They all burn the same amount of fuel. Ive flown cubs 182s and 185s from JC to CA and back and its all within a couple of gallons. A 185 might burn 17 -18 gph but its hauling ass compared to a 2 place airplane. Think about it.

That's all true. But what if you're not going anywhere?

EB

1/2 the fuel burn at 2/3s the speed is more then a couple gallons difference is it not?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Nose Dragger 24g wrote:They all burn the same amount of fuel. Ive flown cubs 182s and 185s from JC to CA and back and its all within a couple of gallons. A 185 might burn 17 -18 gph but its hauling ass compared to a 2 place airplane. Think about it.

Hahaha. I like.

Battson wrote:

Nose Dragger 24g wrote:They all burn the same amount of fuel. Ive flown cubs 182s and 185s from JC to CA and back and its all within a couple of gallons. A 185 might burn 17 -18 gph but its hauling ass compared to a 2 place airplane. Think about it.

Hahaha. I like.

I'll take the red Mooney duck killer against any cub or 185 in a CAFE race.


EB

UtahMaule wrote:I love my airplane. Hauls my whole family and luggage at decent cross country speeds and still does this.

https://vimeo.com/48910783

Long list of pros, short list of cons.

Great video! Bloopers FTW!

mountainmatt wrote:

UtahMaule wrote:I love my airplane. Hauls my whole family and luggage at decent cross country speeds and still does this.

https://vimeo.com/48910783

Long list of pros, short list of cons.

Great video! Bloopers FTW!

Thanks

This had been a good thread. For a long time I've been on the 2-seater plan, thinking that if 80% of my mission was just in the NW Oregon area, that would suffice. I'm not so sure anymore. Somebody recently told me that "you can run a big one light but it's hard to run a tiny one heavy."

I took a trip to the San Juans last month in a rented 172, and we stuffed it full of crap, just the wife and me. The 125 mph was a lot nicer than the 93mph of the Cub. It just confused me more. I want to take longer trips and the rental just isn't that great for that.

Not to confuse the issue, as I see you are already confused...but as far as I can tell if it is just flying and having fun you are after, it is really just a question of whether to get a 172 or a PA-22. If you especially want to be able to do something very specific BETTER than you could do with either of those, then you will need to adapt. But for all-around affordable adaptable do-many-things-sort-of-okay flight, it keeps ending up being those. Go faster? Land and take off shorter? Go into places that are rougher? Haul a bigger load? If any of those is a deal-breaker, it is another plane you need. But if you can live with the limitations, the pilot makes the plane, and they are pretty versatile little planes.

When I'm rich, I'm getting a Maule. Until then, PA-22 for me. Even with the little bird, it is amazing how much stuff I can cram in there on a shopping trip. With a back door, no less. Love it.

Zzz wrote:......I took a trip to the San Juans last month in a rented 172, and we stuffed it full of crap, just the wife and me. The 125 mph was a lot nicer than the 93mph of the Cub. It just confused me more. I want to take longer trips and the rental just isn't that great for that.

Everything is a compromise. Cubs are great for bopping around & short strips, but for longer trips maybe not so much. You had one of the great all-around airplanes and you sold it off. Shoulda kept it.
The C170/172, Pacer/Tripacer, & Cherokee are all airplanes that do most everything pretty well and furthermore are (relatively) affordable to fly. That's why they're so popular.

This is one deep long running contested thread. Just buy a Cessna 180 and be happy. It's fast enough it's slow enough it hauls enough...

Food for thought, we have several airplanes in the family and my uncle once figured to go from san luis obispo to ft brag it cost the same amount in fuel in the Bonanza, cherokee, and 100hp cub. only the times were different, going further the bonanza won, shorter went to the cub with the 160 cherokee cruising along in the middle. I found that my 53 Cessna 180 matches the cherokee in efficiency at the same true airspeed, but the extra climb performance makes the mountains disappear and direct flight more possible and safer. I think it was an old piper ad that said "getting there is half the fun" well the cub is the most fun, but if you need to be there already its not so much fun give me a jet!

Sometimes climb and excess HP is more valuable than value.

My uncle and his dad, who have owned and been involved in more airplanes than I can count, say the most practical of all airplanes is the 182, tho not as sexy as the 180/185 its THE 90% airplane.

And we all know in aviation, if you start adding up the $ it will never make practical sense, find an aircraft that you love and you will find the $$$ to make it happen. It's the love of the machine, not just the mission.

Anyway, thats my several cents. Get what turns you on and ignore all the BS!

Speaking from a twin standpoint, it's true that a high speed type will almost always turn out to be cheaper to run per mile compared to a slower and short field performing type. So not surprisingly, the Piper Aerostar, wildly regarded as the fastest piston twin ever made, is also the most economical when you throttle back. I've done the spreadsheet and compared. Well leaned (LOP), it will burn 25gph and cruise at 190-200kts up high. At Best Glide speed (which normally coincides with best economy), it will drink a lot less than that. My old flying barndoor is the opposite. High lifting wing and a great short field performer, but I burn 25gph going 145kts... That's 55kts less economy compared to the Aerostar. Granted, the Aerostar will have a hard time getting in to JC, whereas I don't, but still. Economy comes from having a minimal front area and less drag - so a thin, high loaded wing will always be more economical to push through the air than a thick STOL or strutted one, at any speed. Therefore, I can see that a Cub, 180 etc will burn more gph than a slicker Bonanza compared. It just becomes a question of what mission you need your aircraft for.

I think the "90% airplane" idea is nice in theory but it depends on how much you value the type of flying that the 10% gives you. Some of my best flying memories are in that category. Whether family and friends, or just 2 and bikes and gear.

Renting for the 10% is also nice in theory but I've never done it. Hard to rent after you own.

I'm fortunate to afford the 180 I fly now, but if circumstances changed I'd still be quite happy in the Luscombe I used to own. The important thing is to fly something, rather than spend too much time dreaming or analyzing.

skyjeep wrote:I think the "90% airplane" idea is nice in theory but it depends on how much you value the type of flying that the 10% gives you. Some of my best flying memories are in that category. Whether family and friends, or just 2 and bikes and gear.

Renting for the 10% is also nice in theory but I've never done it. Hard to rent after you own. [...]

+1

Most of the time my wife and I are happily renting a 152 for daytrips or single overnight stays.
But then again, there are two or three occasions per year, when we want to carry luggage and / or camping gear for longer journeys with us. Sometimes, also very occasionally, we want to take family or friends for shorter flights with us.

While a 152 would probably be suitable for at least 90% of our missions, specifically the longer trips are what we love about flying. I therefore doubt that a 152 would be the right plane for us to purchase...

I also do not know a single person who decided to go the 2-seater route and afterwards ever rented another plane when he needed more useful load or more seats.

Today I had 1 hour 20 minutes in the air with the 206, 4 landing and 4 take offs the rest of the time was putting around at about 100 kts............12 gals of gas used..........I can live with that. Nice thing about big engines you can always throttle up.