150-160kt cruisers
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
From: Farnham, Surrey, England
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
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
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
From: Maders UK
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
Oh dear, a hairy chest competition appears to have started.
I am not entering until the thread for 180-190kt cruisers starts!
SB
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
Oh dear, a hairy chest competition appears to have started.
I am not entering until the thread for 180-190kt cruisers starts!
SB
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
From: Amsterdam
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...
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...
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
From: UK
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).
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.
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
From: NE England
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.?
Bonanza
Mooney
TB20
SR22
DA42
etc.?
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,658
Likes: 501
From: Canada
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.
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.
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
From: NE England
Total cost of ownership will overwhelm the slight differences is speed and fuel flow
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.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
TB20 - due range with load.
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?
) 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.
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 581
Likes: 3
From: ZRH
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
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
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 110
Likes: 6
From: 52N
SF260
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.
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,658
Likes: 501
From: Canada
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Big Pistons Forever; 2nd November 2011 at 00:14.
