1200 nm Every 2 wks.

[flyingcheesehead]

The trip is 1200 nm each way. (2400 nm round trip) Flying the 182(non-turbo) convinced me that she was not quite fast enough.

1200nm is a LONG day in a straight-leg 182.

My end points are Lubbock (LBB) and Chesapeake (KCPK) *LBB*

Looks like there's plenty of airports along the way should weather or mechanics dictate the need for a diversion... And the terrain is quite manageable as well. There are a lot of airplanes that can do the job for you on this route.

Before I started this adventure, I promised my wife and kids that I would stop for the night, if things deteriorated. This has happened to me twice: Little Rock (KLIT) and Jonesboro (KJBR).

Glad to hear it! It shows you've not only prepped for the tough decisions (makes 'em not so tough) but that you're willing to make them.

I am willing to start with one a/c and then sell and move to another. This was one of the reasons I was looking at the T182RG. Very familiar to me, a step up for someone interested in a faster 182, and parts/knowledgeable A&P's should not be hard to find.

Currently I am at 230 hours and working on finishing my Instrument Rating.

Y'know, given the above, I'd say to go ahead and get that TR182. It's familiar enough to keep you safe, but has enough additional capability to help you learn more. It's comfortable (essential on such long trips), capable, and shouldn't be too tough to insure since you've already got some 182 time. Use it for a year or two, fly the heck out of it, and then sell it to Grant and Leslie. They need one, even if they won't admit it to themselves.

In the meantime, you can track down some further info about the other types we're talking about in this thread, maybe get a chance to fly them, and decide what the next bird will be. Your willingness to move up again in a relatively short amount of time means that buying the TR182 now won't be such a tough decision; your willingness to fly commercial if necessary means that lack of radar/de-ice/whatever shouldn't be too big of a hindrance; you may even find that those occasions give you a much-needed break and that the TR182 is something you want to keep. Either way, it sounds like a great starting point for you.

Turbo would be nice, but can I hit 160-170 kt cruise without it?

Normally aspirated Twin Comanches will generally be in the 165-170 knot range, depending on rigging, speed mods, etc. So yes, it's possible to do 160-170 without turbos. But, the turbos can add to your speed and efficiency, plus give you more options to take advantage of tailwinds or stay out of weather.

 

[Trapper John]

Normally aspirated Twin Comanches will generally be in the 165-170 knot range, depending on rigging, speed mods, etc.

I think that's a bit optimistic. Nice airplanes, though.


Trapper John

 

[Aztec Driver]

I think that's a bit optimistic. Nice airplanes, though.


Trapper John

Its close. I routinely get 157-164. That'd be pretty much running them flat out though. They like to run that way, though.

 

[Ted]

The trip is 1200 nm each way. (2400 nm round trip) Flying the 182(non-turbo) convinced me that she was not quite fast enough. Also, I am certain that there will be times that I just don't feel like climbing into the cockpit. That is one reason I am willing to fly commercial periodically. My end points are Lubbock (LBB) and Chesapeake (KCPK) *LBB*

Well, I just flew that route last weekend (although I stopped in PVW and landed on the ice runway there). The terrain is fine for a naturally aspirated plane.

Given the fact that you're still working on your instrument rating and are content with upgrading at a later date, you're probably best off starting with a Mooney or a Comanche 250/260 (the Comanche 250 being the best price if you plan on upgrading). Good airplanes, really not that hard to fly (but will teach you to not be sloppy), and fast enough to not have the trip be boring. Fly that for a year or two, get a bunch of hours and put your instrument rating to work, and then upgrade to the de-iced twin (which ultimately is what you will probably want if you're doing trip like that regularly). Insurance will be a lot easier to obtain in a twin if you've got a bunch of complex time anyway.

But I don't want to be lying on my death bead saying, "I wish I had flown more." In a year, I may be posting the a/c for sale. I may even take a loss. But at least I will have tried.

There's a lot of wisdom in that statement!

I don't have real-world numbers 'cuz I don't own one yet, but my educated guesstimation is that 200 knots should be achievable at 65% at FL220, 75% somewhat lower. (I'd love to borrow one and do some flight tests with it to see how close my numbers are! )

I suppose at FL220 that might be possible. I'm told that it's possible on turbo Aztecs. In both cases I think that the people saying it are being optimistic. However flying along in an unpressurized aircraft at that altitude? May as well get a P-Baron. And there goes that slippery slope.

I would guess in the scenario we're discussing in this thread that the average trip would involve a fuel stop westbound, but could be done nonstop eastbound.

I would agree on that. You'd be looking at standard flight at 15,000 ft or above to accomplish that heading eastbound, and then depending on winds staying as low as 4,000 ft heading westbound (that's what I did). Winds can do funny things and he might get lucky and have a day where the winds decrease as he gets higher in altitude (I've had that happen), but it's rare.

That's definitely a big variable, especially since the Twinkie's turbo system was designed before the days of intercoolers. Though I haven't heard it discussed as an "issue" with the Twinkie, the cooling may not be great - The one I flew had the LoPresti cowls but you had to leave the cowl flaps halfway open to keep the engines cool, which kind of defeats the purpose of the fancy nose bowls. Oh well.

I view the engine cooling issue as likely the biggest hurdle for practical operation at those altitudes. Without an engine monitor you just don't know what the temps are doing. You'd likely have to keep the cowl flaps at least half open at altitude to keep the engine cool, or else run the thing stupid rich. I was talking with one of the old engineers about the turbo STCs, and he said the FAA had a lot of problems with them being added with minimal testing, which is another factor. The 4-cylinders do tend to cool better than the 6s, so that would be in your favor. It also depends on whether you view limits as goals (note: BAD idea, especially with an increased propensity to detonation from having the turbos).

Intercoolers would help a bit, but remember the primary function of intercoolers is to improve altitude performance, not to keep the CHTs down. The biggest issue for engine cooling is how much air gets over the engine.

Huh? That statement makes no sense to me.

There I go forgetting how to speak English. What I meant to say was that if the Twin Comanche's interior is anything like the single Comanche, I'd take the Travel Air any day.

 

[Amelia]

I've done the CPK to LBB and back trip several times-- or close enough-- in my Mooney 231. It's a long ride, but usually nice flying. I really appreciate the turbocharging, both the ease of leaping over southern Appalachian weather in a single bound, and not having to worry about density altitude on a blistering summer TX afternoon. I figure 165 at 12.5gp at 12000 feet for most trips, and adjust that depending on the winds aloft and how stingy I feel about buying another tank of O2. When coming east, there's often a great tailwind up higher, and worth every penny-- I've seen the groundspeed at 230kts, across the whole country with one gas stop. Not sure I'd want to have to do it every two weeks, but we had an ER doc here who made the trip from somewhere way north midwest every week for ages in his Mooney Ovation. How comfortable is it? I'm short and round, and especially with the newly refurbished seats, find it extremely comfortable. The airplane's designed, I think, for tall, trim guys, not linebackers, but my former partners were all three big men, and loved the Mooney for their Ohio-to-Florida golfing trips.

Especially once you have an instrument rating in hand, I'd suggest a good look at the turbo Mooneys, especially the 231s. The prices seem reasonable these days- often comparably priced with C182s, but with lots more bells and whistles. They're far more fuel-efficient than most aircraft that go that fast, and we've hauled our family of four back and forth across the nation a number of times in reasonable comfort.
It handles like a very nice sports car, with not a whole lot more room inside, but not as likely to collect speeding tickets.

 

[poadeleted20]

The trip is 1200 nm each way. (2400 nm round trip) Flying the 182(non-turbo) convinced me that she was not quite fast enough. Also, I am certain that there will be times that I just don't feel like climbing into the cockpit. That is one reason I am willing to fly commercial periodically. My end points are Lubbock (LBB) and Chesapeake (KCPK) *LBB*

Before I started this adventure, I promised my wife and kids that I would stop for the night, if things deteriorated. This has happened to me twice: Little Rock (KLIT) and Jonesboro (KJBR).

I agree that anything under 150 kts is going to get old. I spend most of my time in the TX/OK Panhandle. I agree that De-Ice is desirable, but I am willing to start with one a/c and then sell and move to another. This was one of the reasons I was looking at the T182RG. Very familiar to me, a step up for someone interested in a faster 182, and parts/knowledgeable A&P's should not be hard to find.

Currently I am at 230 hours and working on finishing my Instrument Rating. Known ice is not a problem. Either I slide my schedule or fly commercial. (I have more frequent flier miles that I care to admit.) Turbo would be nice, but can I hit 160-170 kt cruise without it?

As I told my father, if I was strictly running the numbers, I would not be looking at buying an a/c. I know a lot of guys that own "holes in the lake" into which they throw lots of money. And I agree that after the nth time I may hang up my wings. But I don't want to be lying on my death bead saying, "I wish I had flown more." In a year, I may be posting the a/c for sale. I may even take a loss. But at least I will have tried.

Although there are things you have to learn from yourself, a lot of lessons can be learned from others.

I appreciate the help.

MarkN

Depending on your budget, and based on your experience level, I might suggest looking at a Cirrus SR22 or Cessna 350 "Corvalis." They'll give you the speed you want, the payload you need, and the SR22 has known-icing. The Bonanzas and the like are no faster (modern aerodynamics versus folding gear) and will be easier for you to get into than a retractable plane at your experience level. If you don't have the budget for those planes, a used 36 Bonanza or C-210 would be an excellent choice. Given the rate at which your kids are growing, and the amount of baggage your family is likely to haul, I'd suggest staying away from the 200-HP 4-seaters.

 

[Ted]

It handles like a very nice sports car, with not a whole lot more room inside, but not as likely to collect speeding tickets.

I've noticed that when I go above 75 mph in my sports car, I get a speeding ticket. When I go below 180 mph in my plane, I get yelled at for not going fast enough.

 

[Dr. O]

I don't like being a party pooper but after pushing airplanes around this country for more than 50 years, I have pretty fixed ideas - mostly from scaring the crap out of myself a time or three... The problem here is that by the time you are well into flying 1200 miles the weather is well into changing from the forecast...

Doing XC trips in WX up to just this side of ice and thunderstorms, is twin country, not singles... This is way past GA flying and into the heart of business aviation... Needs to be turbo so you can go up high... Needs to have an AP... Needs radar and strike finder - Sirius WX is not good enough by itself when you are trying to thread the needle... And if you intend to push it, you need boots, prop slingers, and a heated window..

It isn't just the single versus twin issue, it is weight and the ability to punch through weather you didn't think was out there... There is a reason freight dogs fly clapped out Cessna 400's, Aztec's, Twin Commander 500, etc. - they get the job done...

denny-o

 

[Ted]

Threading the needle of thunderstorms and pushing it is not something that the OP sounds like he's wanting to do at this point, and since commercial is an option for him, it would be wise to take that option when the weather is bad.

Yes, the freight dogs are flying around in their winged F-350s. They're also carrying a lot of stuff while doing it, and they're trying to fly on a schedule for which commercial is not an option. I don't see an issue for the OP's mission with some of the singles out there. Of course weather changes from what is forecasted, but it can do that in 50 miles, it doesn't have to be 1200. By that argument, all of us should be flying around in FIKI birds with radar and strike finders.

WX looks bad? Take commercial. WX looks good? Take the personal plane. Questionable? Take commercial. He's already said he's stopped before on this trip when WX is bad, so it sounds like he's got a good self-preservation instinct going.

 

[Amelia]

As for threading between thunderstorms, I find my AnywhereMap with XM WX to be a huge help enroute, as would any gps with Nexrad depiction. It's good to be able to see the 'good-sized' hole in the line of big bad storms that ATC is proposing to send us through. Also good in winter to see that if we drop fifty miles south, we'll be able to avoid the possibility of freezing precip in that widespread area of 'green' returns. That little gadget alone has made a number of iffy trips entirely do-able for us.

And then, there's always the chance to stop when it gets ugly. I've actually had very few weather delays that didn't atone for themselves somehow-- a hotel bar with a totally unexpected and exceptionally good bluegrass band, a lovely family that insisted on taking me to their nice warm house to dry my camping gear in their dryer overnight, a chance to explore a charming little river town on my own, while the weather cleared between me and home, and more.

Sounds like such a fun job- and that's just getting to it and back. I need one like that.

 

[Ted]

Yep, agreed on the AnywhereMap. I used the weather function to avoid precip as well and keep out of what could be annoying icing, and stay in the trace stuff. It has its limits vs. on-board radar, but it also has its advantages. Important to understand both.

 

[tdager]

Whatever you decide...I wish you luck. I love flying, so much that I moved into a fly-in community, but your trip just sounds grueling, not fun. As someone else said...you will be status flyer on commercial in no time with that kind of flying. Go commercial with the occasional fun trip in your plane.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I think that's a bit optimistic. Nice airplanes, though.

Actually, I flew an A model with some speed mods that did a little better than 170. The B and C models are supposed to be just a hair faster. If I was flying one that couldn't do 165, I'd probably want to get the rigging looked at...

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I suppose at FL220 that might be possible. I'm told that it's possible on turbo Aztecs. In both cases I think that the people saying it are being optimistic. However flying along in an unpressurized aircraft at that altitude? May as well get a P-Baron. And there goes that slippery slope.

Funny how that slippery slope thing works, huh?

Intercoolers would help a bit, but remember the primary function of intercoolers is to improve altitude performance, not to keep the CHTs down. The biggest issue for engine cooling is how much air gets over the engine.

Right, but especially if you're running LOP and trying to use excess air to help cool the engine from the inside too, it helps if that air is cool. I don't think it's a huge effect, but it's there.

There I go forgetting how to speak English. What I meant to say was that if the Twin Comanche's interior is anything like the single Comanche, I'd take the Travel Air any day.

Really? Why? For me, I tend to feel a little cramped in the Bo/Baron/Travel Air cockpit and bump my head on the top of most of them, while the Comanche is wide, comfy, and a bit more squared off on top so I don't bump my head.

 

[poadeleted20]

One more point...

I've often see folks dissatisfied because they bought not quite enough airplane for the job. I've rarely seen them dissatisfied over having bought a little too much airplane for the job.

 

[Rightseat]

You might want to tread the fine line of speed /gph and check out the Mooneys. Even at 6'1" you'd probably be alright up front. If you're not in too big a hurry you can sometimes find one for a reasonable price.
Old M20E's can be made acceptable. Stick to paved runways when possible, though. Just a thought.

 

[Ted]

Whatever you decide...I wish you luck. I love flying, so much that I moved into a fly-in community, but your trip just sounds grueling, not fun. As someone else said...you will be status flyer on commercial in no time with that kind of flying. Go commercial with the occasional fun trip in your plane.

This also depends on how you are as a person. I flew 70 hours last month, and I'm not tired of it yet. I was pretty tired after flying from California to New York in one day (this is shortly following North Carolina to Utah in a day). I'm insane, but he might be as well.

That said, I wouldn't want to do that trip any slower than 150 kts. As it is I could stand for 200. Slippery slope, here I come.

Funny how that slippery slope thing works, huh?

Yeah, and P-Barons have Continentals in them. Might as well buy a King Air.

Right, but especially if you're running LOP and trying to use excess air to help cool the engine from the inside too, it helps if that air is cool. I don't think it's a huge effect, but it's there.

I don't claim to know enough about physics to understand all the finite details of what happens in combustion, but I really don't see LOP operation as cooling the cylinders with air. That's like saying that by cooling the cylinders with fuel you're physically using the fuel to keep them cooled. My understanding is that it has to do with the lower temperatures and pressures of combustion that occur. Past a certain point, you just stop having enough power to create heat to keep the heads hot. Remember the air in the cylinder is used for combustion, not for cooling.

Really? Why? For me, I tend to feel a little cramped in the Bo/Baron/Travel Air cockpit and bump my head on the top of most of them, while the Comanche is wide, comfy, and a bit more squared off on top so I don't bump my head.

Keep in mind that you are (insert Russian accent) large man who will survive in Siberia, whereas I have the French body frame that was built to surrender and can fit conveniently into most overhead luggage compartments if folded up properly. I can see that if width was an issue the Comanche might be nicer, but I like the larger open area of the Travel Air/Baron vs. the Comanche. More open space is more better to me.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

You might want to tread the fine line of speed /gph and check out the Mooneys. Even at 6'1" you'd probably be alright up front.

Unless you're disproportionately short of leg and long of torso, the Mooneys are great for us tall folks. Al Mooney was 6'5" and he built himself an airplane. However, in terms of "roominess" it's about the same as a Cherokee, just has more leg room. I also have very tight hamstrings and if I sit in that sports-car style seating position for too long I get a backache. That's why I like the 182, it's more upright and there's room to move my legs around and get circulation going again when I've been up for a while.

I don't claim to know enough about physics to understand all the finite details of what happens in combustion, but I really don't see LOP operation as cooling the cylinders with air. That's like saying that by cooling the cylinders with fuel you're physically using the fuel to keep them cooled. My understanding is that it has to do with the lower temperatures and pressures of combustion that occur.

True - But the hotter the stuff is that you put in, the more heat there is to dissipate. Conservation of matter and energy and all that crap.

Past a certain point, you just stop having enough power to create heat to keep the heads hot.

Yup. That's part of why my Turbo Twinkie daydreams generally involve me going high but running no more than 65%, roughly 23 squared.

I can see that if width was an issue the Comanche might be nicer, but I like the larger open area of the Travel Air/Baron vs. the Comanche. More open space is more better to me.

Larger open area? The Comanche interior is bigger, thus more "open area" unless you rode in one of the ones where the back seats go to the ceiling and block off the baggage compartment. That's something you generally see only on the early single Comanches that were out before the Twin. I've seen a couple of Twins that way and I don't like 'em either, but probably 98% or more of the twins are open.

Personally, when I buy I'll be looking for a B or C model, those have the third side window which also increases the feeling of roominess if not the actual amount of space in the cabin. Having the one-piece windshield mod that cuts part of the top of the cabin away would help there, too.

Examples:
Stock windscreen:

One single-piece mod - Doesn't change viewable area except to remove the middle strip:

The "good" (Arapaho/Knots2U) windscreen mod:

Notice that on the last one, they cut the front of the roof so that the edge of the windscreen's top follows the line up the side of the windscreen, and not the line of the tops of the side windows:

 

[Ted]

True - But the hotter the stuff is that you put in, the more heat there is to dissipate. Conservation of matter and energy and all that crap.

Right, but that change in temperature for such a small amount of air amounts to something that's virtually insignificant. I've done plenty of tests with varying IATs, and I haven't seen a direct correlation between IAT and CHT. They will impact power output and detonation characteristics and those will impact CHT, but it's really not a matter of the air temperature itself causing any amount of cooling. Intercoolers are added to improve altitude performance, not to lower CHTs.

Yup. That's part of why my Turbo Twinkie daydreams generally involve me going high but running no more than 65%, roughly 23 squared.

I haven't looked closely at the Twinkie's cowling, but the planes I've seen that do well up high have big bigger cowl holes than that. You'll have to see for yourself, but as I've said I think it'll be more challenging than you think.

Larger open area? The Comanche interior is bigger, thus more "open area" unless you rode in one of the ones where the back seats go to the ceiling and block off the baggage compartment. That's something you generally see only on the early single Comanches that were out before the Twin. I've seen a couple of Twins that way and I don't like 'em either, but probably 98% or more of the twins are open.

Ok, that would probably make a difference. I've only been in early Comanches with the back seat going to the ceiling, so I didn't know they were made any other way. I've also been in one of the nicest Travel Airs out there, so that's probably why I like them.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Right, but that change in temperature for such a small amount of air amounts to something that's virtually insignificant. I've done plenty of tests with varying IATs, and I haven't seen a direct correlation between IAT and CHT. They will impact power output and detonation characteristics and those will impact CHT, but it's really not a matter of the air temperature itself causing any amount of cooling.

Aha. It's great to get real data straight from the horse's mouth sometimes! Thanks! (Not that I'm calling you a horse, of course. )

I haven't looked closely at the Twinkie's cowling, but the planes I've seen that do well up high have big bigger cowl holes than that. You'll have to see for yourself, but as I've said I think it'll be more challenging than you think.

I'd be happy to run some tests, if someone will give me an airplane.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

MOONEY
-Fast
-Sips fuel
-plenty of them around
-you can get a 6' person in no problem
-Room for 4 for the occasional family trip

I was wondering why it took so long for somebody to say Mooney. M20K or M20J would fit nicely... even if he's tall. I'm tall and big, and Mooney was fast, efficient, and comfortable, even for long flights. It was the closest to "wearing" an airplane I've come.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

Yes a Mooney is a good choice, probably the most cost effective in the speed range.

However I suggest you fly one on some long trips. In my younger (and skinnier) days, I found the Mooney to be adequate but not comfortable after a few hours.

With stock seats / cushions, yes. But fixable:

http://www.oregonaero.com/p29-2001.htm

 

[gismo]

Threading the needle of thunderstorms and pushing it is not something that the OP sounds like he's wanting to do at this point, and since commercial is an option for him, it would be wise to take that option when the weather is bad.

Yes, the freight dogs are flying around in their winged F-350s. They're also carrying a lot of stuff while doing it, and they're trying to fly on a schedule for which commercial is not an option. I don't see an issue for the OP's mission with some of the singles out there. Of course weather changes from what is forecasted, but it can do that in 50 miles, it doesn't have to be 1200. By that argument, all of us should be flying around in FIKI birds with radar and strike finders.

WX looks bad? Take commercial. WX looks good? Take the personal plane. Questionable? Take commercial. He's already said he's stopped before on this trip when WX is bad, so it sounds like he's got a good self-preservation instinct going.

On a trip that long I'd expect the weather to be "good" far less than half the time and there will be plenty of times when the forecast is farily benign but the weather turns out a lot worse.

 

[Ted]

On a trip that long I'd expect the weather to be "good" far less than half the time and there will be plenty of times when the forecast is farily benign but the weather turns out a lot worse.

Agreed. So until the OP gets to the point where he can safely fly in and around that sort of weather, he'll be taking commercial a lot or getting delayed. Seems to be how things worked for me.

 

[Aztec Driver]

While that trip would be fun occasionally, I would think it would turn into drudgery and certainly be a lot more expensive and time consuming than taking commercial. A flight of that length, considering engine reserves and maintenance reserves, would likely be 3 times the cost of a commercial flight, take at least 2 times the time of a commercial flight, and be exhausting by the time it is finished, especially if there is any weather issues to be dealt with. (this is the realist in me talking)
Now me? I am insane enough to do it, if I had the money to justify it. my Twinkie would do the job reasonably well, but I would definitely have to get an autopilot to ease the load. (Anybody have a spare 30K they want to get rid of?)

 

[Everskyward]

The trip is 1200 nm each way. (2400 nm round trip) Flying the 182(non-turbo) convinced me that she was not quite fast enough. Also, I am certain that there will be times that I just don't feel like climbing into the cockpit. That is one reason I am willing to fly commercial periodically. My end points are Lubbock (LBB) and Chesapeake (KCPK) *LBB*

Before I started this adventure, I promised my wife and kids that I would stop for the night, if things deteriorated. This has happened to me twice: Little Rock (KLIT) and Jonesboro (KJBR).

I was going to ask if you had tried this trip in a rental, but apparently you have so you are aware how long it really is.

I agree that De-Ice is desirable, but I am willing to start with one a/c and then sell and move to another. This was one of the reasons I was looking at the T182RG. Very familiar to me, a step up for someone interested in a faster 182, and parts/knowledgeable A&P's should not be hard to find.

I think T182RG or a T210 would be a good choice if you like the Cessna line. Most of the other singles mentioned here would be fine too, depending on your personal taste and willingness to spend. There are always trade-offs and I don't think there is the "perfect" airplane. Also, what's perfect for someone else may not be your idea of perfect. At your experience level I would start with a single and decide later if you want a twin, not only because of your lower time but because it is your first experience owning.

As I told my father, if I was strictly running the numbers, I would not be looking at buying an a/c. I know a lot of guys that own "holes in the lake" into which they throw lots of money. And I agree that after the nth time I may hang up my wings. But I don't want to be lying on my death bead saying, "I wish I had flown more." In a year, I may be posting the a/c for sale. I may even take a loss. But at least I will have tried.

I think that's a good way to look at it.

 

[steingar]

I'm also 6'2" and 150 lbs.

What, did you spend some time on the Bataan death march? I'm 5'7" and 150 lbs, and I'm not even fat dammitt!!! I'm not, I'm not, I'm not! Eat some ho ho's or something for gosh sakes!

 

[Ted]

While that trip would be fun occasionally, I would think it would turn into drudgery and certainly be a lot more expensive and time consuming than taking commercial. A flight of that length, considering engine reserves and maintenance reserves, would likely be 3 times the cost of a commercial flight, take at least 2 times the time of a commercial flight, and be exhausting by the time it is finished, especially if there is any weather issues to be dealt with. (this is the realist in me talking)
Now me? I am insane enough to do it, if I had the money to justify it. my Twinkie would do the job reasonably well, but I would definitely have to get an autopilot to ease the load. (Anybody have a spare 30K they want to get rid of?)

I've done plenty of 1200 nm one way trips without an AP. I am so, so glad I have a working one now.

It really does come down to your personal insanity level. Like you, I'm (obviously) insane enough to do it, and so I'm inherently encouraging of such insanity. But a lot of people aren't, and that's just fine.

 

[Areeda]

It's always fun to compare small airplane GA to airline travel. For a trip like this it's at the limits that GA competes well.

Just for fun, there doesn't seem to be airline service to KCPK, so I'd probably go to Norfolk (ORF). Thre are no direct flights so travel time varies from about 5:30 for 1 stop and 8:45 for 2 stops. I'm not sure how early you have to arrive at Lubbock LAX is saying 1.5 to 2 hrs (fortunately I haven't tried it in a few years), also you have to consider drive time and parking (or taxi) time. If you have to check luggage add an hour. Rent a car and drive add another 45 min. So I have airline travel (door to door) at somewhere from 7-11 hrs.

GA in a 150 kt plane is 8-9 hrs plus a 1 hr stop to refuel, eat and stretch, plus drive to the airport and preflight say 1 hr, plus tie-down, check in and get rental car at destination say .5. So GA is 10.5-12 hrs.

Cost for the airline is $450, GA depends but for my Cirrus with our reserves would be about $1,500.

There are several intangibles.

If the schedule is fluid, ie you start whenever you get there and you leave when you're done, much of the airlines time advantage can evaporate. If you work late, go back to the hotel for a good nights sleep and the choice is a 0700 departure GA or a 1300 departure for the airlines. Also if it doesn't matter whether you get to work Monday or Tuesday morning, much of the GA disadvantage goes away.

The airlines have a much higher dispatch rate and can make it through much more severe weather, so if the schedule is not so flexible the airlines can't be beat.

Just musings that I have used to justify (delude myself) using GA so I can write off what I find a much more enjoyable way to travel.

Joe

 

[weilke]

Just musings that I have used to justify (delude myself) using GA so I can write off what I find a much more enjoyable way to travel.

IF you have that kind of flexibility in your schedule, the money to burn and you know that you are deluding yourself, all is well :smile:

 

[weilke]

What, did you spend some time on the Bataan death march? I'm 5'7" and 150 lbs, and I'm not even fat dammitt!!! I'm not, I'm not, I'm not! Eat some ho ho's or something for gosh sakes!

I'm 6'3'' and would consider spending 1200nm in a Mooney the equivalent of the Bataan death march.

 

[Amelia]

If you're looking for further justification for flying yourself, you can add the delay due to weather upstream somewhere. Let's say the equipment failed to arrive at ORF, thanks to a snarl-up in PHL, and by the time they were able to get their clearance, the crew timed out, nobody else available. In any case, better luck in a day or two. Go stand in that very long line and we'll see what we can do for you. Another three hours shot, but at least you're not an active duty serviceman wasting precious holiday leave time like 40 % of the others in line with you. Add another two hours driving home. By the way, it's a 'weather cancellation' even though it's severe-clear at ORF, so the airline doesn't owe you a dime in compensation, much less comped supper during the hours you spend waiting for them to get their collective 'stuff' together before they finally call it a night. Also, you finally make it to the ticket counter, and find the next best time they can get you there is day-after-tomorrow. And you arrive day after tomorrow to find the flight badly oversold, and you, poor dear, are SOL. Better luck tomorrow or next week or whenever they'll find you a ride. Maybe.
Far fetched? Nope. That's the unvarnished truth of my last attempt to fly commercial from ORF to STL. Took three weeks to get there commercial, of which 16 hours were spent actually driving to and from the terminal, arranging for parking, getting my shoes x-rayed, waiting in an endless line for a revised departure time, finally actually flying, and arriving, and more driving to my real destination. The trip home in my Mooney, on the other hand, even with an Angel Flight drop off that took almost 3 extra hours, it took 7 hours from door to door. Six of those hours were on my Hobbs. Time in a queue in my stocking feet? None. Time driving to airport? Well less than an hour, most of that at the St. Louis end.

Short answer: Whatever the GA equivalent is of "If ya got 'em, smoke 'em!" If I NEVER have to fly commercial again, I'll bear up under the strain somehow.

 

[mn_voyageur]

Where do I start? Let's begin with, I appreciate all of the feedback.

First, my commercial trip takes 6-8 hours. This would be flying American and NOT have to fly on an ATR. (They are terrible about cancelling the ATR flights.) Start with the 1.5 hour drive from my house to the airport. Then add .5-1 hour for TSA/Security Theater. Add the 1 hour drive at the other end. (+$100 for parking.) At best, I have invested 1.5 + .5 + 6 + 1 = 9 hours. Get an ATR flight on American Eagle and you might as well tack on another 2 hours.

Fly myself and I can use a small private strip near my house. (10 minutes) The owner is an A&P and has a paved runway and a HUGE hanger. At the other end, I have a local ariport that is only 10 minutes from my apartment. Park my truck in my hanger and I save the $100 for parking.

Bryon said,

A flight of that length, considering engine reserves and maintenance reserves, would likely be 3 times the cost of a commercial flight, take at least 2 times the time of a commercial flight, and be exhausting by the time it is finished, especially if there is any weather issues to be dealt with. (this is the realist in me talking)

Bryon, I have already run the math. I am looking at $800/flight versus $2,200/month. Even if I fly twice a month, I am coming up short. However, other things work into the equation. Start with the commercial travel requirements. Then add the flexibility that is gained. It is a trade-off that I already discussed with my boss. Yes, I may want to slide a day periodically, but so can he. Let's say there is a last minute staff meeting. No problem. Schedule the meeting for 9 or 10 AM. At the airport before Noon. Off the ground by 1 PM and home by 8 or 9 PM.

You just can't do that flying commercial. (Okay, maybe I am being dramatic.)

I have thought of Mooney, but I will have to fly the route in one before buying. I have an old hockey injury and causes my left hip to cramp, if I sit in one position for long periods.

I flew an Angle Flight in the Twin Comanche. I enjoyed it, but the cabin was a bit short. I know this because all three of us bumped our heads several times during the trip. Maybe the moderate chop was a "contributing" factor. (We began tightening our seat belts after the second hit, but we did not tighten enough.)

I am beginning to think that a T182RG or a Twin Comanche might be good choices. Fly it for two years and go from there. Two years and 400-800 hours of complex and/or multi-time would help with the next a/c I buy.

Does anyone have a hanger queen they want to lease? I'll pay the insurance and kick into a maintenance fund. Pay for routine maintenance. Anything major happens, we could pro-rate the repairs. (Or am I dreaming? If I am, don't wake me!)

MarkN

 

[Aztec Driver]

Where do I start? Let's begin with, I appreciate all of the feedback.

First, my commercial trip takes 6-8 hours. This would be flying American and NOT have to fly on an ATR. (They are terrible about cancelling the ATR flights.) Start with the 1.5 hour drive from my house to the airport. Then add .5-1 hour for TSA/Security Theater. Add the 1 hour drive at the other end. (+$100 for parking.) At best, I have invested 1.5 + .5 + 6 + 1 = 9 hours. Get an ATR flight on American Eagle and you might as well tack on another 2 hours.

Fly myself and I can use a small private strip near my house. (10 minutes) The owner is an A&P and has a paved runway and a HUGE hanger. At the other end, I have a local ariport that is only 10 minutes from my apartment. Park my truck in my hanger and I save the $100 for parking.

Bryon said,


Bryon, I have already run the math. I am looking at $800/flight versus $2,200/month. Even if I fly twice a month, I am coming up short. However, other things work into the equation. Start with the commercial travel requirements. Then add the flexibility that is gained. It is a trade-off that I already discussed with my boss. Yes, I may want to slide a day periodically, but so can he. Let's say there is a last minute staff meeting. No problem. Schedule the meeting for 9 or 10 AM. At the airport before Noon. Off the ground by 1 PM and home by 8 or 9 PM.

You just can't do that flying commercial. (Okay, maybe I am being dramatic.)

I have thought of Mooney, but I will have to fly the route in one before buying. I have an old hockey injury and causes my left hip to cramp, if I sit in one position for long periods.

I flew an Angle Flight in the Twin Comanche. I enjoyed it, but the cabin was a bit short. I know this because all three of us bumped our heads several times during the trip. Maybe the moderate chop was a "contributing" factor. (We began tightening our seat belts after the second hit, but we did not tighten enough.)

I am beginning to think that a T182RG or a Twin Comanche might be good choices. Fly it for two years and go from there. Two years and 400-800 hours of complex and/or multi-time would help with the next a/c I buy.

Does anyone have a hanger queen they want to lease? I'll pay the insurance and kick into a maintenance fund. Pay for routine maintenance. Anything major happens, we could pro-rate the repairs. (Or am I dreaming? If I am, don't wake me!)

MarkN

I'd sure think about it, but my partner and wife would both kill me, and you'd rather have something with an autopilot anyway.

I see your points, and certainly GA wins out over any of the commercial when it comes to convenience. If cost is not an object, GA usually is better.

My standard flights are from Lancaster, Pa to Nashville, TN. Door to door, I can about tie with the airlines, only because it is 2-2.5 hours to drive to Baltimore and stand in line. Even adding parking into it, though, unless I fill the airplane, I can't even come close to doing it as cheap as Southwest. And that only takes into consideration the fuel burn on the Twinkie, none of the reserves.

 

[mn_voyageur]

Bryon,

Are you flying a Twin Comanche?

What do you flight plan at and what do you actually see? (Atl, Speed, vs Fuel)

MarkN

 

[mn_voyageur]

One quick question:

What is: TSFREML&R
Time
Since
Factory

And I run out of words before I run out of letters!

MarkN

 

[Areeda]

how about Time Since Factory REManufacture on both Left and Right engine?

 

[mn_voyageur]

Got it.

Thanks.

 

[Aztec Driver]

Bryon,

Are you flying a Twin Comanche?

What do you flight plan at and what do you actually see? (Atl, Speed, vs Fuel)

MarkN

157 kts @6000 18gph
Normally aspirated, 160hp per side.
Works great, but I limit my leg to 3.5 - 4 hours at a time, due to fuel. That may require two fuel stops going west bound for your trips.

I have found it to be one of the best combination of speed, payload, and operating expenses.

 

[mn_voyageur]

So, you plan 157 kts @6000 18gph. Is this considered cruise speed? 75%? 65%?

Since I would not fly at 6,000', do I adjust the 157 based upon TAS vs IAS?

The reason for asking is that a turbo becomes a game changer on my 1200 nm hops. If we eliminate the wind component, does the following work?

157 (IAS) @ 6,000 = 7.6 (Probably longer, since this does not include the CFIT in WV)
157 (IAS) @ 12,000 = 197 TAS = 6.1
157 (IAS) @ 18,000 = 222 TAS = 5.4​

So, now let's make assumptions: (I foresee some critical replies.)

PA-30-C Turbo has a cruise speed of 209 kts. (according to Risingup.com)
209 (IAS) @ 18,000 = 296 TAS = 4 hours.
Rate of Climb = 1290 fpm, therefore the climb to 18,000 from 6,000 would take 12 minutes.(12,000' / 1,000 fpm)​

I am certain that I am making a few beginner mistakes. I just want to know what they are.

MarkN