Rentals on XC flights: is faster actually cheaper?

G

GauzeGuy

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jul 12, 2012
Messages
376
Location
KBJC
Display Name
Display name:
GauzeGuy
I have access to a number of different rentals, ranging from $70 - $145 hour at one airport, plus a second airport with many more that range from $99-150+.

I have the fortunate situation of not having to worry about having an aircraft to fly in most cases. The bigger issue for me is accomplishing the mission in the most cost effective manner. When it comes down to saving a few bucks and some time, minimizing fuel stops will help.

Another factor I'm looking at is the speed of the aircraft. On paper, it would seem the C152 would actually be a better value. The C182RG costs twice as much per hour to run, but I'm not going twice as fast. That oversimplifies the deal; larger fuel tanks and the much high climb rate on the 182RG affects things.

If you have access to multiple aircraft, what factors influence your decision on what to fly?
 
Here is a story for you. I was in KRAP and I saw 4 different airplanes come in within an hour of each other in a group.. one of those air tour group things. They came from Denver, though I'm not sure what airport. A 172, a straight leg 182, a 182RG and a 210. They all took within 4 gallons of each other, I think the straight leg 182 ended up taking the most. The 210 got there first, followed by the 182RG. The 172 got there about an hour after the 210. I think the 182RG was the best per-mile flyer, but the 210 is faster and can provide a lot more since it can seat 6.
 
I am in same situation. The least expensive rental is usually better value, except on a VERY long cross country. Or what your time is worth.
 
Depends on the length of the flight. What is your time worth?
 
I used to account it obsessively too when I rented. My favourite unit was dollar per 2 nm, because it makes it easier to estimate future expenses. I found that the cheapest, a 150, was most economical, just above $2/2nm, while the fastest, an Arrow, was least economical at $3.80/2nm. However, the guys renting out that 150 were the worse to deal with: not willing to drop fuel surcharge if I refueled at a cheaper place, making the back-charge a problem and applying it after the tax on full amount, stuff like that. The Arrow place were much friendlier. They just include 2 fuel cards in the plane folder. I ended renting the Arrow a lot. In some cases it were the difference between making the trip and not, due to required time.
 
What's your time worth and how comfy do you want to be to do it? Our club has a 1979 Warrior and a Cherokee 6. The six is about 60 more but it does hold six (okay 5) but the seats are ALOT more comfy then the Warrior but it's not practical for anything just like sightseeing.
 
Yep, slower is usually more efficient in just about every way. The only issue is when you are renting wet and don't need to pay for fuel yourself you can gull to FULL RENTAL POWER on the throttle.
 
Another big difference between the 182 and the 150 is comfort.
The 150 is squirrelly and requires a constant fight to maintain steady level flight
The 182 has more mass and is far more stable. Like the difference between driving distances in a toaster car vs a Cadillac
You get yourself more worn out flying the 150 over extended distances
 
GauzeGuy said:
The bigger issue for me is accomplishing the mission in the most cost effective manner. minimizing fuel stops will help.

C152 would actually be a better value.
If you have access to multiple aircraft, what factors influence your decision on what to fly?
Click to expand...
If you can swing it, consider an experimental as there are some very economical ones out there. When I owned a C-150 and my Lancair, on cross countries the Lancair got there about twice as fast and used about half as much fuel doing so depending on winds of course.
With multiple aircraft, consider how many seats you need, how far you are going, if you need IFR capability, presence of an autopilot and then efficiency.
 
FORANE said:
If you can swing it, consider an experimental as there are some very economical ones out there. When I owned a C-150 and my Lancair, on cross countries the Lancair got there about twice as fast and used about half as much fuel doing so depending on winds of course.
With multiple aircraft, consider how many seats you need, how far you are going, if you need IFR capability, presence of an autopilot and then efficiency.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but my focus in strictly on rentals. Ownership is a very unlikely option for me.
 
Just calculate $/nm. Rental rate / ground speed.

I find that a fast 172 (e.g., 180 HP 172N) is about the same as a 152 in that regard, but everything faster costs more per mile, especially with retracts.

There are other variables, though. Sometimes a flight requires performance or capacity you can't get from a 172. Some avionics may cost a lot more as well, without adding speed.
 
From a cost perspective you need to be able to use the speed . . . so how far do you have to go?

Looking at it from a simple numbers perspective - lets look at my Comanche vs. a C172 for a trip from Brackett to Oakland - ROUTE KPOC DARTS GMN AVE PXE KOAK @ 8500, assume a 25 knot headwind - which is pretty average. 315nm distance.

Climbing -
C172 - 500fpm 1000-8500 - 15 min. 80kt IAS - 55kts GS distance traveled maybe 15nm.
PA24 - 800fpm average - <10min. 85-90kts ground speed. distance traveled -25nm or so.

Cruise:
172: 90kt gs - 265nm - ~3 hours
PA24: 135nt gs - 255nm ~ 2 hours.

Descent and Landing
172: 30nm, 20 min
PA24 40nm, 15 min.

Total time:
172: ~ 3.5 hours
PA24: ~ 2hr, 20 min

Cost:
172 rental wet: @$115/hr = $402.50

PA24 all in cost: @$165/hr = $384.75

Faster is cheaper. But you need to be significantly faster - as in 50% faster in GS - with a tailwind the cost disparity will be less - headwinds is where it really matters and unfortunately most GA is conducted with some HW component.

I have determined that in most of my operations that compared to 172/PA28 [160/180hp] ops that the operation of my Comanche is about the same cost for trips over 100nm given the faster speed. That said - I tend to operate in the 7500-9500 regime VFR and then 6-8k IFR over SoCal / NorCal. high enough to see about 160ktas @ 70% power and still have some power reserve.
 
I've yet to see an HP/complex for rent at that price. One or the other works, but it's closer to 20% faster ground speed, not 50, in a Cutlass RG or 182Q. HP retracts seem closer to $200/hour or more wet rental, when you can find them.

Air Plains converted 172s are not rare, and not any more expensive than other 172Ns. That's good for 115 KIAS, at $115/hour.

It seems you're comparing your cost of operations against a rental. There are almost certainly big differences in overheads such as insurance, "owner assist" annuals, and so on.
 
Last edited:
There are not a lot of 160kt airplanes for rent - thats for sure - but when Fly Corona out in Corona used to rent Bonanzas they'd typically rent for $175 n hour or so . . . so the numbers are close -
 
comanchepilot said:
From a cost perspective you need to be able to use the speed . . . so how far do you have to go?

Looking at it from a simple numbers perspective - lets look at my Comanche vs. a C172 for a trip from Brackett to Oakland - ROUTE KPOC DARTS GMN AVE PXE KOAK @ 8500, assume a 25 knot headwind - which is pretty average. 315nm distance.

Climbing -
C172 - 500fpm 1000-8500 - 15 min. 80kt IAS - 55kts GS distance traveled maybe 15nm.
PA24 - 800fpm average - <10min. 85-90kts ground speed. distance traveled -25nm or so.

Cruise:
172: 90kt gs - 265nm - ~3 hours
PA24: 135nt gs - 255nm ~ 2 hours.

Descent and Landing
172: 30nm, 20 min
PA24 40nm, 15 min.

Total time:
172: ~ 3.5 hours
PA24: ~ 2hr, 20 min

Cost:
172 rental wet: @$115/hr = $402.50

PA24 all in cost: @$165/hr = $384.75

Faster is cheaper. But you need to be significantly faster - as in 50% faster in GS - with a tailwind the cost disparity will be less - headwinds is where it really matters and unfortunately most GA is conducted with some HW component.

I have determined that in most of my operations that compared to 172/PA28 [160/180hp] ops that the operation of my Comanche is about the same cost for trips over 100nm given the faster speed. That said - I tend to operate in the 7500-9500 regime VFR and then 6-8k IFR over SoCal / NorCal. high enough to see about 160ktas @ 70% power and still have some power reserve.
Click to expand...

Good luck finding a PA24 in the rental market, especially for only $165 per hour wet.
 
Sometimes, depends on the price of rental. It was where I learned which is why we used the 172RG, Arrow, & 182 on the cross countries which got the endorsements and checkouts for a bit less money than doing the cross countries in the 152.
 
BillTIZ said:
Good luck finding a PA24 in the rental market, especially for only $165 per hour wet.
Click to expand...
It was only an example.

Here's one with a real rental airplane:

I flew a rental 300 HP Debonair for a while that was $169 per hour wet (still is). For a trip crossing the Colorado mountains, setting the throttle and mixture for 11 GPH gave me better than 165 KTS TAS cruise speed. Even cheaper than ComanchePilot's PA24 flight and far less costly than a 172.

Point is that you have to run the numbers to determine the best aircraft for the mission. Having multiple aircraft available so I can do that is the primary reason I've spend most of my flying life as a renter or member of a club.
 
Z06_Mir said:
Here is a story for you. I was in KRAP and I saw 4 different airplanes come in within an hour of each other in a group.. one of those air tour group things. They came from Denver, though I'm not sure what airport. A 172, a straight leg 182, a 182RG and a 210. They all took within 4 gallons of each other, I think the straight leg 182 ended up taking the most. The 210 got there first, followed by the 182RG. The 172 got there about an hour after the 210. I think the 182RG was the best per-mile flyer, but the 210 is faster and can provide a lot more since it can seat 6.
Click to expand...


Probably a fly - out day from Aspen Flying Club. Could have also been a CPA outing with that fleet. Don't know anyone renting 210s around here right now.
 
Are you building time for another rating? Slow, cheap planes are the best.

Everyone else: use a program like Fltplan.com to compare profiles. Then factor in all costs including rental minimums, fuel reimbursement and checkout cost. Think about soft items like plane availability, comfort and cool factors like glass cockpits and advanced avionics. Finally, go with the plane you liked to fly. I loved renting a Mooney 231 back in the 1980's. Too bad you see few planes like that out on the rental line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top