What aircraft would best fit...

[rbridges]

if you have to leave on a certain day and be back on a certain day, general aviation is a tough choice. even with an instrument rating, commercial flights will get you to places you'd never dream of going in a cessna.

btw, mooney is the best plane ever.

 

[Ted]

if you have to leave on a certain day and be back on a certain day, general aviation is a tough choice. even with an instrument rating, commercial flights will get you to places you'd never dream of going in a cessna.

On the contrary - GA has allowed me to go places I'd never dream of going in a commercial spam can.

But yes, GA has limitations. A de-iced twin ends up giving you very good reliability in my experience flying through that area. Slightly worse for a single without de-ice, but not a ton.

 

[EdFred]

I bought a Cherokee.

New GPS.
New COMM.
New CDI.
New Annunciator.
New Interior.
New DG.
New AI.
New VSI.
New OAT/Timer etc..
New Hoses,filters,wires,mags,SB inspections etc..
New Every little thing that bugged me.
Ferry pilot + his ticket back home + fuel expenses+my plane ticket to go see it+pre buy bills etc..

Get it home, then I start looking at speed mods, look at HP increase STC, VGs, Wheel pants, HP increase etc... decide this is stupid. Sell it

Cost to own it after I sold it: Approx $15K

Buy Bonanza, cost to ferry across the country, fixing up the little things I wanted to do with it etc.. proficiency training etc...

I'm quite sure I'm at least $15K upside down in my plane buying than had I just gone for the faster, more powerful better equipped plane up front.

Now for doing that, you could say I did it "the government way".

My typical trip is 400nm, that 60 knots makes a huge difference and just buying the Bo first would have made it a lot cheaper than trying to Pimp my Piper.

I know the "Hey this little Cherokee is all I'm going to ever want" mentality when signing the check.

This sounds waaaaaaaaaaaay familiar. But you and I should have just been happy flying ultralights. I mean, they can get us to where we are going, why should we want anything else?

 

[dukeblue219]

Every plane out there has its pros/cons, but a Gruman Tiger is descent performance xc plane.

For that price point he could find a Tiger Aircraft version built in 03-04 or so with dual 430's and an autopilot, and have enough left over to put in an Aspen with synthetic vision. Makes a really nice, reasonably fast, reasonably efficient, up-to-date plane that will work well as a modern IFR trainer and as a medium-distance cross country machine which is not a maintenance hog. I would guess that the late models will hold value pretty well too as the bulk of the Grumman fleet ages.

Why yes, that IS the exact configuration I fly

 

[wabower]

You mean other than the FAA having now concluded that overhead isn't the only time they break?

Now we're talking.

Actually an RV-6, 7, 8, 14 would work well for commuting commuting also. Faster with a cheaper fuel burn and you can burn mogas and reduce your operating costs by $20.00 an hour. Parts are cheaper for experimentals, much better avionics choices at 1/3rd the cost, maintenance, no horror stories with annuals.

Authorized to perform overhead breaks. What's not to love?

 

[EdFred]

For that price point he could find a Tiger Aircraft version built in 03-04 or so with dual 430's and an autopilot, and have enough left over to put in an Aspen with synthetic vision. Makes a really nice, reasonably fast, reasonably efficient, up-to-date plane that will work well as a modern IFR trainer and as a medium-distance cross country machine which is not a maintenance hog. I would guess that the late models will hold value pretty well too as the bulk of the Grumman fleet ages.

Why yes, that IS the exact configuration I fly

As long as he's flying it in and out of 10,000 foot runways, and nothing shorter.

 

[docmirror]

But as long as the requirements for the instrument rating go by hours and not miles covered, there was no point in burning any more fuel.

I know you won't believe me, but if you turn the three knobs back to Warrior speed in the Bo, it will actually use less fuel. You can run a Bo at ~45% power and use less than 8 gallons per hour. All you want to do is trudge around in the soup for your rating, there's no reason to spit fire and belch smoke.

My progression was: single seat gyrocopter, then training in a Citabria, and then to a Bonanza. Never owned a Cessna, and never saw the allure. Nice planes and all but for what you get in a C182, there's a whole lot of other things I'd be interested in.

 

[Dead Stick]

Pretty much any simple 4-seat fixed gear 150-180HP airplane would do the job nicely, including the Cessna C-172/177, Piper PA28-150-181, Grumman AA-5/5A/5B, and Beech 19/23. The 180 HP planes would be faster, and cost only marginally more to operate, but would like cost at least $10K more than their 150-160HP cousins (that's the balance of market supply and demand at work). All are excellent choices for a first ownership experience due to their simplicity and good support. They'd all also be excellent platforms for your instrument training, as you're really going an IR to need to be making that run routinely.

No doubt plenty of folks will tell you need something with retractable gear or a much bigger engine, but that simply isn't so, and you'd be paying a lot more up front as well as in operating and ownership costs for capability you aren't planning to use. Given your current level of experience, a nice simple 4-seater makes the most sense for you and your mission. Fly that for a few years including getting your IR and some serious IFR experience in such a plane, and then you can decide if a bigger, faster, more complex, more expensive airplane makes sense for you.

I'll second this. That the time to find out what you need, not what others tell you what to want.

 

[docmirror]

I don't know what the deal is with other retract systems. Some of them must be real pigs. I've had exactly two minor service issues with the Bo gear in > 10 years of ownership, on planes that have thousands of cycles. I had to rebuild the nose strut in one plane with seals and a few bushings, and I had a gear door sagging in another which required a new control rod and bolt with bronze bushing. Neither grounded the plane, but the leaky nose strut was a hassle. I often wonder what speed the Cirrus would get if it would lift it's feet up after takeoff. Hmmmmmmm.

 

[colojo]

I often wonder what speed the Cirrus would get if it would lift it's feet up after takeoff. Hmmmmmmm.

My hangar mate has a late model Cirrus turbo and I have a Mooney Acclaim Type S. Pretty much the same engine in both planes. Based on what he's told me (I've never flown a Cirrus), I true 20-25KTS faster on the same fuel burn up in the flight levels.

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

That or an SR20 would also be an excellent choice -- just a lot more expensive to buy than an older C/P/B/G type.

This is my thinking to. What no one has said yet but implied is that if you are really going to use an airplane for transportation then you want some dispatch reliability and you only get that with IR and IFR airplane.

Since you are learning in a G1000 I don't think you would be happy going back to steam gauges but maybe you would.

Seems like you can get a pretty good deal on a high technology SR20 possibly even SR22 in your budget and have the avionics you wish. You sacrifice nothing with an SR22.

Or you can get a real nice high speed hi performance Piper/Cessna/Beach for about half that amount but not likely to have the avionics.

I have a Comanche and it only has steam gauges and I have flown it on VFR only 2200 NM trips without all the fancy avionics but I have the flexibility of leaving a day early or a day late. If this is the case for you, you can spend all your budget on performance rather than avionics. I do wish I had the fancy avionics and auto pilot but it wasn't and isn't in my budget so I chose performance over technology hoping I would win the lottery and buy/add the technology later. As luck would have it, I never got my IFR rating so it would have been an expensive waste for me anyway.

 

[docmirror]

My hangar mate has a late model Cirrus turbo and I have a Mooney Acclaim Type S. Pretty much the same engine in both planes. Based on what he's told me (I've never flown a Cirrus), I true 20-25KTS faster on the same fuel burn up in the flight levels.

There ya go. The Cirrus prolly loses 20Kts cause they won't pick up their feet.

 

[hindsight2020]

My hangar mate has a late model Cirrus turbo and I have a Mooney Acclaim Type S. Pretty much the same engine in both planes. Based on what he's told me (I've never flown a Cirrus), I true 20-25KTS faster on the same fuel burn up in the flight levels.

To claim a 25KT delta by virtue of gear drag is inaccurate. The real reason you get that advantage is the cross-sectional area contribution to parasite drag of the Cirrus fuselage is much higher than the Mooney. In essence, the folks in the cirrus are flying in much more comfort. You're trading passenger comfort for speed, so it's not a NET advantage.

10KTS. That's all that complexity and added expense of swing gear gets you. Modern wheel fairing recoups more than 50% of the parasite penalty of gear components. Parasite drag is not linear, but the square of jack-s--t is still jack-s--t.

 

[hindsight2020]

There ya go. The Cirrus prolly loses 20Kts cause they won't pick up their feet.

Wrong. It's because of higher drag cross-sectional area. The gear contribution is only 10kts. Ever heard of a Beech Musketeer?

 

[docmirror]

Wrong. It's because of higher drag cross-sectional area. The gear contribution is only 10kts. Ever heard of a Beech Musketeer?

I'd like to see your parametric test data.

Ever hear of a Mooney M20D?

 

[rbridges]

To claim a 25KT delta by virtue of gear drag is inaccurate. The real reason you get that advantage is the cross-sectional area contribution to parasite drag of the Cirrus fuselage is much higher than the Mooney. In essence, the folks in the cirrus are flying in much more comfort. You're trading passenger comfort for speed, so it's not a NET advantage.

10KTS. That's all that complexity and added expense of swing gear gets you. Modern wheel fairing recoups more than 50% of the parasite penalty of gear components. Parasite drag is not linear, but the square of jack-s--t is still jack-s--t.

It seems like it would be a bigger benefit to the faster planes like the Acclaim or SR22. Wind resistance has to be a beast at the higher airspeeds, even with wheel pants.

 

[colojo]

To claim a 25KT delta by virtue of gear drag is inaccurate. The real reason you get that advantage is the cross-sectional area contribution to parasite drag of the Cirrus fuselage is much higher than the Mooney. In essence, the folks in the cirrus are flying in much more comfort. You're trading passenger comfort for speed, so it's not a NET advantage.

I wasn't making that claim; I was just throwing out the difference so people could draw their own conclusions. I agree with you 100%. All you have to do is just look at both planes in the hangar. The Cirrus is more bulbous and has much more cross-sectional area when viewed from the front.

As to your comment about passenger comfort, my wife has flown in both and I think she put it best: "You buy the Cirrus for the wife. You buy the Mooney for the pilot."

 

[DrMack]

An instrument rating and an IFR airplane are a must if you intend to use it for non-hobby transportation. We did a bake-off between SR20, C182 and DA40 and the Diamond won hands down in almost every dimension. We ended up with a 2007 DA40XL with G1000 and GFC700 autopilot. It may not be the swiftest bird in the class but it certainly is the most forgiving. It takes a lot of effort to stall so it's a great entry aircraft for low-time pilots and the low insurance rates speak for themselves. It doesn't corrode and I think it has the best view in GA. The model is still in production and is built by my relatives in Canada (grandmother from PEI). We get 135 TAS on 9.0 g/hr @ 8-10K ft. Some folks lean it to 8.5 and get the same performance.

 

[Geico266]

You mean other than the FAA having now concluded that overhead isn't the only time they break?

Okay, that was funny.

Nicely done!

 

[peppy]

My hangar mate has a late model Cirrus turbo and I have a Mooney Acclaim Type S. Pretty much the same engine in both planes. Based on what he's told me (I've never flown a Cirrus), I true 20-25KTS faster on the same fuel burn up in the flight levels.

What are your numbers at altitude? I thought the turbo Cirrus was around 215 on 17gph at 25K'. I would have expected the Acclaim to be about 15 knots faster on similar fuel burn. It is certainly a slicker plane with lower frontal area (look at cabin width in the head area), sucks the wheels up, and even has the step to get onto the wing removed. Mooney deserves its efficiency reputation.

 

[PBristolJr]

I still vote for Lancair/Glasair, can't beat 185kts true on 8.5-9GPH

 

[wabower]

And you're still nuts.

I still vote for Lancair/Glasair, can't beat 185kts true on 8.5-9GPH

 

[colojo]

What are your numbers at altitude? I thought the turbo Cirrus was around 215 on 17gph at 25K'. I would have expected the Acclaim to be about 15 knots faster on similar fuel burn. It is certainly a slicker plane with lower frontal area (look at cabin width in the head area), sucks the wheels up, and even has the step to get onto the wing removed. Mooney deserves its efficiency reputation.

Highest I've been so far is FL200. At 50ROP I got 225KTAS burning 17.3gph. At 50LOP I got 212KTAS burning 14.8gph.

 

[dell30rb]

But quite have a few have asked "what the hell was I thinking" after finding their trip times didn't change more than a few minutes in what was purported to be a much faster plane. Portal to portal time for travel in any of the planes is going to be roughly the same for a 250 nm trip. If the R/T time is less than 5 hours on an ongoing basis, anything less is overkill.

If you are flying North to South 250nm I agree. Not typically gonna get the really bad headwinds.

I go raleigh to nashville a lot - 360nm east/west. The difference between a 110 kt and 155 kt plane is huge.

Example - I leave friday after work. In a 110 kt plane with a 20kt headwind it will take me 4 hours flight time to get to nashville. Add more than one passenger and I have to make a fuel stop which is 4.4 hours flight time and then add 15 minutes on the ground. That's a lot of flying after a full day and I typically arrive feeling like I have been hit by a truck.


In a 155 kt plane w 20 kt headwind I get there in 2.6 hours no fuel stop. I can do that after work and not arrive tired.

 

[weilke]

For some reason the wind analysis for slow vs. fast plane is never done with a 30kt tailwind.

 

[dell30rb]

For some reason the wind analysis for slow vs. fast plane is never done with a 30kt tailwind.

Statistically, you'll spend more time flying with a headwind than with a tailwind.

 

[EdFred]

For some reason the wind analysis for slow vs. fast plane is never done with a 30kt tailwind.

Number of times I've had a 30kt headwind >>>>>>> number of times with a 30kt tailwind.

Always assume you'll have a headwind.

 

[Ted]

For some reason the wind analysis for slow vs. fast plane is never done with a 30kt tailwind.

300 nm trip. Two planes, A) 110 kt and B) 150 kt.

No wind:

A: 2.73 hours each way, 5.46 hours total
B: 2 hours each way, 4 hours total

30 kt headwind out, 30 kt tailwind back:

A: 3.75 hours out (do we need a fuel stop?) 2.14 hours back. 5.89 hours total
B: 2.5 hours out, 1.67 hours back. 4.17 hours total

Note that with the 150 kt plane, a 30 kt wind both ways only adds about 10 minutes to the total trip time. The 110 kt plane adds almost 30 minutes, and makes the outbound leg long enough you might need a fuel stop.

North/south trips along the Atlantic coast can still have headwinds, an often you end up with some crosswind that hurts you both ways.

 

[DrMack]

Statistically, you'll spend more time flying with a headwind than with a tailwind.

We flew from Dallas to Ardmore, Oklahoma last Friday for a one-hour stop for some business then returned to Dallas. We had a 20KT headwind both directions so I'm a believer.

 

[weilke]

300 nm trip. Two planes, A) 110 kt and B) 150 kt.

No wind:

A: 2.73 hours each way, 5.46 hours total
B: 2 hours each way, 4 hours total

30 kt headwind out, 30 kt tailwind back:

A: 3.75 hours out (do we need a fuel stop?) 2.14 hours back. 5.89 hours total
B: 2.5 hours out, 1.67 hours back. 4.17 hours total

So the difference between the two planes is 1.46hrs in the no-wind scenario and 1.72hrs in the 30kt scenario. The wind scenario costs you 15min more in slow plane.

My 110kt Warrior had 6hrs worth of fuel, on such a short hop like VA to NJ it would require about 60kts on the nose to require a fuel stop.

 

[Alexb2000]

I'm not of those focused on speed as much as some are. As long as I have room to stretch out and read a book or the paper with a cold drink, all is well.

Anyway, my somewhat relevant comment is that given two aircraft with the same speed aircraft the one with the ability to fly high will be much faster block to block over time. Being able to fly any altitude from 0 to say 25000 gives lots of options to take advantage of the wind.

 

[Ted]

So the difference between the two planes is 1.46hrs in the no-wind scenario and 1.72hrs in the 30kt scenario. The wind scenario costs you 15min more in slow plane.

My 110kt Warrior had 6hrs worth of fuel, on such a short hop like VA to NJ it would require about 60kts on the nose to require a fuel stop.

And there's also the question of how much time you want to spend sitting in a plane for one hop. For most people, it seems that under 4 hours keeps them happy. All depends. Thing is, it's often not "Well, if I have headwinds I don't mind sitting here longer" so that should be taken into account.

 

[Murrgh]

Wow, interesting opinions across the board! Didn't expect to get so many.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

 

[bbchien]

Virginia to NJ monthly. I'd start with the instrument rating. It'll change your perspective and you'll want something with known ice.

 

[Ken Ibold]

This sounds waaaaaaaaaaaay familiar. But you and I should have just been happy flying ultralights. I mean, they can get us to where we are going, why should we want anything else?

I almost went down this road when I was shoppping for my first plane: looking at Archers and Tigers but lusting after 201s.

Fortunately my wife yanked on the leash and said, "If what you WANT is a Mooney, just buy a Mooney." She didn't have to say that twice.

 

[peppy]

Highest I've been so far is FL200. At 50ROP I got 225KTAS burning 17.3gph. At 50LOP I got 212KTAS burning 14.8gph.

I'm surprised how good the LOP numbers are. Certainly these are better than you will see in a Cirrus. I'm guessing that you are 1.2 GPH better for the same airspeed and maybe more.

 

[peppy]

Statistically, you'll spend more time flying with a headwind than with a tailwind.

True and easy to see. If you have a pure crosswind component you will have to change heading to keep from being blown off course and it therefore has an effective headwind component. For any given wind speed, the number of degrees where it will have a headwind component is greater than 180.