Most economic Single Engine

tonycondon said:
well he said it was a 6.5 hr drive or a 280 mile flight.
Click to expand...

Right, but I think a typical trip west in a 150 won't save much door-to-door time. I'd figure in a 150 the door-to-door would be 4.5 hours normally, and getting that up to 6.5 wouldn't take much of a headwind, especially once you need a fuel stop.

Anything under 150 kts will get really old, really fast.
 
How a bout a Wittman Tailwind? Grandpa had one that would cruise just over 150mph on an o-200.
 
docmirror said:
Yup Vari-eze would be a good choice in EXP in place of the Glasair.
Click to expand...
I was thinking the same thing...

in either case, where would one find a competent composite construction inspector?
 
There are a host of Experimental-Amateur Built aircraft which are more efficient/economical than any production certified plane in the same class (e.g., 150-160HP 4-seat fixed gear). There are also a host of issues involved in purchasing and operating an E-AB aircraft which do not exist with production aircraft. I suggest a good bit of research on the subject before you choose the E-AB route.
 
Ron Levy said:
There are a host of Experimental-Amateur Built aircraft which are more efficient/economical than any production certified plane in the same class (e.g., 150-160HP 4-seat fixed gear). There are also a host of issues involved in purchasing and operating an E-AB aircraft which do not exist with production aircraft. I suggest a good bit of research on the subject before you choose the E-AB route.
Click to expand...

I do agree with that, but given his requested mission it also would be silly to not look into those options. Doubly so when you figure that, as experimental, he can dump car gas in legally if he so chooses and finds it to be safe. Right there is a 40% savings on fuel for same consumption.

In the certified world, the best option would be a Mooney M20C/E. E would be a bit faster on a bit more fuel.
 
Read the OP's post. He was looking at a Cessna 152 for heavens sake!

There aint much availabe thats faster on that budget.

If I were buying a dirt cheap plane and cheapest to maintain here is what my requirements are:

#1 Venturis NOT a vacuum pump (certainly not a dry vacuum pump)
#2 No remote mounted oil cooler or remote oil filter (eliminates the hoses)
#3 No engine driven fuel pump (eliminates hoses and pump)
#4 If I don't need it for the commute, no transponder (eliminates the 91.413 test)
#5 Bendix magnetos
#6 No panel mounted avionics that require databases or subscriptions
 
Last edited:
bnt83 said:
Read the OP's post. He was looking at a Cessna 152 for heavens sake!
Click to expand...

That is true, but he also was lookng for some advice on what makes sense for his mission and admits to low time. I think he's gotten some good advice here, along with some bad advice. Now he can choose. :)
 
Ted DuPuis said:
That is true, but he also was lookng for some advice on what makes sense for his mission and admits to low time. I think he's gotten some good advice here, along with some bad advice. Now he can choose. :)
Click to expand...


:yes:
 
Ron Levy said:
There are a host of Experimental-Amateur Built aircraft which are more efficient/economical than any production certified plane in the same class (e.g., 150-160HP 4-seat fixed gear). There are also a host of issues involved in purchasing and operating an E-AB aircraft which do not exist with production aircraft. I suggest a good bit of research on the subject before you choose the E-AB route.
Click to expand...
I would say the process and concerns involved with buying an extablished design like an RV or Glasair are exactly the same as with buying an old factory-built plane. There is a possibility of poor workmanship in either case. After a plane has been maintained by a succession of nitwits for decades, it doesn't matter much what happened in wichita in 1962.
 
A KIS TR-1 for $28,000 that I have looked at has a 135 HP with a speed of 170 smpg that burns at 6 gph or 140 smpg at a 4.5 - 5.0 gph. Using standard gas.

The issue I see with this is the weight of the aircraft, am I not right that a lighter the aircraft the lower the wind speed it can operate in?

Then there is the whole issue of using a stick.
 
You can learn how to use a stick. It's easy.

I assume you're referring to crosswinds when you talk about wind. Head/tailwinds are irrelevant. There are lots of factors that influence crosswind performance. Really, you should talk to people with experience with the plane. Also have alternates with different runways if needed. I used to land the Mooney in 25-30 kt gusting crosswinds no problem.
 
Toddvg said:
A KIS TR-1 for $28,000 that I have looked at has a 135 HP with a speed of 170 smpg that burns at 6 gph or 140 smpg at a 4.5 - 5.0 gph. Using standard gas.

The issue I see with this is the weight of the aircraft, am I not right that a lighter the aircraft the lower the wind speed it can operate in?

Then there is the whole issue of using a stick.
Click to expand...

The issue I see is that it's a sparsely built Experimental by a company that's now out of business. Doesn't seem like a good candidate for a "first plane" I'd probably stick to the tried and true experimentals if I were going to go that route. Lighter planes with light wing loading can be a ride in turbulence. Just make sure you have plenty of rudder for X-Wind landings.
 
Toddvg said:
A KIS TR-1 for $28,000 that I have looked at has a 135 HP with a speed of 170 smpg that burns at 6 gph or 140 smpg at a 4.5 - 5.0 gph. Using standard gas.

The issue I see with this is the weight of the aircraft, am I not right that a lighter the aircraft the lower the wind speed it can operate in?

Then there is the whole issue of using a stick.
Click to expand...
The stick transition was extremely easy and intuitive for me with only 100 hours total time.

Your assumption regarding weight is not accurate. My Lancair is only 1000 lbs empty weight and hardly ever am I bothered by crosswinds. It is so slippery the wind does not catch it like a cessna 1xx that you are likely familiar with. I have landed it with 35 knot direct crosswinds. I am not familiar with a KIS TR-1 but suspect it also is less effected by crosswinds, turbulence, etc than the certified trainers you have likely flown.

Take a ride in it and see for yourself. If you buy it, get transition training until you are comfortable.
 
Toddvg said:
The issue I see with this is the weight of the aircraft, am I not right that a lighter the aircraft the lower the wind speed it can operate in?
Click to expand...

You're a bit off base on that thought. Even when I was a student I landed a 152 in a 20+ kt crosswind with not much difficulty. Weight doesn't have much to do with it - or at least isn't the primary factor. It's a combination of factors, but at this point it sounds like you had an instructor that didn't educate you all that well - or had his own fears and misconceptions about crosswinds and passed them on, unfortunately, to you.
 
Toddvg said:
The issue I see with this is the weight of the aircraft, am I not right that a lighter the aircraft the lower the wind speed it can operate in?

Then there is the whole issue of using a stick.
Click to expand...

Not really. It's about wing loading predominantly. A planes total weight is divided by the area of the wing to determine overall wing loading. And for the anal retentive playing along, please lets keep this simple.

The wing loading for various planes run from only ~8Lbs/sq-ft up to over 15Lb/sq-ft. So, this means that as the wing loading increases, the wing has to 'work harder' to lift the craft and keep it flying. Small planes with moderately high wing loading will fare just fine in turbulence. As an example, the Thorp T-18 has a pretty high wing loading, and is quite stable in turbulence. Higher wing loading also helps with top speed in some respects because of the efficiency of the angle of incidence of the wing in flight, and the smaller wetted surface.

Flying stick after learning yoke is an easy transition. The other way, is a bit harder, but most people take to stick controls right away.
 
I like the idea of an EZ, but a Cherokee 140 would likely be my choice for certificated.
 
If you can get someone else to buy it for you the M20J would be good. Its economical to own and you won't find a 4 place certified bird that will go as fast for as little fuel.
 
Toddvg said:
A KIS TR-1 for $28,000 that I have looked at has a 135 HP with a speed of 170 smpg that burns at 6 gph or 140 smpg at a 4.5 - 5.0 gph. Using standard gas.

The issue I see with this is the weight of the aircraft, am I not right that a lighter the aircraft the lower the wind speed it can operate in?

Then there is the whole issue of using a stick.
Click to expand...

Stick is a total non issue.

Wing is on the short side so the wing loading should be high enough to not bounce you around as much as some other aircraft - do the math and compare to a 152 / 172 / whatever. Stall speed is 50+ with flaps.

What engine is in it? There appears to be a lot of options. You are going to pay more for a Lycoming / Continental than some of the other choices...

The KIS (keep it simple) series of aircraft became a vision of designer Rich Trickel when he was commissioned by Lance Neibauer (Lancair) to design and develop the molds and structural techniques used in the building of the Lancair series of aircraft. Trickel designed the KIS as a high-performance entry- or training- level aircraft that could reap the benefits of the composite technology that he had accomplished with the Lancair. Using epoxy preimpregnated glass cloth (prepreg), combined with high-density foam core and honeycomb Nomex, the vacuum-formed components for the KIS could become reality. The extreme light weight and high strength from this type of composite construction allows for the use of smaller engines to get superior performance for an aircraft. The KIS series is available with a number of options for configuration and powerplants.
Click to expand...

If you wrap it up in a ball, you are in for a lot of fiberglass work - and repairs tend to add weight. Someone said that the company is out of business so anything you want you will have to fabricate. But, that's not a real big deal - unless you wreck it you don't generally do that much work to the actual airframe. Engine parts should be available (depending on the engine) avionics are off the shelf. Wear items like bearings, hinges, rod ends, brakes, wheels, etc. are likely to be off the shelf from somewhere.

Look closely at the fuel / electrical systems. This is where many homebuilders come up short - and are part of what drives up the E-AB accident rate.

Auto engine conversions can be made to work well, but it appears to me that the well engineered / reliable installations may be the exception.
 
Geico266 said:
:mad2::mad2::mad2:
Click to expand...

You can bang your head all you want, but I face these scenarios all the time. My airplane is a lot more capable than a 30k 152 and I have to be conservative with my planning. There are lots of times I look at the forecast for the week and change my plans. I ALWAYS have to leave time to execute a contingency plan (driving or commercial). There are lots of other times I just come back a day or two early because weather "might" become un-flyable. Of course it doesn't 95% of the time, but that doesn't help when you absolutely have to be somewhere Monday morning. There have also been plenty of times that I ran into forecast benign weather I wouldn't have wanted to face in the aircraft being suggested (have we even mentioned IFR capability in this cheap fantasy bird?).

If the OP really wants to do this, has a job that demands a consistent schedule, then I suggest he step up to a more capable aircraft. For example you could find plenty of cheap de-iced twins that would offer more capabilities, better ride, more speed, etc. If this was San Diego to LA It might be different.
 
with a 30K budget you can get an IFR 150 that will be able to fly in any weather that your 206 can fly in. and have 10K extra to buy gas.
 
I wouldn't take a 150 into the mountains and would be reluctant to take into anything but the most benign IFR. LEGALLY you can take it anywhere you can take a 206, but the short legs and poor performance would not be pleasant.

I had an IFR 172 and the 250 mile legs to still have an IFR reserve were not pleasant. Now I have an airplane that will fly longer than I care to sit.
 
DavidWhite said:
I wouldn't take a 150 into the mountains and would be reluctant to take into anything but the most benign IFR. LEGALLY you can take it anywhere you can take a 206, but the short legs and poor performance would not be pleasant.

I had an IFR 172 and the 250 mile legs to still have an IFR reserve were not pleasant. Now I have an airplane that will fly longer than I care to sit.
Click to expand...

talk about mission creep. he is flying from PA to MI. Mountains beyond the capability of a 150? I don't think so. And yes i'm well aware of the mountain wave generating ability of the Appalachians, and no plane in his budget is capable of dealing with the downdrafts associated.
 
Last edited:
Alexb2000 said:
Sure they can. I hear so many 150's on frequency on really bad weather days it's hard to keep track of them all.:wink2:

Why not get real and find something like this?

http://www.controller.com/listingsd...ER-SENECA-II/1975-PIPER-SENECA-II/1266861.htm

Maybe add a used 430W and fly it.
Click to expand...




G6502.jpg
 
Skylane81E said:
IMO the only thing holding 150s back IFR are its short legs

And that Seneca, anything but economical, just ask Dr Bruce
Click to expand...

This is a tough requirement. More money for purchase would give some cheaper to own options. Pay me now or pay me later I guess.

I'm still waiting for all the year round 150 pilots who commute around the Great Lakes to post.
 
Alexb2000 said:
This is a tough requirement. More money for purchase would give some cheaper to own options. Pay me now or pay me later I guess.

I'm still waiting for all the year round 150 pilots who commute around the Great Lakes to post.
Click to expand...

If you are willing to accept short legs it has just as much IFR utility as any other non deiced naturally aspirated single (when equipped correctly)
 
Skylane81E said:
If you are willing to accept short legs it has just as much IFR utility as any other non deiced naturally aspirated single (when equipped correctly)
Click to expand...

Theoretically there are IFR aircraft and IFR deiced aircraft, so take away icing conditions and a 150 can do anything a 757 can.

Reality is different, but hey why not encourage the OP to find out for himself. I mean what's the worst that can happen?
 
Wait a second, I'm the resident twin snob on this forum. Why are people trying to one up me? :dunno:
 
Alexb2000 said:
I'm still waiting for all the year round 150 pilots who commute around the Great Lakes to post.
Click to expand...

I'm in full agreement that a 150 is a terrible choice for this. But there are lots of other planes that are good choices and won't cost north of $200/hr to operate, rather more like under $100/hr.
 
Seneca is a non starter since the asking price is twice his budget.
 
DavidWhite said:
If you can get someone else to buy it for you the M20J would be good. Its economical to own and you won't find a 4 place certified bird that will go as fast for as little fuel.
Click to expand...
except for a bonanza throttled back to go mooney speed
 
I own and fly a C-150, and regularly do 200 nm trips. I used to have a C-172, and compared the flying times for both of these airplanes for this trip length. The C-172 was faster, but it only theoretically took about 12-15 minutes longer to fly the C-150. Not worth the extra costs. For your budget, forget the flight into known icing. Just understand, like others have said, you won't always be able to fly.

If I were in your position, I would be looking for either a Mooney or a Grumann Cheetah. The Mooney will be more cost for insurance and maintenance/annuals due to the retractable gear. You will appreciate 4 place over 2 place, due to the extra performance on takeoff and extra load hauling capability. Whatever you do, don't buy more airplane than you can afford to fly and keep up.
 
Capt. Geoffrey

The engine is a Subaru Legacy 135 hp 2.2 L
 
Thank you all, this feed back is great. Keep it coming.

The point to all this is= I want as much flexabilty on when I fly as possible while paying as little as possible per hour.

I will say that if $10-20,000 gets me same cost per hour but cuts my time by say 25% then I could do that. The issue I have had in the past is pay load, yes 80% of the time no issue it is just me, but as soon as the wife and kids jump in, no go.

I liked the idea of the TR-1 because of regular fuel, faster and cheaper to own, but no wife and kids again.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I'm in full agreement that a 150 is a terrible choice for this. But there are lots of other planes that are good choices and won't cost north of $200/hr to operate, rather more like under $100/hr.
Click to expand...

Sure, but the budget is the issue. $30k is tight, even $60k is tight. I assume we are limiting this to aircraft able to fly IFR, perhaps even needing GPS approaches. My first choice would be a deiced older Mooney, but there is no way to do that in this budget even if we drop the icing.

Let's see some specific examples of aircraft people would suggest.
 
Toddvg said:
Capt. Geoffrey

The engine is a Subaru Legacy 135 hp 2.2 L
Click to expand...

The Subaru seems to be a common engine to convert for small aircraft use.

But, I will repeat.

Some homebuilders are able to perform a reliable auto engine conversion. But as far as I can tell, those are the exception.

Statistics for homebuilts are significantly worse than type certified aircraft when it comes to accidents caused by fuel / ignition / engine failures. Auto engine conversions are even worse (statistically) than other homebuilts.

In this particular case -

Direct drive or some kind of reduction? Who made the reduction if it is equipped? What kind of track record does it have?

What kind of ignition system? Who made it?

What kind of carburetors?

How long has it been flying? How many times has it failed so far? How many "precautionary" landings?

You may wish to find out all of the above, and more, before you plunk down cold hard cash (much less put your butt in the air behind it).

Again, I'm not saying it can't be done, but for me, personally, this is not something I would pick for regular cross country flights. And, NFW would I fly across one of the Great Lakes with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top