If it flies, floats or... what if it rolls?

[chornedsnorkack]

A famous proverb states:
"If it flies, floats or f***s, do not buy it!"
What if it rolls?

The most produced thing that flies is Cessna 172. It accommodates one driver and 3 passengers. A Cessna 172R weighs 736 kg empty, and maximum takeoff weight is 1113 kg. It is powered by one 4 cylinder engine, displacing 5,9 l and producing 160 horsepower. With this, it can achieve 228 km/h speed.

A Cessna 172R costs about $240 000. There are plenty of planes dearer than that - it is no problem getting a plane a thousand times the price (B777 or A380).

A thing that rolls, for a similar price, is Bentley Arnage. About $250 000. It also has one pilot and normally three passenger seats. The curb weight is over 2500 kg. It is powered by 8 cylinder engine displacing 6,75 l and producing 500 horsepower. It travels at 288 km/h.

There are few cars dearer than Arnage. Bentley Azure, Rolls-Royce, Maybach. All under $400 000. And that is all.

How would the fuel needed to travel 100 km by Skyhawk compare with fuel needed to cover 100 km by Arnage?

And how do the rest of operation/maintenance cost compare between Skyhawk and Arnage?

While few cars are dearer than Arnage, plenty are cheaper.

Dacia Logan also has one pilot and 3 passenger seats. It weighs about 1100 kg. The engine displaces about 1,4 l, produces 75 horsepower and moves the car at 160 km/h.

Dacia Logan is worth about $12 000.

This, a Bentley Arnage is 20 times the price of Dacia Logan. How many times does the fuel cost differ? And how big is the difference in maintenance costs?

[expat]

I would imagine that the Cessna would have higher fuel and maintenance costs than the Bentley purely buy the fact that a Cessna is used as a practical means of transport and training, where as the Bentley would not be used for a trip to Tesco's each week and you would hardly park it in the local multistory car park, so your usage would be a little more circumspect. Also if you are driving an Arnage, I would think that you probably would be flying about by Citation and if you had a fear of flying

[chornedsnorkack]

Also if you are driving an Arnage, I would think that you probably would be flying about by Citation and if you had a fear of flying  then the cost of the Bentley to a Cessna would not be of any interest to you.

Because, although anyone who could afford a Skyhawk could also afford an Arnage, there is no cheaper alternative to a Skyhawk, whereas someone who could only afford a Skyhawk would rather get something cheaper than Arnage... like this?

And why Citation? Because it is the biggest and fastest thing one driver could fly?

As for the cost of the Bentley in comparison to the Dacia Logan, probably the same sort of thing. A super car is as a rule not something that is driven on a daily basis as a run about. Top Gear several years ago did a price comparison on the running costs of a super car to a family run about. For the above reasons, the family car cost more in a year than a huge gas guzzler that could top 200 mph.
Or are you asking if both where used as normal daily usage cars as in driving to work, Tesco's and the school run?

Matt

Well, for a simpler comparison I specifically asked fuel burn of Skyhawk at 100 km vs. fuel burn of Arnage at the same distance.

I gather that many supercar owners rarely operate them, own cheaper cars as well (Mercedes? BMW? Audi?) and keep the supercars parked. What about the people who do get driven to work, shopping and school on a daily basis by chauffeurs, and maybe with bodyguards, valets and maids in tow? Do they travel by limousine, or by less flashy things like S-class Mercedes inconspicuously armoured beneath standard looks? (BTW, armoured cars are real gas-guzzlers!)

[expat]

[quote][quote] Also if you are driving an Arnage, I would think that you probably would be flying about by Citation and if you had a fear of flying

[Mushroom_Farmer]

Sounds like a Top Gear challenge to me!

[RitterKreuz]

A Cessna 172R costs about $240 000.

A brand new Cessna 172R costs about 240K

out of all the cessna 172 owners i know - only ONE has one which could be remotely close to being considered "brand new" and it is 8 or 9 years old.

Most 172s on the market are used.

many of those "used" 172s are in wonderful condition - some of which can be had for $55K or less.

fuel consumption is nary an issue because you are not going to be routinely cruising around in a Bently at 288 kph

however you ARE going to be routinely driving a 172 around at its optimum cruise speed.

so lets say the bently gets 15 miles per gallon at highway speed

you have a 300 mile trip to take at an average speed of 65 mph

your trip will take about 4 hours and 36 minutes and you will have used approximately 20 gallons of fuel.

Lets say the 172 burns 8 gallons per hour of cruise flight for the same trip.

the trip takes you 2 hours 18 minutes... almost exacly half the time.

your 172 burned 19.2 gallons of fuel

the math speaks for itself.

the cessna 172 cut the trip time almost cleanly in half, for practically the same amount of fuel.

The difficulty is apparent in comparing an automobile to an airplane.

You might as well compare a motorcycle to a submarine. because the scope of the operation is so vastly different between the two vehicles.

an airplane goes more or less straight from point A to point B at high speed.

the automobile goes more or less on an indirect route and must generally follow roads and various speed limits to travel from point A to Point B

thus we are in the apples to oranges discussion.

personally, a luxury automobile like a bently, though nice, is completely opulent and unnecessary.

in the end you are paying a quarter of a million dollars for a vehicle which will carry only 4 people and luggage at highway speeds.

any $23,000 toyota carolla can do the same thing.

its the difference between buying flight simulator 2004 for $50 and buying microsoft flight simulator X for $500

not worth it.

[The Ruptured Duck]

First off I don't even know if Cessna produces the 172R model, they are all 172SP as far as I know (flight schools use the R because students don't want to be paying for only 20 more hp and leather seats).

An aircraft is more efficient when looking at fuel only.

[RitterKreuz]

firstly, the 172R was produced as recently as 1999 - i know this for a fact. i dont know about now though... all SPs i think  :-/

as for the expense argument.

General aviation in small airplanes is not that expensive.

Here is my example.

Grumman Cheetah we used to own... financed out totaled about $300/month, add insurance at about $150/month and hangar rent at $125/month and your looking at a total cost just about $600 / month to have the plane. (my 150 is cheaper)

The cheetah routinely gave up 135 - 140 mph cruise speeds at 8 gallons per hour flat.

cost of fuel aside - my grandfather lives in Eastern Kentucky.

I live in Eastern Texas

By way of Chevy Yukon it is a commitment to 14 and a half hours in the car. not counting an overnight someplace in the vicinity of Birmingham Alabama, numerous piss stops for the wife and the entire return voyage to boot.  :o

The Cheetah on the other hand . . . routinely an 8am departure time would put us on the ground at the local rural field near grampa's house by or at lunch time.

Most FBOs at small airports will waive a hangar fee for one or two nights if you purchase fuel from them, if not, i have never paid money to park on the ramp except for a place like Dallas Executive or New Orleans lakefront etc.

Transportation is no problem because i have a lot of relatives there, and if they are out of the question... my AOPA discount for Hertz rental car once snagged me a nice little 4 door for about $25 a day.

in cases like this it gets REALLY difficult to justify a grueling 14 hour and 30 minute drive, even with an all day bladder like i have.  ;D

For small General aviation airplanes used by private pilots its not about traveling in style - its about traveling smart. scoping out fuel prices in the area, scoping out the deals on hotels or rental cars, and calling ahead to secure or lock in your prices etc etc.

play the game right and lucratively... you can have a decent little vacation for a swans song.

[Hagar]

There used to be another old saying: If you have time to spare, go by air. In my experience that is still true.

[RitterKreuz]

There used to be another old saying: If you have time to spare, go by air. In my experience that is still true.

certainly applies to the airlines.  ::)

[expat]

There used to be another old saying: If you have time to spare, go by air. In my experience that is still true.

certainly applies to the airlines.

[Hagar]

There used to be another old saying: If you have time to spare, go by air. In my experience that is still true.

certainly applies to the airlines.

[RitterKreuz]

Glad i live in the southern United States.

When a high pressure system sets in, its not uncommon to have clear blue skies in 500 miles for any direction.

of course when soggy weather sets in, it can stay for a few days  :-/

Does the weather where you live prevent instrument flight?

even the soggy weather around here wont always prevent you from doing an ILS or VOR approach

[Hagar]

[quote]Glad i live in the southern United States.

When a high pressure system sets in, its not uncommon to have clear blue skies in 500 miles for any direction.

of course when soggy weather sets in, it can stay for a few days

[chornedsnorkack]

First off I don't even know if Cessna produces the 172R model, they are all 172SP as far as I know (flight schools use the R because students don't want to be paying for only 20 more hp and leather seats).

Cessna does produce some 172-s still. Someone must be buying 172-s brand new. Who?
[quote]
An aircraft is more efficient when looking at fuel only.