High performance planes

mrindian

mrindian

Pre-Flight
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
68
Location
Riverside, CA
Display Name
Display name:
Gary
I've been thinking about my next airplane purchase and trying to decide what to buy. I've got it narrowed down a bit but I have some questions.

I'm looking for a fast plane 200 knots+
So I've decided on a cessna 350 or 400

What big disadvantage would the turbo give me? I know the advantages. But I need the disadvantages.
Sometimes I like short airport to airport hops at 2500' for ten minutes. I've been told I would not want to do that in a turbo plane.

How many people really fly in the flight levels 240 in a unpressurized plane? I realize over fl180 you can no longer use a nose cannula and must use a mask. So who goes that high? How long to climb that high. The book says the 400 climbs at 1,400 fpm. But I assume that's only to somewhere around fl 16-18 then you slow down.

From what I've read you get better mpg in the turbo model with the higher airspeed but at a cost of higher maintenance. Or does a modern turbo plane overcome those old wives tales.

Not to start a lop rop debate. But I was told fly rop burn a few more gallons and don't due top ends as often. Practical in real world or not?

Thanks for any decision making help.
G.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
What you 'learned' about ROP/LOP is backwards, ROP will lead to cylinder and valve problems as it always has.

Is the Cessna set up supercharging or normalizing like the Cirrus?
 
On the practical end
Turbos are expensive to maintain
Flight above 12,000 unpressurized soon becomes cold and unpleasant and flatulent

And as my son pointed out to me long ago: You guys fly because you love to fly. So now you spend a lot of money to go fast so you can be back on the ground sooner - doh!
 
If your going to cross the Rockies all the time ,or fly long cross countries,get the turbo. If your flying short hops ,stay away from the turbo.
 
Turbos are higher MX. Very few people fly unpressurized in the flight levels. I've done it, and it's just not much fun. Also, look at block times. 200 KTAS in cruise in the low flight levels means probably a 30 minute climb up there. How far are you going and how will that impact your block times? I'll give an example - I once took off in the 310 at the same time as a 340 going the same direction, about 500-600 nm. The 340 was doing about 20-30 kts faster, but had a long time to get up to FL190 vs my short climb to 7,000. In the end, we got there within about 5 minutes of eachother.

I think you will find a C350/400 won't give you a truly usable 200 kts. If you want that in a single, you're looking turbine or Lancair IV.
 
A Mooney Acclaim will also work for this. I know several people with Mooney Rockets who routinely mask up and fly high, too.
 
Living in Denver with most of my flights going west, I rarely fly my Acclaim below 15,500', and I rarely go above FL220. I wear a mask almost every flight and it doesn't bother me.

It takes me 12-15 minutes to climb from 5,400' to 16,500' heading west out of Denver. Depends on whether ATC will let me climb through the Class B or not.

I've had two turbo Mooneys in the past 14 years and if you run the engine properly and keep it maintained, there's no disadvantage to modern turbos that I can see.

My Acclaim does short hops just fine. So will the Cessnas.
 
I have a 350. I wouldn't own a 400 myself as my home shop who works on them says the turbos and related are only thing that they find problems with. Plus fuel burn is at minimum 4 gals higher. 350 is great plane. I don't see much need to fly in flight levels although I have. I have some panel shots on g1000 that show some pretty impressive tas shots.
 
Flew in one when it was still Lancair. Plenty fast, very impressive and capable airplane.
 
Biggest advantage I saw in the TN Bo vs. NA Bo was ability to climb out of ice relatively quickly.
 
Pilots don't mind wearing cannulas and masks, cause we're PILOTS!:D Passengers may or may not feel the same way.;) I don't think my wife would like the idea of a mask ruining her make up on a 3 hour trip. :nono:
So, part of your ability to use the flight levels us going to be the comfort of you passengers, unless you plan on flying alone of with other pilots.:D TAS us much more important when talking to other pilots, than when talking to passengers, they just want a comfortable ride, and get there on time.:D
 
N747JB said:
So, part of your ability to use the flight levels us going to be the comfort of you passengers, unless you plan on flying alone of with other pilots.:D TAS us much more important when talking to other pilots, than when talking to passengers, they just want a comfortable ride, and get there on time.:D
Click to expand...

This is true. Pax like speed, but comfort is a must.
 
N747JB said:
Pilots don't mind wearing cannulas and masks, cause we're PILOTS!:D Passengers may or may not feel the same way.;) I don't think my wife would like the idea of a mask ruining her make up on a 3 hour trip. :nono:
Click to expand...

That's a good point and luckily a moot one for me. 99% of my flights are either solo or with my wife. She doesn't mind cannulas or masks and she definitely likes going fast. And she's the farthest thing from a pilot!

Another benefit is that if we get in a fight, I just unplug her mask. Nap time! :D
 
N747JB said:
Pilots don't mind wearing cannulas and masks, cause we're PILOTS!:D Passengers may or may not feel the same way.;) I don't think my wife would like the idea of a mask ruining her make up on a 3 hour trip. :nono:
So, part of your ability to use the flight levels us going to be the comfort of you passengers, unless you plan on flying alone of with other pilots.:D TAS us much more important when talking to other pilots, than when talking to passengers, they just want a comfortable ride, and get there on time.:D
Click to expand...

Another problem about flying in the flight levels with no pressurization is your body starts to outgas through your rear pressure valve. This can be unpleasant for others flying with you.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The 340 was doing about 20-30 kts faster, but had a long time to get up to FL190 vs my short climb to 7,000. In the end, we got there within about 5 minutes of eachother.
Click to expand...

Yes, but what were the ride conditions like? You were probably dealing with turbulence and heat and weather while the 340 was in nice cool smooth air.
 
John Galt said:
Yes, but what were the ride conditions like? You were probably dealing with turbulence and heat and weather while the 340 was in nice cool smooth air.
Click to expand...

Nope. Nice and smooth. And who says it was in the summer?
 
Screw flying unpressurized in the FLs!

I doubt your friends and family would even want to go, "hey honey strap this mask over your face for the next 2 hours" lol

A mooney would be a better bet, those cessnas are a little over priced for what they are IMO.
 
Planes are time machines. But, once you get to a certain point, the payback gets pretty thin. Draw a donut around your home, with the inner ring at 200 miles, and the outer at 800. This is the GA typical range. Sure, some flights will be shorter, and a few longer but really, once we get to 1000 range a lot of us will buy a ticket on SWA.

Car:******************* 200 stat miles @ 65MPH ~ 3 hours.
160Kt NA single plane***** 200 stat miles @184MPH ~ 1 hour 5 min.
200Kt turbo plane******** 200 stat miles @ 230MPH ~ 52 minutes. Saving 13 min

Car:******************* 800 stat miles @ 65MPH ~ 12 hours, 20 min.
160Kt NA single plane***** 800 stat miles @184MPH ~ 4 hours 21 min.
200Kt turbo plane******** 800 stat miles @ 230MPH ~ 3 hours 29 minutes. Saving 52 min

I got a plane that will do 160Kts if I push it, and on some long flights I do get up to that speed, and live with the fuel burn. But, if 52 minutes makes that much difference, and I know there are cases where it's true, then pay the extra I guess. For my utility vs cost, the added fuel and mx and investment cost wasn't even remotely worth the time saved.

The opinion on the Aerostar, which is one of my favorites is spot on in terms of safety, speed, comfort, and elegance. I'm guessing they are about a wash in acquisition, so the delta would be in fuel and mx.
 
I've flown a mooney and it didn't appeal to me. Great plane though. The 350 or 400 will have air conditioning that you can run full time. Even on takeoff! They handle very nice. Friend of mine even said it handled better than bonanza. They have speed brakes that come in handy learning to slow plane down. Great range with 98 gal usable. Doors on both sides. I looked at both when bought 350. Whenever I take people along and they have to use oxygen they *****. That day and for the next year. So didn't go high often. Still have great speed and low fuel burn.
 
N747JB said:
Pilots don't mind wearing cannulas and masks, cause we're PILOTS!:D Passengers may or may not feel the same way.;) I don't think my wife would like the idea of a mask ruining her make up on a 3 hour trip. :nono:
So, part of your ability to use the flight levels us going to be the comfort of you passengers, unless you plan on flying alone of with other pilots.:D TAS us much more important when talking to other pilots, than when talking to passengers, they just want a comfortable ride, and get there on time.:D
Click to expand...

Bob Gerace and I had this same discussion flying Atlanta to Vegas in his T-310-R. His position is that the 310 is a pilot's airplane, but passengers hate the O2 so he never got the family/business utility he expected.
 
Very true, my typical trip is FTY to DTS, Atlanta to Destin, 240 nautical miles depending on routing, it's 225 direct, but that's not happening around ATL. :D
Driving is close to 300 mile, 5:30-6:00 depending on traffic and bathroom breaks.;)
Flight times depend on winds and routing.
The 182 takes (130-135 knots) 1:45-2:00, 22-25 gallons
The Conquest (240-250 knots) is 1:15-1:25, 70-80 gallons
The 421 took (190 knots) 1:25-1:40. 55-60 gallons
The Citation II (340-350 knots) took 55 minutes to an hour. 180-200 gallons.




docmirror said:
Planes are time machines. But, once you get to a certain point, the payback gets pretty thin. Draw a donut around your home, with the inner ring at 200 miles, and the outer at 800. This is the GA typical range. Sure, some flights will be shorter, and a few longer but really, once we get to 1000 range a lot of us will buy a ticket on SWA.

Car:******************* 200 stat miles @ 65MPH ~ 3 hours.
160Kt NA single plane***** 200 stat miles @184MPH ~ 1 hour 5 min.
200Kt turbo plane******** 200 stat miles @ 230MPH ~ 52 minutes. Saving 13 min

Car:******************* 800 stat miles @ 65MPH ~ 12 hours, 20 min.
160Kt NA single plane***** 800 stat miles @184MPH ~ 4 hours 21 min.
200Kt turbo plane******** 800 stat miles @ 230MPH ~ 3 hours 29 minutes. Saving 52 min

I got a plane that will do 160Kts if I push it, and on some long flights I do get up to that speed, and live with the fuel burn. But, if 52 minutes makes that much difference, and I know there are cases where it's true, then pay the extra I guess. For my utility vs cost, the added fuel and mx and investment cost wasn't even remotely worth the time saved.

The opinion on the Aerostar, which is one of my favorites is spot on in terms of safety, speed, comfort, and elegance. I'm guessing they are about a wash in acquisition, so the delta would be in fuel and mx.
Click to expand...
 
Dr. O said:
Skip the crotch rockets.
An Aerostar 600 or 700 will do the job nicely and you won't fall screaming from the sky when an engine burps.
here http://www.aerostaraircraft.com/N700GP.html
Click to expand...

Hey, don't go advertising the plane I want to own some day. Somebody might buy it ahead of me! :)

If I already had my training and some time behind me, and had the money, I'd seriously consider that exact plane.

Hopefully, my company stock will continue to rise, LOL.
 
I want to thank everyone for the replies.

The aerostar looks nice, but I don't really see needing 4 full seats in the airplane, when I'm lucky enough to get two passengers. Plus I already own a big plane when I need to haul more people 21sob - But it only goes 150-160mph and burns a lot of fuel.

I've been looking at the 350/400 because part of me wants a modern glass panel airplane, with a good autopilot for IFR flight.
The straight legs work also for keeping maintenance and insurance payments lower vs the Mooney.

My flight profile sees me flying from Ca to PA, Ca-OH, CA-IA, CA-FL (once to each of these states during the year for work) I hate commercial flying and once you consider lay overs and arriving early for TSA and driving to LAX I figured I can fly myself at 200kts in the same overall time frame. Plus at FL240 you can fly above most WX.

What I don't know is how many people fly at those levels and how comfortable it is. It appears that it is not that comfortable.

Also it appears the 350 would have less maintenance with no turbo than the 400 and really only be slightly slower but still be able to reach 18,000'

I just know with my luck, I would climb to FL240 and either me or my passenger will need the bathroom. I guess that's one reason to fly commercial.

My commercial flight this week from LAX - MLI was $430 for 737 cattle class.
It left at 0600 LAX and arrived MLI at 1540 - 7hr 40min + 3hr to drive to LAX, park, clear security etc.
With winds and not counting the needed fuel stop a 400 can do the flight in under 6 hours. SO include 1hr to stop and it's still quicker! So with one passenger it will only cost double to make the trip myself and have more fun.......

Just my thought process so far......
G.
 
mrindian said:
I've been looking at the 350/400 because part of me wants a modern glass panel airplane, with a good autopilot for IFR flight.
Click to expand...
If I were a buyer of a used 350/400 I would only consider those that were WAAS capable.
 
They are all upgrade able. I would want a 06 or newer myself. G1000 panel. I have planes that are waas and non waas. Never really kept me out of anywhere I was willing to go. I guess I'm a non waas minimum person.
 
With legs like that, I would look at a Lancair IV-P. Major proficiency required, but for legs like that, the 250+ KTAS will be very nice, and you'll actually notice a block time difference. Plus, you'll like the pressurization.

The bathroom thing, plan your liquid consumption accordingly. I do regular flights of 11ish hours in one day with 3.5ish hour legs, and it's not a problem so long as I plan and restrict fluids accordingly.

For trips like that, I would go for turbos. You're talking about crossing the Rockies a good bit, and will benefit from it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top