Cross Country Aircraft

I did 7 hours of flying in one day in a Cessna 150 once. Its not something I would like to repeat.
 
I think a bonanza or a turbo bonanza could carry 5 passengers, bags and enough fuel to make it 500 miles or so, stop, refuel and finish out the other 500 miles.
 
Stets656 said:
Looking for an aircraft for personal/business use. Will mostly be used for medium to long range cross countries. (Anywhere from 900 to 1300 miles). Max price point is 250k. Like it to be at least 180 knots, (190-200 knots would be ideal) range that can make these trips without a fuel stop and can hold 3 people and a decent amount of baggage. Doesn't have to be glass, has to be a somewhat decent IFR platform. Is there anything out there that fits this bill within the price range?
Click to expand...

Stets656 said:
yea, lets bump the range down to say 600 miles minimum.
Click to expand...

OK, going with the requirements as modified, and since a lot of people are talking about the Mooney Ovation...

Real world, here's what I plan with the Ovation:
170 KTAS @ 12.2 gph
1040nm range with reserves

On a long trip, I would plan 175 KTAS at 12-12.5 GPH at around 9,000 feet. Lower is slower. Higher is also slower, but you'll burn less fuel. My best leg was KSAF-KOVS in 4:37 on 53 gallons of fuel, cruising at 172 KTAS on 10.1 GPH.

However... "3 people and a decent amount of baggage" sounds like 700 pounds to me. That leaves about 310 pounds for fuel - 51 gallons. You'll burn about 5 gallons for taxi, takeoff and climb, leaving you 20nm down the airway and with 3 hours of fuel to legal minimum fuel reserves. That means about 530nm, less if you're IFR.

Pax tend to not like oxygen - Hell, I have factory O2 and I only use it when I have to. The Ovation is one of the fastest normally aspirated airplanes out there and is reasonably affordable to operate, but carrying weight isn't its strong suit. Get into the planes that can carry lots of weight for a decent range down in the thick air and you're more into the 150-knot class (Saratoga, R182, etc).

If I had your requirements, I'd be looking at a P210, or if you like to burn money, a pressurized twin (B58P, C340/414, or even an old C90).
 
flyingcheesehead said:
OK, going with the requirements as modified, and since a lot of people are talking about the Mooney Ovation...

Real world, here's what I plan with the Ovation:
170 KTAS @ 12.2 gph
1040nm range with reserves

On a long trip, I would plan 175 KTAS at 12-12.5 GPH at around 9,000 feet. Lower is slower. Higher is also slower, but you'll burn less fuel. My best leg was KSAF-KOVS in 4:37 on 53 gallons of fuel, cruising at 172 KTAS on 10.1 GPH.

However... "3 people and a decent amount of baggage" sounds like 700 pounds to me. That leaves about 310 pounds for fuel - 51 gallons. You'll burn about 5 gallons for taxi, takeoff and climb, leaving you 20nm down the airway and with 3 hours of fuel to legal minimum fuel reserves. That means about 530nm, less if you're IFR.

Pax tend to not like oxygen - Hell, I have factory O2 and I only use it when I have to. The Ovation is one of the fastest normally aspirated airplanes out there and is reasonably affordable to operate, but carrying weight isn't its strong suit. Get into the planes that can carry lots of weight for a decent range down in the thick air and you're more into the 150-knot class (Saratoga, R182, etc).

If I had your requirements, I'd be looking at a P210, or if you like to burn money, a pressurized twin (B58P, C340/414, or even an old C90).
Click to expand...

Hb a bonanza?
 
Bonanzas aren't as fuel efficient. But a 36 Bonanza can carry more load. Watch out for cog concerns.

Turbo prob doesn't help, I personally don't like a bunch of passengers, especially not kids on O2


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Honestly the desire for speed is definitely understandable, especially when fighting a headwind.. but a good range, payload, and cabin comfort for me go higher on the list (assuming you can true at least 130-140). As someone posted above, a fuel stop takes up a lot of time... so skipping that will save you more time than 5-10 knots extra airspeed. Cabin comfort is the next big one. In my experience 3 hrs is the upper limit for most people and remain "comfortable." 4-5 hrs you are starting to push it... any anything over 5 becomes grueling for all but the most diehard aviators
 
Usually tho to get good range you need a slippery bird so that means reasonably fast...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
paflyer said:
I wonder how many non-pilots have sat in a GA airplane for 5 hours...
Click to expand...
Jose makes his family accept 5 hours when he goes between Miami and Bogota in a Mooney. The trip is over ocean, too. He may only be doing it so he can share their remarks on PoA - "How much longer of this torture?", "Grandma leaked just now - I told you she forgot to put on her diaper!", and so on and so forth. I'm sure it's quite entertaining.
 
BTW, when I go between NY and NM, I try to structure stops that I have nice and uniform 2 hour hops. This way I stop 1 time in the morning, take a leak. Then, at lunch - eat a can of soup. Then, one stop around 2:30 p.m., and start looking for a parking before FBOs start to close at 5. I can last for 3 hours, but without a datalink weather it's just not working out.
 
A white lighting would be perfect if you could find one.
 
gsengle said:
Best speed mod there is is skipping a fuel stop... saves an hour, which is a 16% gain on that flight or roughly 33kts+


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

To eat up a full hour it would generally involved "eating" which I've found most people (myself included) rather enjoy and do roughly 3 times a day. Bathroom break and some fuel usually takes 20 or so minutes depending on the airport. If you take a 1 hour break and eat during the fuel stop it's still the same amount of time if you planned on eating when you get to the destination. 5+1=6 just like 3+1+2=6

I've never received a trophy for toughing out a 5 hours cross country.

Different strokes for different folks:)
 
arkvet said:
To eat up a full hour it it generally involved "eating" which I've found most people (myself included) rather enjoy and do roughly 3 times a day. Bathroom break and some fuel usually takes 20 or so minutes depending on the airport. If you take a 1 hour break and eat during the fuel stop it's still the same amount of time if you planned on eating when you get to the destination. 5+1=6 just like 3+1+2=6

I've never received a trophy for toughing out a 5 hours cross country.

Different strokes for different folks:)
Click to expand...

To get back to where you were tooling along at altitude maybe 8500 ft....

20 mins of descending and pattern and land and taxi. 20 mins of fueling and paying the bill. And 20 mins of taxi out run up take off, traffic pattern and climb back to 8500. It's easy to kill an hour!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
To get back to where you were tooling along at altitude maybe 8500 ft....

20 mins of descending and pattern and land and taxi. 20 mins of fueling and paying the bill. And 20 mins of taxi out run up take off, traffic pattern and climb back to 8500. It's easy to kill an hour!
Click to expand...

This. If it's self serve, it's a serial process. Even a full-serve quick turn has you inside paying at the desk afterwards so I'm not convinced it's much faster.

I pretty much always plan on an hour delay for a "quick" stop to happen. I've done it in less, but there's no way it only slows you down 20 minutes.
 
GeorgeC said:
Looks like a few on Controller are in the 200-250 range.
Click to expand...

I looked at those when I posted. I wouldn't touch 'em if my budget was 250. High time engines on the installation most known for not making it to TBO. (Along with breaking crankshafts, slinging props, and all sorts of other engine troubles.)
 
gsengle said:
To get back to where you were tooling along at altitude maybe 8500 ft....

20 mins of descending and pattern and land and taxi. 20 mins of fueling and paying the bill. And 20 mins of taxi out run up take off, traffic pattern and climb back to 8500. It's easy to kill an hour!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Traffic pattern, landing, TO, runup, taxi... I'll give you those as adding some minutes. Descent and climb should add very little time. What you lose in the climb you mostly gain in the descent. My 145 knot plane will climb at 120 and descend at 165 with ease. If it's pointed in the right direction that's mostly a wash.

My main concern is even thinking 3 pax are going to be happy with anything over 2.5-3 hours. I'm still a relatively new pilot and have quickly taken note of the 3 hour max for the vast majority of pax. Kids (I have 3 young ones) you can decrease that to 2 when they'll really start asking "how much longer"!
 
Stets656 said:
Hb a bonanza?
Click to expand...

gsengle said:
Bonanzas aren't as fuel efficient. But a 36 Bonanza can carry more load. Watch out for cog concerns.
Click to expand...

Yep. They're fine birds, fly nicely... But make sure you fit. I fit really well in the Mooney, but Bonanzas are a hair narrower and I bump my head in them too. :( That's unfortunate, because they're really nice-flying planes.

They also tend to be priced somewhat higher than equivalent airplanes from other manufacturers - The Bonanza mystique. And they're just really well known and their owners do a great job marketing them (and, I'm convinced, bagging on Mooneys!*). You'll probably get the money back when you sell, but you'll have more money tied up in the meantime.

(* I say this in jest... But seriously, where do all those "Mooneys are tiny" rumors come from? Al Mooney was 6'5"!!!)
 
arkvet said:
have quickly taken note of the 3 hour max for the vast majority of pax
Click to expand...
Same here... 3 hrs is the upper limit of what people will comfortably tolerate
 
flyingcheesehead said:
where do all those "Mooneys are tiny" rumors come from? Al Mooney was 6'5"
Click to expand...
Yes... and it has a wider cabin than an Arrow, 182, and even Bonanza. But I think what gives people the "it's small" perception is how low and sleek to the ground they look on the ramp. I think that makes it look sporty, but walking down the field Mooney's always seem smaller than their GA brethren
 
Tantalum said:
Yes... and it has a wider cabin than an Arrow, 182, and even Bonanza. But I think what gives people the "it's small" perception is how low and sleek to the ground they look on the ramp. I think that makes it look sporty, but walking down the field Mooney's always seem smaller than their GA brethren
Click to expand...

They do sit quite low to the ground. They also have a more sports-car style seating position than a Bo or 182, in which you sit mostly upright. LOTS of leg and head room though.
 
Mooney's are a special plane... I hope the company survives and gives Cirrus a run for their money. Don't get me wrong, Cirrus is a great bird... but Mooney's are under appreciated by many (and the sales figures would seem to suggest that as well)

Always thought their quirks were cool... very flat and sharp wingtips. Never liked those giant fiberglass bulbous tips that Archers have. Skyhawks have a nice subtle down swoop... but Mooneys have a good compromise of angles and curves

upload_2017-4-18_17-42-4.png
 
Tantalum said:
Mooney's are a special plane... I hope the company survives and gives Cirrus a run for their money. Don't get me wrong, Cirrus is a great bird... but Mooney's are under appreciated by many (and the sales figures would seem to suggest that as well)

Always thought their quirks were cool... very flat and sharp wingtips. Never liked those giant fiberglass bulbous tips that Archers have. Skyhawks have a nice subtle down swoop... but Mooneys have a good compromise of angles and curves

View attachment 52878
Click to expand...

Hey us new ones have perfectly fancy wing tips!

37ffd9c4a442a223f839e3f106cd321c.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
Hey us new ones have perfectly fancy wing tips!
Click to expand...
Yep, but they still retain that razor sharp look to them. Mooney wings always seemed like they'd be more at home on a Learjet than a piston single to me
 
Yeah they are beautiful things... here's a good view of the proportions

fdb4d5d975edd873c004bafb4ff8272d.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Well this is weird. Multiple people on PoA agreeing on an aircraft that isnt a Bonanza. Huh.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure we agree. It seems to me that his requirements would be best satisfied by a small twin, like a Grumman Cougar. But I don't have a relevant experience and I kept my disagreement private.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Well this is weird. Multiple people on PoA agreeing
Click to expand...
And from what I can tell it seems like the conversation is trending towards retracts!! This, after some recent threads that had a very passionate defense of not needing retractable gear on a fast cross country capable plane... I think that's funny

Mtns2Skies said:
Bellanca Viking 17-31ATC (With turbo)
Click to expand...

Stets656 said:
Bonanza is looking pretty good right about now
Click to expand...

gsengle said:
Range is tough, Mooney may come closest...
Click to expand...

ktup-flyer said:
a Saratoga II TC would work
Click to expand...

EDIT: typo
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Yep. They're fine birds, fly nicely... But make sure you fit. I fit really well in the Mooney, but Bonanzas are a hair narrower and I bump my head in them too. :( That's unfortunate, because they're really nice-flying planes.

They also tend to be priced somewhat higher than equivalent airplanes from other manufacturers - The Bonanza mystique. And they're just really well known and their owners do a great job marketing them (and, I'm convinced, bagging on Mooneys!*). You'll probably get the money back when you sell, but you'll have more money tied up in the meantime.

(* I say this in jest... But seriously, where do all those "Mooneys are tiny" rumors come from? Al Mooney was 6'5"!!!)
Click to expand...

I think it has to do with the smallish Windows, and panel being close when you pull the seat up. Also, how many screws do you have to remove for the annual. Lots of wing access panels to remove, and the cowl... Probably like 500 number 8's. I heard AnPs love Mooney's.... Cha Ching!
 
zaitcev said:
I'm not sure we agree. It seems to me that his requirements would be best satisfied by a small twin, like a Grumman Cougar. But I don't have a relevant experience and I kept my disagreement private.
Click to expand...

Cougar won't come close to the speeds he is looking for.
 
Turbo normalized A36 with tip tanks is a sweet ride. Really comfortable for 3 or 4 with baggage. Will hold value reasonably well if a twin is in the OP's future. The Mooney is a sweet plane but I sat in one and it wasn't for me.
 
Rcmutz said:
I think it has to do with the smallish Windows, and panel being close when you pull the seat up. Also, how many screws do you have to remove for the annual. Lots of wing access panels to remove, and the cowl... Probably like 500 number 8's. I heard AnPs love Mooney's.... Cha Ching!
Click to expand...

The new ones are easier to work on, and all my cowl screws are the captive half turn type I forget what they are called...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
Yeah they are beautiful things... here's a good view of the proportions

fdb4d5d975edd873c004bafb4ff8272d.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Betcha can't tell which plane is a couple of decades older . . . Notice the rounded wingtips. :D

photo.JPG

My cowl is held on with about three dozen dzus fasteners and six (6) screws. Time to remove was a recent discussion, so I timed myself over the weekend when doing maintenance. Just under 4 minutes, not counting time carrying the pieces to a safe place to set down.

The belly? There are 52 screws, I've counted them numerous times. Right wing has four inspection panels, left wing has three. I'm not taking them off again until annual. I can usually remove cowl and all panels for annual in a couple of hours (one evening after work), using just a ratcheting screwdriver. No cordless drills on my plane!

What other Mooney myths can I bust tonight?
  • My longest flight so far was 4:40 into the wind, and I landed with 1:15 fuel left. Yeah, I was ready to get out.
  • But I also took my wife on a ten day cross country trip, bags stacked to the ceiling, and carried a couple of bags for CG-challenged friends who went along in their plane. Just over 1300 nm each way.
  • I generally climb around 100 mph indicated, and descend power on, 500 fpm at 170 mph indicated; depending on altitude, cruise can be 140-155 indicated.
  • I'm 6 feet even in shoes, and have carried three adult passengers (longest flight time, 2 hours).
  • My wife enjoys riding along with me.
  • The 3-blade prop is smooth on my Lycoming 4 cylinder. Just checked dynamic balance; logbook showed it was done in June 2002, so I was happy to see 0.01 ips in January 2017.
Next?? :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top