How exactly is the range defined?
Jason can give us the Meridian and Mustang numbers, I guess. But the official numbers are 1000/1300 NM for the Meridian (45 m reserve) and 1200 for the Mustang.
I just realized how different the perspective on range is when you live in Munich. A UK based airplane should have more range… if the pilot prefers warm water anyway.
How exactly is the range defined?
Normally you find piston GA figures are “fake” i.e. meaningless, because they might use destination, alternate, and 45 mins. But how far away is the alternate? Sometimes they err on the wrong side e.g. the TB20 used to be quoted at 1100nm (terms not defined) but actually it is nearer to 1350nm.
TP and jet figures should use the NBAA range definition. That leads to many google hits, not all saying the same thing.
For Europe, the zero fuel range is IMHO the most relevant because of the relatively poor choice of alternates.
Those were only the official numbers, from the manufacturers website, but I guess close enough.
I never heard the term “Zero Fuel Range”.
What do you mean with “Poor Choice of Alternates”? Do you have an example? There’s always an IFR approach within 30 minutes .., would be my guess (guess!)
I think Cessna, at least for jets, uses something more conservative in their “poster” numbers (NBAA?).
Flyer59 wrote:
I never heard the term “Zero Fuel Range”.
Curious. That’s the range with no reserves at all, no alternate, nothing. Simply, to zero fuel, until the engine stops.
I don’t know why (or if) TBM owners don’t care about maintenance costs, but I have been involved with the selection and control of maintenance for jets and turboprops (on behalf of a company) for over 20 years. I know several other people in the same position, and have friends who run maintenance organisations.
While maintenance is always carried out based on the manufacturers schedule and tracked by a computerised system it IS competitive. Companies who overcharge are dropped, and competitive tendering is not unusual. We review every invoice in detail, and challenge anything we think is over the top. I would say most other owners do too.
What is undeniable is that costs are in a different league to piston engined aircraft. We use engine and parts programmes whereby we pay by the hour for all parts and do not have to consider maintenance of the engines, but even so 5 figure bills for labour are common. I feel sure Adam will find out about this in the coming years.
Peter wrote:
That leads to many google hits, not all saying the same thing.
I think they publish it in what they call Management Guide. In some appendix or what.
That’s the range with no reserves at all, no alternate, nothing. Simply, to zero fuel, until the engine stops.
Well, I thought so. But I have never come across that term (nor would I need it much ;-))
While maintenance is always carried out based on the manufacturers schedule and tracked by a computerised system it IS competitive.
The firm I was familiar with didn’t appear to use such a system. I have heard of it with jets; apparently computerised management is universal there.
