What Plane Should I Look For?

Which airplane should you buy? The one YOU decide is best for YOUR mission. If you can't yet answer that question yourself, you're not ready to buy. Keep renting and building experience and the answer will come.
 
Mooney's are fast but man they are tight. 2 people 200lbs with 43.5 inches of space. Pass. IMO the only reason to go retract is speed. Personally I prefer simple. There's a reason Cirrus and Columbia chose to keep the wheels down. Wasnt worth the maintenance and loss of useful load for the 5 knots gained. Cirrus is pretty quick too. Not nearly as fast as the Columbia/Cessna 350/400 which boasted to be as fast as the last Mooney. Most Mooney models are really close to the same. Some engines were better than others. Further down the alphabet you go the more modern you get.

Aaaa, no. Columbia is 40 knots slower. The SR 22T is 30 knots slower.
 
I do South Florida to west coast almost every year, but not this year of course . It averages 20 hours west, 16 east. I’ve flown up to 16000’ with no problem. But if I had to do it more than just once a year, or live at 5000’+ elevation, I’d get a turbo. I can make the NA engine work because I only fly in the morning when it’s cool.
 

I was comparing the type S acclaim, 242 knots and the article tested at 20000 instead of the 25000 because they felt most owners wouldn’t fly at 25000? Don’t know if that makes a difference thought it was odd. Like try compare a Corvette with a Ferrari and not allowing to be up to redline.

You do need to test in the same airspace. For example, humidity robs engines of horsepower, not just temperatures, so if I try to match speeds with someone in the southwest, I’m not going to be happy.
 
With that budget and long distance trips, I recommend a turbo engine. I would consider these, from highest to lowest preference: Cirrus SR22T, Columbia 400, Turbo Saratoga, Cessna TR182, Turbo Bonanza. The Cirrus is the only one with a parachute and one of the fastest. Have fun.
 
God, I think I have, what, like 10 or 15 tabs pulled up for each of the planes that got recommended.
You guys are great! Thanks so much! It’s like an early Christmas!

Has your wife bought off on this yet? Really? There are lots of posts here by pilots that fly, but without their spouse. :( Rick's wife was good with it until they had kids, then she didn't like the risk.

My wife wasn't sure about it at first as she has some motion sensitivity; she can't read in a moving car or she gets nauseous. She's been sick on commercial flights, but not since we've been together. I've seen her turn a bit green on a few commercial flights, but no puking so far. She's found she likes flying in the small planes. She can read while we are flying and has had less issues with motion in the small planes than the big commercial jets. Plus we can bring things on the small plane that we can't or would be challenging on a commercial flight; wine, alcohol, food, paintings and more.

Has she been in a small plane? If not, take her on a flight with your CFI. A nice short cross country flight in the morning with good weather.
 
Yeah, she has. Not in my rental Arrow, but rather a friend’s plane.

she likes smol planes and big ones alike.
Also the wife made me do this post, she likes hearing what others think.

also, theoretically, since I’m an aeronautical engineer, should I make schematics for my own plane and hire someone to build it?
 
also, theoretically, since I’m an aeronautical engineer, should I make schematics for my own plane and hire someone to build it

Absolutely. This is the way to go ^^^. Make sure to post pics along the way in the home builders section.
 
Absolutely. This is the way to go ^^^. Make sure to post pics along the way in the home builders section.
Oh thanks! I will do that and probably end up procrastinating for ten years and then do it and it’ll be amazing!
No but seriously that’s a good idea! I just might end up putting off the work since I’m still working on my major and ppl at the same time lol.
 
Yeah, she has. Not in my rental Arrow, but rather a friend’s plane.

she likes smol planes and big ones alike.
Also the wife made me do this post, she likes hearing what others think.

also, theoretically, since I’m an aeronautical engineer, should I make schematics for my own plane and hire someone to build it?

While you're at it.. might as well make it VTOL, and autonomous...
 
Tilt rotor? Rocket engines? Able to achieve orbit around Mars?

what else?
 
A really important thing is to sit in the aircraft before you buy it. It was a seat in a Mooney F that sold me. I'd always like Mooneys for their speed and efficiency, but when I sat in one I felt like I fit and I could see over the nose. Sold. I suspect a Mooney would be too tight for you and yours, but you never know. Also, have your Mrs. sit in the right seat before you buy. Momma ain't happy ain't nobody happy. Mrs. Steingar spent the first three flights complaining about the Mooney. When I got her back from DC in two hours she warmed up to it big time.
 
Maybe...
I was thinking kind of like a hybrid like my Prius. Uses gas to get up and for most of the mission, but uses mostly electricity for the descent.

is that a good idea?
 
Maybe...
I was thinking kind of like a hybrid like my Prius. Uses gas to get up and for most of the mission, but uses mostly electricity for the descent.

is that a good idea?
Silly rubber band comment! Reverse the prop so it generates it's own 'lectricity! Yeah! That's the ticket!
 
I came here to say this. Definitely surprised hadn’t been mentioned until this point.
Do engineers actually ever build anything?

I will say, most aircraft I've ridden in and flown have gotten airborne and landed (on second thought, all I've been in have done both, successfully).

But, too many of the other items I've dealt with IRL that were "engineered" weren't as practical or as functional as they could have been.
 
Do engineers actually ever build anything?

I will say, most aircraft I've ridden in and flown have gotten airborne and landed (on second thought, all I've been in have done both, successfully).

But, too many of the other items I've dealt with IRL that were "engineered" weren't as practical or as functional as they could have been.

Ok, not totally the same thing but I deal with a lot of structural engineers and architects as a welder/fabricator. We like to say their knowledge is all theoretical and never really applied to real world problems. Sure you can spec a beam size, but the ability to actually find a mill actually making it and a supplier stocking it in some cases are non existent. Got a shirt that says "welders, because engineers need heroes too". In a lot of cases we get plans from an engineer and they've clearly never been on site as the roof bar joists aren't even running the same direction as they are on plans.
 
I’m 193 lbs, my spouse is 213 lbs. I have two dogs (23 lbs and 25 lbs). I’d probably be carrying around 75 lbs of luggage. I would be flying anywhere from 50 nm (almost every weekend) to 2000 nm (stops included (once or twice a year)). I’d most likely be stopping at concrete strips, or larger airports. Looking for something in the 50 to 300k range.

Currently working on VFR, Will then immediately work on IFR. Training for a single engine plane (I’m in an Arrow currently). I live in Southern California.

182, Bonanza, Mooney.

The 182 is the ideal first airplane to own, especially if you aren't 100% sure of your mission. It's not the best at anything, but it's pretty damn good at everything. Comfortable, hauls a pretty good load, reasonably fast (a step up from the trainer class at least), easy and forgiving to fly, will let you get a taste of things like backcountry flying, grass strips, etc. It's easy to work on and hard to find a mechanic that hasn't worked on one, and once you have gotten a taste of various parts of aviation and have defined your mission a little better, it's easy to sell.

The Bo and Mooney are going to be better at getting places, but won't be as good at some of the other things the 182 can do. There's also a wide variety of both! The Bonanza came out in 1947 and Mooney in the early 50s, and both have had significant changes since then and come in several fuselage and engine sizes, so you'll need to do your homework to further refine which particular model of those would be right for you.

I have a Mooney M20R Ovation. It's speedy and ridiculously efficient. 175 KTAS on 12 gph. I'm 6'4" and 315# so don't let the old wives' tales about Mooneys being "small and cramped" dissuade you from trying them. The Bonanzas are slightly narrower (and I bump my head on the "corner" of the semicircular upper cross section) but they do have a more upright seating position similar to a 172 or 182 vs. the lower seating position of the Cherokee line. If you don't mind flying the Arrow for hours on end, you'll love the Mooneys.

In that price range for that mission, bonanza, cirrus SR22, saratoga, turbo arrow, 182/206/210, lot of choices up to 500K. 2000 nm and you probably want 180-200 knots at least. Usually going to mean a turbo something. The short trips more options.

For just one trip a year over an hour away, a turbo is a TERRIBLE idea. It means you'll generally be going slower the rest of the year (the turbos aren't faster until you get up into the teens), and paying a lot more $$$ for fuel, maintenance, and overhaul.

I've tried to talk myself into a turbo many times. However, if I compare my normally aspirated Mooney Ovation to a Mooney Bravo or Acclaim which are essentially identical but turbocharged, my plane is faster below 10,000 feet, can climb to 10,000 feet nearly as quickly, and I have a speed advantage on any trip less than 200nm. It takes me at least 2 miles of forward distance per thousand feet for the climb (120-140 KIAS, so higher KTAS as I climb), and at least 6 miles of forward distance per thousand feet on the descent. That's at least 8 miles traveled per thousand feet, maybe even 10, of climb and descent alone.

Considering speed and time to climb will still be pretty close to even at 10,000 feet between the turbo and non-turbo, that means that having a reasonable amount (half) of the trip spent in cruise flight will result in a 200nm leg being pretty much a wash between turbo and normally aspirated. It's not until you take the turbo to at least 15,000 (aka, 300nm leg or farther) that it starts to have a significant speed advantage, and that 242-knot cruise on the Acclaim is only going to happen up at 25,000 feet, which you'll only get to on a 500-nm leg. And that 500-nm leg is still going to take 2.5 hours on the Acclaim while I can complete it in 3 on the Ovation.

So, it's really hard to justify even though I fly probably 20+ 500-nm legs in a normal year because I still fly plenty of 50-150nm legs as well. The OP is looking at a balance that is much more skewed toward the shorter legs, so the turbo is going to cost him a lot of money to save a couple hours on one trip a year. And as another practical matter, now that I'm flying the TBM in the flight levels I really appreciate the ability of the Mooney to get places fast down low, because the flight levels are boring. You can hardly see anything on the ground. The view is much better down low!

Mooney's are fast but man they are tight. 2 people 200lbs with 43.5 inches of space.

... which is wider than the Bonanza that nobody says is tight, and only 2.5 inches narrower than the 182 that nobody ever complains about. Again, I'm 6'4" and 315#. The legroom on the Mooney is fantastic, and the other dimensions are average.

Most Mooney models are really close to the same. Some engines were better than others. Further down the alphabet you go the more modern you get.

Disagree that they're "close to the same." The original M20 model was a short, 150 hp, wood-winged antique. The U is a 310hp, long-body, all-metal airplane and the V is the fastest piston-powered certified aircraft produced in the last 30 years, including twins.

The main differences are the fuselage length, engine power, and turbo vs normally aspirated.

The "short body" Mooneys are the M20 through M20E, "mid body" are the M20F through M20K, and "long body" are M20L through M20V.

The K, M, TN, and V are turbocharged, the others are normally aspirated.

The original M20 was 150hp.
The A-D and G were 180hp.
The E, F, and J were 200hp.
The K was 210hp generally (I think the Encore may have gotten a boost, so to speak.)
The L had a 217hp Porsche PFM engine.
The S was 244hp, the M was 270hp.
The R, TN, U, and V are all 280hp but the R (and the S) can be upgraded to 310hp via STC (same engine, new prop governor). The STC was applied at the factory on the "Ovation 3" R models.

The most popular models:
M20C ("Ranger"), 180hp normally aspirated short body (1962-1978)
M20E ("Super 21"/"Chaparral"), 200hp normally aspirated short body (1964-1975)
M20F ("Executive 21"), 200hp normally aspirated mid body (1966-1977)
M20J ("201"), 200hp normally aspirated mid body (1977-1987). This differs from the F by a significant aerodynamic cleanup, though the big-ticket items are also available as a retrofit to the F. The M20J is generally considered to be the "sweet spot" in the Mooney lineup, as a good one will do 160 knots on 10gph without beating up the engine.
M20K ("231"/"252"/"TSE"/"Encore"), 200hp turbocharged mid body (1979-1998). Basically a turbo J. 231s have an engine that is basically impossible to run LOP and has a fixed wastegate, and there were lots of engine troubles early on. This was solved with the 252 and later models.
M20M ("Bravo"), 270hp turbocharged long body (1989-2006)
M20R ("Ovation")/M20U ("Ovation Ultra"), 280hp normally aspirated long body (1994-present). This has had a few variants, the Ovation3 had 310hp from the factory and the Ovation Ultra has doors on both sides.
M20TN ("Acclaim")/M20V ("Acclaim Ultra"), 280hp turbocharged long body (2006-present). This replaced the Bravo, and has a Continental 280hp turbo engine instead of the Bravo's 270hp turbo Lycoming, as well as a few aerodynamic cleanups.

The "weird" models:
M20 and M20A had wooden wing spars and wooden tails. Wooden tails are no longer a thing, replacement is required by AD.
M20D "Master" was Mooney's idea of a trainer. It's basically an M20C with fixed gear and fixed-pitch prop. Most were later converted back to retracts, and only one flying fixed-gear Master survives to my knowledge.
The M20G "Statesman" is kinda like an F but with only 180hp so it did not sell well.
The M20L "PFM" had a Porsche engine. Sounds cool, but it had the least horsepower of any long body, and Porsche quickly dropped support for the engine so most have been converted to more traditional aviation engines.
The M20S "Eagle" had an even-more-derated IO-550 engine of only 244hp and lower gross weight than the Ovation, so it didn't sell particularly well either. It can be upgraded to the same 310hp configuration as the Ovation3 to become a "Screaming Eagle", but I don't think that ups the max gross weight any so your payload would be lower.

If you're rarely flying more than 200nm on a typical trip, having a retract-gear speed demon isn't going to cut much time off of the trip and it's good bit of extra expense to maintain and insure.

An excellent point, and the reason something like the 182 is well worth considering. However, retractable landing gear isn't inherently that expensive. The Mooney has a darn-near-bulletproof landing gear system, while the Cessna ones can be problematic. Cost per hour favors fixed gear anyway of course, but cost per mile usually favors a retract, all else being equal. More seats are a lot more expensive to insure than folding legs.

If anyone thinks a bonanza is narrow then you can forget a Mooney.

Mooney is wider.

Plus we can bring things on the small plane that we can't or would be challenging on a commercial flight; wine, alcohol, food, paintings and more.

Paintings??? :confused2:
 
Paintings??? :confused2:

We had a few of paintings she had made. She wanted to hang them in her new place. Unfortunately one was too big to fit in the Cirrus. The only two would fit, but one with little extra room.

Here's a shot of it with her younger sister riding in the back seat with the paintings. She had to sit sideways.

839c4fd5ba24becd683d1b990c51d6cf.jpg


Wayne
 
Retract, preferably. One engine, preferably. Under 12000’. Modern-ish (anything from 75’ to now). I drive a used Prius. I don’t like sports cars or trucks very much, they are too intimidating for me.

I feel like I am looking at me when I was 23 except for the prius lol. I'm new here but watching your thread! Looks like you have a fun purchase in front of you!
 
Perhaps some sort of inexpensive pressurized turbodiesel with a canard?
Yes! and name it after a bird of prey!

Silly rubber band comment! Reverse the prop so it generates it's own 'lectricity! Yeah! That's the ticket!
It can rewind its own rubber band on descent. Free energy to use to take back off again!!

which is wider than the Bonanza that nobody says is tight
This actually really bothers me. The rear of a Bonanza, despite that table, is disgracefully small. And. That. Bar. Ughhh

But let's face it, no single agent piston is that comfortable.. there will be a compromise. The Commander feels like a living room inside but it's slow.. the Trinidad/Tobago have an extremely wide cabin but again they're slow and have limited headroom.. etc. It all really does come down to individual preference

and only 2.5 inches narrower than the 182 that nobody ever complains about
The 172 and 182 feel huge inside because the airframe is so square. As much as I hate highwings they are admittedly very comfortable rides
 
. . . But let's face it, no single agent piston is that comfortable.. there will be a compromise. The Commander feels like a living room inside but it's slow.. the Trinidad/Tobago have an extremely wide cabin but again they're slow and have limited headroom.. etc. It all really does come down to individual preference . . .

Lol, it's not exactly miserly. Going 150-155 KTS isn't exactly poking along. Sure it's a good 10+kts slower than an A36 Bo or SR20 on similar power, but that's the sacrifice you have to accept for something "feeling like a living room". Not sure what can be done to get the interior cabin volume of the Commander and the speed of a Bo on the same power, cross-section is hard to get around even with slick composites like the Cirrus. Only real way to mimic it is to have minimal space between the aircraft skin and the interior panels to maximize interior volume.
 
Only real way to mimic it is to have minimal space between the aircraft skin and the interior panels to maximize interior volume
I feel like "newer" (say after 2000) planes started adding more padding and stuff to the insides. An old PA-28-180/181 from the 1970s feels much roomier on the inside than a new one.. the new one looks nicer with the overhead panel, etc., but it feels demonstrably smaller

interior cabin volume of the Commander
The Commander is a really cool plane.. and that beefy aircraft carrier like landing gear gives it a serious ramp presence. But fast, it is not.
 
Back
Top