Alpha_Floor wrote:
With a 55% power economy cruise, the aircraft will do a TAS of 130kt at FL100. This is 240 km/h.
At this power setting, it will burn 12 USG/h or 46 L/h. Converted to “car metrics”, this is 19 L/100km.
A very interesting comparison. Our VW Touran has a fuel consumption of about 18-20 L/100 km @200 km/h. Of course it can carry more than a PA-32, but the stretches of Autobahn where you can actually cruise at 200 km/h are quite limited and it is very tiring to drive that speed for longer than a few minutes.
Sounds like the PA-32 has a better fuel economy than I would have expected, especially given that I thought modern car engines to me that much more efficient than the typical lycosaurus/contisaurus…
You are not going straight in car, more straight in aeroplane but I gather MPG/2 and 2*Speed are good numbers, MPG*Speed (Carson measure?) is about the same between 1981 Mooney and 2010 Nissan, but you will arrive in style in the former in less time 
Ignoring highway & airport fees, no enroute fees !
Next time, fly VFR DCT at FL100 with TXP off on SP95
Ibra wrote:
You are not going straight in car, more straight in aeroplane but I gather MPG/2 and 2*Speed are good numbers, MPG*Speed (Carson measure?) is about the same between 1981 Mooney and 2010 Nissan, but you will arrive in style in the former in less timeNext time, fly VFR DCT at FL100 with TXP off on SP95
That’s right, let’s consider the same trip by car:
935 km and almost 10h (probably more due to EuroTunnel), vs 780 km by plane and let’s say 4h block.
Driving is cheaper in absolute terms in any case, even considering the EuroTunnel. But I’m tempted to do the calculation of at which point your personal time value makes it “cheaper” to fly rather than drive.
Also: how much value do you put on “arriving in style”? xD
The map of my UK flights now looks like a Brit taking a piss towards mainland Europe, very fitting! hehehe
On running the tanks dry, I think it’s a useful thing to experience at least once.
In a previous job, the aircraft we flew with the payload we carried we often had to run outboard tanks dry to ensure full fuel usage (typical sh*tty piston twin gauges). In that aircraft the first indication was a low fuel flow caution, which essentially is the same thing you discovered albeit without a caution light. We reckoned we had about 4 seconds to switch tanks once that light came on before the engine started to falter, although as you found out even after it falters, it tends to come back fairly promptly once tanks are switched.
With a 55% power economy cruise, the aircraft will do a TAS of 130kt at FL100. At this power setting, it will burn 12 USG/h or 46 L/h.
Unfortunately you didn’t manage to get DA42 for this trip. You’d get 160 KTAS at 12 USG/h of Jet-A1 at FL100. Going a bit higher to FL160 you’d get 170 KTAS at 12 USG/h or 175 KTAS at 13 USG/h.
Thanks for the writeup, and glad to hear it come good after all that searching
Emir wrote:
Unfortunately you didn’t manage to get DA42 for this trip.
They were all either in maintenance or not available for solo hire unfortunately.
highflyer wrote:
I would not dare to empty the tank, the engine could go out and not start again.
I think this deserves a thread of its own. It is something I do pretty consistently, when the stutter starts, even though you know it’s coming it always remains a bit stressful ;-) in particular for the unsuspecting passengers ;-)
