Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazarus
The Husky a great STOL aircraft(short takeoff and landing) but I don't think this is very practical. I think this is a unmodified aircraft. So at 55% and 130 mph he burns 7.7 gallons/hour. This means that he is running it considerable lower then that to get the 4 gallons an hour required. It would be quicker to drive and you would burn less gas in the process.
Can't really compare it to the airlines because when full they would do much better FE wise then that.
Although the hassle factor is big negative with the airlines. YMMV  |
I agree -- "sharing a ride" with other passengers is more efficient.
Where my mileage varies is that driveable route -- the 250-300 mile range, or the "Fly out and Drive back". It would eliminate a 104-mile round-trip in my own vehicle to the airport (~34-35mpg) and a rental at an average of ~26-28 mpg. Plus, going "as the crow flies" has to cut off some distance, which may be lost in the climb/descent, headwinds -- dunno.
Honestly, it's a pipe-dream to fly myself to the required location. I've half-seriously joked about it the last 7 years. But, after I posted last evening, I realized that it's selfish, really -- spawned from the frustration of delays and long layovers (which I had just experienced). No bathroom and no "multi-tasking" would make the job no more efficient or convenient. I long to take to the skies, but of course, it's not an affordable hobby for me at this time. I'll leave it to the professionals to handle those ILS approaches and crosswind landings.
Welp, there's always the simulator
RH77