I need a faster plane!

sba55

sba55

En-Route
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
2,552
Location
Marin County, CA
Display Name
Display name:
sba55
Just need to ramble for bit.

I keep running into opportunities to fly for business. Sometimes, the distance works out just right so that it's easy to convince my colleagues to avoid the airlines (like SF-Portland). More often, though, the distance involved is just a bit too far.

Most recently, I had a chance to drop off two colleagues of mine in Denver on the way to Gaston's. Unfortunately, due to terrain issues around Denver and the ~850 NM distance, it's going to be really hard to beat the airlines. No matter what I do, the flight is going to take 4:45 hrs. The airlines only need 2:15 hrs (+delays). Considering that you ought to be at SFO one hour before departure, and the additional flexibility of flying privately, I might just be able to make this flight valuable. On the other hand, the Bo isn't quite as comfortable as business class.

This is getting frustrating....maybe I'll have to get that IO720 engine upgrade soon. That might just about do it. Or maybe I could borrow Lance's Lear :D Anyone else having similar problems? Any planes that would make this significantly faster? It seems like the only step up, speed-wise, is to a turbine...

-Felix
 
Last edited:
You'll need a pressurized twin to compete timewise. But costwise you'll be way behind.

Remember, no matter what plane you own, it will always be 15% slow.
 
EdFred said:
You'll need a pressurized twin to compete timewise. But costwise you'll be way behind.

Remember, no matter what plane you own, it will always be 15% slow.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's really what it looks like. But on a trip like SF-Denver, even the slower twins won't really make enough of a difference. I ran the same flight in a 210 knot twin, and it's still 4:10. That's 35 minutes...not enough :(

-Felix
 
Unless you offer complimentary cavity searches and require the removal of piercings with pliers you're still way ahead of the airlines - no matter how long it takes.

Latex_Gloves_PP.jpg
 
gibbons said:
Unless you offer complimentary cavity searches and require the removal of piercings with pliers you're still way ahead of the airlines - no matter how long it takes.
Click to expand...
So true. There are some who haven't had a really bad TSA experience yet, though....we'll see. My secret plan is to make everybody here appreciate flying GA so much that we'll fly GA more on purpose. I've already taken 9 people along on trips that they were planning to fly on United (and they saved a lot of time), so who knows :)

-Felix
 
sba55 said:
So true. There are some who haven't had a really bad TSA experience yet, though....we'll see. My secret plan is to make everybody here appreciate flying GA so much that we'll fly GA more on purpose. I've already taken 9 people along on trips that they were planning to fly on United (and they saved a lot of time), so who knows :)

-Felix
Click to expand...


YAY FELIX!!!!! :D
 
I'd love to fly instead of ride the airlines, but my company won't allow it. That said, I've had trips where a C-172 would have beaten the airlines. Thanks to a layover in SLC I had a trip to Jackson Hole, WY that would have been faster in a C-172. When you stop to think about it, that doesn't say much for the airlines.
 
sba55 said:
Yeah, that's really what it looks like. But on a trip like SF-Denver, even the slower twins won't really make enough of a difference. I ran the same flight in a 210 knot twin, and it's still 4:10. That's 35 minutes...not enough :(
Click to expand...

Felix,

You'll almost never win on flight time. You'll almost always win on door-to-door. I've had an airline flight >1000nm with no layover that I could have done faster door-to-door in a freakin' Archer. Sure, the flight time would have been significantly longer, but I'd have showed up ahead of when I actually did.

You can't win every time, and you can't win on money most of the time. But, when you chop out the time needed for check-in, security, boarding, waiting in the big line at the big airport, disembarking, waiting for your bags, waiting for your rental car, and possibly a layover and some driving time (remember to tell them about the GA airports that may be a lot closer than the big ones), you can compete quite well most of the time.
 
sba55 said:
I love the Dynasty. Turbines scare me a LOT, though...I don't think that's going to happen soon.
Click to expand...

I love turbines, I'll come fly it until you get comfortable (then I'll keep flying it, so you can get work done enroute! :goofy:)!
 
The 1,000 mile trip is close to the limit of the non-stop door-door time savings for me.

I find the scheduling flexibility is another big plus for business trips. If you want to get there at a particular time, leave at this time. You want to get something done before you go, fine we just leave a little later.

Joe
 
Teller1900 said:
I love turbines, I'll come fly it until you get comfortable (then I'll keep flying it, so you can get work done enroute! :goofy:)!
Click to expand...
Hehe. I don't think I could ever work in a plane when I could be flying...my fear is of a different nature. Turbine maintenance = :hairraise:
 
Areeda said:
The 1,000 mile trip is close to the limit of the non-stop door-door time savings for me.

I find the scheduling flexibility is another big plus for business trips. If you want to get there at a particular time, leave at this time. You want to get something done before you go, fine we just leave a little later.

Joe
Click to expand...
That's exactly how I see it. The time savings stop somewhere around the 1000 mile mark, at least when there's a direct connection. Adding checked luggage and 1 connection, and it's probably closer to 1500 miles.

The added flexibility is definitely the selling point IMO. That, and no TSA.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Felix,

You'll almost never win on flight time. You'll almost always win on door-to-door. I've had an airline flight >1000nm with no layover that I could have done faster door-to-door in a freakin' Archer. Sure, the flight time would have been significantly longer, but I'd have showed up ahead of when I actually did.

You can't win every time, and you can't win on money most of the time. But, when you chop out the time needed for check-in, security, boarding, waiting in the big line at the big airport, disembarking, waiting for your bags, waiting for your rental car, and possibly a layover and some driving time (remember to tell them about the GA airports that may be a lot closer than the big ones), you can compete quite well most of the time.
Click to expand...
Wise words. Thanks!
 
The trip I take most often, BWI-BNA, could be done door to door in just about the same amount of time in my Twinkie. Unfortunately, the total cost of the miserable TSA experiences is FAR cheaper than flying myself. I need to take a minimum of 4 people for the price to come out even. But I still do it on occasion, just for the sheer enjoyment.
 
If you're flying a Bo you're not going to get much faster unless you spend $$$.
 
sba55 said:
Or maybe I could borrow Lance's Lear :D -Felix
Click to expand...
Yeah, right. You want to be scared in an airplane? ...Look at a Lear fuel bill:hairraise:.
I agree with most previous posters. You need a bunch more money to go any faster than you can in a Bo. Going to a light piston twin might give you more space but not more speed. Face it, the next significant speed step would be a turboprop and that's gonna cost ya.
 
Interestingly, flying out of O'Hare, I find I can save both time and money on the shorter (less than 3 hours in the Arrow) trips vs. longer trips. For example, I can fly to Indianapolis, St. Louis or Minneapolis in approx. 2 hrs, so 4 hours for a round trip. American Eagle charges $800-$1,000 for these trips. However, I can't compete with Denver, NYC or Fort Lauderdale where you can get fares less than $500 (last trip to Denver was <$300).

On the longer trips it's the stops that kill time. I plan a max of 3 hours at a time (not for fuel, for my bladder!). Landing, refueling, and taking off chews up over half an hour usually.
 
AirBaker said:
Toss in the Tornado Alley Turbo... :)
Click to expand...
Doesn't make enough of a difference. I can do 170@12,000@11.7 gph. With the Turbo, maybe 190-195? That's only a 15-20 minute difference for a 4 1/2 hour flight. At the tune of way too much money....

-Felix
 
Lance F said:
Yeah, right. You want to be scared in an airplane? ...Look at a Lear fuel bill:hairraise:.
I agree with most previous posters. You need a bunch more money to go any faster than you can in a Bo. Going to a light piston twin might give you more space but not more speed. Face it, the next significant speed step would be a turboprop and that's gonna cost ya.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I know, I just wish there was something in between 60 gallons for 800NM and 200 gallons+incredibly expensive maintenance.
 
bstratt said:
Interestingly, flying out of O'Hare, I find I can save both time and money on the shorter (less than 3 hours in the Arrow) trips vs. longer trips. For example, I can fly to Indianapolis, St. Louis or Minneapolis in approx. 2 hrs, so 4 hours for a round trip. American Eagle charges $800-$1,000 for these trips. However, I can't compete with Denver, NYC or Fort Lauderdale where you can get fares less than $500 (last trip to Denver was <$300).

On the longer trips it's the stops that kill time. I plan a max of 3 hours at a time (not for fuel, for my bladder!). Landing, refueling, and taking off chews up over half an hour usually.
Click to expand...
That's where GA is almost always faster (and cheaper, assuming a full plane). We have a few popular routes like this here, for example:

SF-Santa Barbara. Quite often $200 round trip in the United turboprop, and much slower then flying GA.
SF-Eugene, OR. They only have 2 or 3 direct flights from the Bay Area. GA is much faster.

etc...

-Felix
 
What about that Cessnalumbia thing?
 
Neither the Columbia, nor the Acclaim, really are fast enough at a reasonable altitude for an unpressurized aircraft. Those max cruise speeds are all at altitudes where you have to wear O2....
 
One can't compete with the airlines pertaining to the overall transportation package they provide of cost, time, and reliability between regularly scheduled cities, unless one becomes an airline. That's why they exist. For non-scheduled cities it's a different ball game and "practical" competition is possible.
 
sba55 said:
Neither the Columbia, nor the Acclaim, really are fast enough at a reasonable altitude for an unpressurized aircraft. Those max cruise speeds are all at altitudes where you have to wear O2....
Click to expand...


Ok, new requirements. Fast, no turbines, relatively cheap mx, low altitude. Check. dingdingdingdingding(that's your alarm, it's time to wake up) :cheerswine:
 
San Francisco-Denver is a really hard route for a small GA airplane to compete with the airlines. You need a pretty capable airplane to do that route reliably. Airline flights are numerous and, up to now, have been pretty inexpensive. I've thought about it for years since that's a frequent trip for me but I've never been able to justify it in my mind, not that I'm in the market to buy to begin with. I happily fly other peoples airplanes on that route, however.
 
Everskyward said:
San Francisco-Denver is a really hard route for a small GA airplane to compete with the airlines. You need a pretty capable airplane to do that route reliably. Airline flights are numerous and, up to now, have been pretty inexpensive. I've thought about it for years since that's a frequent trip for me but I've never been able to justify it in my mind, not that I'm in the market to buy to begin with. I happily fly other peoples airplanes on that route, however.
Click to expand...
It's true, it's not exactly an easy route to begin with.

Other than in 2-3 winter months, though, I think it's fairly easy to reliably fly that route. The few times I've gone, I basically went SF-Reno-Salt Lake City-Direct. It's doable at 11,000 with 30 minutes at 13,000. If I'm by myself, I go more or less direct at 17,000.

-Felix
 
sba55 said:
Doesn't make enough of a difference. I can do 170@12,000@11.7 gph. With the Turbo, maybe 190-195? That's only a 15-20 minute difference for a 4 1/2 hour flight. At the tune of way too much money....

-Felix
Click to expand...


You need to ride with someone that has the conversion. If you're doing 170kts now, I'd be surprised if you didn't pick up another 40.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top