Page 1 of 2

The 1,000 Pound 1,000 Mile Challenge

Posted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:35 pm
by ultraturtle
Poking around for slightly more capability than the DA42-VI, I cannot help but marvel at the specs of the DA62. Using cruise data only (disregarding takeoff and descent), a hypothetical DA62 with book useful load of 1,565 on a standard day at FL180 cruising at 162 KTAS could haul 1,017 lbs payload 1,000 nautical miles with 45 minutes reserve.

My challenge to you is to find the next closest current production aircraft (single or twin, pressurized or not) up the food chain that can meet or beat those numbers using AFM data, standard day. My gut feel is that it is likely a turboprop, delivering nowhere near the 13.7 air nautical miles per gallon (ANMPG) of the DA62.

By the way, don't bother running numbers on the Baron. It can only haul 828 lbs 1,000 nm with reserves (FL180, 160 KTAS).

Re: The 1,000 Pound 1,000 Mile Challenge

Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:11 am
by PeterK
I have not run the numbers, but I suspect any airliner can do better in gallons per pound per mile. Also I think that a cargo ship can do even betterer.

Re: The 1,000 Pound 1,000 Mile Challenge

Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 4:24 am
by Paul
I can load 1,000lbs in my M600 and fly it 1,000nm in four hours and still land with about 35 gallons which is at least 45 minutes. I’ll burn 160 gallons doing that. Nothing beats the DA62 for efficiency.

Re: The 1,000 Pound 1,000 Mile Challenge

Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 2:13 pm
by TimS
Aerostar can do it. I had a 700 with the gross weight increase. For only a 1000nm in go fast mode (260KTAS) you will burn roughly 190 gallons, leaving 45 which is a one hour reserve.
About four hours flight time. And roughly 1200lbs useful available.

If you want economy mode (210 KTAS), your are looking at roughly five hours and 135 gallons.

Tim

Re: The 1,000 Pound 1,000 Mile Challenge

Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:38 pm
by ultraturtle
Paul wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 4:24 am
I can load 1,000lbs in my M600 and fly it 1,000nm in four hours and still land with about 35 gallons which is at least 45 minutes. I’ll burn 160 gallons doing that. Nothing beats the DA62 for efficiency.
Thanks. The M600 looks like a likely next step up, but it's a mighty big step!

Pretty wide price/performance gap between the DA62 and the next step up current production aircraft. So far, I don't see anything for less than twice the aquisition, maintenance, and insurance cost. Thought one of the high performance piston singles might step up to the challenge, but so far don't see one.

Re: The 1,000 Pound 1,000 Mile Challenge

Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 5:35 pm
by Paul
The big difference in the step up from a DA62, aside from speed, is pressurization and flight level > FL250 flying. That really makes for an all weather plane, especially if you live in the Rockies like I do. But yeah, even if you go for a legacy twin like an MU2 which has a lower acquisition cost, it’s going to still be a lot more than a DA62 and also require way more proficiency.

Re: The 1,000 Pound 1,000 Mile Challenge

Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:43 pm
by Antoine
ultraturtle wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:35 pm
Poking around for slightly more capability than the DA42-VI, I cannot help but marvel at the specs of the DA62. Using cruise data only (disregarding takeoff and descent), a hypothetical DA62 with book useful load of 1,565 on a standard day at FL180 cruising at 162 KTAS could haul 1,017 lbs payload 1,000 nautical miles with 45 minutes reserve.
My God... 1000 NM at 162 KTAS with a canula up everyone's nose? Thats's 6 hours plus.
Enough time for the canulas to grow leaves and maybe even small berries! No thanks.
I might get shot down in flames for this, but honestly you have to be an aviation addict to fly above 10'000 feet over a long distance without pressurization.
Try a PA46 with extended range tanks and LOP operation. Not as efficient but pressurized...

Re: The 1,000 Pound 1,000 Mile Challenge

Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2019 1:40 am
by Colin
Will admit to being an aviation addict and to having inflicted same on some passengers. I have spent nine hours a day with a hose up my nose marveling at my view from 15,500 feet. I didn't want to be at 35,000 feet peering out a little porthole. I did not want to be poking along at 5,500 on those days, either.

It is an odd affliction. So far the majority of the injuries are to my bank account.

Re: The 1,000 Pound 1,000 Mile Challenge

Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:56 am
by Antoine
Dunno why but I need O2 as low as 8000 ft...

Back to the topic: my experience of flying with PAX is that a 3.5 hour leg is about as much as you can stretch it.
Expecting anything beyond that from the aircraft is justifiable for fuel reserve purposes but would not be a use case that can be sustained over time. So that makes the 1000 lb / 1000 NM contest a bit of a theoretical exercise. In a DA62 flying economy at FL 180 you'd hit 500 to 600 NM after 3.5 hours depending upon wind, right?
I believe that a nice (pressurized) Piper Mirage will typically cost half of what a used DA62 will fetch while offering more comfort and significantly higher speed at altitude. Expect to shave maybe 20 minutes (or add 60 NM) versus the 62
Personally I do not like the Mirage but it is the only aircraft that is still in production and can be operated by a "regular" pilot (as opposed to the tech freaks that operate Extra 400s).

Re: The 1,000 Pound 1,000 Mile Challenge

Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2019 12:52 pm
by ultraturtle
Antoine wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:56 am
I believe that a nice (pressurized) Piper Mirage will typically cost half of what a used DA62 will fetch while offering more comfort and significantly higher speed at altitude.
The only PA46 variant that meets the 1,000/1,000 challenge is the M600. Apples to apples, acquisition, operation, insurance and maintenance for the same model year aircraft is double or more that of the DA62, not half. I'll grant that 10,000' more altitude and 43% more speed might be nice, but engine out performance of the DA62 is significantly better than that of the M600.