This is before I set LOP power.

LOP was between 217 and 220KTAS, fuel burn was under 13gph a side.
Total fuel burn for the trip was 93 gallons, including a reroute over MOL for the TERKS TWO arrival to 05.

Weather was nice.



Best of all: I left on my schedule, and I kept my shoes on!

Wow, making the king airs look slow and low.

That's a kick ass bird you've got there my friend. Nothing beats the A* for the buck.

What was the fuel burn to get the displayed airspeed, before you leaned it out?

And does anyone have a solution for a friend of mine who obsessively spends all of his free time considering aircraft faster than the entirely capable one he already owns, and the slower and more fun ones like the Citabria/husky/carbon cub, and the ones with the prop installed on the wrong axis like the Robinson/Eurocopters/Hughes500s...

Forrest, I saw your plane on the ramp at Janesville Jet last week. Very Pretty. What brought you to Janesville?

Thanks Brent,
ANGI was running a CNG compressor class.
(I'm thinking of branching out a bit.)

Patrick,
38-40 GPH, ROP. (75% Power).
Obviously it took a bit of a push from the tail wind to get to the magic number.

Once I got LOP I was seeing better than 10 mpg (@218-220KTAS) on the JPI which is pretty good for a 6000lb plane. (Tailwind was worth 2 mpg)

When I first got the plane I ran around at 75% all the time, it went fast and burned a lot of gas. Then I figured out how economical operation can result in less total trip time by avoiding fuel stops, and (important in a 601P) by carrying less gas my expected S/E performance is a lot better.

I have a hundred less HP than a 700 so I have to be more conscious of my S/E performance than my 700HP brethren.

Flying out I went low to avoid some of the wind.

https://www.airnav.com/cgi-bin/fuelroute/1/ORF-LHQ-JVL

8,000'

First leg was 2:33 2nd was 2:18.

Could I have made the trip non-stop?

Sure.

But 4+ hours fighting a headwind isn't much fun, instead I left an hour earlier, stopped at an airport with cheap fuel and had a pleasant trip.

Turbines are powerful and reliable, but range down low isn't their strong point, Pistons take a hit to TAS down low, but the fuel one saves by not climbing as much (as long) makes up for the lower TAS.

Forrest

Depends on the turbine my friend.

Compare anything sub-300KTAS and that's often true, I wrested with that myself. At 300KTAS plus, you're almost always ahead of the game. In addition, a lot of what the turbine has to offer is noticed in the ice you don't pick up in the climb or descent.

Really, this fact and the range issue are why I'm going to pony up for a jet when we open in Dallas. If I can climb out at 4-5k'/min, I'm not missing a lot of trips. Unless the ice is forecast or pirep severe, I can go.

I mean no disrespect. I love my A* (keeping it after the jet comes, it's mine for as long as I can afford it- I flew it earlier today, shut engines down, stall series, just a marvelous airplane, nothing is as much fun to fly), but for serious transport nothing beats a twin turbine.

Craig,

I completely understand your thinking in getting the Solitaire, and in the future, moving into a jet.

Anytime one can get 50% increase in speed and has a mission profile that justifies the upgrade, it is smart to bite the bullet and make the jump. I look forward to hearing about your next acquisition.

Forrest