1100hp + 250mph = 2.5mpg
 

https://www.fuelly.com/attachments/fo...c44762dca2.jpg

I flew to michigan on business today. My first private flight. The plane was 197* beechcraft king air b90. Twin pratt and whitney PT6 turboprops, reversable props, nav and weather on board. The flight was interesting to say the least. We flew into kalamazoo and landed in snow. Flying in cloud cover is quite unpleasant. Its very similar to driving a car with your eyes closed. At lower altitudes the plane snaked and bumped around a bit, which can be a little unnerving. The best part about the whole flight was the airport terminal, more like a doctors office. I must have walked at least 200' all day. The plane pulls right to the door. There is no security line, southwest airline employees, baggage, nada. We were picked up at a small municipal airport and saw a total of 10 people in 2 hours. It was great.

Mileage 70 gallons per hour at 230mph =3.25 mpg.
AVG mpg = 2-2.5mpg
Economy climb with 6 people 1000ft per minute
0-60 under 6 seconds
price 75 yaris liftbacks


If time is money...

slideshow here
https://s75.photobucket.com/albums/i3...view=slideshow

Nice pic. Any VG's?

lol this is funny. reminds me of when i was in a united airlines flight, not a 747. the pilot was explaining about the plane, and it became something like "were traveling 2800 miles and x gallons of gas, which comes to 4.4234 x gallons per mile" and everyone laughed.

I've got a buddy who does agricultural flying and he has an Air Tractor with a PT-6 on it. He says it burns around 46 gallons per hour, which is huge when compared to the (hopefully) 6-8 gallons per hour I hope to burn with my Lycoming. I asked why he chose the PT-6 and his answer was that in the long run it is actually cheaper than the alternative Pratt radial engines he used to fly. The PT-6 is nearly bulletproof and he can fly many more hours without costly rebuilds and only has to pay for the annual inspections, which have come out great so far. He estimates in the few years he has been flying the PT-6 that he's saved over $200,000 in maintenance costs alone on the radials. Sure, it drinks more gas, but when he did the hard numbers, the PT-6 came out on top.

I'm jealous, lovemysan, I've never flown in a small turboprop! Aren't small airports great?

The PT6 is great. It has no gearbox or transmission. The turbine sends compressed gas through a power section(which is a turbine) and then is gear reduced down to prop speed. Your buddy is right there is less maintenance on the turbine. Rebuilds are every 3600 hours.

Small airports are the next best thing to sliced bread.

Yep, almost no thrust is generated because nearly all of the power is converted to shaft power. I think it's interesting that the engine seems to be on the airplane backwards - the turbine is actually facing forward and the compressor is facing rearward when mounted on the airplane.

None. I don't think there useful on planes with faster wings.