Originally Posted by
VMC-on-top
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.
