What is the right airplane for mission?

C

Captain-Luke

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Mar 5, 2013
Messages
7
Location
Coppell TX
Display Name
Display name:
Luke
Interested in purchasing a good single engine cross country airplane. I am looking for something fast and economical. Need a 4 place. Most of my trips will be 800 to 1000 miles round trip with a couple each year that are 2,000 miles round trip. Leaning towards a Mooney 201J or 231K. Any other airplanes I should consider? Trying to keep it under $90k.
 
So, to be clear, you need an aircraft with non-stop 500nm range, at what speed carrying what payload? A Mooney and filling all 4 seats seems to exist only in fantasies - Mooney owners will disagree with me but 4 bodies and luggage does not seem doable with any comfort and you will not be able to s

The next question is budget. Its all make believe fantasy until we know how much you can spend, if its realistic and what performance needs you have . . .

That all said, you need 6 seats if you intend to fill 4, with bags and go 500nm nonstop.
 
While I am partial to a mooney it's no good for four unless it's two adults and two small kids. Commanche or a bonanza.
 
Well it is just me and my wife for now. Baby on the way. As far as budget is concerned I would like to keep it under $90k.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
While I am partial to a mooney it's no good for four unless it's two adults and two small kids. Commanche or a bonanza.
Click to expand...

Yep. I concur. V-tail Bo or Piper Comanche. Perhaps C-182RG? (i dont like cessna swing gear)

If it was me I'd just spring for the piper lance (straight tail). The 500NM is made between 15-25 minutes slower than a Bo or Comanche (big whoop), but you'll have a higher chance of getting your passengers to come back for more once they taste the cabin of the PA-32R. These days I'm all about riding in comfort. :D
 
Captain-Luke said:
Well it is just me and my wife for now. Baby on the way. As far as budget is concerned I would like to keep it under $90k.
Click to expand...

Pff.... I do that mission TODAY on an Arrow II for half your acquisition budget limit. Baby is now 8 months old, has been flying with momma on the back seats since 7 weeks old! Perfectly doable, pack and play even on the back. Mine has 968# useful.

Piper Lance is overkill, BUT, you'll grow well in it and it doesn't cost much more to maintain. Your wife will fall in love with the space. Gear system is exactly the same as a matter of fact. Insure it for 4 seats and it shouldn't be too much more than an arrow to insure. It's no Bonanza, but it's a decent plane.
 
Mooney will be the most economical to run. Bonanza most plush. 210 most bush. 182 even more bush. Comanche I have no experience with.
 
There are some nice V35 Bo's out there in your price range. My hangar mate just bought one with extended tip tanks and a turbo'ed IO-520. It'll carry 4 and cruise plenty fast.
 
Mooney could do it until your kids got to their teenaged years. You'd preferably one with Monroy long ranged tanks. That would be 108 gallons in the M20J in a total of four tanks. I think there is a 6 pound useful load penalty for the Monroy tanks.

Standard tanks are 64 gallons, 50 gallons at the tabs. On a M20J, you could get it down to around 150kt on 8.5-9 gallons or 165+ knots on 12 gallons per hour. Useful load is somewhere in the low 900lbs. range. It is 917lbs on the one I fly that just has standard tanks. I would find a 1984+ M20 with the folding/removable rear seats if you can swing it.

When your kids outgrow the Mooney and you find the useful load lacking, maybe you could trade up to a B-58 Baron or maybe a PA-32 Cherokee Six for a cheaper, less sexy option.
 
Mooney will do the job. Fast and economical. For you and your wife and a couple of kids no problem. For occasional 4 adults it is fine too as you have around 900-1000 pound payload (fuel+people+bags). You will burn around 9-9.5 GPH while cruising at 155-160 KTS. Since your typical trip appears to be 500+ miles the speed and efficiency will be quite noticeable.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Last edited:
Neal Howard said:
There are some nice V35 Bo's out there in your price range. My hangar mate just bought one with extended tip tanks and a turbo'ed IO-520. It'll carry 4 and cruise plenty fast.
Click to expand...


What did he have to pay for it? Year? Hours?
 
JoseCuervo said:
What did he have to pay for it? Year? Hours?
Click to expand...
Its a late 1960's which would make it a V35A or B model. I think he gave around 80-85 for it. I don't know the airframe hours but iirc, the engine and prop are fairly low time, certainly under mid-time or he would not have bought it.
 
Captain-Luke said:
Interested in purchasing a good single engine cross country airplane. I am looking for something fast and economical. Need a 4 place. Most of my trips will be 800 to 1000 miles round trip with a couple each year that are 2,000 miles round trip. Leaning towards a Mooney 201J or 231K. Any other airplanes I should consider? Trying to keep it under $90k.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the Mooney will do, so will a Bonanza or 210, find something in good condition.

Edit: saw you don't really need a full four seats, the Cardinal RG and Arrow will suit you as well.
 
Luke...

Seeing how you live in Coppell, TX, and that several within the crowd have recommended the V-tail Bonanza's, why not save most of your purchase money and quite a bit of your operating money and join a club that owns a very nice Bonanza V35?

Metro Flyers at KDTO has a 1966 Bonanza V35 that rents for $130/hr wet on tach. It has a new engine, new-ish paint and interior, and about to undergo an instrument panel upgrade.

We also have a nice 1975 C182P.

For more info, read the thread at: http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=66485
 
I would say away from the Lance. Cost of a twin to operate with all the negatives of a single. Worst of both worlds. I honestly can't figure out how Piper sold any. Given the low sales numbers, I think most of the market agreed.

A Mooney will work now depending on how your wife packs. Babies end up requiring a lot of stuff. Get the Bonanza.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I would say away from the Lance. Cost of a twin to operate with all the negatives of a single. Worst of both worlds. I honestly can't figure out how Piper sold any. Given the low sales numbers, I think most of the market agreed.
Click to expand...

They're comfortable and tons of space. The RG gives them reasonable speed over the Cherokee 6. Definitely more baggage space of any other 6 seat single and many light twins. Great for hauling a lot of crap. For us, it was by far the best family hauling plane for a pilot who didn't have a ME rating.

As far as the twin cost, the fuel burn of the non- turbos isn't that bad. The PA32RT is where it starts to look ugly, but back in the late 70s, early 80s, fuel was a lot cheaper than today. I have no idea how cost of overhauls were looking 30 years ago. Today, that is probably it's Achilles' Heel.

I think one appeal of the PA32R was back when singles were looking better from an insurance standpoint. Small 135 operators seemed to like them.

But....with that said, I had the option of 'inheriting' the family Turbo Lance II......and I chose to buy a Baron.
 
Fearless Tower said:
...and I chose to buy a Baron.
Click to expand...

After a recent first ride in a Baron from Fort Worth to Leadville, CO and back, I really like what the Baron has to offer for that size/class of twin.
 
trackersocha said:
how many hours you got?
Click to expand...

I was wondering if anyone would get around to asking this.

Or how old the guy is.

Or whether he's flying for fun or for business.

Given that he would even ask the question indicates that he's probably in his 20s, with less than 400 hours, flying for fun with an eye toward practicality.

I'd tell him to get a 172 or Cherokee. His projected mission profile is for 1000-mile round trips with the occasional longer trip. 1000 miles is 500 each way, 4 hours in either plane.

He can do this with the 172 or Cherokee for a lot less than the retractibles he's being told to look at, saving his money while keeping an eye on the corkboards and Barnstormers, and talking to other pilots.

Then, when he knows what he wants to move up to, that first plane will still be worth what he paid for it.
 
Good questions! I was around Mooneys a good bit in the 70-80's and flew them a good bit. They were less expensive to operate than a Bonanza and less expensive to buy. They fly very well , are stable and fast. The dealer, not too far away, weber in Lancaster Penna. Sold a slew of them. It would really consider one if you only have one small child. Fly one and see for yourself. It would seem Your well within your budget for either one. Commanche with higher horsepower also nice airplane.
 
A Lance or Saratoga is going to burn about 15 to 16 GPH depending on how you run it. That is not near the vast majority of twins where you would be lucky to get below 20 GPH. A Mooney M20J is about 10 GPH so yes economical, but small. Maybe look at an Arrow or Dakota. They are slower than the Mooney, but the trade off is a larger cabin and fuel burn around 12.
 
Captain-Luke said:
Interested in purchasing a good single engine cross country airplane. I am looking for something fast and economical. Need a 4 place. Most of my trips will be 800 to 1000 miles round trip with a couple each year that are 2,000 miles round trip. Leaning towards a Mooney 201J or 231K. Any other airplanes I should consider? Trying to keep it under $90k.
Click to expand...

Under $90K -- Comanche! Comanches are traveling machines. Even normally aspirated, they are happy in the low teens and very efficient up there. Up there, they out run a Bonanza. For your budget, a 260B will get you 160kts at optimum altitude and up in the low teens, 155kts on 12gph or so. You can file the seat and still fly 500 miles. With full tanks, close to 1000 miles. They have no CG issues like the Bonanzas can when you fill them up. Wider cockpit than any but the Lance.

Lance is a nice choice, but very difficult to get in your budget. That has the most room of the group. Figure 17gph as an average burn at about 150-155kts.

Mooneys are two place aircraft with kid in the back and even in the front, you are shoulder to shoulder. They are expensive to work on because everything is tight. I like them, but probably not for your mission.

I am not sure what Cessna's might fall in your budget, but I am thinking that it might have to be an old 210. The gear mechanism and the issue with the gear doors is enough to dissuade. The earlier ones with 260hp are not fast and the later ones like fuel.
 
drotto said:
A Mooney M20J is about 10 GPH so yes economical, but small.
Click to expand...

Figure 8.5GPH and 155kts for a well rigged M20J running LOP at 2500 RPM.

Our club's newer one (1992) with the higher gross weight has 970lbs useful load. That is with an autopilot, king HSI, stormscope and Garmin GTN 750. I'm not sure what year the gross weight increase started.

I love the Mooneys. They are tougher to get in/out of, but once inside I find they have plenty of room. I can sit comfortably in the backseat. I am 5'10 though, so sit in one yourself and see if you like it.
 
Last edited:
A pal flew his mooney and wife to Bozeman Montana and near Nogales Arizona once or twice a year. ( from Baltimore)This was a super 21 and later a more recent model. Currently a 201 is well within your budget, a NICE one! My wife and I in a 201, no problem whatsoever. I'm 6 foot 195 lbs. she is 5 -3" 110 lbs. it's akin to a porsche with wings, once your in it, it's great!
 
Kristin said:
Mooneys are two place aircraft with kid in the back and even in the front, you are shoulder to shoulder. They are expensive to work on because everything is tight. I like them, but probably not for your mission.
Click to expand...

Couldn't disagree strongly enough with the above assertion. They certainly aren't "expensive to work on" any more so than any other plane in the class. They have their quirks, certainly, but nothing that places them above anything else.

I've flown 4 non-obese adults (ie two couples) on 500 NM IFR trips with weekend bags. I've done 900+ NM non-stop solo and wouldn't ever plan to do that with pax for comfort/stretching reasons. My J has a 1025 useful load and with 8.5-9.0 GPH fuel burns that offers a lot of flexibility with loading butts, bags, and fuel to accomplish any particular flight.

A J or K Mooney would perfectly suit your stated mission and do it the most economically (esp. operating cost!) unless you consider an experimental bird. There are plenty of nice ones on the market at $90k or below. Come on over to Mooneyspace.com and you'll find a very nice J and a K listed for sale currently around that price.

FWIW, my brother and I grew up in the back seat of an M20C that my dad co-owned and we used it for our big summer vacations many years. My parents weren't small, and we crammed the 4 of us plus bags and took that plane all over. The C is 10" shorter than the J and quite cramped in the back seats! But we did it anyway and didn't know it was uncomfortable at the time. :D

You can probably find an owner down there willing to give you a ride too so you can check the comfort levels and performance for yourself.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Yep. I concur. V-tail Bo or Piper Comanche. Perhaps C-182RG? (i dont like cessna swing gear)

If it was me I'd just spring for the piper lance (straight tail). The 500NM is made between 15-25 minutes slower than a Bo or Comanche (big whoop), but you'll have a higher chance of getting your passengers to come back for more once they taste the cabin of the PA-32R. These days I'm all about riding in comfort. :D
Click to expand...

Yeah but then you as the pilot get to have all the fun of driving a garbage truck.
 
Typically people will focus on fuel burn and then speed when talking about these topics. Those are important, but many other things are as well IMO.

Assuming you are hoping to keep any kind of schedule then you will be dealing with some weather. Generally heavier and more powerful aircraft handle the weather better. I just crossed a storm coming back from NOLA. If I had been in a 172 weight/power machine that would have ended our flying, because my wife would have refused to ever go again.

It's cold at altitude, especially now. I routinely see -20ish C. Having good climate control, insulation, is VERY important. Cold people are never happy. Same can be said in summer, you better have an air conditioner or the ability to quickly get up high. That or you'll be watching people drive to meet you somewhere.

Space, sweet space. If you are the type that sticks a toothbrush in your back pocket when going somewhere for the weekend, then disregard. 4 people of any age can generate a HUGE amount of luggage. Look at what people bring on an airliner, they want to take at least that much on a private aircraft.

Generally speaking when people are able to stretch out, recline their seats, sleep comfortably, then they are happy on long flights. Sitting upright, in a small seat, in tight spaces, well that usually means a short flight not 3-4+ hours.

The other thing is reserves. Depending on destination 500 miles plus IFR reserves is a lot of gas. Also points to a bigger aircraft with a high useful load and big tanks.

Honestly, in todays market, with that budget, I would be looking at a twin. Baron, 310, etc.
 
AggieMike88 said:
After a recent first ride in a Baron from Fort Worth to Leadville, CO and back, I really like what the Baron has to offer for that size/class of twin.
Click to expand...

Try a 310 on for size and report back.

Alexb2000 said:
Honestly, in todays market, with that budget, I would be looking at a twin. Baron, 310, etc.
Click to expand...

I find the 310 to be a great family plane. A baby generates a ton of extra baggage. That said, a twin is definitely a case where the purchase is the cheapest part of the whole equation.

I'm still waiting to help you find that RAM IV T310R or Baron 56TC. :)
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Try a 310 on for size and report back.



I find the 310 to be a great family plane. A baby generates a ton of extra baggage. That said, a twin is definitely a case where the purchase is the cheapest part of the whole equation.

I'm still waiting to help you find that RAM IV T310R or Baron 56TC. :)
Click to expand...

56TC, what a fun hot rod, but it makes a T-310R look cheap to operate and maintain.
 
Henning said:
56TC, what a fun hot rod, but it makes a T-310R look cheap to operate and maintain.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's on my list of planes I want to own/fly someday, along with a Duke. I think Alex would be happier with a T310R for the cabin space vs. a Baron.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Yeah, it's on my list of planes I want to own/fly someday, along with a Duke. I think Alex would be happier with a T310R for the cabin space vs. a Baron.
Click to expand...

I need to see a nice one. I've looked at several 310's that were just not kept the way I would keep one and it turned me off. As much of a turbo lover as I am, I wonder if you can get a turbo 520 down to 12ish per side like you can the NA?
 
Alexb2000 said:
I need to see a nice one. I've looked at several 310's that were just not kept the way I would keep one and it turned me off. As much of a turbo lover as I am, I wonder if you can get a turbo 520 down to 12ish per side like you can the NA?
Click to expand...

You can, it just depends on your power setting. :)

I've done as low as 10 per side on the 520s in the 310. That was at 13k, though. Maintenance is significantly less on the NA as well.
 
KSMooniac said:
Couldn't disagree strongly enough with the above assertion. They certainly aren't "expensive to work on" any more so than any other plane in the class. They have their quirks, certainly, but nothing that places them above anything else.

I've flown 4 non-obese adults (ie two couples) on 500 NM IFR trips with weekend bags. I've done 900+ NM non-stop solo and wouldn't ever plan to do that with pax for comfort/stretching reasons. My J has a 1025 useful load and with 8.5-9.0 GPH fuel burns that offers a lot of flexibility with loading butts, bags, and fuel to accomplish any particular flight.QUOTE]

Fair enough, but I have long legs and am not all that enamored with sitting shoulder to shoulder. YMMV. I would consider a Mooney if I was flying flat lands mostly alone. I am probably spoiled as most of my traveling has been in a Bo or larger.

As for maintenance, most things are harder on a Mooney than other aircraft because access is tighter. Harder equals more labor. How this varies from model to model a bit, but swapping mags, vacuum pumps, to name a few things, are less fun in a Mooney.
Click to expand...
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Try a 310 on for size and report back.



I find the 310 to be a great family plane. A baby generates a ton of extra baggage. That said, a twin is definitely a case where the purchase is the cheapest part of the whole equation.

I'm still waiting to help you find that RAM IV T310R or Baron 56TC. :)
Click to expand...

The 310 is fun to fly and a nice family plane, at least the R models are. I don't have experience with the earlier ones. If I needed a turbocharged twin and had the budget for a 310T, then I have the budget for a baby Navajo with the 310hp engines. Not quite as much fun to fly though close, but better IFR platform, handles ice much better, and loads more room and hauling capability. It is better on short and rough strips and you can get a potty seat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top