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 wrote on Dec 13^th, 2008 at 1:56pm:

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:


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!)

Sounds like a Top Gear challenge to me!

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?

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

RitterKreuz wrote on Jan 7^th, 2009 at 8:32am:



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

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

The Ruptured Duck wrote on Jan 6^th, 2009 at 9:16pm:

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:

Cars have it, too.
The Ruptured Duck wrote on Jan 6^th, 2009 at 9:16pm:

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:

Planes have it, too.
The Ruptured Duck wrote on Jan 6^th, 2009 at 9:16pm:

Advantage for a car - you can keep driving it around your destination...
The Ruptured Duck wrote on Jan 6^th, 2009 at 9:16pm:

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).

Regarding really expensive cars - what about Koenigsegg Trevita?

http://www.luxist.com/2009/11/11/worlds-most-expensive-supercar-diamond-carbon-k...

The same size and engines like the ordinary black carbonfibre Koenigsegg (US$ 2 million) or ordinary metal Koenigsegg CCXR (US$ 1 million). All that differs is the colour. It is white and sparkling, but not real diamonds.

For the US$ 4 million that the bodyshell costs over the ordinary CCXR, you could buy about 3600 ounces of gold. Which is about 110 kg. Goldfinger used to drive cars with golden body panels. Those are probably more expensive than Trevita.

Metal gold is not the best for all technological purposes. It is heavy and soft, unlike light and stiff carbon fibres. Then again, it is completely corrosion-proof and thanks to its softness, can be plastically wrought with less danger of cracking than copper.

Would you use metal gold in electrical wiring? (This would assure that your electrical wires will not corrode in salt water - you can drive your car in salt water like some idiot did with a Veyron in Texas, and after washing the salt out with fresh water and letting dry, the car might be as new...) Or what about the tubing of radiator?

But while gold itself is safe from corrosion, I am not quite sure whether it promotes electrolytic corrosion of metals in contact with gold.

US$ 4 millions also is about 220 000 ounces of silver, or about 6800 kg. Koenigseggs are worth their weight in silver.

Or those US$ 4 millions could buy a brand new Cessna Citation CJ1+. Empty weight about 3200 kg.

Are the diamond carbon fibre panels stronger and lighter than ordinary carbon fibre panels? No. Are they more resistant to corrosion than ordinary carbon fibre? Again no. Their sole advantage is better looks. It could as well be a paintjob.

Even an ordinary Koenigsegg, at say US$ 1 million, is worth as much as 1700 kg silver - and weighs only 1300 kg. So all Koenigseggs cost more than their weight in silver - and Trevita costs several times more.

Where is the value for money in a supercar (not limousine, a two-seater) priced in several millions US$? I suppose there are advantages of, say, newbuilt A380 Flying Palace over an old 747-200 refurbished, but what about cars?

If your most expensive plane is worth US$ 30 000, e. g. secondhand Kitfox, how much would you spend on your most expensive car?

How much would your most expensive car cost if your most expensive plane cost US$ 300 000 (like brand new Cessna 172)? Or US$ 3 000 000 (like Cessna Citation Mustang)? Or US$ 30 000 000 (like Dassault Falcon 2000)? Or US$ 300 000 000 (like an A380 Flying Palace or B747-800 BBJ)?