Also, we bought a Lancair Columbia 350 to replace the 182, and it burns nearly half the fuel for the same route as the 182, and does it faster. All around a much more enjoyable and efficent aircraft. Cessna 182s typically are not very efficient, often the same fuel burn per mile as a light twin like a Cessna 310, Beech Baron or even more then a twin Commanche. Cessna Turbo 210 or Bonanza will typically get from point A to B on less fuel then a 182 or sometimes even a 172.
Well, no land vehicles will do nearly 300kph on 60lph, or 22 L/100km at that speed. Also you have to factor direct route versus driving. Here in Oregon I can fly a 120mi route in about 45mins that takes 2.5 hours by road, so not much difference. I one time I flew a P337 Cessna from southern California to Oregon on about 80 gallons in a little over 3 hrs, and drove same route in a mini-van, and burned 55 gallons but took a day and a half. Can make sense here but perhaps not often in europe.
I've looked at the cost of general aviation and the fuel costs seem very inefficient unless money si no object. 60 litres per hour makes it quite costly comapred to driving for people who have to watch their finances. It's easy to see flying is best for people when money is no object.
What's with the dangling vert card compass & stagnant altimeter? For example, on initial climbout the altimeter is barely moving, VS shows almost 1k fpm.....ditto on the descent.
Also, we bought a Lancair Columbia 350 to replace the 182, and it burns nearly half the fuel for the same route as the 182, and does it faster. All around a much more enjoyable and efficent aircraft. Cessna 182s typically are not very efficient, often the same fuel burn per mile as a light twin like a Cessna 310, Beech Baron or even more then a twin Commanche. Cessna Turbo 210 or Bonanza will typically get from point A to B on less fuel then a 182 or sometimes even a 172.
shemp747 2 months ago
Well, no land vehicles will do nearly 300kph on 60lph, or 22 L/100km at that speed. Also you have to factor direct route versus driving. Here in Oregon I can fly a 120mi route in about 45mins that takes 2.5 hours by road, so not much difference. I one time I flew a P337 Cessna from southern California to Oregon on about 80 gallons in a little over 3 hrs, and drove same route in a mini-van, and burned 55 gallons but took a day and a half. Can make sense here but perhaps not often in europe.
shemp747 2 months ago
I've looked at the cost of general aviation and the fuel costs seem very inefficient unless money si no object. 60 litres per hour makes it quite costly comapred to driving for people who have to watch their finances. It's easy to see flying is best for people when money is no object.
210482fmj 2 months ago
forget all that digital shytek, Im flying compas heading and time/speed.
rcacad 3 months ago
What's with the dangling vert card compass & stagnant altimeter? For example, on initial climbout the altimeter is barely moving, VS shows almost 1k fpm.....ditto on the descent.
badkharma101 5 months ago
je to dobre
koberecify 1 year ago