I've been thinking about this from the start (have I really started yet? lol). My initial goal was 30-35mpg at 200mph cruise. I figure if I can get the same milage as my car, but cut the travel time by 2/3rds I'll be happy. That's why I'm really looking at (and hoping for) the Deltahawk. Some of my flying relatives live about 240 miles away by air, and they were mentioning how if I had my PPL (I had to quit working on it due to the move) and a 172, I could fly up and visit more frequently. Then I started to do the math for fuel costs- it would take about 1/2 the time to fly up as it would to drive, but cost twice as much in fuel

Maybe thats the price you pay, but I think we can do better
Then I got to go to a presentation by Dave Anders that really got my hopes up. If you're not familiar with him, long story short is he has an RV-4 that tops out north of 265mph

He didn't get there by simply making the engine more powerful though. He started with a 220mph top speed and has calculated that 19.5 mph was gained from the engine/prop combo, and 24.5mph was due to drag reduction. He reduced the total airframe drag
27%. So what does this mean for fuel economy? At 14,000' and 190mph ground speed, Dave is burning 4.5gph for about 42mpg with an IO-360
So now I have even more hope! Dave estimates his engine's Brake Specific Fuel Consumption to be about .44. The DH is supposed to be .37-.39. Dave also estimates his propeller efficiency to be 80.5%. Paul Lipps claims his design program predicted that his propeller design is about 90% efficient. Hopefully his propeller will be avaliable for purchase in the near future

So I guess we should concentrate on reducing airframe and cooling drag as much as possible, and research propellers based on efficency, not to mention engines
