touch and goes. I digress. Looking to justify the purchase of a different aircraft in lieu of sinking money into engine and gyros, and decided to incorporate this potential transportation need in order to compare the relative operating cost wrt to my future commutes and desire for aircraft ownership for recreational purposes outright.
Took three samples. C150 @ 85KTGS/6GPH, C172M @ 100KTGS/9GPH, RV-6A @ 140KTGS/9GPH. For the scenario fuel wise, the equivalent of one tankful in mogas due to availability at home field before starting the trip, the rest in 100LL.The results of my applet were rather puzzling...
Turns out with the C150 I shave 8 hours total off the trip versus driving. Stop in the middle required due to short legs so the ETE doesn't account for that stop. At any rate, 4 hours shaved one-way alone puts a smile on my face. 8 hours one way x2 every month driving sounds like a commute that would get old real quick. I don't want to hate the job because of the commute.
So turns out I'd spend $27 extra dollars flying the C-150 in lieu of driving for the benefit of shaving 8 hours of traveling round-trip from the commute. That sounds awesome! Then I got to the C-172 and the results were not as fantastic. I shaved only ONE extra hour round trip over and above the C-150 time, but my additional-cost-over-driving TRIPLED from the C-150 figure, for just ONE additional hour round trip saved over the C-150. WTH?!?! Yeah, figures burning 9GPH and going 100GS didn't help. But, am I giving the 172 a fair shake with that performance fig? Making it a 110GS/8.5GPH helped a little, making the increase in cost-beyond-driving a 76% above the -150 cost. That's still pretty lame. And I still don't know what figure one can rely on for a C-172, and I've flown the things ad nauseam. People's cruise figures are all over kingdom come. 100, 130(yeah right) and everything in between. So I don't know. At any rate..
Then I get to the RV and of course the math goes out the window. That thing is just ridiculous. First of all, the trip can be accomplished non-stop (so can the 172 with a sturdy bladder..or empty bottles )so by eliminating one less partial 100LL fuel-up, I can do one trip on mogas and one on 100LL. Combined that with a rather conservative 140KTGS and I get...wait for it.... a cost of ONE DOLLAR ABOVE driving for the opportunity cost of shaving ELEVEN and a HALF HOURS ROUND TRIP from driving. I about fell off my chair.
So it became clear what I want (the RV...). Now of course, comes the capital outlay of these aircraft. Clearly the 172 and RV would have to be financed, so there goes the savings, case closed. By that measure, the 150 wins by miles...until the engine gives out next week of course..... But, I'm not inclined to make the 150 a long term asset due to outright mission profile desires. Also, said mission does not require a third seat, so there may be other 2 seaters (experimentals preferred) out there I've missed that could take the place of the C172 in my analysis and provide a cheaper alternative to the RV-6A (the ideal), while releasing my soul from the catacombs of cruising along @ traffic pattern speeds and dead gyros (the 150) just because I happen to swim in the 2-seat market.
I open the floor for suggestions or ideas from the as usual surprisingly insightful and colorful POA crowd...
Last edited: