Just as comparison, prices in Croatia with all taxes included (worst case option – private usage 
):
- Jet A1 €1.04
- Avgas €2.40
It depends on what kind of turbine you have. I fly a P210N Silver Eagle with an RR Allison which consumes about 22 GPH at FL200 and about 26 GPH at FL120, both with 200 KTAS. Most of the time I refuel in Luxemburg ELLX at a current rate of 0,65 EUR per liter incl. tax. Landing fee is 6 EUR, no further handling fees (I have an account there, land, call Luxfuel, refuel and depart). So this is cheap.
And aside from the higher reliability and performance of a turbine, the maintenance costs are very low compared to a piston. Sure, if there is a problem with the turbine, it becomes expensive but I haven’t had any problems yet. Just annual and that’s it. I would never switch back to a piston.
Peter wrote:
with exemptions for business flights
Not since April 2014
There is a quite some difference in fuel flow on the analog picture, about 50 pph. Is this indication issue, as all other engine parameters seem to be equal? Is the LH digital instrument Shadin fuel flow? Such that the LH analog indicator is over reading?
Story doesn’t tell. Probably an analogue gaging issue. I’m sure he has a more accurate totalizer somewhere in there.
Yes, the penalty for going low will be higher, for sure. That’s when the Avgas twin shines. But with TP’s, there are options for getting first generation ones that lose thermodynamically with altitude pretty quick. This reduces fuel flow at lower altitudes. The RR250 is a good example of an engine that does that and N210FK illustrates that nicely by the minimal difference in FF between FL120 and FL200. The early Garrets and the early PT6’s do that as well – early King Air’s that have the -20 PT6’s for instance. By choosing one of these models it would be a way to run a TP at lower altitudes without incurring too much a fuel penalty, if that’s the reality of your ATC system.
Strangely enough, an Auster Autocrat similar to mine was once fitted with a turbine engine. It was soon reverted back to piston, though. I’m not sure that a turboprop would really be much of an advantage for the sort of flying people do in Austers!
alioth the engineers from the bel paese slapped a turboprop on the humble bird dog, here is one going begging in the U.S. (Apologies for the bad pun)!
@alioth: near to me (in several senses) there fly a bunch of homebuilt microlights of a design called Ultracraft Calypso. The design had affordability as its first and main goal, of course within the bounds of safety and legality; the result was a very light construction with a rather thick and deep wing. The relevance is that I heard it said that, whatever engine one fitted, it would not fly substantially faster – the speed was limited by the wing properties. Perhaps something similar applies to the Autocrat?
From a Baron owner today:
So the reality is that at 65 GPH at 270kts, the MU-2 is 32% faster and burns 60% more fuel per hour than my Baron. However the average cost of fuel is 63% less.
So some simple math:
Baron-
75 hours per year in the Baron = 75 × 25 gph X 5.93 = $11118.75 per year. 185 kts x 75 hours = 13875 NM per year
MU2
13875 NM / 270kts = 51 hours x 65 GPH = 3315 gallons x $2.72 = $9017 to go the same distance.
I realize the block speeds, time to climb, IFR clearance release time etc. are not factored in but the reality is that in terms of fuel costs, the MU-2 is cheaper to fly than my Baron.
This is the kind of thing that keeps me up at night…
How do you mean 5,93?
Is usd or euro?
In Holland we were at € 3,- per liter .. Now with oilprice slipping we are at € 2,59
That is a lot more than what you are calculating
@Commander I assume they are talking USD/Gallon.
