kwlf wrote:
but I find myself wondering what the attributes are in an aircraft that make such trips easier? Is there a point at which additional range is rarely useful? Are other factors such as the ability to use Mogas or use rough runways more valuable?
To answer the question with speed very often comes an aircraft that requires a longer and better runway. Not many jets can land on grass, many long legged cruisers are unhappy on rough grass, and prefer 700 metres or more, so they fly between regional airports or at least larger GA airports.
That can mean missing out on some beautiful destinations and making the onward journey if there is an ultimate destination much longer than your friend who was able to drop into the neighbouring strip, so the hare doesnt always win the race.
and so I have had as much fun, possibly more, farm strip flying as I have flying my current twin. If only a Husky could fit in the belly of the cruiser to gain the best of both worlds.
mmgreve wrote:
I have owned a 231 and can honestly say that you’ll get nowhere near 180kts TAS unless you’re breathing oxygen through a mask and is turning a blind eye to a spreaming TIT !
It is great plane that will do an honest 165 kts at 12GPH and has really good range.
Thanks for your comment. I took my figures from the test report by Bob Kromer here:
http://www.mooneypilots.com/mapalog/M20K231%20Eval%20Files/M20K231_Eval.htm
Re the high TIT, which engine variant did you have? Kromer writes that the LB engine is significantly cooler than the GB.
Any turbo charged airplane will only show it’s advantage at high altitudes. The 231 is no exception to that. Bob Kromer provides a comparison between the J and the 231 as follows:
The 201 reaches it’s peak speed of 160 KTAS up to about 8000 ft and will then decrease to about 145 kts @ 14000 ft due to lack of power.
The 231 will fly almost identically up to 8000 ft with about 5 kts advantage over the J, but reaches 170 kts at about 12000 ft, 176 kts at 14000 ft and 182 kts at 18000 ft.
Kromer sais that if you plan to fly below 10’000 ft all the time, the advantage of the turbo does not make sense. I am not quite sure about that having flown to places like Samedan which have high DA’s in summer, a Turbo could do wonders there. In General however, the speed advantage below 10’000 ft for a turbo over a non turbo is massively smaller than if you let the Turbo do it’s job at the altitudes it has been designed for.
I’ve flown my C model up to FL170 and used oxygen via a mountain high regulator and cannulla, which worked fine. I don’t think I would fly a 231 regularly down in non-oxygen altitudes, it simply does not make much sense to have such a performing airplane flying where it doesn’t reach it’s optimum speeds. Turbos need to fly high, otherwise the extra cost for them does not make sense at all.
RobertL18C wrote:
A clean Warrior 2 will manage 120 KTAS at 70% and FL70 and provide a comfortable ride for three for 300nm with IFR reserves – the savings on the annual will allow you to stay at five star hotels.
Sure. And clearly, a lot of great trips can be done with such a plane.
The question is, what does long range mean in the context of this thread. As people were talking about real long range stuff like the NATL or Africa e.t.c, I did not really consider airplanes like that, as they can’t really do those routes without massive help.
Also due to the avgas shortages in parts of Europe, long range is definitly something nice to have.
WhiskeyPapa wrote:
I need to stay away from autopilots! It sounds like one would become indispensable if I got used to it! But for now, I enjoy hand flying for 3-4 hours. And no, you don’t need a 150 knot plane to do serious touring. What you really need is a STOL aircraft that will actually get you where you want to go.
I did two days without an AP which I would not really want to do again without it. Both were more than 6 hours of flying CVFR for all practical purposes, that is on an airway and fixed altitude for hours at a time. The longest leg of day 2 was 4-22 hrs, preceeded by a leg of 2-08, so 6-30 total. Here an AP would definitly have been a nice thing to have had. No, it is not indispensable but yes, once you get used to it it is not much fun to go without.
STOL is nice, but it won’t get you to “where you want to go” if you really need the range. And even within Europe, there are enough destinations where a range of 600 NM and more is needed to realistically fly there. Don’t forget the reserves, most GA pilots will not gamble with the obligatory 45’ reserve only but will want 1 – 2 hours over the destination, there are lots of places which have only quite distant alternates e.t.c.. all this needs a lot of fuel.
Yes; very true about reserves. I work on 2 hours normally; exceptionally a bit less if there are numerous airports nearby. This also means a lot more range is required simply because the GA plane flies slowly. If you fly at 400kt and FL350 then many more airports are in range, and if you have CAT3 autoland then you can afford to cut it really close 
In much of Europe a 1000nm range is needed to do say 600nm trips – because the alternates are mostly dumps and usually don’t have avgas so you would have a big logistics job if you got stuck there.
Exactly Peter.
2 hours FOB means of a total range your plane has you will loose about 300 NM already. For most planes, this is half of their endurance. So what you say is pretty accurate:
Peter wrote:
In much of Europe a 1000nm range is needed to do say 600nm trips – because the alternates are mostly dumps and usually don’t have avgas so you would have a big logistics job if you got stuck there.
The question in such cases is the suitability of an alternate. And there, anywhere south of the Alps usually things go downhill very fast. To find 2 airports in a reasonable vicinity which have Avgas, Customs and are open is often near impossible. Most destinations therefore are for all practical purposes isolated destinations or need sufficient alternate reserves to reach a suitable alternate that this requirement alone cuts into the actual cruise range dramatically. Again speed counts very much here: if the nearest alternate is 100 NM or more away, a 120 kt plane will need even more reserves than a 150 or 180 kt plane.
One such example I remember from my planning is Belgrade. The nearest alternates which are open unrestricted and have Avgas are Zagreb and Sofia… as both Nis and Osijek have funny opening hours. Both are 200 NM away, even if Nis was available, it is more than 100 NM. 200 NM are 1-30 flight time for most GA planes, add to that the 45’ final reserve and you end up with 2-15 remaining. Now if your plane only has 4 hours endurance….
This is the situation almost everywhere in Southern Europe. Clearly, a lot of people are gambling with airports like that, as their planes are simply not capable to sustain such reserves. Of course planes which can use Jet A1 are much better off here as almost all airports have it and it’s specific consumption is much lower too.
I agree that with shorter range planes, much planning revolves around avgas availability. That’s why my next plane will likely have a mogas STC. Regarding where to land (including in an emergency), STOL aircraft open up options that it’s easy to forget about when you need the longer asphalt runways.
Avgas dependence is a MAJOR constraint.
You can indeed get stuck somewhere, which is why a second consideration for me is always alternative travel options (including checking train, bus and flight schedules) that get me back to work on time. You can’t go flying on your last dime!WhiskeyPapa wrote:
Avgas dependence is a MAJOR constraint.
It is indeed. Which brings me back to the question asked before, why on earth is nobody finally coming up with something even approximately up to date in terms of engines?
Anyone who has ever sat behind one of the Diesels, which are the only aviation engines which behave in a way we are used from cars, knows how it CAN be. Get in, turn key, engine runs. Whereas our Lycosaurus or Contisaurus engines require start up procedures which have been out of fashion as far back as 1960 and can involve silent prayers that the thing starts up without trouble today pretty please without the need of sacrificing a goat first? Who would accept something like that in a car or boat? Why have cars engines which have brought down consumption to 1/3rd of what it used to be in the 1960ties while we still write dissertations about the best way of running the darn things in our planes?
Fact of the matter is: Aviation is in a stand still in terms of technological milestones in almost all areas other than avionic and even avionic is always a few years behind. The main reason for that is the stringent overregulation which suffocates any real progress. 99% of all new airplane projects fail or take 10 years and more to become certified, 99% of all new avionics take their companies to the edge of bancruptcy in development, ALL GA airplane companies HAVE gone bancrupt over new certifications at some stage or the other. Why doesn’t anyone put an end to this madness?
Continental/Thielert have proven that it is possible to convert a diesel car engine into a reliable and economical aviation engine. Why is it so darn difficult to finally get a 200 hp engine out to replace all the O/IO 360ties, a 300 hp engine to replace the big bore avgas guzzlers with something akin to a modern engine?
That’s why my next plane will likely have a mogas STC. Regarding where to land (including in an emergency), STOL aircraft open up options that it’s easy to forget about when you need the longer asphalt runways.
I think that newcomers to this game don’t fully appreciate what is typically involved here e.g.
The Mogas users I have known have been
One mogas user I used to know flew around Europe with the PA28 filled to the roof with 20 litre plastic containers, which he would fill up back home, and transfer to the wing tanks where he landed Another long distance pilot had a permanent ferry tank on the back seat, although I don’t think he used mogas (the engine was an IO540). None of this is legal. Here in the UK a petrol station won’t let you fill up plastic containers above the small (5 litre) size, and the metal ones are heavy.
IOW while a Mogas STC may be a good solution for a farm strip based flyer, or somebody with a very small aircraft, I don’t think it is a practical solution to the gaps in the European “avgas availability matrix”.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Aviation is in a stand still in terms of technological milestones in almost all areas other than avionic and even avionic is always a few years behind
Well, try to sit behind a Rotax iS. More advanced and reliable than a Tielert/Austro, and it is 100% made for aircraft use. ULPower is another choice, 200 HP of 6 cylinder FADEC smoothness. I agree that for certified aircraft, the world look bleak in terms of advanced engines (unless you cross the threshold to a turbine, where the sky is the limit). But I see no reason Lycoming or Continental couldn’t have sold advanced engines years ago. I think it’s more a “market” issue in a very conservative and small market, reluctant to try “new” stuff..
Anyway, engine reliability is another issue for travelling far. The MTBF starts to become more than just a theoretical number when going more than 2-3 hours in a piston single. The only thing that can extend that is modern designed engine and FADEC. The engine seldom just stop, but you could need service on the way, again restricting you to larger places. If I should build myself a “tourer”, it would be with a 912 iS.
@Peter
You’re right on mogas. It’s quite involved. BUT many smaller fields with planes using mogas are set up for precisely this type of refueling, especially in a place like Italy. I have been driven to the fuel station as you describe and had help lifting the canisters to refuel a 182 by someone who didn’t speak English. He understood exactly what I needed and made clear it was ethanol free. Some of these short fields have mogas in tanks and requisite pumps (not rare at all!); others will give you a pump to help lift the fuel. I never felt the need to take containers with me.
You don’t need to fill to the brim either (although that’s usually not a problem), just enough to get to an avgas location.
If you can land and take off in 400 meters and can use mogas, your fueling options are simply vastly increased.
If you can land and take off in 400 meters and can use mogas, your fueling options are simply vastly increased.
And for a STOL aeroplane, that 400 metres becomes less than 100 at sea level, so any two-acre patch (without obstacles) will do. A Maule or C180 is a bushplane, not a STOL aeroplane, but fuelled for 8.5 hours and kitted with A/P and IFR gubbins it operates somewhere between STOL and the +/-400 metres required by a typical GA aeroplane. Even so, it is an hour or two quicker than commercial air transport door-to-door from, say, Scotland to Bavaria.
