poadeleted21
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2011
- Messages
- 12,332
Anybody know anything about these? Good, Bad, Ugly?
I've got a few hours in them. They're faster than a Cutlass, but that's about all I can say. A straight-leg 182 will go just about as fast and carry more for the same money. IOW, they're pretty much like all the other 180-200HP retractables except the Mooney. Their biggest advantage over the others is the ease of entry provided by the big doors, high wing, and strutless construction.
More like 15-20 knots faster, but a significantly less roomy cabin. I'll leave the aesthetics to others.What's different about a Mooney? 10-12 knots faster and infinitely uglier?
That may be what the book says, but the ones I flew were basically 140 knot cruisers.The strutless high wing looks appealing, the speed (148 knots or so) is workable
What's different about a Mooney? 10-12 knots faster and infinitely uglier?
Anybody know anything about these? Good, Bad, Ugly?
The strutless high wing looks appealing, the speed (148 knots or so) is workable, it looks comfy and the IO-360 seems like it would have enough ummffff to get me off the ground in a respectable distance. I've always thought the Cessna/High Wing retract mechanasims were goofy. My main concern would be is the gear burly enough to handle gopher hole/ grass strips?
If I lived at lower altitude I probably would have bought one instead of the Mooney. I rented one for around 200 hrs. Above 8-10,000 msl it didn't climb will at all. Even my wife noticed. 'Do we have to climb'.
Tornado Ally Turbo makes an STC for the 177RG but I suspect you need to be made of money to make that worthwhile versus buying an already turboed plane.
As for me, I was absolutely sure and certain that I would own one of the first Cardinal RG's in the Kansas City market. When they finally showed up, however, quick demo ride exposed their deficiencies, and even though they are cute little planes with nice big doors, they can't run with the big dogs.
Exactly, that is the deficiency with all 200hp retracts, just not enough power; it should have 60 more. You can always reduce power and fuel flow when you don't need it, but you can't add power to full power when you need more power. Horsepower is always your friend. All the 200hp planes of that Genre need 230 hp and should have 260.
It certainly could, plus more, but then again it may not.What's your take on an IO520BA@1300hrs, will it run another 1000? I'd need to at least coerce it into another 500.
It certainly could, plus more, but then again it may not.
definitely maybe huh? Wondering what the reputation of the IO520 is? Are they noted for exploding 500 hours pre-TBO or do they have a good rep for making it, then some.
I've got about 500+ hours - not all logged - in a 177RG that I flew in with an aerial photographer. I love the bird. I'd agree on the airspeed, although honestly we often cruised at slower airspeeds for various reasons. The range of the bird is great, and the aircraft is nicely responsive. Landings are a bit different than your typical 172 / 182 / 210, but not bad.That may be what the book says, but the ones I flew were basically 140 knot cruisers.
The IO520 IMO is one of the most solid engines there is. They are capable of going well past TBO if they've lived the proper life.
Alright, a plane that fits EVERYTHING I want, speed, cost, panel etc.. has popped up, the engine is at 1300 being the lone exception, I have the funds to purchase it but would not have them to hang a new engine on it for a couple of years. I'll give it some consideration. TBO is 1700 so I don't think asking for 1800 is too much
You're going to talk me into spending too much money on a Bonanza...
What's your take on an IO520BA@1300hrs, will it run another 1000? I'd need to at least coerce it into another 500.
Not for their intended purpose, which in most cases is to introduce and train people to fly complex airplanes and build retractable time cheaply. You don't need to be spending another $25/hr on fuel to do that. The only 180-200HP retractable which really delivers speed is the Mooney M20-series, and with their drag reduction features (including the small cross-section, which significantly affects their cabin comfort), they'd be fast even without retractable gear (viz, the M20D).Exactly, that is the deficiency with all 200hp retracts, just not enough power; it should have 60 more.
Not for their intended purpose, which in most cases is to introduce and train people to fly complex airplanes. You don't need to be spending another $25/hr on fuel to do that. The only 180-200HP retractable which really delivers speed is the Mooney M20-series, and with their drag reduction features (including the small cross-section, which significantly affects their cabin comfort), they'd be fast even without retractable gear (viz, the M20D).
I gather you've never run an FBO or flight school, because in the real world, that doesn't happen. In any event, if you want the speed, you'll need to buy a 250+ HP retractable. If you don't, there are more economical options than a 180-200 HP retractable.All you have to do is pull back the power on a 260 HP plane of similar cross section and weight and you don't burn any more fuel than the 200hp plane.
I gather you've never run an FBO or flight school, because in the real world, that doesn't happen. In any event, if you want the speed, you'll need to buy a 250+ HP retractable. If you don't, there are more economical options than a 180-200 HP retractable.
I flew one for a private owner once that absolutely needed to get to a meeting and was not instrument rated. It was nice but overall I wasn't that impressed, really weird and heavy in pitch, so much so I wondered if something was wrong with it.
There was also something weird about the windscreen that produced some weird illusions with my sunglasses.
I gather you've never run an FBO or flight school, because in the real world, that doesn't happen. In any event, if you want the speed, you'll need to buy a 250+ HP retractable. If you don't, there are more economical options than a 180-200 HP retractable.
All you have to do is pull back the power on a 260 HP plane of similar cross section and weight and you don't burn any more fuel than the 200hp plane. A Bonanza flown at Arrow speeds uses less fuel than an Arrow and with a 260hp 470 is cheaper to maintain. If you don't believe me, ask Marty Bevill, and he had the fastest slickest Arrow I've been in and his Bo has a 520 even. He was doubtful when I told him. As soon as he tried it he called me and said,"You were right".
You are correct, the 200hp planes were meant as low cost of purchase retract trainers for flight schools. initial purchase cost then was considerably below that of a Bonanza. However, that is no longer the economic reality of the market. Now you can buy a Bo at near parity with an Arrow. Since a non flight school purchaser of an Arrow will soon outgrow the training environment, he will soon outgrow the capability of the Arrow, typical time to step up out of it is 3-4 years and it's usually only that long due to the financial burden and difficulties in selling a plane for a reasonable price.
Buy your last plane first, it's the cheapest and safest method in the long run and gets you full mission capability from day one.