150 knots for $150k

Columbia 300's are around that price now I think. You'll beat 150kts but you can always pull back the power.
 
This. Maybe Mooney M20E?

Yes or possibly a Bonanza.

If only we could find a conjoined Mooney+Bonanza to offer for this search. :D Someone buy pigpen's M35 so we can saw the tail off, weld it to a Mooney, and make an M20-35 to satisfy the exact opposite of OP's request.

Then we can argue over which is more accurate, M20-35 or M35-20. :p
 
What tailwheel airplane are you thinking of?

Well I’d wager a 185 on wheels would get pretty close

Bellanca Cruisemaster Should do it

195 is pretty quick

Smaller, but a wittman tailwind is a fast and economical little ride.

Oh and a P51
 
Well I’d wager a 185 on wheels would get pretty close

Bellanca Cruisemaster Should do it

195 is pretty quick

Smaller, but a wittman tailwind is a fast and economical little ride.

Oh and a P51
I am going to try to steal a ride in @Mtns2Skies 185 this year. Maybe it will change my mind. At this point I am not a big tailwheel fan, even if it did wake my feet up and make me a "real" pilot.
 
RV4. And with the extra $105k buy a 182rg
Like I said, tandem. Great if you don't feel like looking at your passenger, and your passenger doesn't mind staring at the back of your head, and neither of you have much in the way of luggage.
 
you could go faster, 200Kts, with less.....turbo Bo. lol ;)

I fly and manage two Factory Turbo BOs.
Great airplanes. Super reliable. In the last year I put a combined 550 hours on them with nothing but oil changes and brake liners. But to make the engine last you will be planning 170 without oxygen, 180 with cannula and 190 with mask.
Carrying 6 is tough but it’s doable if the pax are light and the trip isn’t far.

A normally aspirated Bonanza would fit this guys mission as well as any 6 place piston single.

I have about 250 hours in a 182RG. It is a club airplane and relative to the Bonanza it is riddled with issues. Constantly getting things fixed. Part of this probably has to do with it being flown as a complex trainer and being used by people who don't fly often while the Bonanza is being flown by almost 1 person exclusively and averaging maybe 1 cycle per hour. The 182RG the club has trues out somewhere between 150-154 depending on altitude and condition. The engine is very easy to run and manage and the gear is fairly reliable. I would certainly recommend it over a fixed gear 182. Extra cost of gear is well worth the money and you don't lose much baggage area, if any.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Last edited:
A Grumman tiger might be a little slower than the OP's target, but a lot cheaper. And a lot faster than the Archer.
 
If you want certified, with room, comfort, two doors, good fuel burns, and getting close to that 150kts, I'd look at Cessna Cardinal 177RGs.

The instructor who did my CPL has one with a redone panel, and I'd take it over a lot of retracts people normally suggest. Even though I fly a 182, I prefer the Cardinal's ergonomics, seating position, and cabin.
 
Well I’d wager a 185 on wheels would get pretty close

It does, but you pay a premium because they are working airplanes

Bellanca Cruisemaster Should do it

Depending on the engine installed, yes, but they are very rare and are likely to have ancient radios.

195 is pretty quick

Also uncommon and likely to be equipped with a vintage radio stack. Not a lot of mechanics with Jacobs experience these days.

Smaller, but a wittman tailwind is a fast and economical little ride.
Tiny, scarce. Same is true for the Thorp T-18

Oh and a P51
For 150k?

The OP expressed a preference for a trigear airplane, why does that bother you?
 
Commanche 250 and a non-trainer C-182RG non-turbo, are probably your best bet outside of Mooney/Bonanza. Turbo is great(fly one for work) but if I'm spending my own money, it would be a C-182RG or C-210.
 
If you want certified, with room, comfort, two doors, good fuel burns, and getting close to that 150kts, I'd look at Cessna Cardinal 177RGs.

The instructor who did my CPL has one with a redone panel, and I'd take it over a lot of retracts people normally suggest. Even though I fly a 182, I prefer the Cardinal's ergonomics, seating position, and cabin.

I've been looking hard at 177's recently. They are actually pretty reasonably priced all things considered. What's the GPH burn on one like? Similar to a 172?
 
I've been looking hard at 177's recently. They are actually pretty reasonably priced all things considered. What's the GPH burn on one like? Similar to a 172?

Like 10GPH.
 
If you want certified, with room, comfort, two doors, good fuel burns, and getting close to that 150kts, I'd look at Cessna Cardinal 177RGs.

The instructor who did my CPL has one with a redone panel, and I'd take it over a lot of retracts people normally suggest. Even though I fly a 182, I prefer the Cardinal's ergonomics, seating position, and cabin.
I am seeing 142 knots at best on the 177RGs. I suppose that is close, but not quite there.
 
Hey @cowman would you happen to have the performance graphs for the 300R Lance in a pdf? I can't find any online that don't seem like it is taking me to a virus laden foreign website.
 
@EdFred am I looking at the Comanche charts right that the Comanche 250 is basically 150 knots at 65% and 13.5 gph?
 
Hey @cowman would you happen to have the performance graphs for the 300R Lance in a pdf? I can't find any online that don't seem like it is taking me to a virus laden foreign website.

You caught me at a good time, went ahead and scanned my POH. I wanted to stick a copy of this in foreflight anyway.
 

Attachments

  • PA32R_Performance.pdf
    7.8 MB · Views: 38
Based on my homework so far, assuming I read POH graphs correctly, this is what it takes to get 150 knots in most of the planes suggested. The Lance is certainly a guzzler. I couldn't find performance graphs on the BSV. I was surprised at the 182RG gph. Maybe I read the graph wrong.

150 knots.JPG
 
Based on my homework so far, assuming I read POH graphs correctly, this is what it takes to get 150 knots in most of the planes suggested. The Lance is certainly a guzzler. I couldn't find performance graphs on the BSV. I was surprised at the 182RG gph. Maybe I read the graph wrong.

View attachment 81104

Just an aside my Lance has GAMI injectors and I can lean that out to 15-16gph and 145kts is a more realistic speed but yes, you're paying a price for all that extra space and load carrying capacity.
 
@EdFred am I looking at the Comanche charts right that the Comanche 250 is basically 150 knots at 65% and 13.5 gph?

I've flown/flown in a couple of Comanche 250's. You really had to put the hammer down to spool them up to 150 knots. But wow, did they climb.

That's one airplane that (IMO) could go substantially faster with a better cowl design.
 
Just an aside my Lance has GAMI injectors and I can lean that out to 15-16gph and 145kts is a more realistic speed but yes, you're paying a price for all that extra space and load carrying capacity.
Tradeoffs everywhere. I really like the numbers on the TB20, but the panels are butt ugly. :cool: I like Comanche numbers too but they are ancient airplanes. Can I hop down to UIN this summer and get a ride in your Lance?
 
What do you want? I used to have an Archer as well and I bought a mid-time Lance with a nice GNS530W panel for well under $150k this year. It's a faster airplane than an Archer for sure, 150kts is probably on the optimistic side for a Lance, I generally call it a 145kt plane. I can tell you all about transition between the types, I did it in about 3 hours and it doesn't take too much to adapt.

The reason I ask what you want is simple- all these airplane designs are compromises. A Lance is giving you lots of comfort and cabin space as well as a high useful load, the compromise is that for the price and fuel burn it's on the slower side of things and the plane has a heavy truck-like feel on the controls rather than being sporty. I bought the plane I did because we'd just had a baby and needed more cabin space than the Archer could provide, the extra speed was a secondary consideration. If I had all the cabin I needed and just wanted speed I'd probably look elsewhere, maybe a commanche.

I'm happy with the Lance, it does exactly what I expected. It's the best cross country family hauler for the money IMO but it's not a sports car it's an SUV.

the Turbo costs about the same and delivers the targeted speed.
 
Based on my homework so far, assuming I read POH graphs correctly, this is what it takes to get 150 knots in most of the planes suggested. The Lance is certainly a guzzler. I couldn't find performance graphs on the BSV. I was surprised at the 182RG gph. Maybe I read the graph wrong.

View attachment 81104

Being that I'm only *building* an RV-10, I expect it to easily do 150 knots on 10 gph. I hope I'm not disappointed. The folks who track this stuff seem to do closer to 160 knots on 10-11 GPH, but there's no telling who's telling a fishing story and who's being honest.
 
Being that I'm only *building* an RV-10, I expect it to easily do 150 knots on 10 gph. I hope I'm not disappointed. The folks who track this stuff seem to do closer to 160 knots on 10-11 GPH, but there's no telling who's telling a fishing story and who's being honest.
I couldn't find anything but forum posts on the RV-10 numbers, although I admittedly did not look hard and used the first stuff I could find.
 
I like Comanche numbers too but they are ancient airplanes.

You've got that right. I feel like Captain Nemo piloting the Nautilus when I'm in a Comanche 250. Limited visibility, a freakin' handbrake, etc. The only thing missing is someone ringing up bells in the engine compartment and yelling Aye, Aye, Captain.

Edit: Harsh, I know, but it is amazing how good a basic airframe the Comanche is but how the little details remind you that it is a 60 year old design.
 
Last edited:
I don't know the physical dimensions of the OP, but if he is like me (and alot of other middle age men), he is fat. I am 6'1" and 230 lbs. That makes a big difference for the answer to this "150 kt"question.

For me, it meant a 1995 Commander 114B - you can be a lard a@#$ and not touch shoulders with you co-pilot - very important to me even when my co-pilot is my wife. I just like to sit in my own seat and not have anyone touch me.

I love the Bonanza / Baron airplanes - have flown several of each. But they are just cramped to me.

If you do consider a Commander, I would only consider the later models (1992-2003) 114B and 114TC models if possible. For your budget, you can get a nice 114B although probably not a 114TC.

Cessna 206 would be another one on my short list - same reason as the Commander - big air frame and pilot's side door.

The other choice I could have made was to get in better shape and therefore have more options open up to me - Bonanza / Mooney, etc. However, that did not work out.
 
I don't know the physical dimensions of the OP, but if he is like me (and alot of other middle age men), he is fat. I am 6'1" and 230 lbs. That makes a big difference for the answer to this "150 kt"question.

For me, it meant a 1995 Commander 114B - you can be a lard a@#$ and not touch shoulders with you co-pilot - very important to me even when my co-pilot is my wife. I just like to sit in my own seat and not have anyone touch me.

I love the Bonanza / Baron airplanes - have flown several of each. But they are just cramped to me.

If you do consider a Commander, I would only consider the later models (1992-2003) 114B and 114TC models if possible. For your budget, you can get a nice 114B although probably not a 114TC.

Cessna 206 would be another one on my short list - same reason as the Commander - big air frame and pilot's side door.

The other choice I could have made was to get in better shape and therefore have more options open up to me - Bonanza / Mooney, etc. However, that did not work out.

Ah, don't be so self-deprecating. I am exactly an FAA std male (5'9-5'10 170#), and I too find Bos, PA28s and Mooneys cramped when sitting next to another adult. We don't need the useful load either (2+1 mission) and yet we're still looking for cabin comfort improvements over my Arrow, which airplanes like the Commander does offer in spades.
 
You've got that right. I feel like Captain Nemo piloting the Nautilus when I'm in a Comanche 250. Limited visibility, a freakin' handbrake, etc. The only thing missing is someone ringing up bells in the engine compartment and yelling Aye, Aye, Captain.

Edit: Harsh, I know, but it is amazing how good a basic airframe the Comanche is but how the little details remind you that it is a 60 year old design.

Are you vertically challenged? There's plenty of visibility in Comanches. I actually prefer the hand brake. Had foot brakes in the PA28, and used the hand brake anyway. I will give you that the panels in 250s absolutely suck though:

20190809_225135-jpg.78541
 
@EdFred am I looking at the Comanche charts right that the Comanche 250 is basically 150 knots at 65% and 13.5 gph?

Depends on airframe, rigging, etc... 8000' fly 2300/2400 RPM/WOT right bout there on the fuel burn and get about 154ktas. Some days a little better, some days a little worse; DA and all that jazz.

The 250 I fly was bought in 2009 for
45k added the following
10k tip tanks - a must on a 250 if flying IFR or else you're limited to really short legs
20k-25k in panel upgrades (engine monitor, dual G5, Lynx, but also get cheap labor rates)
3k in Comanche specific AD fixes (tail horn)
8k in cylinder replacement when I got screwed over by Harrison cylinder
So that's the major stuff that's been done in 10 years.

Well south of your 150k

The reason you only see the older ones for sale, is because everyone holds on to the newer ones, or they get sold without even being listed.
 
Last edited:
Are you vertically challenged? There's plenty of visibility in Comanches. I actually prefer the hand brake. Had foot brakes in the PA28, and used the hand brake anyway.

Visibility is relative. I'm spoiled by my RV-6. The RV-10 is very good too. The Comanche's windows seem like (relative) tank viewing slits to me. A Bo has an advantage there, IMO.

Your panel is nice, but most Comanches (250, 260x, 400, or Twink) haven't had the benefit of a $40K (?) panel upgrade.

And I'm happy you like the handbrake. I thought it sucked, but at least you have a steerable nosewheel, which I'll be lacking on the RV-10.
 
Visibility is relative. I'm spoiled by my RV-6. The RV-10 is very good too. The Comanche's windows seem like (relative) tank viewing slits to me. A Bo has an advantage there, IMO.

Your panel is nice, but most Comanches (250, 260x, 400, or Twink) haven't had the benefit of a $40K (?) panel upgrade.

And I'm happy you like the handbrake. I thought it sucked, but at least you have a steerable nosewheel, which I'll be lacking on the RV-10.

Well, yeah, compared to a bubble canopy, everything is going to be visibility limited. No argument there. Funny thing is when going to it from other airplanes, Ive had a number of people say "wow the visibility is so much better in this than x." so yeah, definitly relative. If you are a short person, you're gonna need the adjustable seats or a boat cushion to see where you are going. My deal with the footbrakes was I could never get the pressure on each one balanced, so I was always "swimming" down the runway when braking. I ended up switching to the hand brake. Of course, I have monkey arms and a 6'7" wingspan, so reaching for the hand brake is a non issue.

Getting in and out of low wings is not fun though. And I'm sure in the next 10-15 years it will get less fun, unless I'm flying something with an airstair.
 
Based on my homework so far, assuming I read POH graphs correctly, this is what it takes to get 150 knots in most of the planes suggested. The Lance is certainly a guzzler. I couldn't find performance graphs on the BSV. I was surprised at the 182RG gph. Maybe I read the graph wrong.

View attachment 81104

Here are some figures: http://www.kokomopilotsclub.org/sites/default/files/2006_08_15 Bellanca Checklist.pdf

Looks like 12.2 GPH will get you 150 knots at 7500 feet.
 
Based on my homework so far, assuming I read POH graphs correctly, this is what it takes to get 150 knots in most of the planes suggested. The Lance is certainly a guzzler. I couldn't find performance graphs on the BSV. I was surprised at the 182RG gph. Maybe I read the graph wrong.

View attachment 81104

Here’s the relevant info for the Viking. I’ve highlighted the speeds near 150 knots. The Viking is an mph bird. Note, this is at 7500 ft. I didn’t feel like doing all the interpolation math to get the numbers for 8000 and 150 knots exactly. But, you get the idea. Somewhere around 13 gal per hour for 150 knots. I tend to cruise higher for better performance. Around 9000ft is the sweet spot. I also tend to cruise at the highest airspeed.

46d68505894d3b3e1df84fd50b5ae446.jpg
 
Back
Top