Gas Prices Change Plane Selection?

Rabidsnipe · #1 06-20-2008, 01:19 PM

I've been pretty hot on building an RV for about 4 years now. After a lot of thought, research, and some personal experience I had decided that the RV-9A was the plane for me. But latley I've been second-guessing that line of thought due to the dramtic increase in fuel prices we've seen over the last several months. Should I be building an RV at all? Or should I scale back to something a little lighter and more economical? Someone posted recently that if fuel prices are affecting your building decisions then maybe you shouldn't be building at all. Maybe that's true, but I really want to build/own a plane and I'm just trying to figure out what is **reasonably** within our budget. I'd rather build something and fly it all the time than build something that never flies because I can't afford to fill it up.

Has anyone else who is considering building or is currently building thought about changing platforms in an effort to get better fuel economy? The Sonex specifically comes to mind. Lose a little utility, speed, and looks for a little bit cheaper build/operation.

leeschaumberg · #2 06-20-2008, 01:37 PM

Your concerns are very valid. To conserve fuel you can build the RV12. May be thats why Van did that.

joeboisselle · #3 06-20-2008, 01:47 PM

I just got my rv-4 flying late last year. I've got 10 hours on it now and haven't flown it for nearly a month. At just under $200 to fill it up, I have a hard time justifying even starting it. However, the old luscombe I paid 13k for drinks 5 gph of anything that burns, and is just as fun as the rv. Other than it's speed, I'm trying to remember why I built an rv.

lcnmrv8r · #4 06-20-2008, 02:03 PM

My 172 burn 7-8 gph. I'm building my 7 with an O320 that shouldn't burn much more than that and it will go almost twice as fast. Be sure and do all the math and really think about your mission. If all you want to do is buzz around the pattern then maybe the lowest gph is what you need. If you want to travel look at speed vs fuel burn. You don't have to build an RV that burns 12 gph. The 9 is a good example. O320 mid power settings = pretty fair economy/speed. And you could run on mogas. Cheaper yet.

Part of the reason for me building is because, for my mission, the RV has some of the best economy out there.

Bottom line with fuel costs rising many of our hobbies are having to be reconsidered. Car racing, motorcycles, boating, and flying are all going through the same stuff. You have to choose what you really want to do.

frankh · #5 06-20-2008, 02:06 PM

Because the RV series (excluding the 12 for a moment) are about the most fuel efficient airplanes out there..OK not quite..even faster airplanes such as the Lanceair are more efficient still.

It really depends what you want it for..Do you want to go across country? well then at 28mpg my RV is pretty darned good....If I want better economy then just lean it out some more and go slower and get better mpg.

I can fly my rv around at less than 6 gallons per hour (IO360) and it will also drink any fuel going..At least according to Rocketbob who runs his 360 on 87 octane with standard compression pistons.

I personally run premium.

Now if you want to plonk around the pattern at sunset and just want to be up there..Then sure..buy/build an ultralight and do that...It won't go very fast but its a different animal.

I can't see that for the cross country traveller at least that fuel prices is much of an argument against an RV...At least not right now...If gas prices push us to be driving cars at 50mpg then you could argue 28mpg sucks and then cross country flying will be a thing of the past.

One more example...My Wife and I are going from CVO to KFNL on Sunday...Fuel cost even at $5 a gallon (we think we will be paying nearer 4.25). but fuel costs will be about $450 based on a 12 hour round trip...and I think its nearer a 10 hour trip.

Thats $225 each...We have relatives who are paying way more than that to fly commercial..$225 to fly 2000 miles..

Its still not bad!

Frank

gasman · #6 06-20-2008, 02:23 PM

6A.... 0320.... FIXED PITCH... LSI... LEANED... 145 MPH @ 2000 FT. 4.6 TO 4.8 GPH.

rocketbob · #7 06-20-2008, 02:26 PM

What you need is two airplanes. A J3 for summertime boring of holes in the sky at 4 GPH, door wide open--and an RV for going somewhere. My kids love flying in the J3 and I have a ball in it. Once upon a time I didn't think I could stomach flying low and slow, boy was I wrong about that...

tommylewis · #8 06-20-2008, 02:34 PM

In my opinion, the higher gas prices make an airplanes MPG (miles per gallon) the key factor is affordability. I have been flying an RV7a with an IO360 with an electronic ignition for 14 months. I get 25-30 mpg with no wind to a tail wind, and 20-25 mpg with a headwind. That is hauling two people and a 100 lbs of stuff around the country at 160 knots. If I am just boring holes in the sky in the local area, I can easily get in the 25-30 mpg by pulling back the power. I have never pulled power back to simulate- an RV12 speed and check the mileage. While I do expect to build an RV12 someday, I do not expect it to get any better mileage than my RV7a.

Dayton Murdock · #9 06-20-2008, 03:05 PM

Hi All
last nite I was playing around @10500 155kts 6.2 gph 25nm per not to bad

mcwreford · #10 06-20-2008, 03:11 PM

Hard to feel for you guys , in australia we're paying $5.70 a gallon in my state (cheapest in the country )while the southerners are around $6.45 pg and to top it of we're still buying the big HI-PO V8 and turbo sixes as quick as GM and ford can build them.
I'm still renting airplanes but when my 6 is flying it will be the cheapest ,fastest personal transport available, at 28-30 mpg I will be ecstatic,cheers all Mat