GA Airplane question: Good All-around airplane

[John Baker]

Power Plants:
#1 – R2800-99W S/N: P-35132 TT: 12,212.5 TSO: 1560.2
#2 - R2800-CB3 S/N: P-36184 TT: Unknown TSO: 558.4

Not an engine expert, but i think one of those is 2300hp and the other is 2400hp? Is that normal to have engines of different horsepower?

So, you have to throw a couple of new engines on her, I never said she was perfect. I'll be willing to bet, in todays market, in light of your observation, why the seller might even reduce the price five or ten thousand, who knows?

John

 

[PilotAlan]

Gort, your mission is almost exactly mine.

I have been researching for about a year, and here's where I'm at.
Each plane has its pros and cons, and prices are for well equipped, IFR GPS, and autopilot equipped, well maintained examples in the midpoint (excluding overpriced and worn out aircraft):

Speed:
- Beech 33/35: Faster, more expensive. $70-90k

Value:
- Comanche: Good, stout, quick, good room. $60-75k

Comfort:
- Commander: Most comfortable aircraft in the fleet. I have not been able to find any information on the tail incidence mod to increase speed. $75-100k

Versatility:
- 182RG: Most versatile plane in the fleet. $75-95k

Space and payload:
- Lance: Most payload and passenger space of anything in the fleet. Slower, but most capable. $85-105k

Notes:
Most are available with turbos. More speed, more fuel burn, more cost at major and in maintenance. Add $10k at purchase.
I excluded the Tiger, as my wife and I are simply not comfortable in one for long trips. It sounds like you are much smaller than me, and that might be an option.
Same for Mooneys, not for me, might be a great choice for you. But the back seats on a Mooney C model are not for adults, the F and on has a longer cabin, but still not great.

 

[Tom-D]

Yes, I saw what you wrote.

The OP wants to haul 650 lb of people and bags.

Your solution doesn't meet the OP's requirement.

Is it that hard for you to understand?

I'm sure that two high time pilots know what a work around is. and it would be easier to work around a small baggage load, than a run out old VN left over C-123.

 

[Tom-D]

Versatility:
- 182RG: Most versatile plane in the fleet. $75-95k

If you like a 182RG, you'll love a 210.

Go fly one, see for yourself.

 

[Trapper John]

I'm sure that two high time pilots know what a work around is. and it would be easier to work around a small baggage load, than a run out old VN left over C-123.

I'm not the one that suggested a C-123. The person who did made the suggestion in jest in case you missed it. And how do you know it's run out, anyway? Did you call, or are you just being a tire kicker?

There's no reason for the OP to have to work around his baggage load. There are plenty of planes that will do what he wants, which makes your insistence on shipping bags less than useful.

 

[poadeleted20]

Payload requirements would vary depending on mission. Long range, 2 People + bags= 650lb(?) thats two large guys with golf bags and clothes. Speed, ideally 140 kts or greater (faster is better, but will trade for comfort), price hopefully under 100k (50K per partner)

The golf bags plus suitcases creates a lot of space issues. A Tiger can take that with the back seat folded flat, but it's not going to fit well or easily into a PA-28 or C-172/177, and not at all in pretty much any 2-seater. A C-182 with the back seat out would do the job, but neither it nor the Tiger is a 140-knot plane. Planes popular with golfers include the PA32 and BE36 series planes, with their big back door for ease of loading, and one middle seat removed to provide space, but under $100K may only get you a FG PA32, and that, again, is a bit short of 140 knots.

 

[Gort01]

Alan, thanks for the insight. I doubt I am smaller than you. Gort was my military call sign for a reason. I am disappointed in your observation on the Tiger as I had it pegged to be a fun airplane. If it won't work for you, it probably won't for me either. I sure like what I've read on the Commander 112TCA. I think the extra 'wing' will help no matter what. I'll investigate the Sierra as well as the C182RG. I eliminated the Fairchild C123 because of the two engines. It will be on the list in case of a lottery win

 

[Gort01]

Cap'N Ron, I enjoy your insight on the Tiger and its slower speed would be offset by low operating costs, which made it a player. I liked the fold down seats and the overall cockpit/cabin look. It is still on my list until I can sit in one. Is that a Tiger in your photo?

 

[Gort01]

Anybody like the Socata series airplanes?

 

[Trapper John]

Alan, thanks for the insight. I doubt I am smaller than you. Gort was my military call sign for a reason. I am disappointed in your observation on the Tiger as I had it pegged to be a fun airplane. If it won't work for you, it probably won't for me either. I sure like what I've read on the Commander 112TCA. I think the extra 'wing' will help no matter what. I'll investigate the Sierra as well as the C182RG. I eliminated the Fairchild C123 because of the two engines. It will be on the list in case of a lottery win

There are a couple of Commander owners that post here. Hopefully they will comment. There's also a Commander owner's group online that would be would be a good source of info.

 

[eMKay]

3rd vote for a Sierra from me. I've been browsing myself, I won't be buying a plane until I retire (20 years away) but it's nice to browse.

 

[PilotAlan]

Alan, thanks for the insight. I doubt I am smaller than you. Gort was my military call sign for a reason. I am disappointed in your observation on the Tiger as I had it pegged to be a fun airplane. If it won't work for you, it probably won't for me either. I sure like what I've read on the Commander 112TCA. I think the extra 'wing' will help no matter what. I'll investigate the Sierra as well as the C182RG.

The issue with the Tiger is that I have a 54 inch chest and even wider shoulders, and my wife is broad shouldered as well. Between the two of us, it's just too narrow. It's definitely not a height issue.
Don't discount it based on my statements.

We got in a demonstrator at Oshkosh and closed the canopy, and I was fiddling with a chart and reaching for radio knobs, etc. In about 5 minutes it became clear that it wasn't right for us. And it's a shame, because I REALLY wanted a Tiger.

Basically, I would be happy with any of the choices on that list (Bonanza, Comanche, Commander, or Lance). It will depend on what's available at the time. That said, I think the best value right now is the Comanche (maybe a 400 at a good price will be available when I am ready to buy).
Of course, I am fighting the urge for a Cessna 195......

 

[eMKay]

Look at this one! Anyone got $57,000 I can borrow?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Beau...?pt=Motors_Aircraft&hash=item2eb446b6dd#v4-39

 

[flyingcheesehead]

"Good all-around airplane" = C182 as the starting point. Not the best at anything, but pretty damn good at everything.

From TX to either coast, you might want a little more speed. (For reference, I have done Houston, TX to Madison, WI and Denver to Madison in a day in a fixed-gear normally aspirated 182, so it may still work for you.) So, getting a 182 with turbo and/or retracts makes a lot of sense.

The Comanche 250/260 is another one to consider. Not as easy to get into as the 182 (only one door, have to climb up on the wing and get down, no step to do so) but also has lots of interior room. It'll be a hair speedier, but it won't have the comfortable upright seating of the 182's.

Of course, when you start talking TR182's, T210's should be considered as well.

Alan's summary is quite excellent.

With regard to the DA40, it's slightly faster than the straight-leg 182, WAY more efficient, and allows for a spectacular view. In many ways it's similar to the Tiger, only slightly faster. I believe it's a bit more roomy as well. It also has a baggage compartment perfectly suited to carrying golf clubs and the like. So, if you like the Tiger, the DA40 is worth considering. FWIW, I'm 6'4" and 300#, and I've had the DA40 from Houston to Madison in a day as well - Via a fairly circuitous route that included lunch in Stephenville and a couple of stops for fuel that weren't really necessary (but the fuel was so cheap I couldn't help myself...)

 

[Gort01]

Wow, great to know the nuances of the DA40. I am intrigued. Alan and I are about the same size, although my wife is tiny. My owner/partner isn't small so the Tiger worries me. What is the cabin width on the DA40? Obviously it can handle me but how about another FAA+ individual? Don't mind doing a coastal trip in two days either, so ultimately the DA40 would work fine as would the 182.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Definitely consider the Cardinal RG - I haven't had to deal with the ownership side, but I really miss the one we had in the club. Great balance of speed, fuel efficiency, and payload, both in weight and baggage space. Compared to a 172, it flies like a fighter plane and it's a stable IFR platform. It can also handle a 30 kt direct/90 degree x-wind (yes, I have tested this).

Plus, the visibility on the 177 is soooo much better than other Cessnas.

 

[Tom-D]

Don't mind doing a coastal trip in two days either, so ultimately the DA40 would work fine as would the 182.

any thing you can do in a 172/182/ you can do faster in a 210.

 

[EdFred]

Beech Sierra - all the speed of a fixed gear, all the maintenance of a retract. Runway hog, underpowered, anemic climb rate. It's roomy, that's about the only positive thing about it. If it had a 250 horse engine in it, it might be ok, but I think those are called Bonanzas.

 

[Trapper John]

any thing you can do in a 172/182/ you can do faster in a 210.

Except it costs you more doing it.

"Winning!" as Charlie Sheen would say.

 

[alaskaflyer]

I'd just bite the bullet and buy a pre-V35 Bonanza before I'd ever consider a Sierra. Some folks think the S35 is the sweet spot in the older models for payload, comfort and performance.

I'd hate to be considering stuffing a golf bag down through the luggage hatch in a Mooney. And the Bonanza has the best prop clearance of almost any of the models mentioned so far if you want to tackle some easy backcountry strips

 

[Gary F]

* DA40, DA20(2)
-- Crazy overpriced, flat flare like Cirrus, bubble

Carzy overpriced? I disagree. The problem is that all DA40s were made in this century so you can't get the benefit of 30 years depreciation. A DA40 is similar in cost to an Archer III made in the same year. DA40s have very docile handling characteristics and are easy to land, probably much easier than a 182.

With regard to the DA40, it's slightly faster than the straight-leg 182, WAY more efficient, and allows for a spectacular view. In many ways it's similar to the Tiger, only slightly faster. I believe it's a bit more roomy as well. It also has a baggage compartment perfectly suited to carrying golf clubs and the like. So, if you like the Tiger, the DA40 is worth considering. FWIW, I'm 6'4" and 300#, and I've had the DA40 from Houston to Madison in a day as well - Via a fairly circuitous route that included lunch in Stephenville and a couple of stops for fuel that weren't really necessary (but the fuel was so cheap I couldn't help myself...)

Older DA40s (2002 to 04?) which would be closer to his price range have the old style "ski tube" baggage compartment so golf clubs might be a problem although they might fit if you lay down one or both of the rear seats. It might be a bit cramped for two big guys in the front seats and the steam gauge DA40s have less leg clearance under the panel so tall people might have a problem. Anybody interested in Diamond aircraft can get more information at the free Diamond forum. http://www.diamondaviators.net/forum/

 

[poadeleted20]

Cap'N Ron, I enjoy your insight on the Tiger and its slower speed would be offset by low operating costs, which made it a player. I liked the fold down seats and the overall cockpit/cabin look. It is still on my list until I can sit in one. Is that a Tiger in your photo?

Yes, it is. And if you're interested, I suggest you and your pal go find one to sit in so you find out how well the two of you fit in it. You can try the Grumman Gang to see if there's anyone around your area who can help.

BTW, to give that picture perspective, I'm 5-9 and 160 -- airplane fits me great, with the seat at the forwardmost setting to go with my 30-inch inseam legs.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Wow, great to know the nuances of the DA40. I am intrigued. Alan and I are about the same size, although my wife is tiny. My owner/partner isn't small so the Tiger worries me. What is the cabin width on the DA40? Obviously it can handle me but how about another FAA+ individual? Don't mind doing a coastal trip in two days either, so ultimately the DA40 would work fine as would the 182.

I think the cabin on the DA40 at the shoulder is slightly wider than the 182 - It's got plenty of width. I wouldn't recommend it for someone more than 6'4" - That's how tall I am, and with a couple more inches of leg or any more torso, it wouldn't be nearly as comfortable. So, the 182 does still beat the DA40 in legroom and headroom.

As far as weight, ours takes 495 pounds with full (extended range) fuel. If you had one with standard tanks, add 60 pounds to that. We also do not have the optional gross weight increase mod (yet, anyway) which is a pretty cheap addition if you have the newer-style landing gear and gives you another 110 pounds. (The landing gear can be upgraded as well if necessary, but that's more expensive, so it's probably better to find one that has it already.) So, with the standard tanks and gross weight increase, figure about 670 pounds of payload.

any thing you can do in a 172/182/ you can do faster in a 210.

In the case of burning money, exponentially faster.

Carzy overpriced? I disagree. The problem is that all DA40s were made in this century so you can't get the benefit of 30 years depreciation.

FWIW, in October we bought a 2006 DA40. We have the G1000 cockpit with XM weather datalink, Mode S traffic, autopilot, extended range tanks, premium leather interior, etc... Pretty much all the bells and whistles, just under 700 TTAF and TTE when we bought it for $160,000. For a 5-year-old, sharp-looking, extremely efficient, 140-knot airplane, that's a pretty darn good deal IMO.

A DA40 is similar in cost to an Archer III made in the same year. DA40s have very docile handling characteristics and are easy to land, probably much easier than a 182.

Definitely easier to land than a 182, and with truly delightful flight characteristics all around. They're really fun to fly, I encourage you to try one!

Older DA40s (2002 to 04?) which would be closer to his price range have the old style "ski tube" baggage compartment so golf clubs might be a problem although they might fit if you lay down one or both of the rear seats. It might be a bit cramped for two big guys in the front seats and the steam gauge DA40s have less leg clearance under the panel so tall people might have a problem.

I didn't see a price range? IMO the "sweet spot" for used DA40's right now is in the 2004-2006 range. Those are new enough to have the extra bit of legroom and the glass cockpit, but old enough to be a bargain relative to the 2007 and later "XL" and "XLS" models which have the Garmin autopilot and seem to start at about $220K still.

Those '04-'06 models are also more likely to have the newer "4-way" baggage compartment, the newer landing gear, etc. I think it'd be difficult to find one for less than $160K, but they do pop up regularly in that range.

Actually, after looking for a bit - This one's a pretty darn good fit for the OP, and a good deal at $149.9K: http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/detail.aspx?OHID=1193099 It's got the same bells and whistles we have (including the extended baggage compartment), standard tanks, and the gross weight increase already done.

 

[Tom-D]

In the case of burning money, exponentially faster.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom-D View Post
any thing you can do in a 172/182/ you can do faster in a 210.

In the case of burning money, exponentially faster.

Why would the 182 with a 0-470 burn less fuel than a 210 with a IO-470, they are basically the same aircraft, the 182 with the gear hanging out and a 210 with the wheels put away? So running at the same MAP the 210 is more efficient.


Definitely easier to land than a 182, and with truly delightful flight characteristics all around. They're really fun to fly, I encourage you to try one!
[/QUOTE]

I have a few hours in both,the 182 and the 210 If I have over a couple hundred miles to go I'll take the 210.

 

[Tom-D]

Except it costs you more doing it.

In what way?

 

[Gary F]

With regard to the DA40,.... allows for a spectacular view.

No kidding, I also love the view. It's great fun to fly with the stick instead of a yoke. Flyingcheesehead and I should form the POA DA40 fan club.

 

[Trapper John]

In what way?

Because I could fly a 172 for almost a year for the price of a new set of gear saddles for an old POS 210.

Where's the autogas STC for a 210? I can save a bundle of money every hour flying a 172 or a pre O-470U 182 with fuel from the local quickimart.

Oh, and paying for insurance for a retract I don't need? Ya, advantage 172 and 182. But I suppose you'll try to say that's a reflection of my skills and not the fact that old 210s are better suited as crappie beds or beer cans.

 

[elmetal]

I would throw down a 206 or a 182T on the table. Just sayin!

a little more than you're willing to deal with though probably (mx)

Get something with a stick! It's fun!

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Why would the 182 with a 0-470 burn less fuel than a 210 with a IO-470, they are basically the same aircraft, the 182 with the gear hanging out and a 210 with the wheels put away? So running at the same MAP the 210 is more efficient.


Because only the first 3 years of 210's had the IO-470 - And at 260hp vs. 230hp. More ponies = more fuel.

But, of course, the 210 has retractable gear to maintain as well. Yes, that makes it go faster - At a cost.

Finally, insurance companies are starting to really not like the 210. Last I checked into one (probably 1.5-2 years ago) they said that there had been a rash of gear-related incidents in them, and they weren't too keen on writing new 210 policies.

Not saying it's a bad bird - But I don't think you can run one as cheap as a 182 (all things being relative, of course).

No kidding, I also love the view. It's great fun to fly with the stick instead of a yoke. Flyingcheesehead and I should form the POA DA40 fan club.

Gary,

I think we already did.

 

[wabower]

Gort, I've lived in Dallas for 20-some years and have flown numerous airplanes to both coasts many times. We had a house in Palm Springs, so we traveled there in our planes and those of friends enough to get a feel for those trips. My favorite GA ride for those trips is the G-V I flew for a while, and my wife thinks the cabin is "about right" but I can't borrow it as easily as I once did. But we've flown both ways numerous times, including eastbounds to Myrtle Beach, Destin, Ft. Meyers, Savannah/Hilton Head, Atlanta, blah. in everything from jets to N/A fixed-gear singles (my current ride) and have gotten a pretty good feel for those trips.

As you know, westbound in any airplane is a hike, and a 1,000nm trip is really two 500nm trips from a planning standpoint. I flew an A-36 Bo from Newark to Dallas last spring, trip time was 9.8 hours with two stops. With headwinds, our 163 TAS worked out to ~130 GS, and it wasn't a hell of a lot of fun.

So for those trips (or any trips for that matter) I'd advise you to work out a rental/demo/evaluation trip similar to those you plan to make as an owner in whatever you think you might like before you think about buying one. Pay the owner whatever you have to pay for the opportunity to fly the trip, or take him along and let him fly it, or whatever. If you're beating along with the average 35 knot winds we experienced during the Bonanza trip, I'll guarantee you aren't going to want an airplane that cruises ~140 knots.

The southern route from here to California (basically direct ELP, direct PSP or wherever) doesn't require any significant altitude capability to comfortably clear the mountains, but it's nice to climb into the teens for the return to pick up better winds. It's nice to have a turbo for those legs, but the push from the tailwind offsets most of the speed adavantage of the turbocharger, so the blower is is a nice-to-have vs. a need-to-have item.

You should also consider aircraft configuration with respect to the long trips. I much prefer the shade and comfort of a high-wing cockpit/cabin, especially in TX and even more especially during our 8-of-12 hot months each year. The low-wing greenhouse canopies are miserable places to sit, IMO, especially on long trips. I've owned a bunch of them (Mooney, Bonanzas, Comanches, etc) and don't plan to own any more of them. High-wing cabins are wider at the top (where people are also widest) so the creature comforts are significantly better for long trips.

At this age I tell people that my only two requirements for my next plane are altitude pre-select and air-conditioning, and I'm not kidding. I have the portable ice-chest A/C unit in my Cessna 180 (that I could easily recommend to you as a fun airplane for your trips) but will refrain from doing so because they're too hard for most airline guys to fly anyway. :wink2:

For four people and golf clubs, the 210's are a hard combination to beat for speed, load, range, comfort and baggage room. I think the second-row seats in a 210 are the best seats of any single-engine airplane, bar none.

And BTW, I can't imagine any reason a guy with an airline pass would ever think about flying a little airplane to either coast. But for the shorter golf trips around this part of the country, just let me know when and where and I'll meet you there. I'll need at least two a side.

 

[JohnSBA]

Tiger ... on my list until I can sit in one.

If you fit when you sit in a Tiger, be sure to fly it! Really fun to fly, including as a "convertible" with the hatch open, or as a "pickup" with the back seat down. Easy to step down into any of the four seats. The drawback is the fit though, because the seats don't adjust much. I'm 6'1" and it fit fine but your ratio of leg length to torso length may differ. Grumman boasts an exceptionally good type club, and Ron can probably help you get some seat and hopefully air time. The mid-'70s Tiger I used to fly consistently got over 135kias at 3k'MSL with two aboard and 3+ hours' fuel, and it was 3/4 time SMOH with no speed mods. Smoother than most in turbulence too, with the higher wing loading. Only downside was that it slowed down to 125kias at full gross, but that probably matches your mission. IF you fit.

 

[John Baker]

Airplanes, boats, wimmins, no matter how hard we try, even when we think we have found our perfect match and have made it our own, another one will soon catch our eye, and our heart. We are never satisfied with what we have, no matter how bad we wanted it.

Pick one you can afford and feel good with, make your commitment, go ahead, it's probably temporary anyway. You can think it to death and never have anything.
Just buy an airplane, fly the darn thing, have some fun for a while. It might even end up being a keeper. Everything else is just bull***t.

John

 

[denverpilot]

Where's the autogas STC for a 210? I can save a bundle of money every hour flying a 172 or a pre O-470U 182 with fuel from the local quickimart.

Just to be "fair" here...

We have the MoGas STC on our 182.

- Ethanol-free MoGas is available at exactly two airports in the entire state of Colorado. The corn-juice government subsidies and lobbyists are strong here, so close to Nebraska and Kansas. The STC specifically bans MoGas with Ethanol in it. (Not that it'd be all that particularly bad for the engine. It'd just make *even less* power. See below.)

- Bladder manufacturers are rumored to not be allowing any MoGas operation or the fuel bladder warranty is void. (Will let you know when I've seen our new bladder's paperwork. The fact that 100LL contains toluene which is hellaciously nastier stuff than anything in MoGas, seems to have slipped through the brain cells of bladder manufacturers.)

- The lower octane means less bang in the suck, squeeze, bang, blow cycle. Our two long X-Cs on MoGas last year yielded a 5 knot decrease in TAS overall. Still worth the significant price difference and a flight across town to tank up almost 60 gallons of the stuff, but not by much, all told. When mixed with 100LL the loss of power is less noticeable, for some reason. I haven't figured that one out yet.

MoGas/87UL's (or 91UL if you like) the easy 80% fix answer to leaded fuels. The thing standing in it's way is the 20% of the fleet that can't use it. If it were readily available on-field, I'd happily use it all the time.

The big-bucks folks who want a fancier solution for the turbo-charged and high-compression engine folks, that costs as much to buy as 100LL, will never be that practical, or let it happen, for the 80% of us who's aircraft would do just fine on MoGas.

Anecdotally, my Yukon will run on E85. After numerous tests of it when I'm near the single gas station within 30 miles that has it, I consistently lose 3 MPG running it.

Ethanol has to be one of the biggest government boondoggles ever foisted upon the taxpayers.

 

[Henning]

Looked at the specs of the various types everyone has mentioned. Commander 112 TCA was a surprise, I had not looked at those before. Certainly fit the profile and they are fairly roomy. Perhaps the TCA package would allow for a margin going through the Rockies.

I flew all over through the Rockies and Sierras in one with my buddy with no issues. You will not find a roomier 4 seater.

 

[Henning]

Anybody like the Socata series airplanes?

They're Ok, nothing particularly wrong with them. They have a wide cabin as well and pay a speed penalty for it. Some people don't care for the automotive ergonomics of it, but I found it alright. There are a few construction details that look a bit light to me, but they aren't falling out of the sky so they must be ok.

 

[Henning]

I'd just bite the bullet and buy a pre-V35 Bonanza before I'd ever consider a Sierra. Some folks think the S35 is the sweet spot in the older models for payload, comfort and performance.

I'd hate to be considering stuffing a golf bag down through the luggage hatch in a Mooney. And the Bonanza has the best prop clearance of almost any of the models mentioned so far if you want to tackle some easy backcountry strips

I'd agree with that, but 2 FAA+ individuals up front...ehhh, a bit of a squeeze.

 

[Henning]

Just to be "fair" here...

We have the MoGas STC on our 182.

- Ethanol-free MoGas is available at exactly two airports in the entire state of Colorado. The corn-juice government subsidies and lobbyists are strong here, so close to Nebraska and Kansas. The STC specifically bans MoGas with Ethanol in it. (Not that it'd be all that particularly bad for the engine. It'd just make *even less* power. See below.)

- Bladder manufacturers are rumored to not be allowing any MoGas operation or the fuel bladder warranty is void. (Will let you know when I've seen our new bladder's paperwork. The fact that 100LL contains toluene which is hellaciously nastier stuff than anything in MoGas, seems to have slipped through the brain cells of bladder manufacturers.)

- The lower octane means less bang in the suck, squeeze, bang, blow cycle. Our two long X-Cs on MoGas last year yielded a 5 knot decrease in TAS overall. Still worth the significant price difference and a flight across town to tank up almost 60 gallons of the stuff, but not by much, all told. When mixed with 100LL the loss of power is less noticeable, for some reason. I haven't figured that one out yet.

MoGas/87UL's (or 91UL if you like) the easy 80% fix answer to leaded fuels. The thing standing in it's way is the 20% of the fleet that can't use it. If it were readily available on-field, I'd happily use it all the time.

The big-bucks folks who want a fancier solution for the turbo-charged and high-compression engine folks, that costs as much to buy as 100LL, will never be that practical, or let it happen, for the 80% of us who's aircraft would do just fine on MoGas.

Anecdotally, my Yukon will run on E85. After numerous tests of it when I'm near the single gas station within 30 miles that has it, I consistently lose 3 MPG running it.

Ethanol has to be one of the biggest government boondoggles ever foisted upon the taxpayers.

That is incorrect. It (alcohol free MoGas) actually has more bang all other things being equal. You get more power from higher octane fuel only when you raise the compression ratio or set the timing for a more efficient ThetaP which is unavailable with lower octane fuel due to detonation. An engine that will run fine on 87 octane MoGas will make less power when you change the fuel in the tank to 100LL. It's not a big difference by any means, but it is opposite of what you believe.

As far as alcohol and fuel economy/emissions go, yep. When you add alcohol, you use the same amount of gasoline + the alcohol and produce even more carbon emissions than with straight unleaded. The whole ethanol fuel thing is a boondoggle that proved not to work back in the 70s and has been revived by another batch of idiots. People say it helps the farmers, but I don't really see that. I see the biggest beneficiaries being Cargil and ConAgra.

 

[denverpilot]

That is incorrect. It (alcohol free MoGas) actually has more bang all other things being equal. You get more power from higher octane fuel only when you raise the compression ratio or set the timing for a more efficient ThetaP which is unavailable with lower octane fuel due to detonation. An engine that will run fine on 87 octane MoGas will make less power when you change the fuel in the tank to 100LL. It's not a big difference by any means, but it is opposite of what you believe.

Okay, I get that. So why does my 80/87 O-470 now flying on 100LL fly consistently 5 knots slower on MoGas, with WOT throttle settings in the 9500-11500' MSL altitudes with identical leaning technique? (Typically 100F ROP.) Which variable am I missing here?

I'm pretty sure the timing was never advanced for 100LL, right? In theory, going back to something closer to 80/87 should make this engine "happier". ?

I'm also pretty sure this effect is reproducible. But I'll have to do more testing if it's behaving opposite of what is expected. Hmm.

 

[AggieMike88]

So for those trips (or any trips for that matter) I'd advise you to work out a rental/demo/evaluation trip similar to those you plan to make as an owner in whatever you think you might like before you think about buying one. Pay the owner whatever you have to pay for the opportunity to fly the trip, or take him along and let him fly it, or whatever.

I always thought this to be sage advice. Which is why I provided the information in my earlier posts.

I'll add that there are several friendly folks in the D/FW area with many of the aircraft discussed here. So if there is a particular model of interest, start asking about on the DFWPilots board and we can come up with a name and contact info.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

- Ethanol-free MoGas is available at exactly two airports in the entire state of Colorado.

Who says you have to buy it at an airport? Just taxi down to the local QuickieMart, test the fuel*, and fill 'er up.

(Ahhh, I miss ol' 13V. Sigh.)

Ethanol has to be one of the biggest government boondoggles ever foisted upon the taxpayers.

Yep.


* You do NOT need to buy a fancy Ethanol Tester Gadget Thingy from Sporty's. Find your nearest empty Gatorade bottle, fill 1/3 to 1/2 full of water, mark the water level on the side of the bottle, fill the rest of the bottle with gas, cap the bottle, shake vigorously, and set down and let the water separate. If the water ends up at the same level, the gas is ethanol free. If the water level appears to have changed, it's got ethanol. Simple and cheap - Free, if you already drank the Gatorade.