150-160kt cruisers [Archive]

FullyFlapped

4th Mar 2007, 22:40

No particular mission, IO. I'm just thinking ahead beyond my current bird, wondering where I'd go next. My current 'plane will hopefully get me through the particular trips I have in mind over the next 18 months, but someone asked me today what I'd fancy next : and I must admit it's not an easy question.

Having something with good performance and load-shifting abilities now, I'd be looking to be able to retain those capabilities to a larger extent. Don't mind trimming a bit, but not too much !

Then there's the AVGAS situation. It would be great to find a single which runs on A1, but which meets those criteria above : but short of something like a TBM700 - which would be ridiculously OTT - I can only think of one option, which is a turbine conversion of what I have now, and this is (a) very expensive and (b) only available on a N register (not that that would stop me if it was the only place to go).

Hence the trawl !

FF :ok:

IO540

5th Mar 2007, 07:17

I would buy a turboprop tomorrow, if I could find one at a reasonable price. The avtur availability versus flying to the further reaches of Europe would alone make it worth having. Instead, all of them seem to be pressurised and thus far more expensive to buy and maintain.

Of course every aircrat owner will state his own preference, which is reasonable since most of them chose what they bought so they obviously chose it for various good reasons.

Personally, I would buy a TB20 or TB21, and would do so over anything else out there today, and this is true for both new and used. I've had one for 5 years. The only exception would be at the very bottom of the certified spamcan price scale, say £30k, where a TB would be a real old dog whereas one could probably get a PA28-181 in a reasonable-ish condition.

Everything flying is a compromise, and a TB20 pushes this further than most in terms of economy, cockpit size, comfort, load carrying, range. It really is a very very good design. But it won't hack it if you want to carry four large adults - you would probably have to run with half tanks, but the same is true for most 6-seaters. If you need to push the load/range envelope then you suddenly have to go a lot bigger.

If you want an IFR tourer for Europe, the choice is actually severely limited. You may also want to look at TKS, for the prop at least, and finally you would generally want the previous owner to have paid for the avionics ;)

BackPacker

5th Mar 2007, 08:10

Diamond DA-42 twin star (in the TDI version obviously)?

And there is talk of a DA-50 single. That is basically a slightly enlarged DA-40, with a bigger (but still diesel) engine. Not yet available though.

englishal

5th Mar 2007, 08:21

I'd vote for the Twin Star. 150Kt TAS cruise at 80% power and 6 USG Jet A1 per side. Turn off one engine and you save 4-5 gals per hour;)

Turbo normalising means it is good at altitude, water cooling means no shock cooling issues, strong aeroplane with all mod cons (not to mention G1000). Get the TKS anti-ice system and you're good to go most of the year. You must be able to fit a weather radar :) .....Oh, and it has the second engine and flies very well on only one.

How much do you want to spend? ;)

Andy_RR

5th Mar 2007, 08:35

Oh, and it has the second engine and flies very well on only one.

just as well, really. ...or so I've heard. :}

ShyTorque

5th Mar 2007, 08:48

Agusta 109-S Grand.

MIKECR

5th Mar 2007, 09:09

Bonanza? Mooney??

scooter boy

5th Mar 2007, 09:40

It is the Mooney for me. Ovation 2 GX is my preferred ship.

Best equation of speed, range (transatlantic Gander to Shannon crossing is possible in one hop with the Monroy long range tanks), efficiency is phenomenal, avionics (G1000), and built like the proberbial brick outhouse.

I do avoid grass and short tarmac runways (700m or below) although I know of people who operate their Mooney off short grass.

SB

Fuji Abound

5th Mar 2007, 10:07

Andy R

just as well, really. ...or so I've heard.

What have you heard?

DA50

Might be worth the wait if you are after a single. There are very few modern singles around still in production and even fewer that offer any improvement on load carrying compared with the four seaters of yester year. Diamond promise 5 seats and the performance should be equal to or better than the SR22 with which the 50 is pitched to compete.

The SR22 is a good aircraft but in my opinion the G1000 system far surpasses the Integra fitted by Diamond.

fu 24 950

5th Mar 2007, 11:33

Cessna 206, 6 seats, 130 kts cruise, short field, great aeroplane

Captain Smithy

5th Mar 2007, 14:10

Cessna 210?

IO540

5th Mar 2007, 15:18

Well if you want to include airframes which are going to be 25+ years old then it's going to be a loooong list :) Everybody and their dog used to make 150kt tourers.

I have flown in the DA42 and liked it very much. It actually flies just like a TB20 - very similar handling and performance. I would not buy one at this moment with my own cash because I consider it unproven in terms of both engines and avionics. The engines have had so many failures in the DA40 that some owners have (on threats of litigation) got 100% refunds after a year's flying. Diamond claim the failures do not happen on DA42s but we would never know if they were lying (remember this is aviation, not Dr Barnardos) because an engine failure in cruise is a non-event and won't be reported. Only the most desperate customers go public with this kind of stuff because one is risking losing the co-operation of everybody up the line (something I know about, too). I also consider the G1000 unproven too - the internal build quality is nothing to write home about, it isn't sealed, and only time will tell if it will last out the typical GA cockpit environment.

A Lancair 400 is no good for UK grass fields especially if a bit mucky. I have this from some owners. It's an "American hard runway" machine.

A Cirrus SR22 is objectively very similar to a TB2x and it would be down to details and personal liking. Personally I prefer the yoke, the TB build quality, the proper control over engine RPM, and I very much prefer the cockpit comfort and seating position/adjustment. The fuel flow rate in the two is very similar, at say 140kt IAS / 65% or so power, because the SR22 chucks away its slippery airframe advantage in having fixed gear.

Islander2

5th Mar 2007, 23:28

:rolleyes: Personally, I would buy a TB20 or TB21, and would do so over anything else out there todayOkay, let's court a little controversy ;).

I bought my 1986 A36 Bonanza 15 years ago after a similar trawl through the alternatives. What follows is a very brief summary of the factors that led to my purchase decision.

If you're considering moving into this category for the first time, either you've decided that you're desperate to justify all the time and money you've spent on your hobby by turning it into a serious form of transport ... or you're just plain loaded! Either way, you're probably not going to be content with a Ford or a Vauxhall - it's an ego thing! So, competent as they are, that consideration rules out the Piper and Cessna contenders (the latter's ruled out in any event, since every one knows that a proper pilot flies a low-wing aeroplane - again, it's an ego thing :rolleyes:).

15 years ago, that essentially left Aerospatiale, Beech and Mooney. Today you also have Cirrus, Diamond and Lancair but, personally, even now I wouldn't choose any one of those over the A36 for the same reasons as given by IO540 (and, yep, I realise we're in a minority!!).

I soon narrowed it down to the A36 and the TB20 ... for although the Mooney stable produces terrific, best-in-class high-performance aeroplanes, unfortunately they can only be categorised as eccentric and claustrophic (:uhoh: that should get me some hate mail!).

The A36 and TB20 are both exceedingly good aeroplanes in the luxury class of SEPs - think Mercedes or Jaguar, sticking with the car analogy. So how do they differ, and how do you choose?

First, the subjective: the A36 handles better (and what pilot doesn't want a responsive aeroplane, even in a tourer?) and, IMHO, is better engineered. The TB20, on the other hand, looks more modern and has less of a 'Biggles' interior.

But objectively, the real differences are in two areas.

1) The A36 has an especially poor range (15% lower than the TB20?) with only 74 USG fuel capacity. So if long-distance touring is your thing, the TB20 is decidedly better ... it can get you to North America without the need for ferry tanks but, perhaps more importantly, it can save the need for a refuelling stop on many of your European trips.

2) The A36 is a spacious six seater (the cabin volume is bigger than a Seneca's), with large double-door rear access to the aft four seats, whereas the TB20 is ... well, in Mercedes terms, think CLS rather than long-wheelbase S-Class! In the A36, this means 6 passengers - 4 adults and 2 children, say. But, perhaps rather more usefully, it also means 4 passengers and a realistic quantity of holiday luggage! Or, alternatively with the rear two seats removed (takes 90 seconds!), you've got yourself a freighter!

It was the latter that caused me to choose a the A36 over the TB20, especially since I have a regular requirement to carry large items of cargo. With the Bonanza's design dating back more than sixty years (twice as old as the TB20!), it could be tempting to call it 'old fashioned'. In practice, I find that its pedigree is rather comforting, so I prefer to think of the Bonanza as a well-proven classic! What's more, it's still in production today - and you get to join a type-specific owner/operator club (the ABS) whose members number more than ten thousand!

As with IO540, I'd also make the very same decision today ... until, that is, an SET becomes affordable!

IO540

6th Mar 2007, 06:38

The above jogged my memory... I too got it down to the A36 v. the TB20.

The Bonanza was described (by engineer friends) as the best engineered light plane around - built like a King Air. I would agree with that, having seen the innards of both at a maint facility. However, the only thing I have been able to fault on the TB build quality is their occassional use of cheap Molex connectors to things like wing lights. The rest of the wiring is absolutely to aerospace standards and has to be seen to be believed (recent year TB20GT I am referring to).

I never flew a Bo so can't comment on handling but - high aileron forces aside - a TB20 can be chucked around in chandelles and lazy eights perfectly easily, busting the FL055 Class A in much of southern UK at the top of the chandelle if you aren't careful. All pilots who have flown it, much more widely experienced than me, have not been able to fault it. The last one, an Airbus ATP / instructor, was amazed at the way you can drop the gear & flaps at the GS intercept and it just sits there with the needles centred all the way down to 200ft... the stability/precision is awesome compared to the PA28s I flew in most of my instrument training.

The Bo had at least 1.5x higher fuel flow rate for the same cruise speed as the TB20 (as far as I could find out from the universally misleading sales data in this business) and this was a big factor for me, not needing the 6 seats or the cockpit volume. A TB20 will carry 3 normal-sized people 1200nm (to zero fuel, anywhere between sea level and FL150) but for 2/3-week holidays is really a 2-seater, not because you could not take 3 and all their junk but because decent European legs (long enough to get away from English weather) tend to be 4-5 hrs and you need room to move about, have privacy on the "loo", etc. I can well see an A36 would do the same for 4 people but they would still need to know each other well :)

The DA40 is not at all in the same class for going places, which basically leaves the SR22.

Mark 1

6th Mar 2007, 08:05

You didn't ask for IFR, so the RV-10 comes into the possibilities.

Available in quick-build form too.

Islander2

6th Mar 2007, 09:00

The Bo had at least 1.5x higher fuel flow rate for the same cruise speed as the TB20 (as far as I could find out from the universally misleading sales data in this business)I'm sure the A36 is significantly more thirsty than the TB20, and I agree with how difficult it is to get reliable comparisons, I am, though, a little surprised at your 1.5x figure.

FWIW, here's the actual fuel consumption I achieve with my A36, which has a normally aspirated, 300HP IO-550.

I generally fly shortish sectors (so climb fuel is a greater percentage), often 2 hours or less take-off to touch-down, fly with 'go reasonably fast' rather than 'go far' power settings, and generally cruise between FL080 and FL120.

In the cruise, I use 65% power with the mixture leaned to just slightly LOP. At those levels, 2400 rpm or more may be required at WOT - but 1900 rpm would be a more efficient way to operate the engine, saving approx 12HP in friction losses - and I get an average 165KTAS at just under 50 litres per hour.

And the bottom line? I average 62 - 64 litres of fuel per hour of flight time (take-off to touch down), inclusive of fuel used on the ground.

IO540, do those figures tend to substantiate your 1.5x?

Fuji Abound

6th Mar 2007, 09:49

Since the A36 and TB20 are getting good "reviews" (and they are good aircraft) I am going to "defend" the DA42 - for a bit of fun.

In his first post FF did not mention whether it HAD to be a single but perhaps his second post implied a single. If that is so the 42 is out but -

1. Twins are usually excluded because of the higher fuel burn and maintenance. The 42 using A1 changes that, having a significantly less costly fuel burn with both engines that Avgas singles,

2. Safety - I know all the cracks about the second engine taking you to .. .. .. , however over water, inhospitable terrain and in IMC the second engine provides some comfort and naturally you spend a lot less time thinking about where you might land if it goes quite,

3. It is a true four seater, and with full fuel and at max take off it even climbs OK on one engine (a few too many twins dont do that). Moreover with the extended tanks it will happily get you to the south of France and beyond without a stop if that is your thing,

4. It is fully de iced (certified), usually fitted with a storm scope and / or weather radar, traffic and terrain. I dont think certified de-icing is available on either the 20 or the A1. It is therefore a nearly an all weather platform (as much as any light aircraft),

5. It is new, so whilst with that come somes problems (warranty issue will arise, changes in the design will be made etc), the warranty appears pretty sound, the checks are only once every 100 hours and the engines are "guaranteed" to TBO. At least in the first few years the maintenance cost should be very low. Demand is so strong depreciation may also be reasonable,

6. If you have not used glass before it is worth a try. As an instrument platform I think the G1000 is unsurpassed in GA. It really works, everything is at your figure tips and fully coupled approaches down minima including if required the procedure before are there for simply dialing up as is the required information for any where in Europe,

7. Cross winds are a non event - I suspect on a dry runway 40 knots may be possible and 25 knots is straight forward,

8 and finally, almost the aspect that impresses me most, is just how noise free the cabin is. All the vibrations and and low level reasonance that seems to come with any Avgas engine is absent and the cockpit is almost headphone free. If you have the family in mind then it comes across as being a far more comfortable aircraft that most and the passengers will love the "security" of the extra engine (whatever the truth may be).

Wrong Stuff

6th Mar 2007, 09:55

I soon narrowed it down to the A36 and the TB20 ... for although the Mooney stable produces terrific, best-in-class high-performance aeroplanes, unfortunately they can only be categorised as eccentric and claustrophic (that should get me some hate mail!).
As they say about Bonanza pilots - You can fly faster, but you can't pay more.

For comparison purposes I thought I'd chip in. When buying my Mooney I too narrowed the selection down to the Bonanza, TB20 and the Mooney. I quite quickly decided the Bonanza wasn't for me, mainly for the reasons Islander2 says makes it the perfect airplane for him. Most of my flying is European touring, mainly 2-up with just myself and my wife. The occasional 4-up trip doesn't justify hauling four empty seats all over Europe and I have no interest in turning my aircraft into a mini-freighter and doing cargo runs. The price you pay for hauling all that empty space around is a much higher fuel bill every time you fly. Although Islander2 compares it to a Merc or Jag, to me it seemed much more like a Range Rover - great if you want something smart and inefficient, but with the capability to throw a couple of hay bails in the back for Lucinda's pony if you want. I didn't.

The TB20 was better suited to my needs. It's tidier aerodynamically and much better matched to my usual mission profile. Two-up you can fill it with fuel and have an excellent range. It's good in crosswinds, well built, very capable and easy to get in and out of.

In terms of speed, payload and range the TB20 and the Mooney with long range tanks are quite closely matched. Full tanks, 2 people with luggage, 160 knot going-places machines. The trade-off between them is that the Mooney has the 200hp 4-cylinder IO360 and burns 9 USG per hour whereas the TB20 has the 250hp 6-cylinder IO540 and burns 11.5 - 12 USG per hour. The reason they both go 160 kts is that the Mooney has a tighter cabin with less headroom. Interestingly, the Mooney cabin is almost exactly the same width as the Bonanza, but it does feel much more cramped and you have to be agile to get in with any elegance. Mooney's are also built for tall people with long legs - if you're short you'll hate it.

Going back to the car analogy, the TB20 was like a well-appointed Mercedes saloon. The Mooney was more like a Jaguar XKR. A true European tourer and very comfortable two-up, but the rear seats are for occasional use only and if you're a little old or portly, it's a bit of a bu**er to get into.

So for me the trade-off between the TB20 and the Mooney boiled down to three factors:

1) Is the extra cabin space worth the extra fuel and the additional maintenance costs?

2) In the European market, comparing like-for-like aircraft in terms of total hours and age, TB20s trade at a significant premium over Mooneys. That's the advantage of being categorised as "eccentric and claustrophobic". You get a lot of aircraft for your money.

3) I've previously had an unhappy experience with the UK Socata importer. Do I really want to commit myself to having to deal with a company I dislike?

Possibly if a decent TB20 had come up before I found my Mooney, it might have been a different decision. In retrospect, though, I'm very happy indeed with my choice. The low running costs mean I never think twice before going off on a trip somewhere. And despite having GAMIs fitted I never bother running lean of peak - why bother saving a little more fuel so that you can go a bit slower? The fuel burn's so low already it's just not worth it. Roy Lo Presti, who did the bodywork designs for the modern Mooneys got it right with his motto: "Life is Short ... Fly FAST!". That's why people fly Mooneys.

IO540

6th Mar 2007, 11:23

do those figures tend to substantiate your 1.5x?

No it does not; it is only a 1.15 difference. I assume you have a recently calibrated ASI and an accurate flowmeter. This shows how hard it is to compare data, but then both our figures are for economical cruise / good engine life / LOP.

The DA42 is substantially quieter than any plane I have been in, although not by enough to be usable without good headsets.

I've previously had an unhappy experience with the UK Socata importer. Do I really want to commit myself to having to deal with a company I dislike?

Fair point, but you don't have to. TBs are currently not being made, not since about 2003, so you would be looking at a used one (and even a new one would be easy to purchase via another country, with minimal subterfuge) and there are a number being advertised which you would buy direct. The parts can be obtained via various routes but in any case if you go for something made in the last 5 years or so you won't need many; I have spent well under £1000 in 5 years on mine. Air Touring have earned a reputation for getting their currency exchange rate wrong but this isn't an issue on small parts, and anything bigger can always be sourced elsewhere if necessary, especially for an N-reg where an 8130-3 form is enough and the JAR-1 scam can be avoided so you can buy direct from the US. Nearly everything that is likely to go wrong on a fairly recent TB is made in the USA and is an off the shelf item. Only the very old planes (20+ years) need the expensive airframe parts, but airframe parts are v. expensive for all makes.

One additional factor I forgot to mention is a single door v. two doors. That makes a potentially big difference in usability. I am reasonably flexible but I know from my PA28 renting days that a lot of people have problems getting in, and the interior gets knackered as a result of people climbing all over the seats, putting their weight on the seat backs, etc. I also had a door jam on a PA28 once, and would never buy a 1-door plane after that. I've flown (in the TB20) with many people who frankly wouldn't have a slightest chance of getting out of the back of a PA28 in a hurry.

why bother saving a little more fuel so that you can go a bit slower

With LOP, you might fly several percent slower for a ~ 30% fuel saving, compared to full-rich.

kala87

6th Mar 2007, 11:43

Have you considered a Cessna 182? Typical IAS in the cruise is 135 kts at about 22/2300 MP/RPM setting, which trues out to about 150 kts at 6000 - 7000ft. Superb short field performance, can lift 4 adults and full tanks out of a 2000 ft grass strip with no problems.

Islander2

6th Mar 2007, 12:12

do those figures tend to substantiate your 1.5x?

No it does not; it is only a 1.15 difference. I assume you have a recently calibrated ASI and an accurate flowmeter.The ASI is calibrated annually, as required under G-reg LAMS ... but do note I was referring to TAS not IAS.

Flowmeter is the fuel flow function on the JPI EDM-800, which I've had installed for four years. Across this time, it has been consistently accurate to better than 1% on total fuel used vs fuel required to refill tanks (other than a period when some low-life was stealing fuel from the aeroplane - for which he was fined £60, some justice for what could easily have resulted in a manslaughter charge - but that, as they say, is another story!)

cfwake

6th Mar 2007, 13:04

hi everyone

have no advice on 160kt tourers but just wanted to raise mention of something that was posted by SCOOTER BOY.

SB

hang on... a single prop flying across the atlantic!!!! that takes some balls!!! ok so charles lindbergh did it, and probably in something a little less ideal than a mooney but my god i still wouldn't fancy it in anything less than, say, something with two big jets and a couple of hundred seats - you get the idea!
plenty of respec' to anyone who's done it!!!!!

next question - has anyone been there, done it and (quite understandably) got themselves a t-shirt to announce it?!

chris, a quite impressed (by those who've done the equivalent of climbed everest in an albeit nice pair of nikes!!!) trainee f/o!!

Fuji Abound

6th Mar 2007, 13:32

cfwake

I think you may be confused between this and Jet Blast.

cfwake

6th Mar 2007, 14:04

nope, was actually interested in finding out if anyone has actually done the trip, i can guarantee you that i'm able to distinguish between two different forums thank you.

mm_flynn

6th Mar 2007, 14:11

Having owned both a Mooney (M20J) and a Bonanza A36 I think they are both fantastic machines. But they are Porsche and Mercedes Estate. The Mooney is low slung, firm ride (in the air and on the ground) doing 160kts at a miserly 9 GPH at 10k feet and able to carry 2 + 2kids and a very carefully packed set of luggage.

The Bonanza (with tip tanks and turbonormalized) does 175-180 on about 14 gph at FL100 is and about 200 kts at FL180. This gives 1400-1600 mile range (everyone bring their own O2 to the party :) ). It also can carry 4 + 2 kids plus random luggage to Denmark pretty easily.

Neither of them is particularly good at short fields or rough grass. If my mission profile was wife and I, it would be the Mooney - Plus growing kids it’s the Bonanza.

I have never flown a TB20 so have nothing to add to IOs comments.
CFwake - The view of the Greenland Ice Cap is fantastic - A sight not to be missed if you have the opportunity. Just don't think about how much rougher the water is when your testing the survival suit and raft than when gazing down from FL100.

englishal

6th Mar 2007, 14:38

1. Twins are usually excluded because of the higher fuel burn and maintenance. The 42 using A1 changes that, having a significantly less costly fuel burn with both engines that Avgas singles,
Oh yes, this would be the BIG BIG point for me.

I took a Twin Star on a 600nm cross country - equivalent distance as Bournemouth to Prague. Total fuel cost was £115 (UK prices), and 4 hours 20 minutes which included a stop for breakfast (could have been done in 4 hours non-stop).

Try taking a Seneca on a 600nm X/C. It may do it a bit faster but the fuel cost would be nearer £550!

Bung 4 people in a TS, fly to Nice for the weekend and it has cost £50 each in fuel ;)

cfwake

6th Mar 2007, 14:48

mm - i can imagine it's a pretty impressive feeling - wouldn't mind trying it in a twin! of course, once i'm earning my crust as an overworked f/o, not that i'll be complaining of course! will stop hijacking the thread now but was interested to find if someone had done it!

Propped-up

6th Mar 2007, 15:39

The SR22 is a good aircraft but in my opinion the G1000 system far surpasses the Integra.
Personally there are two features of the Avidyne system which would make me choose it over the other:
1) If it fails, you still have an autopilot
2) If it fails, you still have GPS and a radio
From what I understand, a G1000 failure results in loss of the integrated autopilot and also the integrated radio.

Edited to say - just realised this is my first post on here although some of you will know me from other fora. Hello Pprune

Fuji Abound

6th Mar 2007, 16:04

Englishal

Yes the running costs are impressively low. Whether it is enough is a different matter.

Very very approximately you are saving £110 per hour in fuel burn and maybe £45 per hour compared with a typical light single and perhaps £80 with something more adavanced over a similiar distance. So as a personal means of transport flying maybe 100 hours a year that represents a saving of £11K down to £5K a year.

However it is diificult to imagine that the depreciation isnt going to run at least 30K a year on a 42 over say the next three years. Of course the other operating costs should be much less compared with an older aircraft but I would have thought it is no where near enough to make good the difference.

If you can get 300 or 400 hours use a year (as a group or school might or some really dedicated private users) and the economics change drastically.
In short a group of between 4 and 6 pilots each doing 100 hours a year in a 42 could save getting on for £70K in fuel compared with a "normal" twin and getting on for £50K compared with an advanced single. That covers the depreciation and the maintenance costs will be a lost less anyway. At that point it looks even more attractive.

Of course unfortunately there will soon be some duty on A1.

Fuji Abound

6th Mar 2007, 16:22

Hello!

Sorry to double post but yours crossed with my last.

Two interesting points.

As far as I am aware not many of the G1000s rolled out at the moment incorporate Garmin's autopilot - if any? Certainly in the 42 the autopilot is a "standard alone" unit in the case of the 42 a KAP140 with alt preselect. The autopilot takes its nav information from the G100 but in all other respects will operate stand alone. In short if both displays failed or the GPS component failed the autopilot would still maintain wings level, climb, descend and hold and maintain a heading. I have to admit I am not sure if it would fly a coupled G/S approach - probably not because the frequency is fed from the G1000. I would agree that presumably all of that will change when the autopilot is integrated.

In theory you still have a radio because if the radio and the displays fail the frequency reverts to the emergency frequency.

I think however it is important to understand how the G1000 works. At least as I understand it each component is effectively a modular element so the GPS feed comes from what are almost two G400s, the avionics stack in the back of the aircraft contains two rack comms units etc. The whole lot is integrated via the AHARS - perhaps there is an arguement this is a weak link, and I am not sure how much redundancy there is, but that aside I guess it is no more nor less likely than the G400s will fail behind the G1000 that when these are separate units on the front panel.

I particularly like the fact that with the G1000 in the event the primary display fails all the vital information can be switched to the right screen whereas it is my understanding if that happens with the Integra the right hand unit is not capable of displaying any of the primary information.

Moreover the Integra seems to be to be far less intuitive than the G1000.

Finally with the Integra I am not certain of the systems ability to recover after a power failure (you may well know the answer) where as the G1000 will recover attitude and heading.

At the end of the day perhaps horses for but it is interesting discussing the respective pros and cons and sorry for the thread drift.

gyrotyro

6th Mar 2007, 17:18

2 pence worth of input for the Twin Comanche.

It cruises at 160kts on 55/60 Litres per hour and has an endurance with tip tanks of seven and a half hours giving a no reserve range of 1200 miles.

Good enough ?

See this link:

http://www.planecheck.com/twincom.htm

scooter boy

6th Mar 2007, 23:08

hang on... a single prop flying across the atlantic!!!! that takes some balls!!! ok so charles lindbergh did it, and probably in something a little less ideal than a mooney but my god i still wouldn't fancy it in anything less than, say, something with two big jets and a couple of hundred seats - you get the idea!
plenty of respec' to anyone who's done it!!!!!

next question - has anyone been there, done it and (quite understandably) got themselves a t-shirt to announce it?!

chris, a quite impressed (by those who've done the equivalent of climbed everest in an albeit nice pair of nikes!!!) trainee f/o!!

CF,
One of my biggest regrets so far in life is not being able to accompany Jose Monroy (maker and installer of long range tanks and avionics) when he ferried my new Mooney across the Atlantic via Iceland (I could not make it due to work commitments).
I suggest you google "Transatlantic ovation" and you will get the info regarding what this amazing aircraft is capable of. Would I fly in one across the Atlantic if the opportunity arose again, absolutely no question. I would make time.

BTW, I averaged 185KT going from Plymouth to Gloucester this morning in my Mooney Ovation 2 GX at 65% economy (LOP) cruise settings (12.3 US GPH) - it took 37 mins. Mr Lo Presti clearly did a great job.

Actually I was flying LOP at 65% and reduced power to 55% as I was going to turn up there too early (i:e before the airport opened)!!

The Mooney is a great machine. So is the Bonanza, TB-20 and DA-42, but the Mooney wins in my book every time.

SB:ok:

Parkbremse

7th Mar 2007, 10:49

Our club's C182 Turbo RG does 155kn at 75% power consuming roundabout 50-55 l/h. With less power, you can easily do 140kn @ 40 l/h. Really a nice touring aircraft, with longrange tanks and an oxygen system fitted you can climb out all but the most severe weather and have a range of over a 1000nm.

Apart from that, my vote goes to the TB20/21

IO540

7th Mar 2007, 11:26

SB - which LoPresti mods do you have?

Brooklands

7th Mar 2007, 12:56

cfwake

The trip was done both ways a couple of years ago by a [former] Ppruner 2 Donkeys in his TB20. You can read his account of the trip Here (http://www.polestaraviation.com/?page_id=3).

I can't really add much to the debate about the best 150-160 Kt cruiser, expcept to say that I have a limited ammount of time in the TB20 and C182 RG, and that the TB is quicker, and nicer overall, but the 182 is probably a better short field machine.

Brooklands

IO540

7th Mar 2007, 14:02

The transatlantic trip (via Iceland / Greenland / Newfoundland as usual) has been done, in singles, thousands of times by ferry pilots. Apart from the acceptance of slow or unlikely rescue, and the need to carry/wear survival gear, it is just sitting there on autopilot for many hours.

An IR helps a great deal, I gather, because a lot of the airspace is Class A and you definitely want to be as high as possible, but the same is true for much of Europe land-mass anyway.

A C182 will totally beat a TB20 on short field capability, and so will many other types. A Maule will get airborne in the width of many runways :) But you wouldn't buy a TB20/21 for operating from a 300m grass strip. You would buy it for 800nm trips across Europe, in comfort and style and stability in turbulence under IFR...

A plane which has the short field capability of a C182 and the comfort/style/etc of a TB20 would be a small unpressurised turboprop, and currently nobody makes those. Arguably, the nearest anybody got to that in recent years is the Grob 140 (http://www.grob-aerospace.de/get.php4?pageid=133)but that project is almost certainly dead. Grob's test pilot got killed recently and they are working on their "light jet", just like everybody and their dog. The G140 was too expensive anyway.

Until somebody does something like that, we will have to choose. You can find them in the USA, in the Experimental category.

FullyFlapped

7th Mar 2007, 18:58

Thanks to everyone for your input, some interesting bits and bobs : but to be honest, I'm beginning to think (leaving aside all the "style" arguments, which are personal taste issues) that my 210 is probably as good in most areas as most of the competition, and better in some.

The DA50 is interesting : I'd not heard of that, and it will be interesting to see how (if?) that turns out. The DA42 has always been interesting, but I have certain reservations about that which put me off last time I went buying, and added to the undoubted depreciation they're still going through ... well, we'll see in 18 months time.

FF :ok:

AC-DC

7th Mar 2007, 21:21

PA24-260 150kts, 6 seats (2 child seats) and full tanks (90gl)
PA24-250 150kts, 4 seats and full fuel
R90 155kts, 4 seats 3/4 full.

IO540

8th Mar 2007, 06:46

my 210 is probably as good in most areas as most of the competition, and better in some

That's correct; additional mission capability will come only from specific additional performance or equipment.

1) Operating ceiling (if you can do 20k then only a turbo engine will improve on that, but at substantial costs and bringing significant oxygen flow rate issues)

2) Climb rate (if you have 250HP then that will fix the climb rate for a given weight, more or less)

3) De-ice / anti-ice ?

But, if everybody looked at it that way, they would all be flying 30 year old planes, because there is not one single thing in e.g. an SR22 that gives you additional mission capability :)

FullyFlapped

8th Mar 2007, 09:47

1) Operating ceiling (if you can do 20k then only a turbo engine will improve on that, but at substantial costs and bringing significant oxygen flow rate issues)

2) Climb rate (if you have 250HP then that will fix the climb rate for a given weight, more or less)

3) De-ice / anti-ice ?

But, if everybody looked at it that way, they would all be flying 30 year old planes, because there is not one single thing in e.g. an SR22 that gives you additional mission capability
1) Ceiling = 28K (turbo'd)
2) 310HP
3) Yup, booted up etc

And to answer your final comment - your absolutely right, hence this thread's entire raison d'etre ! ;) ;)

Mind you, can't say I'd ever fancy something where the wings move much faster than the pilot ... :eek:

FF :ok:

IO540

8th Mar 2007, 10:06

can't say I'd ever fancy something where the wings move much faster than the pilot

Often the case, in single pilot IFR ;)

FullyFlapped

8th Mar 2007, 10:39

Just realised my last comment makes no sense, unless you understand that I thought IO's previous comment was referring to a R22, not an SR22 ! :ugh:

FF :ok:

HonestoGod

8th Mar 2007, 12:30

Getting into this thread late so apologies if I am repeating other points made.

On a quick perusal of some of the previous postings there are some factually incorrect statements, but here is my feel for the points on the Avidyne versus Garmin G1000 (Integrated version, as per Columbia 350, 400).

As always, some issues are a matter of opinion and I recognise that. I fly on a regular basis both G1000 (integrated) and Avidyne.

Avidyne

Advantage:

Easier to learn, about two/three days with no prior prep work or glass experience.

Disadvantages:

Not an LRU system (a bit of screen fails the whole lot comes out !).
Avidyne support leaves a lot to be desired.
Avidyne have just lost Eclipse and Javelin contracts !
In flight a screen failure, is that, no data transfer to the other screen.
Non digital autopilot.
Some of the cockpit is Avidyne, some is Garmin some is S-Tec etc

G1000 (Integrated).

Disadvantage:

Four days instruction, - for someone with no glass experience plus approx 10 hours prior home study (from CD).

Advantages:

Integrated cockpit, Transponder, A/P, ADF and DME on the screen.
Digital autopilot is superior.
Screen failure just means the press of a button for a ‘composite screen’, on either side.
The ‘composite mode’ can be used for dual/training.
The digital autopilot can do ‘FL change’, climb at an indicated airspeed.
‘Ready pad’ FMS keypad.
G1000 will not allow the aircraft to be stalled or o/sped with A/P engaged.
Garmin, excellent support

Let me stress this. There is nothing wrong with an Avidyne system, just that I think the Garmin outweighs it by far.

The Columbia comes of course with the option of both G1000 and Avidyne, - your choice.

There is a good section on the Columbia website, www.flycolumbia.com called “whitepapers” (on the top right of the home page) which, also gives a good insight into the difference between a Turbocharged engine and a turbo-normalised one !!!
:ok:

cfwake

8th Mar 2007, 14:09

many thanks for the info guys absolutely intrigued to read about doing such a journey!

scooter boy

9th Mar 2007, 06:20

SB - which LoPresti mods do you have?

IO, Roy LoPresti (of LoPresti Speed Merchants) was Mooney's chief aerodynamicist /designer for a while and the long body Mooney cowls/airframes bear many of his touches.
Little things like having the nav/pos/strobes on the wingtips faired in, tightly gap sealed ailerons/elevators and the laminar flow wing all add a few knots.

My TKS system slows the aircraft down by 5-10 KTS but flying in Northern Europe I wouldn't be without it.

SB

Fuji Abound

9th Mar 2007, 15:31

Four days instruction, - for someone with no glass experience plus approx 10 hours prior home study (from CD).

Maybe.

From experience I would far rather go with as many hours as you can on Garmin's PC sim - it maybe cheap (well free actually) but it does the job, and about 10 to 20 hours in the aircraft. That is the point you will be comfortable IFR / IMC with a diversion procedure.

Not tried the integrated digital autopilot - that I shall look forward to seeing - it might know whether to turn left or right on the base leg!! :)

HonestoGod

9th Mar 2007, 16:25

Fuji.

Agree entirely re the Garmin sim, cannot get enough and it just makes the transition more relaxed and enjoyable. Not found the need yet to do above 10hours on the differences training but will happen some day, and can be facilitated.

The G1000 - integrated - recognises left and right on the base and will do a little more, including pre-selecting ILS frequency and auto ident.

The digital 700 A/P is much crisper in op than the non digital.

Fuji Abound

9th Mar 2007, 18:49

Honesttogo

Sorry, I meant not so much with the aircraft but actually using the G1000 in the aircraft.

Be interested to know what you fly with the G1000 perhaps a PM as it is a bit of topic.

will5023

11th Mar 2007, 20:15

Ok, you want a Jet A1, six seater go places machine, ok try looking at a Comp Air 7 or 8, it looks like a stretched Maule on steriods !! Will be STOL and fast and would like one myself !! You can see one or two on trade-a-plane, or Barnstormers, failing that goggle it.

Regards Will.

FullyFlapped

11th Mar 2007, 22:01

Very interesting indeed, Will : only problems would appear to be (a) it's a kit and (b) they appear to have misread the assembly instructions, and superglued the nosewheel to the tail by mistake ... :ugh: :ugh: ;) ;)

FF :ok:

will5023

14th Mar 2007, 23:11

They do one with a training wheel at the front :bored: !! But that looks plane ugly !! They are also factory built. Great fun flew one in FL last year.

Will.

fltcom

15th Mar 2007, 18:27

Bonanza wins every time, consider an F33, uses less fuel and is faster than A36

Flt...

Southern Cross

15th Mar 2007, 19:33

Siai Marchetti SF260D or Beech D17S Staggerwing - two beautiful aeroplanes falling outside the normal selection of types... Both will acheive 150 knots plus...

IO540

15th Mar 2007, 21:58

421C

15th Mar 2007, 22:58

Interesting discussion. At the higher end of the price range (ie. DA42, SR22) I would be very tempted by a used Malibu.

I've only flown a few hours in these. A bit cramped for the very tall pilot.
The Lyc engines have been troublesome, but most should have had all the ADs done.

...but for travel across Europe, none of the normally pressurised singles compare IMO. Quiet, pressurised, air-conditioned comfort. Cabin class seating, airstair door. Known-icing. The range is over 1000nm IIRC.

rgds421C

Hampstead

16th Mar 2007, 11:32

My vote would be for one of the later Commanders (114B, 115). 150kts cruise, loads of space, built like a tank etc. The factory has at long last got its licence to start production again so hopefully spares will cease to be a problem.

iamtheone

17th Mar 2007, 07:28

An older C182 will cruise at 140KTS comfortably, i know its not 150-160KTS but its getting fairly close and you could probably find a decent share in one at many an airfield.

sir.pratt

17th Mar 2007, 07:31

why would he want an older C182 when he's already got a C210?

fltcom

17th Mar 2007, 08:33

Here are some fuel flow figures for my TB20
6000ft +5C QNH1036 23/2400
GPH(US) / IAS(KT)
10 125
10.5 135
11 138
11.5 144
12 147
12.5 148
13 150
14 150
Flowmeter error: better than 1% (checked after test flight)
ASI error: approx 1kt (measured by 3-heading GPS method)
Peak EGT around 11.5GPH.
Weight: approx 10% under MTOW i.e. 1260kg.Hard to beat.
Not hard to beat
Some figures for my F33A
% gal/hr IAS
45 8.8 135
55 10.2 145
65 12 152
74 14.1 164*
*Can be up to 170kts depending on conditions
Flt

scooter boy

19th Mar 2007, 09:05

BackPacker

19th Mar 2007, 14:57

Might I suggest you still keep an eye out for the DA-40 TDI with the new (announced, not yet available) 2.0 engine or the DA-50.

Top performance for a normal 1.7 liters DA-40 TDI, according to the POH is 140.5 knots TAS at 6000 feet PA, on just 7.7 USG/hr (ISA, MTOW). This is 100% power, but the engine is rated for 100% continuous. This doesn't fill your requirements, but it's not that far off. And things can only get better...

Fuji Abound

19th Mar 2007, 21:41

Top performance for a normal 1.7 liters DA-40 TDI, according to the POH is 140.5 knots TAS at 6000 feet PA, on just 7.7 USG/hr (ISA, MTOW).

As always with POHs more than a tad optomistic in my experience! Moreover the load carrying and take off performance is not there, albeit that can only improve with the new 2.0L engine - perhaps quite significantly.

The 42 will also be so fitted and will compete with every SEP but with fuel burns of less with two engines and the price advantage of A1.

Comanche250

20th Mar 2007, 20:33

Just a quick question about the DA42, not worth opening a thread for...does it have counter rotating props?

Fuji Abound

20th Mar 2007, 20:43

No it doesnt.

VMC-on-top

31st Oct 2011, 22:57

Is there any way of directly comparing the FF, range, £ / mile at different loads and altitudes of these? This thread seemed to come close but not found anything else?

Bonanza
Mooney
TB20
SR22
DA42

etc.?

Big Pistons Forever

1st Nov 2011, 01:20

Total cost of ownership will overwhelm the slight differences is speed and fuel flow. If you want to save money take the airlines it will always be cheaper.
My advice and worth every penny you paid for it ;) is buy what you want, not what you feel will be the best value.

It is the intangibles that will give you the true satisfaction of aircraft ownership.

If you are buying used do your homework and IMO buy the very best example of your chosen airframe, it will be the cheapest in the long run.

MichaelJP59

1st Nov 2011, 12:17

All these are well above my price range at the moment, but why does the Cessna 400 (formerly Columbia) never get mentioned in these discussions?

VMC-on-top

1st Nov 2011, 12:52

Total cost of ownership will overwhelm the slight differences is speed and fuel flow

to rephrase the question, putting aside cost of ownership, is it possible to directly compare the FF and range with comparable loads at a fixed altitude? Assume 2 adults, 2 children and some baggage.

We had almost completely decided against the various options because :

Mooney - due simple gear and our requirement for landing on grass (mostly smooth grass).
Bonanza - due range but with tip tanks, looks like it could now fit the bill?
TB20 - due range with load.
DA42 - due question over engine reliability, TBO etc.

SR22 has almost everything that we want but again, may come up short on range.

IO540

1st Nov 2011, 17:44

TB20 - due range with load.Can you expand on that?

Every design is a compromise, and the TB20 pushes that compromise further than most - IF you want to do 2- and 3-up touring. Sure there are faster planes (which do considerably less MPG) and planes that do even more MPG (which have smaller cockpit cross-sections). If you actually want to carry 4 people with junk, that is a totally different proposition, for which there are few if any "cheap" solutions.

I particularly don't think the SR22 compares that well against a TB20. Style is an individual thing as always, the parachute likewise, but that's about it. I would not swap a brand new fully loaded $500k SR22 for my 2002 TB20.

why does the Cessna 400 (formerly Columbia) never get mentioned in these discussions? It's quite a rare beast. According to one report I read, Cessna reportedly sold approx 1 (one) during 2010. I have flown in one (probably not the same one ;) ) and it is impressive in performance, but you pay for it in fuel flow. It is perhaps the most capable unpressurised SE plane you can buy now. The current price is very high - ~ $750k according to recent news reports. For another $250k you can buy a reasonable Jetprop which will totally wipe it (and everything else "piston") off the floor, on just about every parameter.

AN2 Driver

1st Nov 2011, 20:32

I am one of the 40years + gang, that means the airplane is pretty close to my own age. But as far as bang for the buck goes.... I never thought I'd own something in this class ever nor would I be able to do some serious travelling for the cash I shell out per flight hour these days.

I've done what the thread starter here did but on a different level. I wanted a truely affordable traveller in both initial investment and sustainability. In short, an aircraft I could afford to buy AND to fly. And as I am not "loaded" in any sense, that seemed to be a pretty difficult thing to achieve.

I looked at Cherokees, Arrows (there were some which were cheaper on the market than pure Cherokees but I found out why when I saw the maintenance bills) Grumman Cheetah's or Tigers and looked longingly at things like the TB20, the Mooneys and Bonanzas. I've flown all of them, TB20 is still something I like a lot, especcially in terms of cabin size and comfort.

I came across a Bonanza and almost bought it. It was a V35C, 1959 V Bonanza, super Cockpit for a plane that age (HSI, 2 axis S-Tec AP, full IR) and it was comparatively cheap. BUT it only made 300 NM with full fuel and reserve and when I looked at the maintenance bill and was told that for the magnesium control surfaces a hangar is an absolute must, I had to quickly pull back.

Then I came across a Mooney and told the guy, yea, right, but I can't afford those, they are like Porsches, right? Wrong.

Looked at the maintenance bills this guy had for the last 5 years, less than some Cherokee 180'ties I'd seen. Price, below most other planes including the Cherokees. Range, 600-650 NM at 140 to 150 kts. Can carry non-IATA-Standard me and 2 passengers or just me and my wife and her baggage with full fuel (52 USG). Umm, yes, you were saying? If I were to put Monroy Tanks in, it would carry me 1200 NM plus reserve? Umm again. It had all the avionics safe a HSI but a GNS430? And all that for the few bucks I had set aside?

That is a 1965 Mooney M20C. Manual gear and manual flaps make for very few maintenace money, together with a standard off the shelf O360-A1D which just got zeroed. She's extremely sturdy in terms of stability, flies like on rails and does all I need to do and then some. 600 NM is quite sufficient for me at the time, sure I'd like to be able to do 1000 NM or even 700 NM, but then again, José Monroy has some tanks for sale. Maybe put a 201 style windshield on one day together with a cowl mod? And I still have an airplane for very few money. I am now shopping for an Aspen plus an S-Tec 30 or 55 (depending on budget) to get me up to speed and replace some stuff which is out dated, but that will be it.

What I have seen in recent discussions with fellow Mooneyacs really makes a very strong point for these airplanes. The 201 (M20J) will travel 150-160 kts at 9 gph and at 64 USG will take you further than you'll need. The Turbos will blow most of the competition out of the water speed/economy wise as well and the Ovation with the LR tanks are true transatlantic machines. I've come across an -E which has done two around the world tours with up to 15 hour flights.

If I ever would want to upgrade, it would either be to another Mooney (Ovation most likely for the range) or to a Twin Commanche which will do 1200-1600 NM at 170 kts and with a fuel flow of an Acclaim, but it is a twin.

Ah yes. the Diamonds. They are great airplanes but Expensive with a capital E, plus there is the Thielert engine. No need to recap that sorry chapter with regards of what happened after the bancruptcy, but what good does a low fuel bill do if you have to change most of the engine every 300 hours, have a 1000 hour TBO and then throw away the whole engine for a new one? I am tempted by the Austroengine, which seems to be the 1.15th generation of the Diesels and looks and sounds better in terms of how it does what, but again, it is a new and unproven design just yet.

The problem I see with our current fleet is that in many cases the 30-40 year old designs of Al Mooney and Piper as well as others are still the best there is for the money. Nobody I know of has outdone the Twin Comanche yet in that sector. Any recent airframe is so viciously expensive that most regular folks will have to forget them. They cost more than a house and not many of us can justify that kind of outlay. But one which costs less than a new car and still can play with the "big guys"?

Best regards
AN2 Driver

Marchettiman

1st Nov 2011, 22:39

Might be a bit too fast, I get 172kts TAS at FL100 and 48 litres per hour at 65% power. You have to choose your rear seat passengers (250 lbs combined) but it flies like a swept wing jet and is aerobatic. What's more, they look fantastic, proving the old adage that if it looks right, it flies right.

Big Pistons Forever

1st Nov 2011, 23:57

to rephrase the question, putting aside cost of ownership, is it possible to directly compare the FF and range with comparable loads at a fixed altitude? Assume 2 adults, 2 children and some baggage.

We had almost completely decided against the various options because :

Mooney - due simple gear and our requirement for landing on grass (mostly smooth grass).
Bonanza - due range but with tip tanks, looks like it could now fit the bill?
TB20 - due range with load.
DA42 - due question over engine reliability, TBO etc.

SR22 has almost everything that we want but again, may come up short on range.

You seem to place a large premium on range. I find there is significant passenger resistance, particularly from women, to flights in the relatively cramped confines of a light aircraft that are over 3 hours long. I think most pilots over estimate the how often long range capability will be used.

If you want to be coldly logical then almost all private owners should buy a Cessna 182. It is a solid 135 knot cruiser that will arrive less than 20 mins later than most retractables on a 3 hour trip and is roomy, one of the most stable IFR platforms ever made, has bladder busting range, will haul a 4 people and full tanks, is easy to insure and maintain proficiency on, and is easy to sell and will hold its value over the long haul. Going from a 182 to a C210 or Bonanza will easily double your total ownership costs, on a pure value basis, it is a decision that is hard to justify.

But like I said earlier, buy what makes your heart go pitter patter, for I0 540 it was a TB20, an airplane I personally would only fly if someone paid me (a lot), but if it was an SF 260 ....well now we are talking. I can just see my self picking the mike off the canopy roof to acknowledge my ATC clearance as I am speeding to my holiday destination. :cool: :ok: