Search the archive:
Simviation Main Site
|
Site Search
|
Upload Images
Simviation Forum
›
Real World
›
Autos
› If it flies, floats or... what if it rolls?
(Moderators: Mitch., Fly2e, ozzy72, beaky, Clipper, JBaymore, Bob70, BigTruck)
‹
Previous Topic
|
Next Topic
›
Pages:
1
2
If it flies, floats or... what if it rolls? (Read 2235 times)
Dec 13
th
, 2008 at 5:56am
chornedsnorkack
Offline
Colonel
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Posts: 363
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?
«
Last Edit: Dec 13
th
, 2008 at 3:21pm by N/A
»
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #1 -
Dec 13
th
, 2008 at 1:56pm
expat
Offline
Colonel
Deep behind enemy lines!
Gender:
Posts: 8499
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 then the cost of the Bentley to a Cessna would not be of any interest to you. 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
PETA
People Eating Tasty Animals.
B1 Boeing 737-800 and Dash8 Q-400
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #2 -
Dec 13
th
, 2008 at 3:07pm
chornedsnorkack
Offline
Colonel
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Posts: 363
expat wrote
on Dec 13
th
, 2008 at 1:56pm:
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?
expat wrote
on Dec 13
th
, 2008 at 1:56pm:
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!)
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #3 -
Dec 14
th
, 2008 at 3:57am
expat
Offline
Colonel
Deep behind enemy lines!
Gender:
Posts: 8499
chornedsnorkack wrote
on Dec 13
th
, 2008 at 3:07pm:
expat wrote
on Dec 13
th
, 2008 at 1:56pm:
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?
expat wrote
on Dec 13
th
, 2008 at 1:56pm:
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!)
No particular reason for a Citation, just the first business jet that came to mind. As for the fuel burn over 100km, not sure you can get an accurate figure. Fuel burn in measured in gallons per hour and to that will depend on your speed and weather. Also US gallon or English gallon?
Matt
PETA
People Eating Tasty Animals.
B1 Boeing 737-800 and Dash8 Q-400
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #4 -
Dec 14
th
, 2008 at 1:35pm
Mushroom_Farmer
Offline
Colonel
To the Sooper-Coop Fred
Indiana, USA
Gender:
Posts: 1976
Sounds like a Top Gear challenge to me!
&&&&"We're just sitting here trying to put our PCjrs in a pile and burn them. And the damn things won't burn. That's the only thing IBM did right with it - they made it flameproof." &&
Spinnaker Software chairman William Bowman, 1985
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #5 -
Jan 6
th
, 2009 at 4:34pm
RitterKreuz
Offline
Colonel
Texas
Gender:
Posts: 1253
chornedsnorkack wrote
on Dec 13
th
, 2008 at 5:56am:
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.
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #6 -
Jan 6
th
, 2009 at 9:16pm
The Ruptured Duck
Offline
Colonel
Legally sane since yesterday!
Wichita, KS
Gender:
Posts: 2614
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. A 172 will burn between 9-11 gallons per hour and get you 130 miles equalling about 12 miles per gallon about the same as a Chevy Tahoe, but you only go 60-80 miles in an hour. Consider a Cirrus or Columbia which cruise supremely faster with a few more gph and it is even more efficient.
However that is only in a perfect (or communist, lol)
world where FBO's are more than happy to let you use their facilities without charge, rental cars are plentiful and free, and hotels have no need for checkout counters on account that they do not charge anyone.
The truth is that an airplane costs much more per mile than just the cost of fuel. There is maintinance, hangars, and insurance, and if you wish to stay: Rental cars, dining, lodging plus whatever else you do.
If you don't need to be there fast, you might as well drive because in the big picture its cheaper. Although there are plenty of times when it is more cost efficient to fly. The whole basis of business aviation is founded on the idea that it is cheaper to pay your big-wig one days pay rather than 2 or 3 days for traveling on airlines than it is to operate an aircraft or have time block with companies like netjets, flightoptions, or citationshares. In megalopolis areas commuting by ground can take hours in a car, whereas by plane 30 or 40 minutes, and having pax pay pro-ratia-share is even better. Doctors use flying because it allows them to see patients or consult over great distances in one day, thereby bringing in more income than the cost of the plane.
For a vacation, it is nice to travel by private plane, but it is much more expensive because you don't neccessarily make money by getting there quicker. So for most pleasure travel it is cheaper to drive or fly airlines.
whoa, I was on a roll there for a while. Any questions?
"If you would not be forgotten, as soon as you are dead and rotten, either write things worth reading, or do things worth the writing" -Ben Franklin&&&&"Man must rise above the Earth to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only thus will he fully understand the world in which he lives." - Socrates&&&&" Flying is a religion. A religion that asymilates all who get a taste of it." - Me&&&&"Make the most out of yourself, for that is all there is of you"- Ralf Waldo Emerson&&
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #7 -
Jan 7
th
, 2009 at 12:31am
RitterKreuz
Offline
Colonel
Texas
Gender:
Posts: 1253
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.
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.
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.
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #8 -
Jan 7
th
, 2009 at 5:14am
Hagar
Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica
Posts: 33159
There used to be another old saying: If you have time to spare, go by air. In my experience that is still true.
Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the
Fox Four Group
Need help? Try
Grumpy's Lair
My photo gallery
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #9 -
Jan 7
th
, 2009 at 8:32am
RitterKreuz
Offline
Colonel
Texas
Gender:
Posts: 1253
Hagar wrote
on Jan 7
th
, 2009 at 5:14am:
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.
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #10 -
Jan 7
th
, 2009 at 8:48am
expat
Offline
Colonel
Deep behind enemy lines!
Gender:
Posts: 8499
RitterKreuz wrote
on Jan 7
th
, 2009 at 8:32am:
Hagar wrote
on Jan 7
th
, 2009 at 5:14am:
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.
No, the airlines are not the delay, it is the security, check in and the fact that you are a terrorist until otherwise told that you are not. For example, flying from the UK to Germany, it takes longer to get through Stansted than than the actual flight. Employees at that airport are so unfriendly, I am sometimes convinced that they are either trained by the TSA or have German family ties
Matt
PETA
People Eating Tasty Animals.
B1 Boeing 737-800 and Dash8 Q-400
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #11 -
Jan 7
th
, 2009 at 9:02am
Hagar
Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica
Posts: 33159
expat wrote
on Jan 7
th
, 2009 at 8:48am:
RitterKreuz wrote
on Jan 7
th
, 2009 at 8:32am:
Hagar wrote
on Jan 7
th
, 2009 at 5:14am:
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.
No, the airlines are not the delay, it is the security, check in and the fact that you are a terrorist until otherwise told that you are not. For example, flying from the UK to Germany, it takes longer to get through Stansted than than the actual flight. Employees at that airport are so unfriendly, I am sometimes convinced that they are either trained by the TSA or have German family ties
Matt
That might well be true but I wasn't thinking of the airlines. This topic is about the Cessna 172 versus a comparable car. It might be different in some parts of the USA but in this country the weather plays a big part in GA operations. Even if you leave your home airfield & get to your destination as planned there's no guarantee you will able to return back home when you wish. It's not uncommon to be delayed for several days for various reasons & it might well be more convenient to leave the aircraft where it is & return home by car. Then there's the expense of parking fees & returning to collect the aircraft at a later time.
It would take very severe weather conditions to affect the same journey by road by more than a few hours.
Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the
Fox Four Group
Need help? Try
Grumpy's Lair
My photo gallery
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #12 -
Jan 7
th
, 2009 at 9:05am
RitterKreuz
Offline
Colonel
Texas
Gender:
Posts: 1253
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
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #13 -
Jan 7
th
, 2009 at 9:22am
Hagar
Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica
Posts: 33159
RitterKreuz wrote
on Jan 7
th
, 2009 at 9:05am:
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
I've visited the southern US several times. Apart from the hurricane season the weather seems far more settled & predictable than it is here.
Quote:
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
Not always but it depends where you're going. I'm wondering what percentage of private pilots in the USA have an Instrument rating.
I live in the south of the country which has pretty reasonable weather but conditions can vary considerably over a relatively short distance. For example; I went to the New Year's Day fly-in at Popham in Hampshire. Local conditions were fine but less than 50 miles north where a lot of the expected visitors are based was clagged right in. A lot of these aircraft & pilots are VFR only. It was the same story just a few miles south over the Solent which prevented aircraft based on the Isle of Wight from taking off. Even those that did come were faced with the possibility that they wouldn't be able to return home that same day. It's not only the visibility as we often get strong winds along the coast which affect the safe operation of light aircraft, especially high-wing types like the Cessna 172.
Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the
Fox Four Group
Need help? Try
Grumpy's Lair
My photo gallery
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #14 -
Jan 7
th
, 2009 at 11:31am
chornedsnorkack
Offline
Colonel
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Posts: 363
The Ruptured Duck wrote
on Jan 6
th
, 2009 at 9:16pm:
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?
The Ruptured Duck wrote
on Jan 6
th
, 2009 at 9:16pm:
An aircraft is more efficient when looking at fuel only. A 172 will burn between 9-11 gallons per hour and get you 130 miles equalling about 12 miles per gallon about the same as a Chevy Tahoe, but you only go 60-80 miles in an hour. Consider a Cirrus or Columbia which cruise supremely faster with a few more gph and it is even more efficient.
However that is only in a perfect (or communist, lol)
world where FBO's are more than happy to let you use their facilities without charge, rental cars are plentiful and free, and hotels have no need for checkout counters on account that they do not charge anyone.
The truth is that an airplane costs much more per mile than just the cost of fuel. There is maintinance,
Cars have it, too.
The Ruptured Duck wrote
on Jan 6
th
, 2009 at 9:16pm:
hangars
Garages and parking cost, too. But garages must be cheaper (a Bentley is 190 cm wide, which is much less than C172 wingspan of 11 m, ditto about height - 152 cm for Arnage, 272 cm for Skyhawk)
The Ruptured Duck wrote
on Jan 6
th
, 2009 at 9:16pm:
, and insurance,
Planes have it, too.
The Ruptured Duck wrote
on Jan 6
th
, 2009 at 9:16pm:
and if you wish to stay: Rental cars,
Advantage for a car - you can keep driving it around your destination...
The Ruptured Duck wrote
on Jan 6
th
, 2009 at 9:16pm:
dining, lodging
You need them with a car just as well, and more of them, because you will spend more time on the car trip. (Unless you are driving a mobile home. Airplanes suitable for lodging, BBJ, ACJ and above, are in the $60 million range and above. Well, perhaps Embraer Lineage 1000 qualifies).
Back to top
IP Logged
Pages:
1
2
‹
Previous Topic
|
Next Topic
›
« Home
‹ Board
Top of this page
Forum Jump »
Home
» 10 most recent Posts
» 10 most recent Topics
Current Flight Simulator Series
- Flight Simulator X
- FS 2004 - A Century of Flight
- Adding Aircraft Traffic (AI) & Gates
- Flight School
- Flightgear
- MS Flight
Graphic Gallery
- Simviation Screenshots Showcase
- Screenshot Contest
- Edited Screenshots
- Photos & Cameras
- Payware Screenshot Showcase
- Studio V Screenshot Workshop
- Video
- The Cage
Design Forums
- Aircraft & 3D Design
- Scenery & Panel Design
- Aircraft Repainting
- Designer Feedback
General
- General Discussion
- Humour
- Music, Arts & Entertainment
- Sport
Computer Hardware & Software Forum
- Hardware
- Tweaking & Overclocking
- Computer Games & Software
- HomeBuild Cockpits
Addons Most Wanted
- Aircraft Wanted
- Other Add-ons Wanted
Real World
- Real Aviation
- Specific Aircraft Types
- Autos ««
- History
On-line Interactive Flying
- Virtual Airlines Events & Messages
- Multiplayer
Simviation Site
- Simviation News & Info
- Suggestions for these forums
- Site Questions & Feedback
- Site Problems & Broken Links
Combat Flight Simulators
- Combat Flight Simulator 3
- Combat Flight Simulator 2
- Combat Flight Simulator
- CFS Development
- IL-2 Sturmovik
Other Websites
- Your Site
- Other Sites
Payware
- Payware
Old Flight Simulator Series
- FS 2002
- FS 2000
- Flight Simulator 98
Simviation Forum
» Powered by
YaBB 2.5 AE
!
YaBB Forum Software
© 2000-2010. All Rights Reserved.