Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by UngaWunga, Jan 4, 2020.
I guy can dream, can't he?
I think a used GT350 might get close
"E" model Mooney. An "F" is within a couple knots if you want more room.
A Cessna 310 will get 180kt for around 45k.
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
Yeah darn near any twin with no avionics or AP can fit this bill.
Singles, I'd be looking at anything oddball with at least 250hp -- Comanches and Navions and Super Vikings, Eor super high time
Here's one with a whole lotta class:
yup....a clapped out Mooney would do it.
You do have to be a little picky looking at twins, but I did find one that I bought for 55k. Mid-time engines, round dials with a 430 w and s-tech 30, gpss, alt hold autopilot. Admittedly, it was like catching lightning in a bottle, but if you can get them insured, twins are an excellent value.
By way of comparison, it costs me about 60% more to operate than my four-cylinder Mooney.
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
EAB and 2 less seats, at least that's how I'm doing it.
most performance cars made in the past decade will hit 170+ pretty easily. Don't need a GT350 lol
Plenty of EABs on the market fit that criteria. Maybe some old Mooneys or Bonanzas.
Approx. 27,800 TTAF
It'll get you a first class seat on a 737MAX.
might be a while.....lol
An M20E can be had for that unless you want a lot of panel.
Lancair. You could slow down to 150 knots if you like.
Here’s one at your price point: https://www.barnstormers.com/ad_detail.php?id=1511125
I have to wonder just what too much time is for a piston plane. Especially one used as a trainer.
M20E making 150 knots? LOL
An M20J can do that, but not E
Well, okay. Truth to be told, my M20E can do 150... on 2700 rpms. If you want to fly like that, be my guest.
Yeah? Like what?
I was in this position in 2014 and the only thing that could come anywhere near was a beater RV-4 with O-360. Fortunately for me, I'm 6'5" and I cannot fit into the -4.
Trust me, I would not be flying this stupid Mooney if EAB 150k for 50k existed outside of Internet forums.
Mostly the two seat variety. Glasairs, Lancairs, Cozy III, Longez, Varieze, KR-2, T-18, RV4.
Just to inject a little data in here, look at this flight yesterday, same route in two directions.
I'll take 300 kts for $100K, Alex ...
Those airline trainers (Lufthansa and JAL are the ones I know who used Debs) were actually fantastically maintained. There is at least one out there with 40K on the airframe that I know of.
It's just metal and maintenance. The logbooks will tell the tale. Problem is, you'll need a month to get through them all
I'd fly it.
If you're leaning toward boxy, the BD-4 will also do the trick.
Raise your purchase budget a bit or make an offer, operating costs might be on the high side!
This is one of a bunch of F33As operated by Lufthansa at KGYR. They’re being replaced with Cirri now.
You both beat me to it. Lots of used sports cars that can easily do that!
Sounds like you need to get your ride rigged correctly then.
My former '67 M20E would do 156 KTAS easily at 2500 RPM all day, every day. Smooth as silk and it loved running LOP. Flew that plane for 350+ hours before moving on to bigger options. Only mods I had on mine was a 201 windshield, lower cowl enclosure, and brake caliper reversal.
Well, the OP has not stated he's 6'5", so a beater RV-6/6a, or glasair 1 would both fit the 150ktas bill under 50K. I'm personally going -6a and almost pulled the trigger last year on one around 45K. They might not be most people's go-to choice, but they do exist.
Man, if only it were an aerobatic 33. I'd buy it, even with that ghastly continental engine. I wouldn't need a 2 airplane mission at that point
My M20c will cruise 140 knots all day. I can't believe that an extra few ponies and a bit of aerodynamic cleanup won't give you that. That said, it's a beater Echo at 50 AMUs. They're out there, though they aren't pretty.
lol... I'm 6'4".
Its funny, I've been looking around for a faster plane than my 172, but the value in selling my 172/buying a faster plane with equivalent avionics doesn't really seem to be there. 182s are crazy expensive with 1960's avionics, all experimentals are two-seaters... A M20e or f seems like a viable solution. That Lancair is pretty sweet, but the home-drome is 2100' with trees. Hangars at the next closest airfield (KPSM) are almost $double/month. And I don't know if I'd be able to keep the junk in a hangar at PSM that I have in mine now since they went and got all TSA'd.
I consider myself pretty luck to even have a 172, and it does get me where I'm going. But another 30kts would be so much better.
Oooh. Lol my bad. Then on a price point basis I think an E or clapped out F is where you need to go to scratch the 150kt itch based on your personal ergonomics. I wouldn't be looking at 2 seater EAB if I was as tall as you. I would lean towards an F just to have an option for back seat mission if it were to present itself, but I think the E with cowl and windshield cleanup is the cheapest option. Good luck!
If any back country flying is on the menu, the Mooney isn't going to do it for you.
Yup. And the ability to throw two mountain bikes in the back and head up to Vermont for the weekend is pretty sweet as well. The 172 does a lot of what I want a plane to do. It just doesn't do it quickly. No free lunch here.
I don't really do "back country", but I do like grass fields.
A Mooney could do that, but it would be tight. You could probably get a pretty nice M20 for the cost of that Skyhawk, the Cessnas tend to go for a lot more money. I've landed my Mooney on grass, and I know some guys based on grass. The prop clearance on the Mooney is an inch or two less, but it really isn't that much. A gopher hole could ruin your day, then again it will with the Skyhawk as well.
I think the biggest difference is in access. The Cessna has two doors, is a high wing and has a pretty big back seat. The Mooney is a low wing and has one door, so getting in takes a bit of contortion. And the back seat is diminutive. For most folks it isn't a big deal, but for those with any sort of mobility problem getting in can really be a problem. A Mooney Chaparral is more than 30 knots faster than an old Skyhawk.
IMHO the real issue with off-roading a Mooney is the lack of proper gear suspension and the real effect runway bumps are having on the fuel tanks. Also, the wheelbase is very short, so it tips and dives a lot, eating into the prop clearance that notionally would be sufficient. Finally, the wingspan is too great and wings are too close to the ground. That last one is not a big issue on runway, but it's an annoying problem when taxiing and parking at remote airstrips.
A smooth grass runway is of course not a problem. I wanted to buy a house at a local airpark with a grass runway, and they already had a resident with a Mooney. My own Mooney lived at a grass runway near Dallas for a few years.
Yeah. I was thinking about nicely manicured turf strips, not landing in the snazz in the backcountry. If the bumps are doing a number on the tanks you get bladders. No more tank worries.