160KTAS+, Solid in Turbulence, $120K exist?

flyin'gator

flyin'gator

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
101
Location
Trophy Club, Texas
Display Name
Display name:
flyin'gator
living in Texas for the past 3 years and flying a 177rg (135 True) around the state I have come to embrace the inevitable afternoon shaking between 6000-12000. Problem is, after a few memorable afternoons, the wife and son have lost their flavor for it. Honestly, I can 't blame them, except I am pretty fine with it for about 90 minutes or so. I've had trouble getting them to buy into the idea of "early or late" "sunrise or evening" travel, and as such am not able to take family trips at all these days..

Question: is there such a plane -Budget $120k max with a partner or two, (single or twin) which can get me speed and stability in turbulence? payload requirements are roughly 500 lbs for family and bags. 4 seats plenty- i usually fly 1+1.

stats: 550TT, 110 Complex single , 70ME, AMEL, ASEL, IR

thanks for your suggestions.

-Rick
 
Cessna 210 older model,or a beech Travelair,or older be 95.
 
Velocity SE at 170 kts. A decent 200 kt XL could be had for a little bit more cash. That is if you don't have a problem with experimentals.
 
The mooneys have a steel cage and steel wing spar which makes them pretty sturdy. If the size and load fit your mission, it might be worth looking at. Scott mentioned a 231, but a J model could do it, too. It would just take a little longer to get the altitude.
 
For $120k, you can get a nice B55 Baron.

A 210 is a good choice for a single.
 
rbridges said:
The mooneys have a steel cage and steel wing spar which makes them pretty sturdy. If the size and load fit your mission, it might be worth looking at. Scott mentioned a 231, but a J model could do it, too. It would just take a little longer to get the altitude.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

Check the usual--Barnstormers, TAP, then hit MooneySpace and scroll to the bottom, "Selling Aircraft." Should be nice assortments within your price range.
 
A 231 would get you >> 12k' pretty quickly and out of the bumps into cooler/calmer air. I'll fly my J that high occasionally, but a turbo would be much nicer if comfort in TX is high on the criteria list. A 231 will be going faster up there too, likely >165 knots while a J will be getting slower due to lack of power.

Mooneys ride in turbulence much better than Cessnas in my experience, at least up thru the 182RG. I haven't flown in a 210 yet.
 
How about a Glasair III (again assuming you don't mind experimental)? Limit load factors of +6G/-4G and enough power to take you up above the worst turbulence in a hurry.
 
I've got fairly high wing loading but even with less surface area you still get beat up in turbulence like any other plane. The only solution is moving as fast as you can through, around or over it. There is no substitute for horsepower.
 
Yeah, 210 has higher wing loading, might be a close match.
 
No plane is immune from turbulence. Like the guy said, higher wing loading, more speed, maybe up higher is better. But even that is just a little better. The jets tend to have less turbulence, but that is because they fly at the FL that is the least turbulent all the way up to FL41 (or higher).
 
rbridges said:
The mooneys have a steel cage and steel wing spar which makes them pretty sturdy. If the size and load fit your mission, it might be worth looking at. Scott mentioned a 231, but a J model could do it, too. It would just take a little longer to get the altitude.
Click to expand...

When I read the requirements, my first thought was "Mooney Bravo" - An airplane built in Texas to deal with Texas heat and bumps!

http://www.aviatorshotline.com/aircraft/piston-single/mooney-m20m-bravo-0

That'll get out of the heat and bumps even faster, and give the pax more legroom as well.

The Mooney Ovation (very similar, non-Turbo) will do 170-175 KTAS on 65%, the Bravo should do that down low and even better above 10,000 (up to 220ish in the high teens/low 20s if you push it). I can climb to 10,000 feet in 10 minutes at max gross without a turbo, so you'll be out of the heat and bumps very quickly with the turbo. And if you need to drop down through it quickly as well, the speed brakes on the Bravo are a big plus. Just be sure not to pop their ears...
 
Last edited:
coloradobluesky said:
No plane is immune from turbulence. Like the guy said, higher wing loading, more speed, maybe up higher is better. But even that is just a little better. The jets tend to have less turbulence, but that is because they fly at the FL that is the least turbulent all the way up to FL41 (or higher).
Click to expand...

You don't have to be in the flight levels for cool, smooth air. Texas in July I've seen the freezing level at 12,500'. Descending into Houston, dropping through 5000 it was like someone opened the door to a sauna next to me. Ugh.
 
Yes, turbulence and non-turbulent air can be anywhere. But with another 30,000' of altitude to choose from the jets have more options.
 
Flying around TX, I say the biggest need is Air Conditioning! Especially flying through the Bravo of Houston at 1500!
 
If you can live with two seats, our RV-8A fits the bill. We can fly high, quickly, to get out of the bumps, at 170 knots on <10 GPH.

What I find particularly nice is the fact that with a five-point harness, and seats set low in the fuselage, turbulence is far less annoying than it was in our Piper. Something about wearing the plane versus sitting on a chair, I guess.

We fly in Texas, almost always mid-day, BTW, because of our work schedules.
 
310 would be a great option. $120k will buy you a nice one ($35k will buy you the one I'm representing with a 530 and STec 50 and one new engine, two new props). 173 KTAS @ 23 GPH. Great in turbulence, got the speed, got the range.

An Aztec will do it as well, but I'd go with a 310 first.
 
so far:
231 (0hrs) - i flew a 205 a few weeks ago, seemed tight but flew beautifully.
310 (have 30hrs in a 74q and like a lot)
b55 (5 hrs, seemed tighter than 310 but also great)
rv8a- very interesting- (although not 4 seats)
older 210 (0 hrs, never flown one, but 70 hrs 182- are the close?)
velocity xl (i have no prob. with experimentals)
looks like there are lots of ways to think about this…


twin at 75 vs solid single at 120- is the "45k buys a lot of gas theory true or hogwash?"
 
rbridges said:
The mooneys have a steel cage and steel wing spar which makes them pretty sturdy. If the size and load fit your mission, it might be worth looking at. Scott mentioned a 231, but a J model could do it, too. It would just take a little longer to get the altitude.
Click to expand...

It's not about what is "sturdy". He's asking about ride. That means higher wing loading.
 
flyin'gator said:
twin at 75 vs solid single at 120- is the "45k buys a lot of gas theory true or hogwash?"
Click to expand...

The 310 will cost 50-100% more per mile than the singles listed, and much of this depends on how much MX you do. However, it and the 55 Baron also have more space than the others (and handles turbulence better), so it's not a direct comparison.

Compared to say a 231, figure 2x the fuel.
 
I can't believe a Bellanca Viking hasn't been mentioned. 160kts and the smoothest ride you'll ever find with that awesome wood wing. Plus a great example will only set you back 50-70 loaded to the gills!
 
Early 70s turbo normalized Bonanza would do it...get up above the bumps pretty quickly.
 
Are you saying that somehow a plywood wing can soften the bumps? I've got 20 or so hours in a super viking and I don't remember seeing the wing flexing. If I had, I'd have less hours in one.
 
For 120k, a decent Bo with the FTA air conditioning.

You'd be amazed how much air con makes the bumps seem less troubling.
 
Boyfalldown said:
I can't believe a Bellanca Viking hasn't been mentioned. 160kts and the smoothest ride you'll ever find with that awesome wood wing. Plus a great example will only set you back 50-70 loaded to the gills!
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

300hp and a wing that was made to flex, seats 4.
 
Some People talk about the bellancas as "cramped and thirsty" others seem to have a cultish fervor about them. Maybe I should see if I can hop a ride in one.

Today's ride FTW-MDD was 500 miles and right at $500.
At 1000 I would have flown AA so I probably need to focus on a single realistically.
 
flyin'gator said:
so far:
231 (0hrs) - i flew a 205 a few weeks ago, seemed tight but flew beautifully.
310 (have 30hrs in a 74q and like a lot)
b55 (5 hrs, seemed tighter than 310 but also great)
rv8a- very interesting- (although not 4 seats)
older 210 (0 hrs, never flown one, but 70 hrs 182- are the close?)
velocity xl (i have no prob. with experimentals)
looks like there are lots of ways to think about this…


twin at 75 vs solid single at 120- is the "45k buys a lot of gas theory true or hogwash?"
Click to expand...

Oops--a231 is a turbo Mooney; a 205 is a high wing Cessna with the tail turned backwards. No comparison, the 231 goes faster, further, on less fuel. And Mooneys handle bumps pretty well, although a turbo will get you above them pretty fast. I'd expect ~12-13 gph for the 231, at 170+ depending on altitude; go high enough and the fuel flow will decrease, with higher ground speed, if you fly the right direction.
 
TB20/TB21. High wing-loading gives a good ride in turbulence. Available with AC (ex IDF planes) and a demonstrated crosswind component that is higher than most comparable planes. Depending on the model, speed should be +/- 5 from your goal. Prices have firmed up a bit in the past year, you may have to bump up your budget.
 
flyin'gator said:
Some People talk about the bellancas as "cramped and thirsty" others seem to have a cultish fervor about them. Maybe I should see if I can hop a ride in one.

Today's ride FTW-MDD was 500 miles and right at $500.
At 1000 I would have flown AA so I probably need to focus on a single realistically.
Click to expand...
cramped and thirsty is exactly what they are. They probably do smooth out bumps some, but for passenger comfort, I'd think claustrophobia would more than offset any ride improvement.
 
flyin'gator said:
living in Texas for the past 3 years and flying a 177rg (135 True) around the state I have come to embrace the inevitable afternoon shaking between 6000-12000. Problem is, after a few memorable afternoons, the wife and son have lost their flavor for it. Honestly, I can 't blame them, except I am pretty fine with it for about 90 minutes or so. I've had trouble getting them to buy into the idea of "early or late" "sunrise or evening" travel, and as such am not able to take family trips at all these days..

Question: is there such a plane -Budget $120k max with a partner or two, (single or twin) which can get me speed and stability in turbulence? payload requirements are roughly 500 lbs for family and bags. 4 seats plenty- i usually fly 1+1.

stats: 550TT, 110 Complex single , 70ME, AMEL, ASEL, IR

thanks for your suggestions.

-Rick
Click to expand...

Stability (actually you are looking for 'smooth' not stable) in turbulence is a factor of wing loading which is also a key factor in your stall speed. Since stall speed has a maximum certification limit, they will only get so smooth in a certified airplane. Since Twins don't have as low of a stall speed generally and have more heft to them, they do better than singles, although they are by no means 'turbulence proofed'.

If you can find a 600 series Aerostar that will likely give you your best ride in that budget, but if you can swing some more money you can get a pressurized version and climb the family above a much greater portion of the turbulence.
 
"Solid in turbulence" - if you find it let me know ! There are times over the Pacific when even the 777 feels like it's gonna come apart.
 
I vote for the Mooneys, never had a wing failure and never will. Fast and good on gas. With apologies to the 210 guys and turbulence.......there are several cases where the wings decided they wanted to fold. My son instructed the CEO of a large trucking outfit here in SoCal and he decided to finally buy a 210. Took him and some of the family to DEN. On the way back they were at 20K and hit a rotor and said goodbye to the wings......obviously no survivors. Not the only incidence of this, on the other hand I like all the Cessnas with struts......realizing that you are flying one of the "no strut" models........maybe your inner flying guru is getting uncomfortable with that........lol
 
N321SR said:
Are you saying that somehow a plywood wing can soften the bumps? I've got 20 or so hours in a super viking and I don't remember seeing the wing flexing. If I had, I'd have less hours in one.
Click to expand...

ALL aircraft wings flex. If they were perfectly rigid, they'd break off pretty quickly! It's just a lot more difficult to see our relatively short wings flex.
 
Hank S said:
Oops--a231 is a turbo Mooney; a 205 is a high wing Cessna with the tail turned backwards. No comparison, the 231 goes faster, further, on less fuel.
Click to expand...

A "205" could mean a Cessna 205, but Mooney also made a 205 - Most people know the M20J as the 201, but the M20J had several names: 201 (1977-1986 and 1988-1991), 201 "Lean Machine" (1987), the 201 "MSE" (1992-1997), the "Allegro" (1998, the last year of M20J production), and yes, the "205" in 1987 and 1988.

The M20J 205 had fully enclosed landing gear, which probably earned it the extra 4mph and the name, and also rounded windows and interior from the 252. Speaking of which, the M20K was both the 231 and the 252... Most people know that, but very few know that there was an M20J 205!
 
Canards split the lift roughly 20 % & 80 %. That, combined with the greater flexibility of composites give them a superior ride to traditional metal aircraft in turbulence...in theory.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
A "205" could mean a Cessna 205, but Mooney also made a 205 - Most people know the M20J as the 201, but the M20J had several names: 201 (1977-1986 and 1988-1991), 201 "Lean Machine" (1987), the 201 "MSE" (1992-1997), the "Allegro" (1998, the last year of M20J production), and yes, the "205" in 1987 and 1988.

The M20J 205 had fully enclosed landing gear, which probably earned it the extra 4mph and the name, and also rounded windows and interior from the 252. Speaking of which, the M20K was both the 231 and the 252... Most people know that, but very few know that there was an M20J 205!
Click to expand...

You're right, I forgot about the J-205, they're not near as common as 201s.
 
Hank S said:
You're right, I forgot about the J-205, they're not near as common as 201s.
Click to expand...

Yup... Of all the J's produced, only 3.7% were 205's, 79.3% were 201's:

1,691 201's
269 MSE's
79 205's
53 201 "Lean Machines"
21 201 "Advanced Trainers" (some of the MSE's were AT's as well)
19 Allegros
-----
2132 total M20J's produced
 
Maybe what you need is a turbo and oxygen, to get you above the bumps.

If you want normally aspirated, a 2000 Cirrus SR20 would sell for $120k and cruise at 150. Wing loading is fairly high, 50% more than a 172, so turbulence will move the plane less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top