1200 nm Every 2 wks.

[mn_voyageur]

I am looking at flying 1200 nm every two weeks. It would be a solo trip, however, I have a family of 4. (Two kids under 10.)

I though about a T182RG, V35, or a Twin Comanche. I am told that they all should cruise at 155-160. (I would like more, but doubt I could afford the a/c, fuel, insurance, etc...)

IFR is a must, since this would be for business. If the weather is really bad, I can fly commercial, but with the headaches that go with it, I would rather fly myself.

I though about a Centurion, but my instructor/mentor suggested that I get more retract time before looking for a 6-place a/c.

I appreciate any input.

MarkN

 

[taters]

How bout an A-36 /F-33bonanza or Beech Debonair w/tips or a piper saratoga,?...You will want something that is fast, can hold a bunch of gas and will serve as a nice instrument platform...I had a private student last year (similar situation as you) who I got into a Bonanza at 85 hours total time and then we did his instrument right away...insurance was not nearly as brutal as I thought for that guy especially after the IR. You have to start with that retract time somewhere...At any rate good luck with your search..While there is no perfect airplane Im sure you will get some great suggestions from POA..!

BTW what part of the country will you be flying in and year round?..you may need to consider ice protection and turbo...both can be applied to all above suggestions

 

[weilke]

I though about a T182RG, V35, or a Twin Comanche.

In that general category, take a look at the single Comanche and the TB20/TB21.

1200nm is a long haul in any light aircraft if you have to do it on a regular basis.

 

[Areeda]

Let's see 1200nm/150kts = 8hrs = long day
I'd probably make 2 stops one quick one lunch making it 9.5-10 hrs. Doable but exhausting.

Of the choices so far, I'm partial to a Bonanza with a good GPS and 2 axis autopilot. I like the T182 also but it's slower.

I would be looking for comfort and automation, maybe a good audio system also.

Joe

 

[mn_voyageur]

It is a long run, especially when headed West! And if I do need a break, I can always fly commercial. However, I have enjoyed all of my trips, even when my ground speed was only 63 knots.

The Trinidad is one I have never seen. Therefore, I would be concerned about maintenance and parts availability. I have flown a single Comanche, but it was an old one, maybe 180 HP. I flew right seat in a Twin Comanche on an Angle Flight. It was pretty easy to fly.

I have a lot of time in the fixed gear 182, which is one reason why I am looking at the T182RG.

And I have flown in a Debonair (C33?), but the yoke and my knees didn't get along. (I am a little over 6'.)

Are there any faster a/c that might fit? I realize that faster = more gas, but if I spend less time in the air ... Or am I just dreaming?

Thanks,
MarkN

 

[Ted]

Judging from the states on your map, I'm guessing that you're looking at flying in the south. In the winter you'll still have icing concerns, but you'll probably be fine most of the year. If you have commercial as a viable (albeit undesirable) backup option, then that also helps

You'll end up wanting as much speed as you can get. With bad headwinds, the westbound journey can be painfully slow in a number of planes. But that said, if your business gives you the flexibility of +/- 1 day then that might be enough to avoid that most of the time. Anything slower than about 150 kts on average will get old fast. A Comanche 250/260 seems like a good option, so does the Bonanza. The Turbo Twin Comanche option that Kent will tell you all about would also be good, as would a Seneca II. Another option I would look at that I think is under appreciated is the Travel Air. A friend of mine has one - it's a very nice airplane, and has similar performance to a Twin Comanche (as far as I can tell) with better interior space. It's pretty much a 55 Baron with Lycoming O/IO-360s instead of the Continental IO-470s.

Depending on what your wallet allows, an Aztec/Baron/310 also produces a good option. The Baron might be a good one for you, giving you both good speed, acceptable room for you and your family of four, and you can get them with de-ice. An Aztec is real truck, but it sounds that for your standard mission, a Baron or 310 would still give you sufficient room and useful load without the speed penalty. The Aztec is slower than the Baron or 310, but it hauls more and is a tank.

To give you some numbers, I run 155 KTAS at 20-22 gph combined in the Aztec. My friend's Travel Air runs 155 KTAS at 15-16 gph combined. Others here can tell you their numbers.

I would suggest is that you try to get a plane with de-ice, even if you don't intend on using it. The reason for that is that is twofold. First off, if you buy a plane you'll likely want to buy one that you won't outgrow. Even if you aren't going to use the de-ice whatsoever for a few years, then that means in a few years it's there and you don't have to sell the plane and buy one that has it installed. The second is in case you get into it inadvertently. Of course, that pretty much puts you into the twin market, which you may or may not want to be in. The insurance and MX is higher, but I find for long XCs it's very nice to have. If nothing else you have little advantages, like when alternator or vacuum pump goes out you're not dead in the water.

Where do you live exactly? If I'm ever flying through your area I'll take you up in the Aztec. You might fall in love.

 

[nyoung]

Is this 1200nm each leg? Or 1200nm round trip? For the purposes of this post - I will assume it is a 1200nm round trip. IMHO, as much as I love flying... a 2400nm round trip every other week in a GA plane isn't really a feasible exercise. That amounts to something like 350-400 flight hours a year. Something I doubt few non-professional pilots ever accomplish (my peak year was about 225hrs, and it seemed like I was using the plane constantly).

While speed is very important for a long distance trip, range is even more important, especially if you are going to fly IFR and hence need IFR reserves. If you can find a plane that can easily make the 600nm trip + reserves (even with a 20kt headwind)... then on the average, you'll end up quite a bit faster than a faster plane that cannot always make the trip non-stop.

There are quite a few Bonanzas that have tip tanks, putting their fuel load around 115 gallons. Even rich of peak, and with a strong headwind, that would easily make a 600nm leg... so that might be a good place to start your search.

One last comment. With this kind of X-C, a good autopilot with altitude hold, and preferably GPSS coupling is pretty much a necessity. I only have a wing leveler in my plane, which means I end up hand flying 99% of a flight. On long days (8-10 hrs in the cockpit) I end up pretty exhausted.

I am looking at flying 1200 nm every two weeks. It would be a solo trip, however, I have a family of 4. (Two kids under 10.)

I though about a T182RG, V35, or a Twin Comanche. I am told that they all MarkN

 

[Ted]

Is this 1200nm each leg? Or 1200nm round trip? For the purposes of this post - I will assume it is a 1200nm round trip. IMHO, as much as I love flying... a 2400nm round trip every other week in a GA plane isn't really a feasible exercise. That amounts to something like 350-400 flight hours a year. Something I doubt few non-professional pilots ever accomplish (my peak year was about 225hrs, and it seemed like I was using the plane constantly).

I know a good number of weekend pilots who have flown 400+ hours a year. Last year I did 350. This year so far I've done 70.

While speed is very important for a long distance trip, range is even more important, especially if you are going to fly IFR and hence need IFR reserves. If you can find a plane that can easily make the 600nm trip + reserves (even with a 20kt headwind)... then on the average, you'll end up quite a bit faster than a faster plane that cannot always make the trip non-stop.

Agreed. More fuel is more better.

One last comment. With this kind of X-C, a good autopilot with altitude hold, and preferably GPSS coupling is pretty much a necessity. I only have a wing leveler in my plane, which means I end up hand flying 99% of a flight. On long days (8-10 hrs in the cockpit) I end up pretty exhausted.

The altitude hold you can live without if you trim it properly, but it is very nice to have. Coupling even nicer. Right now my Altimatic IIIB has the roll and pitch working (roll coupled to the Nav/GPS), but not altitude hold. This weekend I let Otto do about 85% of the flying (I focused on takeoffs, landings, and approaches). A good division of labor that definitely helped. I flew two short legs (only 2 hours each) hand flying, but those were the short days when I wasn't trying to fly 1800+ nm.

 

[Steve]

http://www.lancair.com/Main/iv_ivp.html

 

[Ted]

I was thinking that, Steve, but you better know what you're doing if you want to not die. Those planes have a nasty habit of killing people who aren't on the ball. This is as told to me by one of the guys who trains people to fly IV-Ps.

 

[Steve]

This holds true for crossing the street, too.

I was thinking that, Steve, but you better know what you're doing if you want to not die. Those planes have a nasty habit of killing people who aren't on the ball. This is as told to me by one of the guys who trains people to fly IV-Ps.

 

[weilke]

If your legs are in fact 1200nm, I suspect you will do one stop anyway.

Mooney should have something that works for you.

As for the PA24: Don't let your experience with one example of the type deter you. Never flown the 180, but the 260 handles well and offers performance similar or better than the 182 retracts. A PA24-260 carries 86gal useable which gives you about 800nm with 1hr reserve. Some of them have 30gal tips (combined), if you actually want to use that you'll need a bum of steel.

Many of the Bonanzas or Debonair variants are popular travel planes. A F33A with tips could probably get you where you want to be.

 

[gkainz]

Pilatus PC12

 

[Ted]

This holds true for crossing the street, too.

Agreed, but some planes are inherently less forgiving of error than others. The Lancair IV-P happens to be in the "highly unforgiving" category. It's not for everybody.

I don't think anyone would confuse me for one of the sorts who cautions against crossing the street or most things...

 

[kmead]

Go all the way and get a PA46-310P, 16 GPH at 250. Most of our legs are 5 to 6 hrs, I had a 7.0 hr non-stop trip back from Vero beach last fall. Right now the prices are the lowest ever for some of the older ships.

I have another kid going into college/ you need a Malibu.

Regards, Kevin

 

[Ted]

If you're heading to that range, you might as well get a P-Baron or a Cessna 340. I can't figure out the appeal to the Malibu, even though it's clearly done well for Piper.

 

[weilke]

Go all the way and get a PA46-310P, 16 GPH at 250.

My understanding is that the OP has insurance concerns for a 210, I doubt insuring a Malibu will be a pleasant experience.

 

[Ted]

My understanding is that the OP has insurance concerns for a 210, I doubt insuring a Malibu will be a pleasant experience.

When I talked to an insurance agent about it she said that it was very unpleasant to insure, although I'm sure the owners can talk about it more.

16 gph @ 250? That seems unrealistic.

 

[Trapper John]

16 GPH at 250.

Is that 250 cruise speed, altitude or TBO?


Trapper John

 

[Ted]

Hey now, the TSIO-520 Malibu here at Williamsport gets 600 hours between cylinder overhauls...

 

[RMCN172RG]

Before you invest in any plane do the mental excercise for at least a few weeks. Plan the flight, follow the weather and make your go no-go decision.

At what point do you have to make the no-go I need to fly commercial decision? Buying those last minute tickets for the worst seat in the house can be a real expensive pain. For the go decisions follow the weather and decide if you're really happy with the result. Remember part of your GO decision is that I KNOW I CAN RETURN at a reasonable point in time. What is the cost of leaving the plane to return commercial then flying back for the plane.

WHen I bought the 172RG my plan was to use it for weekend trips to MYR from PHN 600 NM one leg. The goals was to be able to make the flight without a stop and legal reserves. The plane does that very nicely in 3.5 to 5 hours depending on the weather. At 5 hours I still have 1.5 or so of reserve.

In Two years I've gone GA twice. Every other time if I need to go down and return on a certain date without either coming home 2 days early or potentially a week late I've booked commercial.

If it's business and you have to be there you defintiely need a more capable plane than a 182RG per Ted's post above.

 

[weilke]

When I talked to an insurance agent about it she said that it was very unpleasant to insure, although I'm sure the owners can talk about it more.

I noticed something. Owners tend to have a clouded view about the insurance aspects of their aircraft. You will hear 'oh, I never had a problem to get insurance for my P-Baron and its really cheap', once you dig deeper they have 20k hours ranging from cropdusting to the Space Shuttle.

The safety record of the pressurized singles has been poor and the losses tend to be expensive for the insurance companies. That is not a result of a problem with the aircraft but rather how they are used. As a result the insurers have hour and training requirements that can be pretty stiff.

16 gph @ 250? That seems unrealistic.

In cruise that is probably correct. For a block to block fuel burn one should be honest enough to add the 35min climb at 30gph into the equation.

 

[Steve]

Name one commercially successful airplane that someone hasn't died in. Any plane is unforgiving to the complacent, ignorant, or arrogant. The OP asked for a plane capable of meeting his mission requirements and I offered an example. Only he can decide if he has the qualifications to take advantage of it.

Agreed, but some planes are inherently less forgiving of error than others. The Lancair IV-P happens to be in the "highly unforgiving" category. It's not for everybody.

I don't think anyone would confuse me for one of the sorts who cautions against crossing the street or most things...

 

[Trapper John]

Name one commercially successful airplane that someone hasn't died in. Any plane is unforgiving to the complacent, ignorant, or arrogant. The OP asked for a plane capable of meeting his mission requirements and I offered an example. Only he can decide if he has the qualifications to take advantage of it.

Some aircraft are more forgiving than others. I don't think Ted misrepresented the Lancairs at all:



FAA analysis of fatal accidents for Lancair airplanes operating under an experimental airworthiness certificate has revealed a large and disproportionate number of fatal accidents for their fleet size. The Lancair fatal accident rate is substantially higher than both personal-use general aviation as well as the overall fatal accident rate for all amateur-built experimental aircraft.

http://lancairowners.com/news_images/InFO_09015.pdf


Trapper John

 

[Ted]

I noticed something. Owners tend to have a clouded view about the insurance aspects of their aircraft. You will hear 'oh, I never had a problem to get insurance for my P-Baron and its really cheap', once you dig deeper they have 20k hours ranging from cropdusting to the Space Shuttle.

Also, things seem easier once they're done with, and once you have insurance it's easier to renew. I know it felt like getting insured in the Aztec when I first bought it was a a pain. In retrospect it doesn't feel as bad as it felt at the time.

The part that can be annoying is that every insurance company wants you to fly with an instructor who has a billion hours in the aircraft for however many hours prior. It just so happened that my instructor has 2000 hours of Aztec time, but getting on his schedule? Now that was a pain. Fortunately at this point that's complete and I have enough hours in type that it's not an issue. I'm at the point now where I'd probably be insurable on a pressurized twin (at least, that's what the insurnace companies have told me), but who knows what else that would require. My guess is SimCom and/or 50 hours of dual. I'd rather do the SimCom just because it's a block of time set aside to get the training done. If I had to do both? What a pain.

The safety record of the pressurized singles has been poor and the losses tend to be expensive for the insurance companies. That is not a result of a problem with the aircraft but rather how they are used. As a result the insurers have hour and training requirements that can be pretty stiff.

Agreed. You can't blame the airplane for the pilot error, but certain airframe characteristics make particular aircraft more or less prone to problems. The kind of people who then purchase those aircraft can create a reputation.

In cruise that is probably correct. For a block to block fuel burn one should be honest enough to add the 35min climb at 30gph into the equation.

16 gph maybe (that would be an economy setting), but at 250? I'm thinking 250 is airspeed, but if it's FL250 that makes more sense. I'd like to see the fuel burn and airspeed - I don't see 16 gph giving you 250 kts or mph in a Malibu at any altitude.

Name one commercially successful airplane that someone hasn't died in. Any plane is unforgiving to the complacent, ignorant, or arrogant. The OP asked for a plane capable of meeting his mission requirements and I offered an example. Only he can decide if he has the qualifications to take advantage of it.

I see your point and agree with that, but you know as well as I do that certain planes are inherently more or less forgiving. There's a reason why people start out in 172s and not Malibus.

 

[poadeleted20]

What's your budget? What are your experience level and qualifications?

In any event, if you want to make this trip regularly and on a schedule, you'll need known-ice certification, and probably turbocharging. That eliminates a lot of planes mentioned above.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

What's your budget? What are your experience level and qualifications?

In any event, if you want to make this trip regularly and on a schedule, you'll need known-ice certification, and probably turbocharging. That eliminates a lot of planes mentioned above.

He DID say that airline was still an option.

 

[steingar]

Get a new job. Seriously. I'd rather take a hole-punch to my eyelids than fly commercial every week. I'd similarly rather than fly myself every week. I'm certain the first few times will be a hoot, but after the nth time it will be chore no matter how many bells and whistles you put in the aircraft. Heck, at least in the cattle tube you can listen to your iPod and do crossword puzzles or something.

Moreover, I suspect that the cattle tube will wind up being cost effective. You have to purchase a lot of airplane to do that trip effectively, and a lot of airplane takes a lot of care and feeding. I bet by the time you get done paying your fuel and maintenance bills you'd be ahead with commercial travel.

Hey, I love flying. But I love going where I want to when I want to. The minute I have to be somewhere I takes some of the fun out of it. I do not want ot run a one-person airline. My 0.92 rupees, for which the OP did ask.

 

[AdamZ]

MOONEY
-Fast
-Sips fuel
-plenty of them around
-you can get a 6' person in no problem
-Room for 4 for the occasional family trip

 

[Areeda]

Yes a Mooney is a good choice, probably the most cost effective in the speed range.

However I suggest you fly one on some long trips. In my younger (and skinnier) days, I found the Mooney to be adequate but not comfortable after a few hours.

As far as running your own airline getting to be a drudge, steingar has a point. I did a fair amount of regular business travel (not compared to some people here) and understand. However a few commercial flights and I was ready to fly myself to Europe if necessary.

Joe

 

[Ted]

What's your budget? What are your experience level and qualifications?

In any event, if you want to make this trip regularly and on a schedule, you'll need known-ice certification, and probably turbocharging. That eliminates a lot of planes mentioned above.

I agree with the known ice, but the turbocharging? Egh, less depending on what part of the country he's in. I've gone to LA and back on a schedule sans turbos, but that's the exception. In the eastern 2/3 of the country where I remain on a schedule for most of my life, turbos are a nice to have. If I was spending a lot of time in mountainous areas it would be different, but naturally aspirated is fine so long as your MEAs are below 10,000 ft.

That said, I wish I'd bought a turbo Aztec.

 

[weilke]

I commute 2000nm weekly on the airlines. Once you rack up some miles and if you travel light, the miseries of air travel are far more bearable.

To do my 'mission' on schedule, with the dispatch reliability I need and with travel times comparable to the Airlines, a TBM700 would be about the smallest aircraft to get the job done.

 

[taters]

http://www.tradewind-bonanza.com/index.html .....just for fun!!

 

[Ghery]

However I suggest you fly one on some long trips. In my younger (and skinnier) days, I found the Mooney to be adequate but not comfortable after a few hours.

I would recommend that for most anything. I find that I can tolerate an Arrow for no more than 3 hours, then my knees give up and it's all I can do to crawl out of it after landing. Angle of seat to pedals? Not sure, but I'd much rather fly the 182. Same speed, higher fuel burn, but a whole lot more comfortable. Haven't been in a Mooney, or most of the other planes suggested, but Joe makes an extremely important point.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

The Turbo Twin Comanche option that Kent will tell you all about would also be good

Yeah, that is what I'd pick. Even an NA Twin Comanche would be a pretty good bird, but for regular, long trips the turbos can really pay off. In fact, a Turbo Twinkie can probably make the 1200nm trip non-stop in between 6 and 6.5 hours, as long as you average less than a couple knots' headwind. The only problem is that de-iced Twinkies are somewhat rare, so depending on how often you want to exercise the airline option, you might want to consider something else.

as would a Seneca II

If it's de-iced, I'd consider it. If not, you're just going slower and burning more fuel.

Another option I would look at that I think is under appreciated is the Travel Air. A friend of mine has one - it's a very nice airplane, and has similar performance to a Twin Comanche (as far as I can tell) with better interior space.

Right on, except the interior space. The Comanche line has one of the widest cabins of any "small" airplane like the ones we're talking about. If you're 6' or less tall, and in good shape, the Travel Air would probably be a good plane to look at too. There weren't nearly as many of them manufactured, though, so it'll probably be easier to find a Twin Comanche equipped how you'd like it. (I don't think there were every any Turbo Travel Airs, nor de-iced ones.)

Overall, I agree wholeheartedly with those who suggest an autopilot. I usually fly a 182 with an S-TEC 50 (2-axis, altitude hold) coupled to a 430W. That's a great combo to have, and really reduces your workload on long flights so that fatigue doesn't bite you at the end when you have to shoot an approach. I've done a few 8-10 hour days in that bird.

Comfort is a big factor. Mooneys are great airplanes, but there's not a lot of room to move around and keep the blood flowing. That's one area where the TR182 will shine. Bad thing about the TR182: It's one of the most useful airplanes around, so you'll pay a lot of money to get one. It's also a bit slower than something like a Comanche 250/260/Twin. The other comfort factor: You'll want a good headset. I could never have done the long days I've done without my Lightspeeds.

What are the endpoints of your 1200nm, by the way? That might make a difference in your airplane selection, too. Are you going into TEB? Probably lower fees on a single. Going into LXV? Might want a turbo, or something with lots of power. Etc...

 

[Ted]

Yeah, that is what I'd pick. Even an NA Twin Comanche would be a pretty good bird, but for regular, long trips the turbos can really pay off. In fact, a Turbo Twinkie can probably make the 1200nm trip non-stop in between 6 and 6.5 hours, as long as you average less than a couple knots' headwind. The only problem is that de-iced Twinkies are somewhat rare, so depending on how often you want to exercise the airline option, you might want to consider something else.

Getting 200 KTAS seems like it'd likely require going pretty high and pushing the engines pretty hard, no? Heading eastbound it would probably generally be doable to get 200 kts GS, but at the altitudes you'd need to be at to get 200 KTAS out of a turbo Twinkie (I'm guessing pretty high) you'd probably be suffering a pretty good headwind heading westbound (depending on the day). Just wondering and speculating, of course. Plus there's the matter of engine temps...

If it's de-iced, I'd consider it [the Seneca]. If not, you're just going slower and burning more fuel.

Well, the Seneca might present a better option for a family of four. He might want something that makes a good family hauler as well.

Right on, except the interior space. The Comanche line has one of the widest cabins of any "small" airplane like the ones we're talking about. If you're 6' or less tall, and in good shape, the Travel Air would probably be a good plane to look at too. There weren't nearly as many of them manufactured, though, so it'll probably be easier to find a Twin Comanche equipped how you'd like it. (I don't think there were every any Turbo Travel Airs, nor de-iced ones.)

There were a few turbo Travel Airs, but I think it was an STC. I've seen a few for sale. However in my experience, the Travel Air has excellent engine cooling so it's a good candidate for aftermarket turbos. I don't know anything about the Twinkie, but my Aztec's engine cooling sucks. Piper apparently confused "limits" with "goals" when it came to CHTs, at least in that model.

I've flown Comanches (but now Twinkies and Travel Airs. If the Twinkie's interior is like the Travel Air's, I'd take the Travel Air any day. I'm also 6'2" and 150 lbs. And since the Twinkie is faster, that might be enough to push it over the edge in a competition.

I've found that it's really difficult to beat the Aztec for an all-around combination, but that's because I need my F-350 with wings. If it wasn't for that, I probably would have bought a 55 Baron because I like the way it flies better and it's faster for the same fuel burn.

 

[kmead]

Sorry there were to many interruptions today (10 mechanics and 14 PA46s in the mix too, that's FL 250 at 190 KTs and 16 GPH (50 LOP). Not bad if you put 140-150 gals in the tanks. The worst cylinder life is on the Mirage lycoming, the Malibu TCM engine is generally better. After 25 years with the PA46 I've seen a lot of ups and downs and have known many of the good people who died in one. The safety has gotten much better with the MMOPA safety foundation and the insurance companies involvement. My PA46 is a crusty 1985 that I am happy to have and meets our needs.

I still think you really need one.

Kevin

 

[Doggtyred]

If you need 4 seats, and are going to be operating out of decent paved strips, I'd vote something along the lines of a Mooney 20-F or 201. Its not as cozy as it looks, and its a solid cross country machine.

 

[mn_voyageur]

The trip is 1200 nm each way. (2400 nm round trip) Flying the 182(non-turbo) convinced me that she was not quite fast enough. Also, I am certain that there will be times that I just don't feel like climbing into the cockpit. That is one reason I am willing to fly commercial periodically. My end points are Lubbock (LBB) and Chesapeake (KCPK) *LBB*

Before I started this adventure, I promised my wife and kids that I would stop for the night, if things deteriorated. This has happened to me twice: Little Rock (KLIT) and Jonesboro (KJBR).

I agree that anything under 150 kts is going to get old. I spend most of my time in the TX/OK Panhandle. I agree that De-Ice is desirable, but I am willing to start with one a/c and then sell and move to another. This was one of the reasons I was looking at the T182RG. Very familiar to me, a step up for someone interested in a faster 182, and parts/knowledgeable A&P's should not be hard to find.

Currently I am at 230 hours and working on finishing my Instrument Rating. Known ice is not a problem. Either I slide my schedule or fly commercial. (I have more frequent flier miles that I care to admit.) Turbo would be nice, but can I hit 160-170 kt cruise without it?

As I told my father, if I was strictly running the numbers, I would not be looking at buying an a/c. I know a lot of guys that own "holes in the lake" into which they throw lots of money. And I agree that after the nth time I may hang up my wings. But I don't want to be lying on my death bead saying, "I wish I had flown more." In a year, I may be posting the a/c for sale. I may even take a loss. But at least I will have tried.

Although there are things you have to learn from yourself, a lot of lessons can be learned from others.

I appreciate the help.

MarkN

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Getting 200 KTAS seems like it'd likely require going pretty high and pushing the engines pretty hard, no?

I don't have real-world numbers 'cuz I don't own one yet, but my educated guesstimation is that 200 knots should be achievable at 65% at FL220, 75% somewhat lower. (I'd love to borrow one and do some flight tests with it to see how close my numbers are! )

Heading eastbound it would probably generally be doable to get 200 kts GS,

Eastbound I'd expect a fair bit better than 200 GS - You could get yourself into some pretty good tailwinds up there.

but at the altitudes you'd need to be at to get 200 KTAS out of a turbo Twinkie (I'm guessing pretty high) you'd probably be suffering a pretty good headwind heading westbound (depending on the day).

Were I to actually obtain one, one of the first orders of business would be to do flight testing to verify and tweak my numbers, and then program something where I could enter winds aloft at the various altitudes and have the fastest and most efficient altitudes calculated. IIRC, Tony's experience in the 421 was that the higher TAS still offset the headwinds, but that's obviously going to differ with both the speed of the airplane and the particular winds encountered on each flight.

I would guess in the scenario we're discussing in this thread that the average trip would involve a fuel stop westbound, but could be done nonstop eastbound.

Just wondering and speculating, of course. Plus there's the matter of engine temps...

That's definitely a big variable, especially since the Twinkie's turbo system was designed before the days of intercoolers. Though I haven't heard it discussed as an "issue" with the Twinkie, the cooling may not be great - The one I flew had the LoPresti cowls but you had to leave the cowl flaps halfway open to keep the engines cool, which kind of defeats the purpose of the fancy nose bowls. Oh well.

I don't know anything about the Twinkie, but my Aztec's engine cooling sucks. Piper apparently confused "limits" with "goals" when it came to CHTs, at least in that model.

If the Twinkie's interior is like the Travel Air's, I'd take the Travel Air any day.

Huh? That statement makes no sense to me.