Weekly Commute: Is It Practical?
- Thread starter BennyE7
- Start date
Juliet Hotel
En-Route
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2018
- Messages
- 2,634
- Display Name
Display name:
Juliet Hotel
No one asked if it would be cheaper.
When I flew for a living, I flew 60 year old GA aircraft with sparse VFR panels in the North East and my logbook has sections that show I flew daily for stretches as long as 45 days before missing a day. GA certainly doesn't have the dispatch reliability of part 121 or even part 135. But saying it sucks is not at all accurate IMO.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
ircphoenix
En-Route
Worked on an island with a guy who would fly in on Monday and fly out on Thursday. Otherwise it would have been a two hour drive to the boat and an hour ride across the water. Don't know what his cancellation rate was, but he never missed a week during the six months we worked together. Of course, that's southern California "weather" for you. If you have an IFR to get through the Marine layer, you'll be hard pressed to find days you have to scratch.
Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
A PA-28-180 or - 181 (Archer, or the older equivalent) is a good plane for this mission, unless there are times that the OP would need the extra load carrying capacity of the 182. Not that much slower, and significantly less operating cost (around 9-10 gph vs 13 gph). A little easier to learn in as well.
n9144p
Pre-Flight
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2015
- Messages
- 82
- Display Name
Display name:
N9144P
I transferred from Buffalo to Philadelphia a few years ago, but couldn't move my family at first. From April to August I flew home every Friday night and back to work on Sunday afternoon. Missed one weekend for a mechanical problem. Driving would have taken so long I would never have the time with family. Worked out great, but I had a job that didn't absolutely require me to be back on time. Always made it for Monday, although a few times getting back on Sunday took some time for storms to move safely by the route.
NordicDave
En-Route
Benny, don't let the naysayers get you down. I commute weekly by 182 here in northern California.
There are peak traffic days that are 1.5-2 hours drive or fly 20 mins. House & work is 10 mins from an airpower on each end. Key though is a solid back-up plan. I would not recommend a daily commute and a solid back-up plan like others have said is necessary.
I only commute up on Sunday evening and back Thursday or Friday afternoon so I'm under no time pressure by deadline for "get there-itis". Since there's a car on each end, I can always drive a distance like this... just don't want too.
Realistically the total travel time is about an hour, and far more enjoyable time than getting irritated in mind numbing traffic.
A tie down space usually lets you park a plane or a car.
There are peak traffic days that are 1.5-2 hours drive or fly 20 mins. House & work is 10 mins from an airpower on each end. Key though is a solid back-up plan. I would not recommend a daily commute and a solid back-up plan like others have said is necessary.
I only commute up on Sunday evening and back Thursday or Friday afternoon so I'm under no time pressure by deadline for "get there-itis". Since there's a car on each end, I can always drive a distance like this... just don't want too.
Realistically the total travel time is about an hour, and far more enjoyable time than getting irritated in mind numbing traffic.
A tie down space usually lets you park a plane or a car.
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
Hey I think his idea rocks, his choice of planes is on point if he’s in a non FIKI location, the only issue is his lack of experience, or rather not understanding his lack of experience is the issue it is.
TylerSC
Pre-takeoff checklist
Benny, flying is fun and challenging and a worthwhile journey to take in life. I highly recommend it if you are interested. But it requires a great deal of time and investment, both of money and mental energy, to become a competent pilot, and you will have to travel some other kind of way fairly often due to weather, illness, stress, fatigue, etc. Once you have learned to fly, the go/no go decision is probably the biggest challenge you will face - and having a business purpose is a common driver of poor go/no-go decisions.
Anyway, welcome to aviation! Go take lessons.
Datadriver
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2012
- Messages
- 985
- Display Name
Display name:
Datadriver
The distance works, meaning you still save time including driving to the plane, preflight, briefing etc.
SkyDog58
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2015
- Messages
- 14,600
- Location
- My own special place.
- Display Name
Display name:
Canis Non Grata
News to me as well.
deyoung
Line Up and Wait
The guy that I bought my PA-28 from used it mostly to go back and forth between Long Beach and Santa Monica, because it was easier and less aggravating than driving. I gather that was mostly business travel, though we didn't talk about it in detail.
DaleB
Final Approach
Benny...
Start training. The rest will work itself out. You want to fly anyway, so get your ticket. Along the way you'll learn a ton about how plan flights and monitor weather. So put that to use! Figure out he route to fly. Monitor the weather along that route, hourly if possible. It's not terribly difficult if you have some computer experience and skills; a simple script can pull weather reports for several points along the route. By the time you finish your training you'll have a pretty good idea of how often you'd be able to make the trip, and if you're sharp you'll know what the winds aloft generally look like.
Now, if it looks like it might work out enough of the time, you can go airplane shopping. You'll know the distance and winds, so you can look at a particular type and figure out (roughly) how long the trip would be, the fuel burn, whether you can make the trip in one leg or will need to stop for fuel, etc. Then figure out your budget and you're ready to go. Yes, getting instrument rated and having a suitable airplane will help... but it may not be necessary to make it work for you.
That's what I did. I was flying 600+ miles one way every month for work, and detested the airlines. I joined a flying club and figured out that flying myself would work at least half the time. My door to door time would be about the same (there was no direct flight on the airline at that time) and I'd probably have to dig into my own pocket for some of the expense... well worth it to me. Everything changed and I never did make that trip. I traveled less for work, left the club, and bought my own plane. I also had to adjust my calculations a few times as I learned more about costs, weather, and the reliability (or lack thereof) of an aging GA spam can. The work I did, however, was valid and I'll do the same thing when we start looking at moving post-retirement.
Start training. The rest will work itself out. You want to fly anyway, so get your ticket. Along the way you'll learn a ton about how plan flights and monitor weather. So put that to use! Figure out he route to fly. Monitor the weather along that route, hourly if possible. It's not terribly difficult if you have some computer experience and skills; a simple script can pull weather reports for several points along the route. By the time you finish your training you'll have a pretty good idea of how often you'd be able to make the trip, and if you're sharp you'll know what the winds aloft generally look like.
Now, if it looks like it might work out enough of the time, you can go airplane shopping. You'll know the distance and winds, so you can look at a particular type and figure out (roughly) how long the trip would be, the fuel burn, whether you can make the trip in one leg or will need to stop for fuel, etc. Then figure out your budget and you're ready to go. Yes, getting instrument rated and having a suitable airplane will help... but it may not be necessary to make it work for you.
That's what I did. I was flying 600+ miles one way every month for work, and detested the airlines. I joined a flying club and figured out that flying myself would work at least half the time. My door to door time would be about the same (there was no direct flight on the airline at that time) and I'd probably have to dig into my own pocket for some of the expense... well worth it to me. Everything changed and I never did make that trip. I traveled less for work, left the club, and bought my own plane. I also had to adjust my calculations a few times as I learned more about costs, weather, and the reliability (or lack thereof) of an aging GA spam can. The work I did, however, was valid and I'll do the same thing when we start looking at moving post-retirement.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
"Not that much slower"... Well, it's 20 knots or so. If you look at the average speed over a long period of time on something like a 430, you'll probably end up with the average block speed (including climb, headwinds, etc) to be about 15 knots below cruise speed. So, 100 knots for the Archer and 120 for the 182. That's a 36-minute difference each way on this trip - Not a deal-breaker to go with a slower plane, but still a significant difference, especially since a stiff headwind could easily cause the Archer to require a fuel stop along the way.
True that it's easier to train in the Archer, and if the OP was going to have more than one airplane, a 172 or Archer would be a great start. But, there's enough cost involved in the process of buying and selling airplanes that if you're going to want a faster airplane soon, it's generally better to just get the one you want right away, or renting for the training portion of things and then buying the more mission-oriented airplane.
Finally, while the cost per hour will be higher in the 182, I've found that the cost per *mile* will often go down when you step up, within limits of course. The 182 has higher cost per hour than the 172 and lower cost per mile, and my Mooney has higher cost per hour and lower cost per mile than the 182. If you're building time toward an ATP, you want the cheapest per hour. If you're traveling, you want the lowest cost per mile. And if you can get some extra hours in your life that way, all the better!
So, while I agree that an Archer would be a good airplane for starters, I recommended the 182 as a way to have an airplane that's easy enough to train in (or the OP could just train in a rental) and won't lead him to wanting to upgrade quite so quickly - The 182 will be a good traveling airplane for plenty long enough to get the experience to know and fly what he really wants in the long run.
mtuomi
En-Route
Now you’re making me back track
Turned into this (basically teeth, hair and goo)
In nothing flat.
You got a few years and a lot of learning to do before you’re ready for your mission, invest the time in building experience right
Or don’t, and I’d wager 20% chance you lawn dart
I've used this as an example for two things. a) Money, piloting skills, ADM and common sense don't always come in the same package.
And b) PC12 is one hell of a strong airframe. That thing fell from almost 30'000ft and its still identifiable as a PC12.
MIFlyer
Pattern Altitude
If it’s just the op, he could get a Mooney c or Comanche 250 or vtail all for under 75k, fast efficient cheap. I’d say sometime post solo. A device 210 would be nicer, but a bunch more money. He could fly vfr and light ifr in any of those and drive or fly commercial for anything sketchy.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I have a good amount of time in both Archers and 182s. The speed difference is about 10 knots (135 vs. 125 ktas). You can get a 182 to go faster, but only with liberal application of avgas (and fuel burns in the 15+ gph range). 4 cyls vs 6 and no CS prop, an Archer is going to cost 15-20% less to operate, including fuel and maintenance, than a 182.
Southwest gives you the ability to switch flights also. So if your cities are served by them, then you could have an open ticket that you keep bouncing around until you need it.
Juliet Hotel
En-Route
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2018
- Messages
- 2,634
- Display Name
Display name:
Juliet Hotel
I was thinking the same thing. Its been a while but I believe I flight planned around 135 for the 182's I've flown. I'll admit I haven't run the numbers this way, but when you factor in the cost of overhaul on a 6-cylinder vs 4 and on a CS prop vs fixed, it seems a stretch that a 182 can end up being cheaper per mile than something like an archer. Maybe a Mooney or a Bo. But a draggy 182 seems a stretch.
^ This is key. Many companies won't allow it due to liability issues.
To do it regularly you will need an instrument rating. Often VFR will be fine, but there will be days when that's not possible, or not a great idea. In the winter there will be icing conditions in the clouds, which means in the vast majority of GA piston planes that one would need to avoid them even with an instrument rating.
For that distance it should be faster flying private, especially with a layover. It won't be cheaper than commercial for one person, unless the commercial flights are crazy expensive.
If you like flying it would be much more fun. You'll save some time. But it will most likely be the most expensive option, and probably by a noticeable margin. I would find it the most sane way to do that trip repeatably, but I know my company wouldn't allow it.
DaleB
Final Approach
Or fly an RV-12 at 120 true with about 6 GPH or less fuel burn (mogas if you want to schlep it to the airport). You'll take a little while longer to get there, but the operating expense is a lot less. Yes, only two seats and not a lot of baggage space. It's like driving a Ford Focus for your daily commute instead of an F-150. Actually... more like a two year old Focus versus a 1972 F-150.
Purchase cost can be lower,and hourly operating and maintenance costs would be a small fraction of that of a 4-seat, 130 kt certified airplane.Just for kicks, I looked at the route between KJWN and KFYV. Middle TN to northern AR, close to 360 nm. In my airplane, not pushing hard (I planned for 115 KTAS) it would be a 3 hour trip one way, and 3-1/2 the other way. No fuel stops required unless there's an unusual headwind. Gas cost would be fairly low, especially if you fill it with premium ethanol-free MOGAS on one end. A stop to stretch one's legs would be optional, but with the autopilot and some tunes it wouldn't be bad at all. Now, how often would that trip actually work? That depends on the weather.
A different RV (6, 7, or 9) with, say, 150 or 160 kt cruise would reduce the en route time by 45 minutes to an hour each way and still be relatively cheap to operate. If you do get your instrument rating there are not a lot of them equipped for IFR, but they are out there. There are certainly people out there who would never dream of sitting in an experimental airplane even on the ground, and nothing will ever sway their opinion. If you're not one of those people, there are experimentals that deserve a look.
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2016
- Messages
- 4,903
- Display Name
Display name:
Ari
I don't have a company to get in the way of my personal risk-taking. That certainly can be a factor. Even with a professional flight department, I know of companies whose insurance companies won't allow the CEO and the heirs-apparent to fly together. And that's before you even start talking about liability to third parties.
The OP's trip can be done single-engine, single-pilot IFR, some of the time.
The OP's trip can be done VFR, slightly less of the time than it can be done IFR.
The OP's trip could be done in a J-3 Cub, some of the time.
The key for me is this: Can the OP's trip be done in a car on short notice on the days when the OP can't fly it? The real question isn't whether flying this commute is practical. The real question is whether driving this commute is practical. If it is, then the OP can make smart decisions about which times to fly it instead without the get-there-itis that kills people trying to bite off more than they can chew in these situations. The OP can learn good ADM without pressure, that way, and even if he only flies 1 out of 50 trips, he is still able to fly this trip safely. Maybe eventually he gets an ATP and a King Air and flies 49 out of 50 trips. Maybe he always uses a Cherokee and flies VFR for 5 or 10 out of 50. But, for me, the key is always having a good Plan B that keeps you alive in the event Plan A turns out to be a bad idea.
My personal rule is this: If I am going to a must-be-there event of any sort, I leave early enough to plan the flight, preflight the plane, run it up, take off, climb a bit, realize that there's a reason not to fly, turn around, land, park the plane, get in the car, and still get there on time. I end up leaving earlier to fly than to drive, but most of the time I get there earlier and more relaxed and get home much earlier than if I had driven. The OP has the advantage of planning to spend full weeks at the other end of the trip, whereas most of my work trips are to spend something like 2 hours at the destination. If he plans to take a day to travel each way, then he can just make a safety/judgment call between the 3-hour flight and the 8-hour drive each time it comes up.
The OP's trip can be done single-engine, single-pilot IFR, some of the time.
The OP's trip can be done VFR, slightly less of the time than it can be done IFR.
The OP's trip could be done in a J-3 Cub, some of the time.
The key for me is this: Can the OP's trip be done in a car on short notice on the days when the OP can't fly it? The real question isn't whether flying this commute is practical. The real question is whether driving this commute is practical. If it is, then the OP can make smart decisions about which times to fly it instead without the get-there-itis that kills people trying to bite off more than they can chew in these situations. The OP can learn good ADM without pressure, that way, and even if he only flies 1 out of 50 trips, he is still able to fly this trip safely. Maybe eventually he gets an ATP and a King Air and flies 49 out of 50 trips. Maybe he always uses a Cherokee and flies VFR for 5 or 10 out of 50. But, for me, the key is always having a good Plan B that keeps you alive in the event Plan A turns out to be a bad idea.
My personal rule is this: If I am going to a must-be-there event of any sort, I leave early enough to plan the flight, preflight the plane, run it up, take off, climb a bit, realize that there's a reason not to fly, turn around, land, park the plane, get in the car, and still get there on time. I end up leaving earlier to fly than to drive, but most of the time I get there earlier and more relaxed and get home much earlier than if I had driven. The OP has the advantage of planning to spend full weeks at the other end of the trip, whereas most of my work trips are to spend something like 2 hours at the destination. If he plans to take a day to travel each way, then he can just make a safety/judgment call between the 3-hour flight and the 8-hour drive each time it comes up.
DaleB
Final Approach
Simply brilliant summary. Bravo.
mscard88
Touchdown! Greaser!
OP wants his company to reimburse operating expenses so yeah, I'd check with them first to see if they even allow using a plane, and if they'll reimburse. If you don't and its against their policy one could get terminated.
A couple times when I was in the Air Force I flew GA to seminars and site visits, and the AF would reimburse costs up to what a commercial ticket would cost.
A couple times when I was in the Air Force I flew GA to seminars and site visits, and the AF would reimburse costs up to what a commercial ticket would cost.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
I agree with the 182 speed you list (135), and that's what I'd usually get in the club 182 that I was talking about that averaged 13 gallons per tach hour over a long period of time (about 8 years and probably 1500 hours).
But, most Archers won't do 125. I've got a lot of time in them too, and in quite a few airframes. The only ones that even have a chance of getting 125 are the newer ones post-maybe 1980 (@Pilawt would know) that have the fully-faired landing gear that covers up the gear leg, brakes, and the entire wheel. Our club's new Archer gets 125 on a good day, one rental I flew once got 122, and all the other ones I've flown (somewhere between half a dozen and a dozen) have been solid 115-knot birds and probably wouldn't hit 125 even at full throttle.
So, I consider the Archer line to be 115-knot birds, with the occasional exception that's a pleasant surprise.
Eric Gleason
Pre-takeoff checklist
I find that when making these comparisons, most pilots forget that throttle position is not an indicator of power, and at altitude you get 75% power with the throttle pushed way forward. They also seem to forget to calculate TAS. I have rarely flown a plane that wasn't within a few knots of the book numbers.
My club's '96 Archer makes book speeds, which is about 124 knots on 75% power. 65% power results in about 115 knots. The wheel pants are not installed.
Our '79 182RG makes slightly less than book speeds. 152ish knots at 75% power.
At our rental rates, the cost per mile for the 182RG is always higher than the Archer or Skyhawk, so there's no distance you can fly to make it cheaper. However, that 25 knot difference is worth a whole lot to me. It's half an hour on a 300 mile trip.
My club's '96 Archer makes book speeds, which is about 124 knots on 75% power. 65% power results in about 115 knots. The wheel pants are not installed.
Our '79 182RG makes slightly less than book speeds. 152ish knots at 75% power.
At our rental rates, the cost per mile for the 182RG is always higher than the Archer or Skyhawk, so there's no distance you can fly to make it cheaper. However, that 25 knot difference is worth a whole lot to me. It's half an hour on a 300 mile trip.
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,486
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
'78 and later had the big wheel and brake fairings.
I rented several different '84 and '85 Archer IIs in the late '80s and early '90s. Most of those would do 125-130 KTAS, but those were fairly new, well-rigged, well-maintained examples. The big fairings probably accounted for three or four knots over the smaller pre-1978 wheel fairings, and maybe six or seven knots better than a pants-less Archer II. The tradeoff of the big fairings, of course, is that they complicate landing gear maintenance and make preflight inspection of tires and brakes well-nigh impossible.
For 550sm (480nm) on a regular basis I don't think a 182 or Archer would be good options. Mooney Ovation, 550/520 powered V-tail would be the starter planes. If you want to fly through the winter, a booted 210 a Ovation II with TKS or an A36 with TKS would increase your completion rate.
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2016
- Messages
- 4,903
- Display Name
Display name:
Ari
But at the same time, they can increase your risk-taking rate. I know that my Arrow is going to fall out of the sky and kill me if I fly into ice and don't take immediate action to get out of it, so if I pick up any ice my decision is immediately made for me. The decision tree is more complicated and therefore slower in better-equipped planes, which can get a person into trouble. The 2005 Cirrus crash[1] is an example of that. The pilot spent a lot of time going up and down and negotiating with ATC in an effort to find an altitude free of the ice he was picking up. In the end, the plane was plummeting too fast for the parachute to work.
I agree that a better-equipped plane will increase the completion rate of the OP's trip. But it will also increase the complexity of his go/no-go and in-flight decision making at a time when his skills in making those decisions are just beginning to develop. The instrument rating is the biggest example but not the only example of a step forward that predominantly complicates your life by increasing your options. When you are VFR-only, you don't have to wonder if the clouds are evil, because you can't fly in them. Add the instrument rating and you have to worry about icing and embedded thunderstorms. Add FIKI and you have to worry about whether the icing is within the envelope of your equipment. Add radar and you have to worry about whether the hole in the line of storms is a trap.
And that's the main point of the skeptical posts above by @James331. Increased capability requires increased responsibility. This is a very safe trip as long as you don't attempt it on the days it's not safe for your combination of skills, ratings, and equipment. And, while you can fly a FIKI Cirrus in clear skies and never have to pay for TKS fluid, having the capability there has a demonstrated tendency to make people take risks they wouldn't otherwise, and shouldn't regardless. Risk homeostasis is a real thing.
[1] https://www.aopa.org/training-and-s.../trust-but-verify-unforecast-ice-downs-cirrus
I think a 182 would be a solid "first" plane for this mission (assuming he's training in a Cherokee/172). It builds the time, experience, and understanding at a bit of a slower pace for a newer pilot, but still has decent cruise and an airframe almost every A&P has seen. Would help with random issues that come up as a first time owner. But I guess it's up to the OP what he wants to do and being realistic with his experience and skillset.
simtech
En-Route
Yeah I don't think any of this matters as the OP has been scared off.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
An Ovation isn't a "starter plane" for a brand-new, hasn't-taken-his-first-lesson-yet pilot. I would agree that once he's got some experience under his belt it would be an excellent plane for the mission, and shave the trip time down to just a hair over two hours, but it's not a good choice for a new pilot.
OTOH, many Archers are fairly slow and I think he would quickly tire of it.
The 182 is a good compromise - Easy enough to get started with, but capable enough to last a while. Once he's 500 hours in, then he would have enough experience and presumably have learned about enough other aircraft types to be able to make an informed decision as to what he wanted to buy next, and have enough experience (and probably an instrument rating) to get reasonable insurance rates.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Yeah. Congratulations guys, we ran off another potential pilot in only three hours and two minutes. A new record!
It’s not a trainer. It’s a 120hrs and 3/4 through the instrument rating plane.
It’s the category of plane he’ll need to do this on a regular basis. 4hrs in an archer or 3.5 in a 182 gets old really quick. It also burns a lot of fuel. In a 175kt plane this becomes a reasonable trip.
Oh boohoo it’s gonna cost $3500 for the first years insurance. Compared with the transaction cost of buying the wrong plane first and upgrade after a year, the difference in insurance between a 182 and a complex plane is pocket change.
NordicDave
En-Route
Building on welike's good comments..... AIG's $1M/$100K insurance for a student pilot who owns a 182 with $85K hull value costs $1340. Also training in a Mooney or Cirrus will take 3x longer or more.
182 will likely add 15-20 hours to student pilot training as well. It's a much more powerful plane and in the high performance category. 182 is reasonable to train in after a few hours in a 172 in my opinion.
Next 3 posts are guys who got their PPL under 50 hours in a jet. :7)
ktup-flyer
En-Route
I'm almost finished with my PPL. Was in a 150hp 172, then couldn't fly for like two years, because they sold them off. Bought a 182 to finish, and I wish I would've just gone that route to begin with. My insurance is $2214 through Starr... $1M/$100k $125k hull. Its got 1305lb useful, 92 gallon tanks, and cruises at 145ktas, so it's actually usable for trips while also being a nice trainer.
News from absurdistan. Nobody suggested he should buy a Ovation and start his training in it. The point is that those are the kinds of planes that would make this mission feasible.
NordicDave
En-Route
Agree. I just saw two guys starting out in a Bonanza and a Cirrus. Mentioning the ovation brought this to mind. People do try. Amazing.