Fastest 4 or 6 seater single for hire in Melbourne?
Thread Starter
Fastest 4 or 6 seater single for hire in Melbourne?
I expect to be travelling a bit on business next month, just wondering if there is anything around the traps that can beat a bonanza or a mooney. Thanks.
A 182RG will out-lift a Mooney any day of the week and has the same TAS. The cabin is also bigger. Nice, comfortable machines. 
Should be a shedload cheaper than a C210, especially if you don't need the 6 seats. Can't comment on the Bo but want to fly one some day.
Should be a shedload cheaper than a C210, especially if you don't need the 6 seats. Can't comment on the Bo but want to fly one some day.
The 182RG I fly has a TAS of 160kts lightly loaded and backs off to 156 kt with a big load. That's at max crz power. You don't fly them any other way. Very much an underrated aeroplane, if I had to own a four seat retractable the 182RG would be it. The others don't even come close.
I've no idea what TAS a Mooney or Bonanza achieve, but 18 years with a Seneca III that has always trued out at 172kias in the cruise has suited me
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Office
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't Moorabbin have some Cirrus around?
Also are Bonanzas still at Lilydale?
Thread Starter
mooney 155kts tas
bonanza 175kts
c310/B58/PA31 185kts
Must admit i hadnt thought of a cirrus, website propaganda says 175kts. Suprisingly quick for fixed gear. I'll check it out.
bonanza 175kts
c310/B58/PA31 185kts
Must admit i hadnt thought of a cirrus, website propaganda says 175kts. Suprisingly quick for fixed gear. I'll check it out.
VH-MWL a C182 RG is available from the Tyabb Flying school/Aeroclub, don't know the price but the owners are a little careful who they let hire it.
Be nice to it, it's a friends aircraft and If ya bend it I can't use it
Be nice to it, it's a friends aircraft and If ya bend it I can't use it
Coming to you live from Cessna Sales HQ
Perhaps I should have been clearer. The Mooneys (ies?!) I've flown were F through J models, the Js getting 154kts TAS and the Fs escape me as it has been too long since I last flew that model. The 182RG claims 160kts TAS and we calculated 156kts while out over the WA nothingness using nomal cruise settings and at high weight. A nice new Bravo or Ovation would surely leave the RG for dead and I don't dispute that.
However, the RG has an extra 120kg+ of payload over the M20J, greater baggage capacity (90kg over zones A and B against 54kg+4kg on the "hat rack" if you have 3 or less POB), you can load four bodies in the 182RG, fill the tanks and still be below MTOW and within C of G limits. Try that in an M20J - it doesn't work.
I've always thought the same as gassed budgie: that if I wanted to own a 4 seat retract, the 182RG would be it. I does chew through an extra 14l/hr but bigger tanks give you an extra 10 odd minutes over the M20 with reserves intact. But the RG does have a very high dash though so you are looking out the side to judge the flare.
Now don't get me wrong, the M20s do have amazing performance on 200HP, but they are far more sport-car like in that fact that everything it does comes at a cost of something else. Relatively low power means low fuel consumption and decent performance lightly loaded but on a hot day with some weight it becomes a slug. Sleek design means it has high cruise performance but that comes at the cost of a very cosy cabin - don't forget the minties! Too many compromises for my liking, the RG just does a better job. M20s look a lot more handsome, I'll admit. 
justapplhere,
Sorry I don't but ACMS seems to have you covered.
One-eyed, me? 
The Mooneys (ies?!) I've flown were F through J models, the Js getting 154kts TAS and the Fs escape me as it has been too long since I last flew that model. The 182RG claims 160kts TAS and we calculated 156kts while out over the WA nothingness using nomal cruise settings and at high weight. A nice new Bravo or Ovation would surely leave the RG for dead and I don't dispute that. However, the RG has an extra 120kg+ of payload over the M20J, greater baggage capacity (90kg over zones A and B against 54kg+4kg on the "hat rack" if you have 3 or less POB), you can load four bodies in the 182RG, fill the tanks and still be below MTOW and within C of G limits. Try that in an M20J - it doesn't work.
I've always thought the same as gassed budgie: that if I wanted to own a 4 seat retract, the 182RG would be it. I does chew through an extra 14l/hr but bigger tanks give you an extra 10 odd minutes over the M20 with reserves intact. But the RG does have a very high dash though so you are looking out the side to judge the flare.
Now don't get me wrong, the M20s do have amazing performance on 200HP, but they are far more sport-car like in that fact that everything it does comes at a cost of something else. Relatively low power means low fuel consumption and decent performance lightly loaded but on a hot day with some weight it becomes a slug. Sleek design means it has high cruise performance but that comes at the cost of a very cosy cabin - don't forget the minties!
Too many compromises for my liking, the RG just does a better job. M20s look a lot more handsome, I'll admit. justapplhere,
Sorry I don't but ACMS seems to have you covered.
One-eyed, me?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Down a dark hole
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a bunch of hours in Mooneys (up to M20J), 182RG ( and T182RG), C210.
Currently flying the "Fork-tailed Dr killer" (V35B).
I mostly fly high at about 60% power cause that seems to give me the best compromise of noise vs speed vs fuel burn.
V35B - over the last 300 hr it has averaged 162 kts, 52 l/hr, mostly with just me and a brief case on board.
My recollection of the others is as follows:
M20J - 160 if light, 155 if heavy
182RG - 155 light, 150 heavy
C210 - 165 light, 160 heavy
There are faster and slower individuals of all of these aircraft.
The fastest C210 I have flown gave a genuine 175 and the slowest 155 at the same power settings and altitude (same model).
Bonanza - pilot's aeroplane
M20J - sport's car
182RG - good honest aeroplane
C210 - good workhorse bush aeroplane but like driving a truck compared to the Bo
My choice?
C210 for work where I have to carry people or stuff
Mooney for personal transportation, particularly if I am paying for the fuel
Bonanza for doing either of the above with style
182RG - for work and personal transportation, if I can't get my hands on any of the others above.
What are they like to fly? All of them fly pretty much like an aeroplane (boom, boom!). Of no consequence if you were taught to fly properly in the first place and are properly checked out. The 182RG is maybe the "easiest" to get along with but there is only a bee's dick in it.
A few other thoughts!
Most people who dump on Mooneys have never flown one!
Would love to have a drive of one of the new 300/320 hp Mooneys.
Payload is irrelevant if you are mostly flying yourself around.
Forget the turbos, can't see any reason to fly a turbo'd single in Oz unless it is a P210 or a Mirage. The only turbo'd single I have flown is the T182RG. It gave the same speed as the normally aspirated one below 10,000 ft but burned 10 l/hr more, negligable difference in the climb. I just can not see the point where you don't have high and hot aerodromes or the Rockies to cross.
Cheers
Dr R
Thinks! Now this might stir up some debate.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 182RG as a comfortable load carrying all-rounder is unbeatable. Easy to operate, fairly straightforward to fly, (almost) unbreakble engine. 160 TAS might be a tad high unless you are above 8000 ish, although up there the fuel burn is much bette and you might even start to call them economical. Dont be fooled by some of the old dogs offered around though, like 210's good 182RG's are getting very hard to find now. As for the Moonery... URRR! Yeah, they are quick and look great, but what a quirky machine! Sitting there bolt upright, peering up out of those little windows, banging your head on the roof, barely being able to open a map or even move your elbows, next to useless ruddder in a crosswind. You love 'em or you hate 'em! Bonza is till the best single engined aircraft, even compared to the plastic stuff around now - but if you want to fly a Rolls Royce (overcomplicated maintenance nightmare), you'll probably end up paying for it. TB21 seems to have a quite a strong following but also a bit quirky in its own way? Lance/Saratoga not bad? Turbo Arrow - no sorry forget that one.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
business
..............part of the original question was pointing towards the intended flight being of a buisness nature...........that being the case one would need a fair amount of reliablity for their flying machine in order to arrive with confidence & on time, forget any turbo charged planes, too risky, not worth the so called extra unless yr flying high, that may not be the case if yr VFR (can't guarantee the wx). The C210 although a fast 6 seater isn't a plane you want to be in in rough air. A fully canter levered wing means a low turb penitration speed (less than 120 kts I seem to recall) & you can't haul the beast off the ground (fully loaded) early where as any of the C182's (semi canter levered fixed or rectract) can be if required dragged off a runway stall warning blowing to save a potential hazard,(of course not recomended).
The Beach A36 for Eg. built like a brick Sh*T house does the job nicely with around 4 soles on board, much more than that it's a trade off.
Mooney..........well see other inputs here, slippery for sure but nothing is free in aviation, no room to swing a cat, besides they look funny!:-)
At the end of the day go Commercial if you absolutely need to be there for business (although obviously still no guarentee) & save the private flying for fun where time & few KTS TAS between airframes isn't an issue:-)
Capt Wally :-)
The Beach A36 for Eg. built like a brick Sh*T house does the job nicely with around 4 soles on board, much more than that it's a trade off.
Mooney..........well see other inputs here, slippery for sure but nothing is free in aviation, no room to swing a cat, besides they look funny!:-)
At the end of the day go Commercial if you absolutely need to be there for business (although obviously still no guarentee) & save the private flying for fun where time & few KTS TAS between airframes isn't an issue:-)
Capt Wally :-)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Down a dark hole
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My brother, who is 6' 4" finds his M20J much more comportable than my V35B, in terms of leg room and head room. For shoulder room, there would not be much in it.
R
Last edited by Ratshit; 1st Nov 2006 at 01:11. Reason: spelling mistake (got to set a good example!)
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...............there's more to it than swinging a cat in the cabin "rat****", it's also about luggage space & the distance from the instrument panel for those that are vertically challenged !:-) I flew a M20J just once in my flying career & found it very cramped compared to the other 'spam cans' ............anyway at the end of the day it's horses for courses, it's all about experience & building hrs for some (for those that want to make flying a career at least), remember 3 hrs in a LearJet is the same as 3 hrs in a C150......just that afters 3 hrs in a C150 yr probably still in the same state !:-)
Capt Wally :-)
............anyway at the end of the day it's horses for courses, it's all about experience & building hrs for some (for those that want to make flying a career at least), remember 3 hrs in a LearJet is the same as 3 hrs in a C150......just that afters 3 hrs in a C150 yr probably still in the same state !:-)Capt Wally :-)