What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Gas Prices Change Plane Selection?

Rabidsnipe

Active Member
I've been pretty hot on building an RV for about 4 years now. After a lot of thought, research, and some personal experience I had decided that the RV-9A was the plane for me. But latley I've been second-guessing that line of thought due to the dramtic increase in fuel prices we've seen over the last several months. Should I be building an RV at all? Or should I scale back to something a little lighter and more economical? Someone posted recently that if fuel prices are affecting your building decisions then maybe you shouldn't be building at all. Maybe that's true, but I really want to build/own a plane and I'm just trying to figure out what is **reasonably** within our budget. I'd rather build something and fly it all the time than build something that never flies because I can't afford to fill it up.

Has anyone else who is considering building or is currently building thought about changing platforms in an effort to get better fuel economy? The Sonex specifically comes to mind. Lose a little utility, speed, and looks for a little bit cheaper build/operation.
 
Gas Prices and Plane selection

Your concerns are very valid. To conserve fuel you can build the RV12. May be thats why Van did that.
 
I just got my rv-4 flying late last year. I've got 10 hours on it now and haven't flown it for nearly a month. At just under $200 to fill it up, I have a hard time justifying even starting it. However, the old luscombe I paid 13k for drinks 5 gph of anything that burns, and is just as fun as the rv. Other than it's speed, I'm trying to remember why I built an rv.
 
Interesting

Because the RV series (excluding the 12 for a moment) are about the most fuel efficient airplanes out there..OK not quite..even faster airplanes such as the Lanceair are more efficient still.

It really depends what you want it for..Do you want to go across country? well then at 28mpg my RV is pretty darned good....If I want better economy then just lean it out some more and go slower and get better mpg.

I can fly my rv around at less than 6 gallons per hour (IO360) and it will also drink any fuel going..At least according to Rocketbob who runs his 360 on 87 octane with standard compression pistons.

I personally run premium.

Now if you want to plonk around the pattern at sunset and just want to be up there..Then sure..buy/build an ultralight and do that...It won't go very fast but its a different animal.


I can't see that for the cross country traveller at least that fuel prices is much of an argument against an RV...At least not right now...If gas prices push us to be driving cars at 50mpg then you could argue 28mpg sucks and then cross country flying will be a thing of the past.

One more example...My Wife and I are going from CVO to KFNL on Sunday...Fuel cost even at $5 a gallon (we think we will be paying nearer 4.25). but fuel costs will be about $450 based on a 12 hour round trip...and I think its nearer a 10 hour trip.

Thats $225 each...We have relatives who are paying way more than that to fly commercial..$225 to fly 2000 miles..

Its still not bad!

Frank
 
What you need is two airplanes. A J3 for summertime boring of holes in the sky at 4 GPH, door wide open--and an RV for going somewhere. My kids love flying in the J3 and I have a ball in it. Once upon a time I didn't think I could stomach flying low and slow, boy was I wrong about that...
 
MPG is key

In my opinion, the higher gas prices make an airplanes MPG (miles per gallon) the key factor is affordability. I have been flying an RV7a with an IO360 with an electronic ignition for 14 months. I get 25-30 mpg with no wind to a tail wind, and 20-25 mpg with a headwind. That is hauling two people and a 100 lbs of stuff around the country at 160 knots. If I am just boring holes in the sky in the local area, I can easily get in the 25-30 mpg by pulling back the power. I have never pulled power back to simulate- an RV12 speed and check the mileage. While I do expect to build an RV12 someday, I do not expect it to get any better mileage than my RV7a.
 
Hard to feel for you guys , in australia we're paying $5.70 a gallon in my state (cheapest in the country )while the southerners are around $6.45 pg and to top it of we're still buying the big HI-PO V8 and turbo sixes as quick as GM and ford can build them.
I'm still renting airplanes but when my 6 is flying it will be the cheapest ,fastest personal transport available, at 28-30 mpg I will be ecstatic,cheers all Mat:D
 
Another data point for the RV9A decision

I flew my 9A yesterday for 2 hours at 110 to 120 knots. Working on lazy 8's and an ILS approach. Burned 5 gallons per hour.

Yet I can travel cross country at 155 knots at 8-9 gph.

I am very happy with the economy, versatility and ease of flying the 9A exhibits.

Duane
 
Apples to Apples

I look at this way, if I drive to the in-laws, I go 329 miles. At 24 MPG and $4 a gallon, it costs me ~$55 one way.

If I fly the -9, I have to cover 218 miles while burning around 10 gallons at $5 a gallon it costs ~$50 one way.

See how having an RV can save you money?
 
Keeping on building the -10

I opted for a low-compression O-540, 235HP engine for the RV-10 I am building and will be planning on using autogas to save even more. Even the -10 slowed back is reported to get in the ~8gph range with a decent cruise speed. It's certainly in the ballpark (cost for fuel-wise) with a car.
 
C172 speed but better mpg

6A.... 0320.... FIXED PITCH... LSI... LEANED... 145 MPH @ 2000 FT. 4.6 TO 4.8 GPH.

Exactly: If you're just out pooping around, slow down to 130mph. My -6a with XP-IO360 burns 4.5 gph 4500' and 130mph, AKA 28.8 mpg, cheaper than any spam can out there. Plus, if you want to get some place in a hurry, there ya go...

Jerry
 
Thanks for all the input guys. I really appreciate some of the low fuel burn figures that you guys have given. Normally you just see the 75%-60% figures. It's nice to know that my potential choice could haul two people comfortably with luggage faster that a C152 for less fuel. Game on!

Also, I figure if folks across the pond (Europe, Australia, etc.) are still building their RV's, what do I have to complain about?
 
Here's another example of how your 9 will perform if you choose to build it. From L45 (Bakersfield Municipal) to St. Johns, Arizona at 13,500' flying airways it took 3 hours and 2 minutes to cover 502 nautical miles burning 20.2 gallons. Like others the burn was around 6 gallons per hour after the long climb to get up there.
 
Flew a Legend Cub down to S&F this year, 80 mph @4.5 gph. 400 miles, so call it 22.5 gallons. Should be able to do 150@8 with the RV8/390 pulled back and leaned, 21.3 gallons. The kicker was waiting an extra day to come home. The RV would have easily done an end run around a line I didn't want to tackle with the Cub. Would have burned a bit more fuel, but I'd have picked up a whole day at work.

Extreme example: I once had a biplane with a very fuel-efficient auto conversion, 2.8 gph @ about 60 mph. Lots of fun to cruise around home base, but actually going anywhere was an ordeal. Wind and weather limits were very low. Sat on the ground a lot or charted zigzag course lines for avoidance; couldn't climb over or outrun anything. 10 mph max crosswind component, so runway planning factored too; often not enough range for an alternate. An OSH trip turned the hobbs 17 hours for 800 straight-line miles.....over 5 days. 2.8 x 17 is 47 gallons. What can you do with 47 gallons in an RV?
 
No way!

Should be able to do 150@8 with the RV8/390 pulled back and leaned, 21.3 gallons. ?

You should be able to do better than that Dan... You were talking statue miles per hour I think and at 8GPH I'm getting more like 165knots in the 7a.

Like closer to 190mph I think..

These things are amazing..:)

Frank
 
European Gas prices

Here in the UK we are currently paying around ?1.60 a litre for Avgas whilst in Europe the cost is over ?2 / litre which is equates to $15 per US Gallon.

The trend if for these prices to increase considerably and I think we will be looking at $25/ gallon within two years, which will equate to around 1000 dollars to fill an RV8 ........ unafordable for the average pilot.

The US market has not really woken up to the changes that are taking place in Europe. The American comments on this thread show the real differences across the pond ; in Europe no-one would consider a vehicle to be economical at 25mpg, and I wouldn't look at a new car that couldnt return at least 50mpg.

In answer to the original question, anyone buiding a big engine RV could be simply investing a lot of time and money in a museum exhibit if fuel becomes unafordable.

In the current climate there seems to be no sure way to future-proof the building of a sport aircraft, an RV-12 seems to be the most logical model in the Vans range, but several new designs are on the horizon in Europe which will offer speed, range and above all economy.

Nic


I figure if folks across the pond (Europe, Australia, etc.) are still building their RV's, what do I have to complain about?
 
<<The US market has not really woken up to the changes that are taking place in Europe.>>

Oh, I think we're quite aware of Europe and it's insane fuel tax policies. You're having serious protests over there right now. Over here we held a tea party when government applied a punitive tax...remember that? <g>

<<Here in the UK we are currently paying around ?1.60 a litre for Avgas whilst in Europe the cost is over ?2 / litre which is equates to $15 per US Gallon.>>

So tell us, what percentage of each is tax?
 
Mickey,

The oil price speculation that is currently driving oil to new highs is an underlying problem, but dont forget that it started with an increase in the demand curve from China and India, this long term trend is set to continue.

I sold my RV8 for various reasons, but one factor was current and projected fuel costs. I average 250-330 hrs flying a year and at 28/litres an hour in a RV8 that would equate to around $26,000 a year even at current prices !

Bearing in mind that it takes a long time to build an RV, many of the European builders started their construction whilst the price of fuel was bearable, when they complete their aircraft and start flying they will be in for a shock. It is my contention that over the next few years there will be an awful lot of RV's for sale here in Europe and buyers will be in short supply. It is already starting to happen and RV6's that would have been sold instantly at ?120,000 a couple of years ago remain unsold today at $80,000, whilst LSA's are maintaining their prices.

Anyone starting a new RV build in the present economic climate would do well to consider their options carefully with future operating costs being an important consideration.

Nic




 
Oh, I think we're quite aware of Europe and it's insane fuel tax policies.


Dan, another way of looking at it is US policy is massively transferring wealth from the Western world to the oil producing countries, mostly Arab.

If you had higher taxes, US consumption would drop, for instance you would use fuel efficient cars, demand would drop (the US consumes towards 25% of global production doesnt it, despite having a very much smaller share of world population), and we would be seeing nothing like the current prices per barrel. The money would therefore stop in the USA rather than being shipped to Saudi.

The result of that would be that instead of taxing you in other ways, your government could fill its obligations to you through fuel tax. At the individual level you might prefer cheap fuel and very rich Arabs. It does not in fact seem like a good deal for you, to me! It certainly is not for me, or your grandchildren.

The Indians and Chinese GVts are starting to put the taxes on fuel up for these reasons. One moved last week I think, though they have a way to go.

I guess I had better get the asbestos suit out now! :) Cat and pigeons comes to mind!
 
oil price bubble

... If you had higher taxes, US consumption would drop, for instance you would use fuel efficient cars, demand would drop (the US consumes towards 25% of global production doesnt it, despite having a very much smaller share of world population), and we would be seeing nothing like the current prices per barrel. The money would therefore stop in the USA rather than being shipped to Saudi. ...
I totally agree, but no politician in the US, outside of a couple of large cities, would ever get elected or re-elected if they espoused this policy. It's a shame, because with a 40 USD/barrel floor price, many alternative technologies are very viable.

The price of oil should be about 40 USD/barrel - the rest of the price today is speculation, and a lag in production and refining capacity. There is plenty of oil in the ground. Have a look at this chart to see if it looks like a bubble to you. It does to me. :)

Inflation_Adj_Oil_Prices_Chart.jpg
 
No need for an asbestos suit Steve, at least not with me.

<<Dan, another way of looking at it is US policy is massively transferring wealth from the Western world to the oil producing countries, mostly Arab.>>

You're absolutely right, and I believe that transfer is THE threat to our national security. We only differ on how to cure the problem. Europe chose taxation. Here we're finally talking about ending restrictions on domestic drilling.

<<If you had higher taxes, US consumption would drop, for instance you would use fuel efficient cars,..>>

Hmm. I'm in the car business, and have ridden out every US "gas crisis" since the mid 70's. Speaking from the pointy end of the spear, I assure you US consumers have already had a serious change in attitude about their vehicle choices. You can easily see it in the used wholesale markets; the latest figures have large SUV prices down -17% while fuel efficient cars are +10. In the new car market, full size truck sales are off about 40%. The catch is that we can't all switch overnight. We have about 250 million units in use and sell about 15 million new units per year, so total fleet replacement will take a long time. Taxing fuel can't speed the process.

BTW, right now the very high-mpg models (40+mpg, Fit, Versa, Prius) are nearly sold out and are bringing, in some cases, sticker plus. However, the real consumption drop will be in a switch from 15 mpg units to 25 mpg units, something most consumers can do without pain at their next vehicle trade.

This is VAF, so let's return to aviation.....how much of your avgas price is tax?
 
This is VAF, so let's return to aviation.....how much of your avgas price is tax?

I dont look into it too much, but the barrels and refining must be the same so our tax must be the same as your plus all the extra we pay in Europe, in round numbers.
 
Has anyone else who is considering building or is currently building thought about changing platforms in an effort to get better fuel economy? The Sonex specifically comes to mind. Lose a little utility, speed, and looks for a little bit cheaper build/operation.

The 9 is light and economical. Airframe drag is the biggest factor affecting efficiency. Using the same engine as a C172, the 9A will to cover 50% more ground in a given amount of time (although you lose the option of carrying a third adult). Given a great platform to start with, your build options and piloting proclivities will nudge your realized efficiency one way or another.

The 9 when not fitted and operated with the "biggest, baddest and mostest" mindset appears to me to be very competitive with light sport aircraft in terms of efficiency. Another way to look at it is that since airframe efficiency is the biggest factor affecting overall efficiency, its hard to imagine an airframe that is significantly more efficient than the 9 when tasked with seating two adults side by side. How tightly do you wish to be squeezed?

To answer your question about changing platforms... For a while the 10 was first on my list. Alas, we would not use its extra capacity all that often and over the last few years the 10 has become a significantly more expensive machine to operate when partially loaded.

I've considered the 12. My biggest concern is the pilot's left foot comfort on long trips given how rounded the fuselage bottom looks in the photographs. I'd have to see them both (9 and 12) in person before finalizing my decision.
 
RV 7a economy

So we got into Fort Collins today from Corvallis Oregon...It was just over 1000 miles and we did it 5.5 hours flying time..Not bad.

But get this ..At 12.5 to 13.5K I was getting a True airspeed of 160 kts...at wait for it..6.6 gallons per hour.

Ok I have a Sam James cowl, but even so thats amazing economy!!

I'm happy

Frank
 
Here in the UK we are currently paying around ?1.60 a litre for Avgas whilst in Europe the cost is over ?2 / litre which is equates to $15 per US Gallon.

You can't simply compare gas prices in Europe to gas prices in the US. One must understand the differences in each economic system to understand the differences in prices.

It has always been more expensive to fly in Europe than the US. The difference in that cost hasn't really changed that much.
 
What to do

I too had these same questions and with fuel prices soaring, it only makes it harder to keep building. What finally put my mind to rest was finishing my 8A is going to be one of the most economical ways to fly while giving me a plane I will enjoy and can take across a few states to visit family. I owned a 64 172 and went 100 mph at 7 gph. I am going to consume way less gas getting to the same places in my 8A especially if I have the power pulled back. Having the repairmans certificate is going to give me huge saving in the long run being I am only 28. But the bottom line is you should build something that is going to make you happy. If you build a 9 or 9A because it will be more economical on fuel and a year down the road you had wished you built a plane that had more acro capabilities or you wanted a tandem or some other reason, then you are back to square one. I think that if most of us come to the position that we can't afford fuel for our birds, then we are probably going to have bigger problems to deal with.
 
For me fuel cost has DEFINATELY affected my plane choices. I have been looking at some of the more fuel efficent single seat aircraft (Personal Cruiser, Midget Mustang, Bradley Aerobat). One of the first numbers I calculate now is MPG (I also factor in flight time due to cruise speed for long X-C).

Someone mentioned having two planes for fulfilling both purposes, and that looks to be the way I will go. I will have a small single place, super efficient aircraft, and my dream RV-7 for everything else. Besides whats an extra $20K cost and 600-1000 hours build time among friends :D.
 
I have the same thoughts. The kitfox for small flights, back country, tail wheel fun. I put in 320hrs last year and if I factored that in with a bigger airplane, well I figured I saved the price of the aircraft each year I fly it. The RV will be saved for flying the big cross country flights, with the 180 it should do just fine economy wise.
 
Oh yeah!

I have the same thoughts. The kitfox for small flights, back country, tail wheel fun. I put in 320hrs last year and if I factored that in with a bigger airplane, well I figured I saved the price of the aircraft each year I fly it. The RV will be saved for flying the big cross country flights, with the 180 it should do just fine economy wise.

160kts TAS at 6.6 GPH (oh and thats on Mogas) at altitude yeah I would say it will do just fine...Just unwind the mixture knob to go slower and even better MPG.


Frank
 
ya, but the kitfox is a sweethart for low and slow, no wings in the way, can see straight down, perfect for flying through trees and 10 off the ground.
 
It's cheaper than you think.....

I too have thought alot about this. I built a spreadsheet to compare the cost of flying vs. driving. If you are just boring holes in the skies, flying isn't cheap. If you have someplace to go and the question is flying vs. driving, it is very affordable.

I looked at it going on a 900+ mile trip by car. That same trip is over 100 miles less by air. At $5.50/gal for avgas vs. $4.00/gal for autogas, the total cost was within $15 of flying vs. driving. AND flying got me there 10 hours sooner.

Now I just have to find more places I NEED to go.
 
Just to pick at Steve a little bit;
Part of EU's problem is "Cap & Trade" We don't want that here, we can see what it has done there.
Politicians love it, great for corrupt influence and fast money, but a sure way to destroy any economy.
Still, I always favor efficiency and a clean environment, even though most environmental laws are seriously flawed because to the special interests of those pushing for them, the pushing back of those that oppose them, and the compromise of politicians to pass them into laws. Like making sausage (don't look!)
I'll keep building my RV-8, and I am making it MOGAS + 10% ethanol tolerant.
Gotta stay flexible. Gotta keep building. Gotta keep flying. (Don't need boating, Gave up Hot Rods, and I ride a bike to work on Dr.'s orders)
 
Fuel policies

Dan,

You say that Europe has " insane fuel tax policies", however it seems clear to me that the USA by keeping fuel prices low has ended up in a far worse situation.

There are very few gas guzzlers on the road here in the UK (mostly driven by idiots that want to emulate rock stars), and this means that as an economy we now use far less fuel per capita than in the US. The end result is better environmentally and in the long run means a reduced % of our GDP going to the oil producing nations.

It is often said that buying a lottery ticket is a tax on people that can't do maths, and it appears to me that driving around in a car in the USA that does 15 mpg is a somewhat similar tax, although sadly the environmental consequences are far more widely reaching.

As regards overall economy in sport flying, it seems to me that it depends very much on the emphasis of your general flying activities. Maybe a a low fuel burn, slow aircraft for local flying, an LSA or RV9/RV12 for medium distance touring and for longer trips just jump on an EasyJet.

Nic

No need for an asbestos suit Steve, at least not with me.

<<Dan, another way of looking at it is US policy is massively transferring wealth from the Western world to the oil producing countries, mostly Arab.>>

You're absolutely right, and I believe that transfer is THE threat to our national security. We only differ on how to cure the problem. Europe chose taxation. Here we're finally talking about ending restrictions on domestic drilling.

<<If you had higher taxes, US consumption would drop, for instance you would use fuel efficient cars,..>>

Hmm. I'm in the car business, and have ridden out every US "gas crisis" since the mid 70's. Speaking from the pointy end of the spear, I assure you US consumers have already had a serious change in attitude about their vehicle choices. You can easily see it in the used wholesale markets; the latest figures have large SUV prices down -17% while fuel efficient cars are +10. In the new car market, full size truck sales are off about 40%. The catch is that we can't all switch overnight. We have about 250 million units in use and sell about 15 million new units per year, so total fleet replacement will take a long time. Taxing fuel can't speed the process.

BTW, right now the very high-mpg models (40+mpg, Fit, Versa, Prius) are nearly sold out and are bringing, in some cases, sticker plus. However, the real consumption drop will be in a switch from 15 mpg units to 25 mpg units, something most consumers can do without pain at their next vehicle trade.

 
<<There are very few gas guzzlers on the road here in the UK (mostly driven by idiots that want to emulate rock stars), and this means that as an economy we now use far less fuel per capita than in the US.>>

You do realize the entire UK has a land area somewhat smaller than the US state of Oregon?

Our overall transportation needs are a bit different.

But....lets talk about avgas.

Might there be a bit of "tax the rock stars" in your avgas policy? I repeat the previous question. How much of your avgas price is tax?

For comparison, here are the US figures, taken from NBAA testimony before Congress:

General Aviation operations that are flown under FAR Part 91 are subject to three fuel taxes: 1) a 4.3 cents per gallon tax that began in 1993 as a deficit reduction tax but was later dedicated to the Trust Fund; 2) a .1 cent per gallon tax for Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST); and 3) a 15 cents per gallon tax on AvGas or a 17.5 cents per gallon tax on jet fuel.

I'll have to dig around to address individual state avgas taxes. Anybody know offhand?
 
RV-9A driver, three years later...

I have had my RV-9A flying for three years now. I have a 160HP, O-320 ECI engine (Lycoming clone), Hartzell constant speed prop, carbureted. I cruise in the 10,500 to 13,500 MSL range on long cross-country trips at 160 statute miles per hour (140 knots) at 5.5 to 6 gallons per hour of 100LL AVGAS. That works out to about 25 MPH at 2300 RPM and wide-open throttle.

As for punching holes in the sky locally, I keep it down in the 120-140MPH range to save on gas, almost always at 2300 RPM or less.

Like the man said, going places is fun, quick, and not that much more expensive than driving. A day trip to Florida and back is something I have done more than once. I live in the Chattanooga, Tennessee area.

When the seat beside me is empty, I put my box of charts there, lunch, cold bag with snacks, etc. The charts keep me legal, the GPS 296 always has the current Jeppesen database in it for the navigation and quick reference information on automated weather outlets and ARTCC frequencies. The little green book never gets opened unless the GPS should die.
 
You think that you have it bad.

I've been pretty hot on building an RV for about 4 years now. After a lot of thought, research, and some personal experience I had decided that the RV-9A was the plane for me. But latley I've been second-guessing that line of thought due to the dramtic increase in fuel prices we've seen over the last several months. Should I be building an RV at all? Or should I scale back to something a little lighter and more economical? Someone posted recently that if fuel prices are affecting your building decisions then maybe you shouldn't be building at all. Maybe that's true, but I really want to build/own a plane and I'm just trying to figure out what is **reasonably** within our budget. I'd rather build something and fly it all the time than build something that never flies because I can't afford to fill it up.

Has anyone else who is considering building or is currently building thought about changing platforms in an effort to get better fuel economy? The Sonex specifically comes to mind. Lose a little utility, speed, and looks for a little bit cheaper build/operation.



You think that you have it bad. Here in the UK we are paying nearly $10 per gallon for one gallon of car fuel at the pumps, You don't want to know what we are having to pay for 100LL. OK! You twisted my arm! I will tell you. At my airport we are paying $12.80 per gallon of LL. Now! doesn't that make you feel better? Now go and fly your aeroplane.
 
What is Per Seat MPG of the Airlines?

Just back from a 15 day, 3900 nautical mile flying odyssey in my Cessna 182 from the East Coast to Colorado, around the mountains, and back (With 1 wife and 1 Chocolate Lab). 31.5 hrs flight time, 11 stops, 400.2 gal of 100LL pumped at $5.42/gal average = $2168fuel cost. Avg 12.7 gph, 123 nautical mph, and 9.7 nautical mpg. :(

Comparing to my future RV-7A, I am projecting, for the same trip, 23 hrs, 171 gal, 170 nmph, 23 nmpg, total fuel cost of $929. Or $464 per passenger. Roughly the same as the airlines, for none of the hassle and all of the convenience of going on your own schedule.

Do any of you airline captains on this list know the fuel burn per passenger seat for an airliner? How do their numbers compare to an RV?
 
You think that you have it bad. Here in the UK we are paying nearly $10 per gallon for one gallon of car fuel at the pumps, You don't want to know what we are having to pay for 100LL. OK! You twisted my arm! I will tell you. At my airport we are paying $12.80 per gallon of LL. Now! doesn't that make you feel better? Now go and fly your aeroplane.

Is that Imperial gallons or US gallons? They are different!

1 US gallon = 0.83267384 Imperial gallons
 
mpg

A few years back we did some number crunching on the way out to Hawaii. I was flying a 747 freighter, which "typically" operates at heavier weights than a passenger bird, so our burn might have been a tad higher than one with human cargo. We figured 350 to 400 folks, everyone driving them selves to Hawaii in cars that got 50 mpg... it would come out the same. Each seat got 50 mpg. (imaginary seats in our case) Not bad.

DM



Just back from a 15 day, 3900 nautical mile flying odyssey in my Cessna 182 from the East Coast to Colorado, around the mountains, and back (With 1 wife and 1 Chocolate Lab). 31.5 hrs flight time, 11 stops, 400.2 gal of 100LL pumped at $5.42/gal average = $2168fuel cost. Avg 12.7 gph, 123 nautical mph, and 9.7 nautical mpg. :(

Comparing to my future RV-7A, I am projecting, for the same trip, 23 hrs, 171 gal, 170 nmph, 23 nmpg, total fuel cost of $929. Or $464 per passenger. Roughly the same as the airlines, for none of the hassle and all of the convenience of going on your own schedule.

Do any of you airline captains on this list know the fuel burn per passenger seat for an airliner? How do their numbers compare to an RV?
 
Slow down to save fuel

Saving fuel is about aerodynamics. You won't save fuel by building an RV12. Pull the power back in your 9A to RV12 speeds, run lean of peak, and I bet you'll easily beat the economy of the RV12 due to the slicker 9A airframe.

At those low power settings I can easily run my O320 engine LOP all the time.

Climbing you'll burn a bit more due to higher weights of the 9, but that will also be offset somewhat by aerodynamics.

As some have already pointed out, you can save even more fuel by going retract.

I've been experimenting with pulling the power back a bit in cruise. When I do it, it works to save fuel, but making myself do it is a challenge.
 
That's US gallons

Jamie - that's $12-13 per US gallon. Around ?1.70-odd per litre - you do can check the math(s)

Dan, I think it's erroneous to think that since the UK is so small, the transport requirements are somehow less onerous here. I'm actually from Australia, where the locals think because the country is so large they must drive huge distances compared to the Brits. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Maddeningly, Brits are commuting stupendous distances merely because there are so many villages and towns close together and moving house is such a royal pain in the backside, so people choose to commute 70 to 100 miles a day, without blinking - by car! I honestly don't know how people afford to do it, but they do.

Even with the massive price of fuel, aside from diesels, I don't see Brits economising much on their transport. I see more Priuses in the US than on the roads of this Sceptred Isle.

What it tells me is that if the price of gas in the US doubled, you'd soon get used to it and behave like the rest of Europe - oh, except for buying those massive 'Trucks' :)

A
 
<<Maddeningly, Brits are commuting stupendous distances (snip) so people choose to commute 70 to 100 miles a day, without blinking - by car!>>

Methinks discussions of ground transportation are off topic, but for the record....

We too have plenty of long distance commuters. However, the average commute in the US is around 16 miles, while the average UK commute is currently at 8.7. The averages have been increasing in both countries.
 
Per seat airline data point...

Do any of you airline captains on this list know the fuel burn per passenger seat for an airliner? How do their numbers compare to an RV?

Flew from Boston to Detroit one beautiful Sunday in June. On a half full (if that) A320 the crew (having been hitherto refreshingly unorthodox over the PA) announced that we would be getting into Detroit after a 2,800 gallon fuel burn. Great circle distance is 548nm. Add say 5% for ATC routing...

2,800 g / 575 nm = 4.87 gallons per nautical mile / 75 pax = .0649 gallons per passenger nmile or 15.4 passenger nmiles per gallon.

Your Cessna achieved 19.4 passenger nmiles per gallon.
Your RV projects to 46 passenger nmiles per gallon. Dunno where the dog goes.

Suppose the A320 was full. I'll take a wild guess (not founded by any knowledge I may have) that it would then burn 3,200 gallons to yield 27.0 passenger nmiles per gallon.

All this just goes to show that choosing an aircraft that is no bigger than necessary for the task is the single most important factor in efficiency.
 
Talk about efficiency!

Check this out:

The Intersection of Speed and Efficiency
by Klaus Savier

As a result of the ever-increasing fuel cost, I decided to demonstrate the efficiency of the Delaminator, a highly optimized Vari EZE, a grocery getter and 25-year-old “Technology Demonstrator” for Light Speed Engineering.

This airplane is well known for winning all kinds of races since 1984. From the CAFÉ efficiency races in the late 80’s to the AirVenture Cup race in 2007, where it won the 400 mile race from Dayton to Oshkosh at an average speed of 254 mph. In 1990, two closed course world records were set in the C1-A weight class for the 1,000km and 2,000km distances at over 200 mph. They are still standing.

The Delaminator’s configuration for this endurance flight was identical to that used in the AirVenture Cup:

- Same LSE Composite 64x86 Propeller,
- Dual Plasma III CDI,
- Our own Timed Sequential High Pressure Electronic FI,
- No extra tank- standard 29-gal Vari Eze fuel system,
- About 25 pounds of luggage: minimal tools, no spare parts.

On Monday April 7th, just prior to Sun ‘N Fun, the weather looked great for a non-stop flight across the country, coast to coast, 2000 miles. I hopped in the Delaminator as early as I could bear and set out for Florida. The tailwinds were good but not quite as strong as predicted so I had to slow down a little to increase my range. It took 8 hrs and 58 min for the total distance of 1985 statute miles, SZP, CA to PFN, FL via ELP TX to avoid the restricted area.

Total fuel used was 25.8 gallons of the 29.2 carried in the standard tanks, leaving more than an hour worth of fuel remaining. Average fuel flow for the entire flight was 2.87 gph. Average speed was 220.6 mph. Tailwind average was around 30 mph at 17500 ft. The density altitude was above 19000 ft. Of course, I was on oxygen for the entire flight.

Now for the technical run-down on engine configuration and the methods used to achieve this level of efficiency. In the Delaminator, the maximum manifold pressure available at 17500 is almost 16”. See picture 1 and note the fuel flow of 4.2 gph at peak power giving a true airspeed of 204kts, resulting in 55.9 statute mpg. As shown in picture 2 taken during this cross-country flight, the throttle was reduced by almost 1”. While our custom FI automatically adjusts the mixture for all engine conditions, it can be biased just like the Plasma CDI timing. The automatic mixture adjustment was thus manually leaned to almost 300 degrees past peak EGT, where slight roughness occurs. Manual increase of timing advance returns some power lost under these conditions and eliminates any lean misfiring. As a result of these settings and lean burn, all temperatures are near the low limits, oil pump outlet temp is below 150 F and the cylinder head temperatures are all below 300 F. See picture. While leaning this far on the lean side of peak reduces power significantly, it is slightly more efficient to reduce power by leaning rather than by closing the throttle because the pumping losses of the engine are lower.

The best “no wind range” is normally achieved at best glide speed. For the Delaminator, this is about 100mph when fully loaded. Most of the trip was flown at 130 mph indicated at 17500 ft. Prior testing has shown that the airplane achieves well over 80mpg at best glide speed. Flying at 130 mph, the Delaminator still achieves over 60 mpg. The tailwind brought the mpg to nearly 80 mpg.

While I could think of a faster airplane with a higher wing loading and a bigger engine, such a configuration could not come close to the efficiency demonstrated here at high altitude. It seems that this combination of a highly optimized 0-200 engine and high aspect ratio wings offers a combination of efficiency and speed that simply cannot be beat.

Klaus Savier 4-08
 
Back
Top