Vote: what is the best econobox bird

Bob Noel said:
I don't know...my father didn't complain about the ride in the
back seat of a 1968 Arrow. It's not as bad as the backseat
of my 1974 cherokee 140.
Click to expand...

I was referring to the M20C.
 
Capt.Crash'n'Burn said:
Simple question, if you were to buy a plane, (certified or home built, doesn't matter) that had a cruising speed of at least 130 KTS, IFR, 2-4 seats with room for luggage, what would it be and why??

low fuel burn rates and low maintenance costs are a big plus.
Click to expand...

Well, if you are in for a 2 person plane, look at RV-6,7,8,9 as well as the Glasair 1 & 2.

My Glasair 1 carries 2 people (200# each) + 100# of gear + 52 gallons of gas. It cruises at 150knots true and burns about 7.5 gph.

Yes, you pay for the economy with a bit of space, but it's tough to beat 150 knots at 7.5! :cornut:
 
EvilEagle said:
My Glasair 1 carries 2 people (200# each) + 100# of gear + 52 gallons of gas. It cruises at 150knots true and burns about 7.5 gph.

Yes, you pay for the economy with a bit of space, but it's tough to beat 150 knots at 7.5! :cornut:
Click to expand...

I think the Lancair 235 beats it, 150 kts @ 6 gph, but you lose even more storage space.
 
Capt.Crash'n'Burn said:
Simple question, if you were to buy a plane, (certified or home built, doesn't matter) that had a cruising speed of at least 130 KTS, IFR, 2-4 seats with room for luggage, what would it be and why??

low fuel burn rates and low maintenance costs are a big plus.
Click to expand...

As usual, "It depends."

I don't think of the 182 as an "econobox" but considering there is a cost to the buying and selling process, and the 182 can do damn near anything you want it to and you won't need to buy another bird, that's economical, right? ;) However, if you want the ability to carry a lot of stuff, or carry four real-world adults *in comfort* (y'know, so they'll want to go again), well, the 13gph really isn't THAT much. Plus, it's a tough bird. And did I mention it'll do pretty much anything? The versatility is awesome. But again, I don't consider it an "econobox" otherwise.

My three favorite "econobox" airplanes are the DA40, the Mooney M20J/201, and the Comanche.

The DA40 will cost more to acquire than the others, but the insurance rates are very good due to the fixed gear and a truly excellent safety record, and the DA40 squeezes more knots out of a gallon of fuel than any other certified, fixed-gear airplane: The XL/XLS models will get 150-155 KTAS on 10 gph. They'll cost you around $200K though. A slightly earlier model (2004+) will get 140-145KTAS on that 10gph, still incredible for a fixed-gear plane. The DA40 is delightful to fly - It's sporty but honest, the view is the best of any 4-place airplane, and you can get your friends in the door easily thanks to 3 of the 4 seats having direct exterior access (canopy for the front two seats, door for one of the back seats.)

The Mooney M20J/201 will have lower acquisition costs, similar fuel costs for a slightly higher (155-160 KTAS) speed, and higher insurance/maintenance costs due to the retractable gear. It's also not a good airplane for wider people, but is great for tall, skinnier folks. Also probably not something you want to put real people in the back of. But, it's sporty, fun, and fast.

The Comanche 180 will have the lowest acquisition cost and will do around 135 KTAS on 10 gph. The Comanche 250 will burn more fuel, but will go faster and carry more stuff. The advantage of a Comanche 180 over something like an Arrow is that if you decide you want the extra performance, it's possible to upgrade the engine to the 250, there is no other difference between the airframes. The Comanches have a nice wide comfortable cabin, there are still mods and parts available, and they make one of the best overall economical purchase choices.

Hope this helps. :yes:
 
Capt.Crash'n'Burn said:
If I ask Chris why, will I regret it?? ;)
Click to expand...

In case I'm the "Chris" being referred to... (I recently started building an rv-10 in my garage.)

RV-10s are nice planes. Why did I start one? (a) they are fun to build. (b) if I ever finish building it, it is a darn nice plane. It goes fast, climbs well, and can carry quite a load.

Now, I would not call them "econoboxes". Compared to similar capability planes (arguably the SR-20 and Diamond DA-40 are similar), building or buying a new RV-10 is cheap. But since the RV-10 is relatively new, there are not many (or any?) older planes on the market you can pick up on the cheap. I haven't seen any IFR versions for <$100k, while an older IFR C-182 can easily be found in that price bracket.

So if you want a very capable newer 4-seat plane, the RV-10 can be a nice one. But since they are homebuilt, be sure to have the plane very thoroughly inspected by someone who knows these planes well before buying.

Chris
 
Capt.Crash'n'Burn said:
I think the Lancair 235 beats it, 150 kts @ 6 gph, but you lose even more storage space.
Click to expand...
I said it was tough to beat, not that it couldn't be done...

Also, I've read that the useful load isn't as good on the 235. I'd be surprised if those numbers were 100% accurate from the ones I flew when i was looking for an airplane.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
As usual, "It depends."

I don't think of the 182 as an "econobox" but considering there is a cost to the buying and selling process, and the 182 can do damn near anything you want it to and you won't need to buy another bird, that's economical, right? ;)

My three favorite "econobox" airplanes are the DA40, the Mooney M20J/201, and the Comanche.

Hope this helps. :yes:
Click to expand...

Yes Quagmire, that helps a lot. Apparently, you're good for something besides terrorizing teenage girls. giggity, giggity, aaaaaaaaaalriiiiight!! :D
 
Arbiter419 said:
Cherokee Six...just a beefed up, straight legged Arrow with a stretched fuselage, right?
Click to expand...

And the cabin is wider. But, yeah the Six is probably the cheapest six seater. The C-206, 210, Beech A36, and anythng with 2 engines is going to be more expensive. The Comanche 260 with the 2 jumpseats may be cheap, but you can't carry any baggage.
 
OK maybe this is because of my original question, but why didn't anyone mention the Beechcraft Musketeer/Sierra??

Too slow?? hidden expenses??
 
Capt.Crash'n'Burn said:
OK maybe this is because of my original question, but why didn't anyone mention the Beechcraft Musketeer/Sierra??

Too slow?? hidden expenses??
Click to expand...

Ah, the Sierra. All the speed of a fixed gear, with all the maintenance of a retract. Horrible, horrible aircraft. I will never willingly fly one again. The positives: They have doors on both sides, they descend quickly. That's it.
 
EdFred said:
Ah, the Sierra. All the speed of a fixed gear, with all the maintenance of a retract. Horrible, horrible aircraft. I will never willingly fly one again. The positives: They have doors on both sides, they descend quickly. That's it.
Click to expand...

I read that they have a good payload capacity for their size/horsepower. Is that true??
 
Capt.Crash'n'Burn said:
I read that they have a good payload capacity for their size/horsepower. Is that true??
Click to expand...
Yes. They're "nominally" a six-person aircraft with a 200HP engine. The one I fly has a useful load of 945 pounds, with a payload of 633 pounds and over four hours of fuel. For comparison, the 182 has a useful load of 1135 pounds, and a 70 gal partial fuel payload of about 710 pounds (based on 11 and 15gph, respectively).
 
182?? Huh???

If this is about economy, you obviously want a plane with a very low drag component. PA28s, 182s, etc. all aren't very slippery.

M20s, closely followed by Bonanzas, are some of the most aerodynamic airplanes out there. M20 is best, and if you want a little more room, go for a BE33. It will do 150 KTAS at 10 gph all day long. Incidentally, that'll give you a 7 hour endurance with 30 mins reserve. Not sure about the Mooney, but it's probably similar.

-Felix
 
I've noticed good prices on Cessna 177's. Aside from the early models which had some stability issues, is the 177 a good bird? How does the 177RG stack up against a 172RG??
 
Lear 24, Mig 21, L-39 all come to mind since you can buy any of them cheaper than a good 182.....
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
You need to make up your mind.

Do you want an econobox or a 130 knot IFR hot rod? :wink2:
Click to expand...


It's funny in aviation how your perspective can be ridiculously different from another pilot's... The only time I'd use 130kts and hot rod in the same sentence would be if I was talking about a boat :) Geez, 130 kts didn't seem like much of hot rod to me when the fastest thing I'd ever flown was a 172.

Depending on your initial budget and how much room you need, I think a Mooney F or G model is about as good as it gets in a certified bird. Low entry price and 150 kts on 10 g/h and a very strong, stable IFR platform. But obviously it has to fit your mission. Short/soft fields aren't going to work with the Mooney and neither are big people. It's a reasonable traveling airplane for two people and your stuff to go anywhere pretty quickly for a cheapy piston traveler bird. Yeah, I know - perspective thing - $80K might not be a cheapy plane to many people. But if you're looking at older aircraft, then parts and knowledgeable people to work on it would make me look at the most common aircraft like Mooney's, Cessnas, and Pipers and steer clear of the Grumman Polecats, Commanders, and such.
 
my 206....4 normal people, gear and luggage for a 4 day camping event,14.5 gal/hr,cruse @ 134kts,bigger tires and land anywhere, up in less than 1000 feet :goofy:
 
Capt.Crash'n'Burn said:
So does anyone have an opinion on the C177RG??
Click to expand...

Yes, everyone does whether they have actually seen one or not.:tongue:

Personally, I think they're pretty good airplanes and would be on my short list if I needed a light (weight wise) duty mid speed SE airplane. I competes nicely with the Arrow and 4cyl Mooneys which was Cessnas intent.
 
Skyhawk4754 said:
my 206....4 normal people, gear and luggage for a 4 day camping event,14.5 gal/hr,cruise @ 134kts,bigger tires and land anywhere, up in less than 1000 feet :goofy:
Click to expand...
That's not econo-anything.
 
PittsDriver said:
It's funny in aviation how your perspective can be ridiculously different from another pilot's... The only time I'd use 130kts and hot rod in the same sentence would be if I was talking about a boat :) Geez, 130 kts didn't seem like much of hot rod to me when the fastest thing I'd ever flown was a 172.
Click to expand...

I now drive a real, hard core, rag and tube taildragger econo-box - an LSA with two digit (statute MPH) cruise speeds.

Most of my hours had been in a Cessna 120 (econo-box). More 2 digit (mph) speeds. All the way from Detroit to Fairbanks and back.

Did my flight review this summer in a genuine POS Cessna 150 (been a flight school airplane for a LONG time) econo-box. But that was faster.

The guy in the hangar next door has an econo-box - A Piper Tomahawk. How fast is that?

(Ok, when I went to Iowa in my brothers IO-540 Pitts last month, we did go a bit faster - that was fun... had to duck under some weather - that famland really flew by. But I wouldn't call that an econo-box)
 
Skyhawk4754 said:
Exactly....haven't seen a "TRUE" 4 place-plus luggage @130kts plus econo-anything !!!!! keyword "Econo" the rest is all there :ihih:
Click to expand...

It's like trying to find a cargo van that goes fast and gets the mileage of a Prius all at the same time. Not happening.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Did my flight review this summer in a genuine POS Cessna 150 (been a flight school airplane for a LONG time) econo-box. But that was faster.
Click to expand...

See, proves my point about perspectives - when the fastest thing a pilot has flown is a POS 150 then 130 kts is really gettin' your hair blown back!

I don't know but for some reason when I hear the word econobox, I think of a Sonex with a chain saw engine hung on it.
 
PittsDriver said:
See, proves my point about perspectives - when the fastest thing a pilot has flown is a POS 150 then 130 kts is really gettin' your hair blown back!

I don't know but for some reason when I hear the word econobox, I think of a Sonex with a chain saw engine hung on it.
Click to expand...

...and I think of the aviation version of an Ford Econoline that gets good mileage.
 
EdFred said:
...and I think of the aviation version of an Ford Econoline that gets good mileage.
Click to expand...

I'm happy with my aviation Ford Excursion. It gets similar mileage to my ground-based Ford Excursion.
 
I think ya gotta decide what you are going to do the most......if you can haul 6 people in that "Ford Econovan" cost per head ain't that bad.
I go 6'3" at 265 and I would not put 4 of me in my old 172 plus luggage, 2 of me yes so now thats 2 172's at 8 g/h or 16 total now that's more than my 206 and somewhat slower.
So what are you going to do most of the time and then get your plane and go fly. My dream machine is to some day have a stearman and make after supper short hops...just me and the Mrs. yep that would be nice :) but that's forsure NO ECONO BOX !!!!!
 
steingar said:
I'm surprised nobody's mentioned Bellanca. They can be had inexpensively...
Click to expand...

Yeah, the prices I saw at Controller were pretty good, but I'm wondering about operating costs, since with the majority of them, you're talking about feeding a 300 hp IO-520.

Other than that, it looks like a great plane for the money.
 
Capt.Crash'n'Burn said:
Yeah, the prices I saw at Controller were pretty good, but I'm wondering about operating costs, since with the majority of them, you're talking about feeding a 300 hp IO-520.

Other than that, it looks like a great plane for the money.
Click to expand...

Depends which Bellanca. Looks like you've assumed a Super Viking, but there are still some Cruisemasters ("Cardboard Connies") flying. I like the price, but the view out of those things has to suck.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Depends which Bellanca. Looks like you've assumed a Super Viking, but there are still some Cruisemasters ("Cardboard Connies") flying. I like the price, but the view out of those things has to suck.
Click to expand...

Never been in a GA airplane where the view sucked, except in the clouds. It isn't even that bad in airliners.
 
Capt.Crash'n'Burn said:
Yeah, the prices I saw at Controller were pretty good, but I'm wondering about operating costs, since with the majority of them, you're talking about feeding a 300 hp IO-520.

Other than that, it looks like a great plane for the money.
Click to expand...

The one I flew in we were getting about 150kts over the ground with a headwind and 14gph. This was with stock injectors. I'm told you can get significantly better with GAMI injectors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top