Austintatious

Supporter
  • Content Count

    495
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

344 Excellent

About Austintatious

  • Rank
    Lives Here

Profile Information

  • Reg #
    N305RK
  • Model
    305 Rocket

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Not to mention knowing where yoru fuel guage REALLY means empty... I can run my left ank down to the red... The right tank is empty at the white lien just before the red. I always make sure I am at a low power setting when doing this.
  2. Lancair 4 pressurized... 280 knot experimental.
  3. I getting real sick of the controls in place that have been stagnating aviation for so long. In 4-5 years we will be selling 1 of our Rockets... At that time I may just re-evaluate owning a standard AW aircraft. Perhaps a LA IVP is in my future.
  4. CF inner gear doors (that delete the rear bubble)
  5. Absolutely... Tailwind = ECON power setting, ride the wave Headwind = High power setting, punch through The goal is to maximize your time in a tailwind and minimize it in a headwind. ALways! The is especially true for slower aircraft. The faster an aircraft is, the less you are effected. How much do you think the SR-71 cared about a 100 knot headwind?
  6. That 420 hp diesel would certainly be awesome. I suspect 240 knots would be the norm with that engine. Would it fit ? How heavy is it? What a dream machine that would make!
  7. Yea that engine looks like it might fit the bill. I wonder how much it cost? That might make a 250 knot Mooney. EDIT: found a video I still think my initial assessment holds... looks like they are burning 24 GPH... I suspect if this engine went in a mooney you would need to get the extra tanks and you could pull it back to less fuel flow. But man the operating cost and hot section/ PH price is sooo high.
  8. I ignored the climb and descent phase. For a few reasons. The first being that the two will obviously not climb at the same rate. The 300 Hp ship may climb twice as fast as the 180hp ship. Secondly, I used a pretty long leg for the comparison, which minimizes the impact climb would have. Lastly, In my experience the descent phase seems to equalize the climb. IOW I gain back about what I lost ROUGHLY. As far as the gliders go. It just depends... Typically you are paying per 1000 feet of tow. At the club I fly at it is 25.00 for the first 2000 feet and then 10.00 for every 1000 after that. What people usually do is if they find a good thermal during tow, they cut loose and begin soaring. I have cut loose at 1200 feet because I found a really nice thermal. That is atypical though. My glider is actually self launch capable, so I dont need no stinking tow plane! I basically take off... fly a safety pattern (in case my engine quits) over the field, then head upwind until I find lift. I will then start working it while I bring the engine back to low power to cool it off. Once cool I shut it down and stow it, all while working the thermal. Then I head off soaring!
  9. Well, to constrain my answer to specifics... would I go 170 knots @ 6 gph of jet-a vs 200 @ 10gph of jet-a? NO. If you are asking would I accept 170 knots @ 5 gph jet-A over what I do currently.. 200 @ 17.5 GPH of 100ll ... then possibly. Lets look at a scenario using the first comparison: 800 mile trip out and back. (1600 total miles) 30 knots TW leg 1, 30 knots of HW leg 2 170 knot aircraft makes leg 1 in 4 hours, burns 30 gallons (@ 2$ a gallon = 60.00) 170 knot aircraft makes leg 2 in 6.15 hours, burns 46.12 gallons ($92.24) total burn 76.12 gallons over 10.15 hours. 200 knot aircraft does leg 1 in 3.47 hours, burns 34.7 gallons (x2.00g = $69.4) same aircraft does leg 2 in 4.7 hours, burns 47 gallons (x$2= 96.00) Total burn 81.7 gallons over 8.17 hours. So the faster aircraft burning more GPH burned 5.5 more gallons of fuel ($11.00) yet spent 2 hours less on the trip. To me that is a no brainier. For fun, rocket numbers for that scenario... Total time 8.17 hours 147 Gallons burned ($588.00 at $4.00 a gal) so the cost of fuel would obviously be 436.00 less for that trip in the slower aircraft. although it would be 2 hours less engine time (60 bucks?) so say $376.00 more expensive in the rocket, or you could say $0.24 per mile more. It would definitely be a tough call if the 180 HP version was all that was available. I would feel like I was spending a lot of money to go slower. If I decided I was willing to slow down, I would probably sell the rocket and get another aircraft with a run out engine to modify with the 180hp diesel. as much as I like to fly... I hate long XC legs... If I want to do long XC flights for fun I do it in my glider
  10. Well, I don't really have enough info to go on for that hypothetical... I never look at simple hourly cost. That is a big fallacy that I feel a lot of potential owners fall into. What I really care about is the cost per mile. This is why you see me always throwing the speed into the equation. It gets real complicated when you throw real world factors into the equation. It is simple when you only think in terms of still air. However in the real world when you find yourself facing headwinds, speed can pay for its self really fast. Headwinds always hurt you more than tailwinds help, and you have headwinds more often than tailwinds. If this does not make sense, let me know and I will give some examples that should make it clear. The 180hp delta hawk advertises 7.5 gph @ 75% power. I think it would be safe to assume 8 gph for a 200 HP version. The 300 HP engine I referenced claims I believe 10 GPH @75%... which is not surprising given larger diesels are more efficient. So 150 HP @ 8 gph or 225hp at 10 gph... im going with the 225 every time. The extra speed will offset the fuel burn, especially when facing headwinds. That all being said... I spend my professional career flying around at 530 kIAS. I think if I did anything below 200kias I would lose my mind.
  11. I agree, but I feel like you have left out a very important aspect of aircraft ownership. That being the flexibility they offer. Clearly, if I factor in fixed cost then no, I cannot beat using the airlines, especially if trips are planned well in advance. That being said, The way I look at it is that the fixed cost buy me flexibility, which I need. I have lost thousands in airline tickets because I had to cancel a trip for one reason or another... money out the window. Also, with my unpredictable schedule, I do get lots of small windows where I can pop off for a few days, especially during the summer when the wife is not working (teacher). During Christmas break we decided to go skiing for 1 day literally the day prior. Airline tickets would have cost a fortune and been prohibitive for such a late decision like that. Not to mention they may not have been able to get us in early enough. So for someone like me who cannot commit to playtime months in advance, the Mooney can and does in fact beat 2 airline tickets, at least in the DOC... THe fixed cost, well those are just the price one has to pay for such a convenience. I feel lucky to be in a position to be able to afford such.
  12. That is crazy... we are currently paying 1.78 USD for 1 gal Jet A. 100LL seems to average around 4.00 a gallon right now. I have seen it for 3.50. Most places are 3.80-4.20 with the larger airports being over 5.00. IMHO... having an aircraft that is cheap to fly is important. When I was shopping for an aircraft I ran numbers for miles flown per month, MO payment and cost per mile, insurance, hangar ect.. I could have purchased a baron and been about the same $ per month as the Rocket... however I started to realize that paying 300.00 + an hour was going to be very discouraging to me and would mean I would probably fly less. To me... I would rather be paying a higher monthly P&I payment and be able to fly cheaply. This way I will actually go FLY! It is much easier to justify it when I can meet or beat an airline ticket for me and my wife. If a turbo diesel ever becomes available to put on the front of my rocket, I will do it. Even if I am not due for OH. I could sell the existing TSIO520 to offset the cost. I would then have an aircraft with more range that burned 20.00 an hour in fuel and about 50 an hour for maintenance. 70 dollars an hour at 200 knots would be a heck of a way to get around.
  13. I believe it is entirely possible to go from standard to experimental, if in fact you are doing so for R&R purposes. However if it is just so you can maintain your own aircraft, that is another story.
  14. Hey GSXR,

    I was wondering if you have a review on your wingtips?

  15. Those are all valid points. there is a big difference between 60 and 80k for the engine. if we assume 60k then another 40K for the retrofit (not accounting for what your old engine would be worth) we are talking a 100K upgrade vs a 23,000.00 overhaul at the place you linked. SO a 77,000.00 difference. 97,000.00 if the engine cost 80k. I think the fuel savings alone would still make it worth it for someone who planned to fly the engine out. And even if one didn't, certainly that mod would affect resale in a very positive way. Gaining that much range and ease of operation (ONE control lever, fadec) are BIG pros as well.