150-160kt cruisers
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Islander2
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!).
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.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: west of the Tamar
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: An island somewhere
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
No it does not; it is only a 1.15 difference. I assume you have a recently calibrated ASI and an accurate flowmeter.
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!)
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Room 249
Age: 39
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!
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!!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Room 249
Age: 39
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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,
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
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Room 249
Age: 39
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The SR22 is a good aircraft but in my opinion the G1000 system far surpasses the Integra.
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
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North of the border
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fast aircraft
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
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
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Maders UK
Age: 57
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Apart from that, my vote goes to the TB20/21
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Front of Beyond
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
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.
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
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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.
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 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.
Last edited by IO540; 7th Mar 2007 at 14:14.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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