555 nm each way, what to buy or do?

A lot of advice here, and you probably don't need more, but I vote for the C-210. It will do the job for you. It is a little pricey though.
 
txflyer said:
A twink with a mogas STC would be a formidable machine. :goofy:

And I'll let you in on a little secret. I was out of gas one time out around Guthrie TX. Headwinds killed me.

I landed on the four sixes ranch private airstrip on fumes. Anyway, there was no 100LL for a hundred miles. I called the city, they gave me the Sheriff, and he brought me ten gallons of plain car gas. Super unleaded. I have the mogas STC for my 0-470, but not for that. :crazy: It ran just fine. :redface:
Click to expand...

How did you make it a 100 miles on 10 gallons? :confused:
 
What does the twinkie get him that an older Bo or single engine comanche doesn't? What exactly is the point of the twinkie? Other than the ability to avert the ditching over water. Serious question. His mission (flat land XC) does not require powerplant redundancy. The single engine comanche and Bo both have better gas mileage and useful load. Both are cheaper to insure and acquire and can do the trip unrefueled.
 
There is some talk of 100LL not being around much longer. Does not matter as the 250 Comanche (if I do not use the Turbo) can run 91 octane mogas.

The 160 hp engines on the Twin Comanche can run 87 octane so you won't be stuck.

There will be legal wranglings when 100LL goes off line but there are options.

While I was in Grand Cayman Islands they could not give us Av gas for four days and the group was concerned about being stuck down there for the durration-who knows how long it takes island people to fix something complicated. I was fully prepared to fill the tanks with 91 and head for Key West when the scheduled tune arrived.

Getting a STC makes it kosher but even without it --its possible. I'm told that some do burn mogas in planes not STC'd for mogas.

I have never run mogas in my Comanche because it is not kosher.

Kiddo's Driver said:
It would be, but the PA-30 is not on the Petersen list. Neither is the PA-24. Oh, well!

http://www.autofuelstc.com/approved_engines_airfames.phtml

Jim
Click to expand...
 
I'll guess running mogas non-STC'd, might create a denial situation on insurance if a power out landing bent anything.
 
txflyer said:
I guess a twin is totally out of the question for the OP?

I was going to suggest a twin comanche. Their fuel burn is comparable to a single.

You can get IFR twinks in his price range. :redface:
Click to expand...

A Twinkie would be a good option, and so would a Travel Air. A Twinkie will be a bit faster than a Comanche 250 on a bit less fuel. If the OP is interested in a twin (higher insurance and higher MX too) then go for it!
 
I'm sure it is done more than anyone will admit publicly.

txflyer said:
A twink with a mogas STC would be a formidable machine. :goofy:

And I'll let you in on a little secret. I was out of gas one time out around Guthrie TX. Headwinds killed me.

I landed on the four sixes ranch private airstrip on fumes. Anyway, there was no 100LL for a hundred miles. I called the city, they gave me the Sheriff, and he brought me ten gallons of plain car gas. Super unleaded. I have the mogas STC for my 0-470, but not for that. :crazy: It ran just fine. :redface:
Click to expand...
 
hindsight2020 said:
What does the twinkie get him that an older Bo or single engine comanche doesn't? What exactly is the point of the twinkie? Other than the ability to avert the ditching over water. Serious question. His mission (flat land XC) does not require powerplant redundancy. The single engine comanche and Bo both have better gas mileage and useful load. Both are cheaper to insure and acquire and can do the trip unrefueled.
Click to expand...

That is what keeps me in a Single....plus I'd loose 10 knots or more the way I fly.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
A Twinkie would be a good option, and so would a Travel Air. A Twinkie will be a bit faster than a Comanche 250 on a bit less fuel. If the OP is interested in a twin (higher insurance and higher MX too) then go for it!
Click to expand...

250 burns 14.3 gph.... at 75% I think the Twinkies are 17-18 if chasing that top speed.

Both could save 2 gph loosing only a few knots.; But it sure would be tempting to burn 87 octane in the Twinkie:)
 
Update:
I start at my new job in Wichita in January. I will not be working at the Oklahoma location. I will only need to fly back and forth from Wichita to Tennessee a few times until the family moves out there at the end of the school year (May-June).

No questions asked, I STILL want to move to a Comanche, but I will have to wait until I either sell the Tampico or get it in a Club/FBO rental fleet to help it carry its own weight.

In the mean time, I've joined the International Comanche Society (ICS) and am reading up.

Thanks,

Jim
 
If you have not done so already, go sit in a Cherokee Six 300. See how that huge cockpit feels for your 6'1" 300 lb frame. I think you can get a nice mid 70's one for $80K. You'll get 145 kts TAS (on about 15-16 gph) and 4.5 hrs range WITH a one hour reserve afer that. Your insurance - for an approx 500 hr pilot - will be noticeably cheaper than for a retractable gear airplane. And you said you had a family ......... they will love travelling in the back of that huge Cherokee Six. (Mine always did!)
 
mswmsw said:
If you have not done so already, go sit in a Cherokee Six 300. See how that huge cockpit feels for your 6'1" 300 lb frame. I think you can get a nice mid 70's one for $80K. You'll get 145 kts TAS (on about 15-16 gph) and 4.5 hrs range WITH a one hour reserve afer that. Your insurance - for an approx 500 hr pilot - will be noticeably cheaper than for a retractable gear airplane. And you said you had a family ......... they will love travelling in the back of that huge Cherokee Six. (Mine always did!)
Click to expand...

I have something like 15 hours in a retractable Saratoga. I don't remember seeing 150 Knots TAS in it. I thought the Cherokee Six's were slower than the Saratogas.

Jim
 
Kiddo's Driver said:
Update:
I start at my new job in Wichita in January. I will not be working at the Oklahoma location. I will only need to fly back and forth from Wichita to Tennessee a few times until the family moves out there at the end of the school year (May-June).

No questions asked, I STILL want to move to a Comanche, but I will have to wait until I either sell the Tampico or get it in a Club/FBO rental fleet to help it carry its own weight.

In the mean time, I've joined the International Comanche Society (ICS) and am reading up.

Thanks,

Jim
Click to expand...

A little early, but welcome to Wichita! Perhaps commercial service without the extra 2 hours +/- on one end might make sense for the next few months now... this should give you plenty of time to research, sell, and buy whatever the next plane might be.

There is a Boeing Employees Flying Club in town with a very nice 182RG. I believe their membership rules/qualifications are fairly liberal now, so you might check them out when you get here and try the 182RG. I flew it on several trips years ago and really liked that plane.

Tony will likely offer you a ride in his Comanche as well. I'd offer a ride in my Mooney, but am down for engine overhaul this winter and expect you wouldn't be too comfortable anyway. ;)

What will you be doing here?
 
Cessna 210s don't get much love on this forum, but it's the right answer...:)
 
Comanche 250/260 will do the job easily . . . .

with gas to spare. Find an injected one with 260hp - put it at 6500 west and 7500 eastbound in clear [and lower to stay out of the ice the other way]

My story in my Comanche was 696nm from IJD-ARW over JFK 8 times a year with the family - Nonstop every single time except once going SW. And there we got to CHS but the extra 35nm was pressing it since it was dark and there was no one at ARW anyway.

The 696nm was routinely about 4:45 or so. conservatively 155ktas in a 260 will show you 4hr 15 min at 130kt GS. Leaving you 2 hours easily in the tanks. The way back could be as little as 3 hours.
 
onwards said:
My fixed gear 1970 182 (pponk) did CCR to SAF (780nm) in January in under 6 hours without a fuel stop and landed with about a 1hr reserve according to the fuel flow totalizer. Seems like that sort of plane would fit the bill.
Click to expand...

But did you have an hour when you filled the tanks? :D :D
 
Artimas said:
Cessna 210s don't get much love on this forum, but it's the right answer...:)
Click to expand...

Personally if I was hauling family, I'd much prefer something with 2 engines, but you can't be afraid of the airplane.
 
Henning said:
Personally if I was hauling family, I'd much prefer something with 2 engines, but you can't be afraid of the airplane.
Click to expand...


If safety is your concern when hauling family, then GA is not for you. Because the logical conclusion then is to fly commercial every time. Pistons twins are not safe in comparison to taking a commercial flight. Add to that, we all know the safety record of piston twins is not a whole lot different to that of the piston singles. Factor in the now outrageous fuel prices and we have to ask ourselves, why have a piston twin? Increased speed? More useful load? Not really, there are excellent piston singles out there that are pretty close, with much lower maintenance costs. The market seems to agree with so many people desperately trying to dump their piston twins for low prices.

I would go so far as to say, if you get a piston twin today you have to either be (a) a fool, or (b) a real enthusiast who really wants a twin no matter what.

If I ever get a twin as a REAL step up it would be a King Air but let's face it that will never happen, not with my finances.
 
BobThePilot said:
If safety is your concern when hauling family, then GA is not for you. Because the logical conclusion then is to fly commercial every time. Pistons twins are not safe in comparison to taking a commercial flight. Add to that, we all know the safety record of piston twins is not a whole lot different to that of the piston singles. Factor in the now outrageous fuel prices and we have to ask ourselves, why have a piston twin? Increased speed? More useful load? Not really, there are excellent piston singles out there that are pretty close, with much lower maintenance costs. The market seems to agree with so many people desperately trying to dump their piston twins for low prices.
Click to expand...

Funny, over in the Twin Cessna world I'm seeing no shortage of people joining the ranks, in large part because of the excellent value.

I would go so far as to say, if you get a piston twin today you have to either be (a) a fool, or (b) a real enthusiast who really wants a twin no matter what.
Click to expand...
I know a lot of people who would disagree with you. They have twins because it represents the best plane for the mission.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Funny, over in the Twin Cessna world I'm seeing no shortage of people joining the ranks, in large part because of the excellent value.

I know a lot of people who would disagree with you. They have twins because it represents the best plane for the mission.
Click to expand...

I left off: (c) you get the twin for free and somebody else donates money to you to fly it

:D

You're a genius for pulling that off by the way. Definitely no fool.
 
BobThePilot said:
I left off: (c) you get the twin for free and somebody else donates money to you to fly it

:D

You're a genius for pulling that off by the way. Definitely no fool.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind I bought my first twin and paid plenty of money to fly it.

I didn't "pull off" anything. It's called hard work and dedication. ;)
 
Kiddo's Driver said:
I have something like 15 hours in a retractable Saratoga. I don't remember seeing 150 Knots TAS in it. I thought the Cherokee Six's were slower than the Saratogas.
Click to expand...

I've never flown a Saratoga. But I get 145 kts TAS all the time (give or take a knot or two) in my '79 PA32-300, at my usual cruising altitudes of 6500 - 8500 feet. And that 145 kts TAS matches the book speeds out of the manual (I'm looking at it right now) for running at about 70% power on a standard day. A buddy of mine has a retractable gear Saratoga and says he gets about 160-165 kts TAS out of it. If you didn't see 150 kts in the retractable Saratoga you flew, that seems very strange for that aircraft; were you down pretty low? But a big guy like you..... you had to like that wide cabin, didn't you? Now that my kids are grown and gone, I'd like to sell my Six and get something smaller and faster (I'd love to get a Mooney Bravo) but my wife won't give up the comfort of the huge cabin for the smaller faster ride.
 
I flew it three years ago. Blame it on that.

I'm spoiled by the room in my tampico. It makes everything seem small. I felt like I was sitting near the floor with my legs sticking straight out.

Jim
 
Kiddo's Driver said:
I flew it three years ago. Blame it on that.

I'm spoiled by the room in my tampico. It makes everything seem small. I felt like I was sitting near the floor with my legs sticking straight out.

Jim
Click to expand...

Well, what about a Trinidad? The Commander 114/115 are roomy as well with doors on both sides, but you give up a few knots on the Bonanza for it.
 
Sorry random question for the OP... What's the tail number of that TB-9? Looks like an old ERAU Tampico.
 
177RG or Arrow (non-turbo), and just plan on a stop to stretch your legs and for your own sanity.

Or a slow (225) Debonair, etc.
 
Maybe I missed a reply but if you are seriously looking at a Comanche, look for one with the tip tanks. They add 300 lbs useful load. Even if you fly with them empty (like when you are wanting to fly 4 people) you can use that extra load. That will also take the capacity to 90 or 120 gal depending on the presence of internat aux tanks or not.

BTW, welcome to the ICS, also look at the Comanche forum at the delphi forums.

Andy
1960 PA24 250
 
Henning said:
Ooooo! 4 Engines! Are there any still flying? I thought they were all grounded...:dunno:
Click to expand...

Saw one at RDU maybe 1 yr ago. Looked sharp

At the time, had no Idea what it was. Figured it was some weird Russian contraption.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top