Tough mission to figure out

T

TCABM

Final Approach
Joined
Apr 23, 2013
Messages
5,817
Display Name
Display name:
3G
Alright PoA'ers, here's the mission 700NM, call it 4 hrs or less door to door for 2 pax. I'm thinking a Mooney 231, RV10, A36, Viking, or 310.

Dispatch reliability is most important, the trip will be made monthly or more frequently.

This will be a cash purchase ($200k liquid). ratings for all are complete, reserves are met so no quibbling about that.

This is about the plane to meet the mission, and turbines are out of the equation.

What say you.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Velocity XL will do it in 3:30 and well under 200 grand.
 
Cessna 310 ,or the A36. Both will do the job.
 
Yes, I should add the Velocity. I'll look into the Lancair. I originally lumped it into the turbine category.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
TCABM said:
Alright PoA'ers, here's the mission 700NM, call it 4 hrs or less door to door for 2 pax. I'm thinking a Mooney 231, RV10, A36, Viking, or 310.

Dispatch reliability is most important, the trip will be made monthly or more frequently.

This will be a cash purchase ($200k liquid). ratings for all are complete, reserves are met so no quibbling about that.

This is about the plane to meet the mission, and turbines are out of the equation.

What say you.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

What is the route and how do you feel about ice?
 
700nm? I'd want something that's known ice. That's also a long time to sit in something that's not cabin class. Maybe a 340 or 421?
 
kayoh190 said:
700nm? I'd want something that's known ice. That's also a long time to sit in something that's not cabin class. Maybe a 340 or 421?
Click to expand...


That's a lot of plane to carry around for a pilot and one pax...

Lancair Legacy or Glasair III with Thermawing?
 
dans2992 said:
That's a lot of plane to carry around for a pilot and one pax...

Lancair Legacy or Glasair III with Thermawing?
Click to expand...

That's a fair point. I guess I'm just not experienced in smaller airplanes that can handle the potential weather you might encounter over that long of a route.
 
kayoh190 said:
That's a fair point. I guess I'm just not experienced in smaller airplanes that can handle the potential weather you might encounter over that long of a route.
Click to expand...

Outside of going FIKI pressurized turbine, better to get a high speed non-FIKI piston and just accept the limitations.
 
I think dispatch reliablity goes down noticeably with airplanes that are 40 or 50 years old, and are no longer manufactured.
 
I fly from KBUY (near raleigh NC) to KEYW (Key West) 1x per month or so with 2 people nonstop in my 2004 SR22. It's a delight.

I have not canceled a flight all year. I fly early in the AM during the summer, and ice is almost never an issue being near the coast and going from NC to FL.

I don't have any ice protection at all (well, pitot heat!). Helps with useful load. I load up with 80 gallons of fuel, fly for just over 4 hours (usually) at 170 knotts and land with 20 gallons remaining.

All this with full glass cockpit, lots of baggage allowance and a parachute.

Hard to beat really. Oh, and you could get it for around 200k
 
dans2992 said:
That's a lot of plane to carry around for a pilot and one pax...

Lancair Legacy or Glasair III with Thermawing?
Click to expand...

You can put the Thermawing on a Glasair? What is the impact on the useful load?
 
What part of the country are you flying in?

You can get a nice, full de-ice 310 for 200k or less. I don't think any of the singles in your initial purchase price range will have full ice protection.

As Steve mentioned, location and your route matter. I'm in NC too. In the winter, going south (where im usually headed in winter) is normally doable year-round with no de-ice equipment. However I have had to cancel many trips to the north and west of here during the winter because of icing possibilities.
 
Last edited:
Flying Viking said:
You can put the Thermawing on a Glasair? What is the impact on the useful load?
Click to expand...


I've heard they do it. Not sure on the useful load impact, but with 2 seats, unless you are heavy I suspect it would not be a problem. You'd run out of space before you run out of weight.
 
Oh don't forget a mooney rocket. Basically a M20J with a 300hp turbo continental in there. Fast. 210 knots
 
Lancair Legacy, 225ktas all day long.

The right Lancair 360 will do it, too. Mine would need a fuel stop, I suspect.

Lancair 360's are around $70k-$90k. Lancair Legacy would be $175k-$225k
 
James_Dean said:
What is the route and how do you feel about ice?
Click to expand...


Typical route is CO Springs to The Austin/central Texas area. I would like it to be direct, but can accept one stop.

Drive time is 13 hrs, DEN - AUS is not really convenient and COS - AUS for two is just about the same as doing it myself, but with limited options.

And, yes a 421 would be ideal, but it's just not in the cards for a few more years and we are needing something much sooner than that.

As for wx/ice, we have the flexibility to go/Cnx right up to takeoff going either direction, so fiki isn't a must have, speed and fuel capacity to get there in one stop + legal reserves goes to the top of the list.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
SteveinNC said:
I fly from KBUY (near raleigh NC) to KEYW (Key West) 1x per month or so with 2 people nonstop in my 2004 SR22. It's a delight.

I have not canceled a flight all year. I fly early in the AM during the summer, and ice is almost never an issue being near the coast and going from NC to FL.

I don't have any ice protection at all (well, pitot heat!). Helps with useful load. I load up with 80 gallons of fuel, fly for just over 4 hours (usually) at 170 knotts and land with 20 gallons remaining.

All this with full glass cockpit, lots of baggage allowance and a parachute.
Click to expand...
Scratch the RV10 for 700NM in 4. We do Key West a couple of times a year from Durham NC. Have to plan it as a 1 stop flight though we often can do it with no stops without reserves (60 gallons, plan 155 knots - faster using more fuel). The ideal RT stops for cheap fuel in Ft Meyers and short cruise into KEYW then non-stop return leg. But it is a complete joy for 2 and everything we can imagine carrying. Ice is rare and easily managed.
dell30rb said:
As Steve mentioned, location and your route matter. I'm in NC too. In the winter, going south (where im usually headed in winter) is normally doable year-round with no de-ice equipment. However I have had to cancel many trips to the north and west of here during the winter because of icing possibilities.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Ice management in winter requires flexibility.
 
Thank you all for the input. I've now got several options to focus on and get the show on the road. TC


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
A 310R with de-ice would be a good choice, I think some of the turbos are FIKI, but you really want some method of escaping ice. So, you might be fine with de-ice.:D
 
SR 22, with A/C and no ice protection. However, this bird is hard to find, as most get bought as soon as they hit the market and exported to South America. Look for a 2004, you can get them for $200K and the chute just got repacked. Most will have high time engines, but that should not be a show stopper.
 
I fly this route a couple times a year. Frankly, the dispatch reliability in GA along with a budget sounds like a recipe for disaster. Most times, the route from COS area to TX is benign. It's a slow flight up there with winds, and a fast flight home. But - and this is critical, when it gets bad, it gets really, really bad. Bad like ice, wind, turb, and T-storms with tornado kind of bad.

The mission isn't about the plane with this route, it's the pilot's willingness to turn around in the face of nasty. I stopped in Plainview for gas once on the way south, and about the time I launched, the SW was a rolling, boiling black sky mess with embedded lightning. I decided to get back on the ground and have a Dr Pepper. I wouldn't fly a F-4 Phantom through that stuff. Dispatch is about the decision, not the equipment.
 
docmirror said:
I fly this route a couple times a year. Frankly, the dispatch reliability in GA along with a budget sounds like a recipe for disaster.
Click to expand...

Why does it sound like a disaster?

I can pick/choose when I want to go and have the flexibility to delay/cnx all the time? I've got a couple thousand hours flying/instructing for the AF and believe I have grasp on ADM, but it's always good to get a reality check from folks doing GA everyday.

But - and this is critical, when it gets bad, it gets really, really bad. Bad like ice, wind, turb, and T-storms with tornado kind of bad.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree.

Dispatch is about the decision, not the equipment.
Click to expand...

I've always viewed dispatch as equipment, Go/No-Go as the decision. If the equipment can't be dispatched, the pilot has no decision to make.
 
Alrighty. I figured my post would be somewhat controversial. You've reinforced my consideration of the dispatch question in the last post. As stated, if one were flying an F-4 Phantom(one of the toughest birds ever built), I still wouldn't try to go through bad stuff between here and there, but you remain on the equipment angle. Dispatch improvement will certainly expand the go/no go decision-making later in the flight.

Given a briefing, would you go in a Cub? How about a 172 with a heated pitot and dual navcoms? Bonanza with an A/P? Twin Cessna with de-ice? Aerostar with FIKI? All of them put you further and further into the clag, we'll see if you have the fortitude to turn back.

For better or worse, I've provided my input. Sorry it wasn't what you wanted to hear.

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=77636
 
docmirror said:
Alrighty. I figured my post would be somewhat controversial. You've reinforced my consideration of the dispatch question in the last post. As stated, if one were flying an F-4 Phantom(one of the toughest birds ever built), ... Snip ....



Given a briefing, would you go in a Cub? How about a 172 with a heated pitot and dual navcoms? Bonanza with an A/P? Twin Cessna with de-ice? Aerostar with FIKI? All of them put you further and further into the clag, we'll see if you have the fortitude to turn back.



For better or worse, I've provided my input. Sorry it wasn't what you wanted to hear.



http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=77636
Click to expand...


I think we crossed wires somewhere. I was actually interested in your input. My AF flying has (mostly) been in E-3s and I haven't touched GA in 24 years.

Given a briefing, I expect it's exactly that, a modeled guess. I'm not interested in killing myself here, I'm interested in safely getting my wife and I to visit kids/grandkids on a routine basis. Luckily, we have the means and the time to not be bound by get there-itis.

Now, given a briefing that included convective activity (or good possibility of it) across the route, I'd most likely delay for 24 hours unless there was an alternate route I could take that would still enable the trip. If there wasn't one, we'll push it off to another day or weekend.

No sense in killing ourselves by forcing a trip that a day/week/month delay would cost us. That would essentially negate why we are buying the plane.

And yes, my lovely bride fully understands both the risks of commercial and the uncertainty of GA and welcomes the opportunities to travel by GA that are tempered with the Wx. She's actually more likely to push for the delay than I would try to find a good alternate route.

Again, I'm really interested in why you believe the budget won't support the mission. In your opinion, what would it take to be able to make it happen, given this information? I'm asking because I'd like to know.

ETA: given the linked topic, I personally would have launched down, diverted on the way back unless I had bleed air/boots. Potential for icing ENR should have been evident in the wx brief. Each leg is its own mission and deteriorating conditions are reason enough to add Marriott points/stays.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
Velocity XL will do it in 3:30 and well under 200 grand.
Click to expand...


+1......

And... When arriving in a Velocity.. you get instant respect and attention as EVERYONE loves the look of trick looking experimental...:yes::)
 
It doesn't hurt to say maybe I was mistaken. Monthly 700NM trips on this routing, with high dispatch rate coupled with GA, just gives me the willies. Maybe our wires aren't crossed, but I got some static on the line.

Your trip can be done with the planes mentioned at half the budget listed, which makes me think that you think the extra money can buy trips into marginal weather. I'm glad you've disabused me of that.

So - moving on, my favorite, and what I'm planning is an Aerostar.

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/aircraft/Multi+Engine+Piston/1978/Aerostar/601P/1779828.html

http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_841054_Aerostar+680.html

Well, sadly it might have a lower dispatch rate than the Mooney 231, or A36. But - I'd give up some of that for the speed, comfort and pressure. You're gonna be on the ground in TX in summer, and you know you want AC and pressure.

Now, when I leave COS or Fremont back to TX, we know at 10k or so it'll be nice, but once we start down around Wichita Falls, it's gonna hit triple digits. Aerostars are well supported, even though they are orphans, and I will put up with the extra MX to arrive in comfort. I'm just too old, and a bit too overweight to swelter in a Bonanza anymore.
 
TCABM said:
Alright PoA'ers, here's the mission 700NM, call it 4 hrs or less door to door for 2 pax. I'm thinking a Mooney 231, RV10, A36, Viking, or 310.

Dispatch reliability is most important, the trip will be made monthly or more frequently.

This will be a cash purchase ($200k liquid). ratings for all are complete, reserves are met so no quibbling about that.

This is about the plane to meet the mission, and turbines are out of the equation.

What say you.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

FIKI 310R or FIKI Mooney. Depends if you want redundancy or economy.
 
With the speed you want to go and budget, you're looking at (certified) a 310R or big block mooney. The 310 will probably cost you around $300/hr to operate (insurance, hangar, maintenance, fuel) the Mooney around 180/hr. This depends on how much you fly it. I am guessing around 150/hr year

At the upper end of the budget you can probably find a Mooney with full de-ice/FIKI. In the middle, a big block, newer plane with no de-ice. On the lower end, a converted J model mooney (missile or rocket conversion) will also deliver 180+ knots. Depending on engine and turbo, these planes will do between 180-220 knots.

If i'm not mistaken the 310R is a 180-190 knot plane and you can find one in your budget that has full de-ice and likely an onboard radar too.

Most of the Mooneys do not have radar but they do have stormscopes. Kind of a poor man's radar, they show a pretty good picture of real time electrical activity relative to your plane and can keep you out of a cell. When used with XM or ADS-B in-flight radar (useful for big picture but may be delayed 5-15 minutes) you have a pretty good combination.

If you don't mind sucking on oxygen the turbo Seneca II's will do 180-190 knots if you get them up to the mid-high teens. They are available with known ice in your budget.
 
Last edited:
docmirror said:
This is one of our current members here(I think), and it's in fine shape.



http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/aircraft/Multi+Engine+Piston/1978/Aerostar/601P/2041946.html



Well within budget. Lot of plane, but again - if things go pear shaped, don't hesitate to get out soon.
Click to expand...


First, thank you for clarifying your point, and sharing your experience.

I had not considered the Aerostar as I thought it might be in the same category as a 421 - enough airplane, but would have to finance part of the purchase which isn't something I'd want to do.

I will certainly add it to the list which is now shaping up to look like the Aerostar and 310 vs A36TN vs Mooney 231/252.





Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
TCABM said:
First, thank you for clarifying your point, and sharing your experience.

I had not considered the Aerostar as I thought it might be in the same category as a 421 - enough airplane, but would have to finance part of the purchase which isn't something I'd want to do.

I will certainly add it to the list which is now shaping up to look like the Aerostar and 310 vs A36TN vs Mooney 231/252.
Click to expand...

Do keep in mind maintenance and operating cost. Aerostars are very capable and fast, they also sell cheap. This is mostly because they are more expensive to operate. I don't have personal experience but I think this is a general consensus.
 
TCABM said:
First, thank you for clarifying your point, and sharing your experience.

I had not considered the Aerostar as I thought it might be in the same category as a 421 - enough airplane, but would have to finance part of the purchase which isn't something I'd want to do.

I will certainly add it to the list which is now shaping up to look like the Aerostar and 310 vs A36TN vs Mooney 231/252.
Click to expand...

The Aerostar is a fast and capable plane with good fuel specifics and available pressurization. It's a good 3 person aircraft for your route. You will will increase your operating costs though. The U2A engines don't need near as much fiddling with to keep everything working right, especially the turbo/waste gate/exhaust system. The S1A5 IIRC though used a higher compression ratio and a turbo normalization set up, so there was a margin of efficiency and range you give up. I don't think the savings outweigh the extra maint though.

The Aerostar will be a cost step above the 310 as the 310 is a cost step above the big bore Mooney. Again, same as the 310, your operating style can make a 100% difference or greater in operations cost of any of them. If you fly any of them with the attitude, "I didn't buy this plane to go slow." they will get expensive quickly, and the Aerostar can eat you lunch quickly even next to a 421. If you run them lean and cool and let them loaf, they are all good transportation machines that will get you three miles a minute loafing, an Aerostar will get you over 3.5 m/m still loafing. Not a blistering speed, but able to corner to corner the country in a day. Getting faster than that gets real expensive really quickly.

Remember, all numbers are derived by the marketing department, if you operate listening to the pipe and watching CHT, you won't do wrong by the engines and save a lot of money while maintains good dispatch reliability.
 
TCABM said:
First, thank you for clarifying your point, and sharing your experience.

I had not considered the Aerostar as I thought it might be in the same category as a 421 - enough airplane, but would have to finance part of the purchase which isn't something I'd want to do.

I will certainly add it to the list which is now shaping up to look like the Aerostar and 310 vs A36TN vs Mooney 231/252.
Click to expand...

No prob. Again, being honest there is no where I want to go every month in a Mooney. Yes, I know they have lots of leg room, yes you can save money on the efficient airframe but when you get where you're going, you'll know it's been 4 hours in a small metal tube. More than the other planes, they just seem cramped. I know nothing about the 231, and only have a few hours in one. Capable plane, for sure.

I usually don't push planes to near their limits. I fly an old Bonanza now, and although it'll run 165kts, I run it at 135 on about 55% power. Guessing with an Aerostar I would do the same and get maybe 180-185kts. KAUS-KCOS is 3.5 hours @ 180kts. No stops, but would be a bit more going up, and a bit less coming down. Also the Aerostar with pressure gives a decent Vxse when working around high altitudes in summer.

I never learned anything about the 310, so I don't comment on them. Seem like capable planes, particularly with the Riley conversion, but they are hard to find.
 
Cowboy, I'm interested in your approach of not flying the plane to its limits. The underlying assumption, I'm guessing, is that the higher the average % power, the less time between the practical need to overhaul the engine. Is that right, or is it a different line of thinking.

Assuming that is right, do you have evidence that this is the case? I hear from countless mechanics that flight school airplanes which fly frequently often go well beyond TBO and they are being put through the ringer, spending more time in the high workload phase of flight (the initial climb out) than a typical owner/operator who flies a lot of XC flights.

I cruise at 75% power if it's available. I often fly too high for that to happen, so that doesn't always happen, but if I'm restricted to lower altitudes, I will fly it at 75% power, keeping a close eye on the CHT's (first) and EGT's (second).

I get that 100% power wouldn't be desirable, but is there evidence that 55% power is likely to allow significantly more hours in service than a 65-75% regime? If so, by how much, and ultimately, which allows for more miles traveled (the important part if it's a travelling airplane) between overhauls?
 
Engine hours to remanufacture can be estimated based on how much fuel you put through the engine. Thus, theoretically, if you use 25% more fuel, you will get 25% less engine hours ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL (which it never is). You get the idea. And it is just an ESTIMATE. But sure, run at lower power, you will probably get longer engine life. I know I burn more oil when I run hard and see more oil condensation on the engine and belly also. The other thing is, remember to warm it up before taking off. A lot of pilots just start, taxi out and take off. That is hard on it. Better to taxi around or sit there idling for 5 minutes before taking off. YMMV

You will use less fuel if you run at the lowest RPM for a given airspeed. So choose the power setting that gives you the lowest RPM for a given % power.
 
coma24 said:
Cowboy, I'm interested in your approach of not flying the plane to its limits. The underlying assumption, I'm guessing, is that the higher the average % power, the less time between the practical need to overhaul the engine. Is that right, or is it a different line of thinking.

Assuming that is right, do you have evidence that this is the case? I hear from countless mechanics that flight school airplanes which fly frequently often go well beyond TBO and they are being put through the ringer, spending more time in the high workload phase of flight (the initial climb out) than a typical owner/operator who flies a lot of XC flights.

I cruise at 75% power if it's available. I often fly too high for that to happen, so that doesn't always happen, but if I'm restricted to lower altitudes, I will fly it at 75% power, keeping a close eye on the CHT's (first) and EGT's (second).

I get that 100% power wouldn't be desirable, but is there evidence that 55% power is likely to allow significantly more hours in service than a 65-75% regime? If so, by how much, and ultimately, which allows for more miles traveled (the important part if it's a travelling airplane) between overhauls?
Click to expand...

There are multiple variables involved. % power is a poor factor as it does not work from an equalized stress baseline. Here's how engine manufacturer's engineers put it to me. "The engine is good for xxxxxx pounds of fuel. You can put it through in 100 hrs or 10,000 depending on how hard you want to run it."

The main destructive factor you have to control is the combustion pressure in the cylinder or ICP. ICP is where CHT and stress come from. The less fuel you are putting through the engine the less stress you are creating. The key is to find that balance of using all the cheap reliable performance without climbing up on the expensive Maint speed slope. A 310 runs at a best all around at 180kts, you can operate it near minimum cost/time at 3 miles a minute, that's why it was so popular. An Aerostar is more like 210 kts before the maintenance bills start climbing and things start needing lots of repair and service.

As long as you see CHTs below 350° and are at least 5°LOP, you are in good shape as far as engine longevity issues. Reducing power below that will not buy you much in the maintenance end of things. MPG on the fuel however, that you can still effect.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top