A jet cheaper to operate than a 182?

FORANE

FORANE

En-Route
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
3,758
Location
TN
Display Name
Display name:
FORANE
A week ago I worked with a guy who owns a P Ponk 182 and an Eclipse 500. He says the Eclipse is cheaper to operate cross country given the lower cost of Jet fuel over 100LL and the faster speed of the Eclipse.
 
I doubt the cost of capital and insurance is in that calculation, but straight up miles per$$$ in a tank of fuel, I can buy that. I was hearing some pretty good burn rates out of guys who had RVSM or were getting cleared to altitude through it.
 
Yeah... He may be talking DOC's, not total outlay.

That said, the Eclipse isn't really a jet.
 
Henning said:
:confused: Two turbofans...:dunno:
Click to expand...

Well... I wasn't talking literally.. Figuratively most professional guys get a chuckle though. I don't believe they're even approved for ice.

That said, I agree with you on the dollars that they are talking about are based on direct operating costs, not entire costs.
 
600 NM trip with the Eclipse burning roughly 132 gals. Same trip in a 182 would burn about 50 gals. Even with Jet A a dollar less than 100LL, I can't see an Eclipse being cheaper to operate.:dunno:

http://jetadvisors.com/eclipse-500-article/
 
Velocity173 said:
600 NM trip with the Eclipse burning roughly 132 gals. Same trip in a 182 would burn about 50 gals. Even with Jet A a dollar less than 100LL, I can't see an Eclipse being cheaper to operate.:dunno:
Click to expand...
I'm sure you figured speed in there somewhere, but DOC's also include maintenance and such. That doesn't mean it will be cheaper, I truly have no clue. I'm just saying all direct operating costs must be accounted for, not just fuel.
 
And, an, an, not only that but since he now owns the BROOKLYN BRIDGE he can fly it as much as he wants...

SO THERE!!
 
When I had a Citation II I lied to myself and strangers about what it cost to operate!! :D:D Heck, I still lie to myself about the Conquest!!
First rule of airplane ownership: NEVER ad up the total cost of ownership!! :D
 
N747JB said:
When I had a Citation II I lied to myself and strangers about what it cost to operate!! :D:D Heck, I still lie to myself about the Conquest!!
First rule of airplane ownership: NEVER ad up the total cost of ownership!! :D
Click to expand...

It will make a millionaire out of you... As long as you start as a billionaire.
 
FORANE said:
A week ago I worked with a guy who owns a P Ponk 182 and an Eclipse 500. He says the Eclipse is cheaper to operate cross country given the lower cost of Jet fuel over 100LL and the faster speed of the Eclipse.
Click to expand...

Not buying it.
 
Kritchlow said:
I'm sure you figured speed in there somewhere, but DOC's also include maintenance and such. That doesn't mean it will be cheaper, I truly have no clue. I'm just saying all direct operating costs must be accounted for, not just fuel.
Click to expand...

Yeah the example given says the Eclipse can do 600 miles in 1+48 burning 885 lbs or about 130 gals. The C182 will do the same 600 miles in about 4+20 burning about 50 gals. Unless maintenance is a heck of a lot cheaper on the Eclipse, it's not costing less in DOC. Eclipse is an efficient jet as jets go but it ain't single piston engine cheap.
 
Velocity173 said:
Yeah the example given says the Eclipse can do 600 miles in 1+48 burning 885 lbs or about 130 gals. The C182 will do the same 600 miles in about 4+20 burning about 50 gals. Unless maintenance is a heck of a lot cheaper on the Eclipse, it's not costing less in DOC. Eclipse is an efficient jet as jets go but it ain't single piston engine cheap.
Click to expand...

This is the type of data needed to figure it... It would appear the 182 comes out cheaper... UNLESS you factor a cost of time.
For many of us that may be zero, but for some missing an extra two days of work just might tip the scales.
 
At the end of the day... He has an eclipse and I don't...
 
Ask him how much a windshield replacement goes for.
 
Not a real jet ... barbie jet.... whatever.

Man, I am sick and tired of all of the a-hole airplane haters on here.

It seems that with every new design or new model that comes out, some know it all asswipe will make some smug and usually uneducated derogatory comment about it. Just because one flies, owns or prefers one type of airplane does not mean that all other types are somehow worhtless or subject to ridicule.

Freakin' loser.
 
weilke said:
Ask him how much a windshield replacement goes for.
Click to expand...

I haven't done a 421 in a long time, but it was $25k back then.:eek: I imagine the Eclipse is going to be similar. But damn, to have a a hot winshield without a strip is almost worth it.:lol:
 
Nah, but a turbine twin will often end up burning less per nm than an avgas twin. And perhaps even more surprising is that a Turbo Commander or MU-2 will burn less per hour than a TBM or PC12. Hauling more, flying further and in the case of the PC12 - doing it faster. So in comparison to those two there is no penalty for having a twin.
 
Got to be doing a metric ton of flying for any twin jet to cuts less than a 182, acquisition, to turbine maintenance (regardless of how often she flys), you practically would need to live in the air for it to make sense.
 
Henning said:
I haven't done a 421 in a long time, but it was $25k back then.:eek: I imagine the Eclipse is going to be similar. But damn, to have a a hot winshield without a strip is almost worth it.:lol:
Click to expand...

Now starting at 25k....as of last year anyway.
 
Everyone has their delusions and rationalizations. It would appear the Eclipse guy is no different.
 
Well, B is one less than C and 52 is less than a third of 182. I'd persue that...
 
Zeldman said:
Now starting at 25k....as of last year anyway.
Click to expand...
Aren't they 100 hrs windscreens? Over on BT, there is a guy parting out a perfectly good 400. His windscreens are due.
 
Unit74 said:
Aren't they 100 hrs windscreens? Over on BT, there is a guy parting out a perfectly good 400. His windscreens are due.
Click to expand...

On some of the early serial # yes. Now its higher.
 
James331 said:
Got to be doing a metric ton of flying for any twin jet to cuts less than a 182, acquisition, to turbine maintenance (regardless of how often she flys), you practically would need to live in the air for it to make sense.
Click to expand...

You say that as if it's a bad thing!
 
ebetancourt said:
Neither is a T38. Never heard anyone say it wasn't a real jet. :D
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if any fighter aircraft are certified to fly in known ice as well. Besides pitot, windshield, engine anti-ice there isn't any wing de-ice. I suppose speed is their friend for wing ice formation.
 
Perhaps the owner was speaking in "actual" costs rather than "budgeted"? If he had no actual maintenance on the Eclipse but had some repairs needed on the 182, it was cheaper to operate, in that short time span. If he was including a reasonable maintenance reserve for each aircraft, he was lying unless he had a huge premium on the TVM.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
SoonerAviator said:
Perhaps the owner was speaking in "actual" costs rather than "budgeted"? If he had no actual maintenance on the Eclipse but had some repairs needed on the 182, it was cheaper to operate, in that short time span. If he was including a reasonable maintenance reserve for each aircraft, he was lying unless he had a huge premium on the TVM.
Click to expand...

He is just doing what many pilots do: Mental gymnastics to justify ones own choices over the alternate:

- see, if I drive, and use a one way rental car both ways, and I pay the rental company to fill it up, it is more expensive than flying my plane.
 
weilke said:
He is just doing what many pilots do: Mental gymnastics to justify ones own choices over the alternate:

- see, if I drive, and use a one way rental car both ways, and I pay the rental company to fill it up, it is more expensive than flying my plane.
Click to expand...

Exactly! I compare first class tickets when deciding whether or not to fly Delta! :D
 
Henning said:
Isn't a P-Ponk 140ts at 18gph?
Click to expand...

I know several guys with Pponks, and none of them beat up their engine running it like that.

Fly high - low-mid teens and lean it out ... 137 KTAS and 9.5 gph. O2 is way cheaper than avgas.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
"Meets contractual specifications."

Sorry, I've been a gov't contractor for too long...
Click to expand...

Sure and there are also military aircraft specifically approved to fly into known icing. I'm just saying I don't know of any fighters that are. For instance, Prolonged flight in icing conditions for an F-18 is considered an emergency.
 
Although I cannot compare the cost of a 182 to an Eclipse, I do have a bit of personal experience to share.

My typical mission is flying alone over distances between 250 and 800 miles. Occasionally, I would fill the airplane and travel longer distances. One of my most common flights is about 650 miles each way and I make it about ten times a year.

I owned a Meridian for about seven years and now have owned an Eclipse for almost two years.

The fixed costs on the Eclipse are very close to those on the Meridian. So far, my maintenance costs have been a bit lower than those of the Meridian. Obviously, engine reserve is higher, since I am reserving for two engines.

I find that on shorter trips, the direct costs are higher than the Meridian, although not ridiculously so. On my trip that takes me 650 miles, my fuel burn is within 100 lbs of the fuel burn for the Meridian, as I save about 45 minutes on the trip. Anything longer than 650 miles, I will come out ahead by flying the Eclipse.

As an aside, most of the observations made on this thread about the Eclipse are inaccurate at best!

I truly feel that the Eclipse is the most fun, and gives me the best combination of utility and flexibility of the five airplanes that I have owned.

Abram Finkelstein
N48KY
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top