150 knots for $150k

Geosync said:
Maybe Mooney M20E?
Click to expand...

I have an M20E and it's not a 4-place plane even for someone as short as OP. The useful load is not there. I only have 880 lbs. With 30 gallons of gas, it's only 175 lbs per person. Although with $150k to throw at this project, he does not need to limit himself to an M20E. But a J isn't going to carry much more. The gross is only bumped on it by 165 pounds and the longer fuselage is heavier. Also, I'm not making 150 knots unless at 2700 rpms and down low, burning 13 gph at best power. 150 kt at 10 gph is pure fantasy. Well, a J can do it. M20E - no way.
 
Stephen Shore said:
I don't know the physical dimensions of the OP, but if he is like me (and alot of other middle age men), he is fat. I am 6'1" and 230 lbs. That makes a big difference for the answer to this "150 kt"question.

For me, it meant a 1995 Commander 114B - you can be a lard a@#$ and not touch shoulders with you co-pilot - very important to me even when my co-pilot is my wife. I just like to sit in my own seat and not have anyone touch me.

I love the Bonanza / Baron airplanes - have flown several of each. But they are just cramped to me.

If you do consider a Commander, I would only consider the later models (1992-2003) 114B and 114TC models if possible. For your budget, you can get a nice 114B although probably not a 114TC.

Cessna 206 would be another one on my short list - same reason as the Commander - big air frame and pilot's side door.

The other choice I could have made was to get in better shape and therefore have more options open up to me - Bonanza / Mooney, etc. However, that did not work out.
Click to expand...

Why do you only recommend the Commander 114B? I thought the main difference between the A/B models was just the “restart” modernized interior design and some minor aerodynamic mods (gap seals, etc.).
 
SoonerAviator said:
Why do you only recommend the Commander 114B? I thought the main difference between the A/B models was just the “restart” modernized interior design and some minor aerodynamic mods (gap seals, etc.).
Click to expand...
In reality, quite a few differences:

1. Cowl modification which does gain 5-7 kts in cruise.
2. Lycoming IO-540 in the 114B is a dual mag vs. the single drive dual mag in the 114.
3. Several ADs taken care of in the tail.
4. 20 year newer airframe on the 114B with more updated avionics (still outdated), but a better chance at a newer AP for one thing - hopefully a KFC 200. BTW - when I bought mine it had a KLN 90B which I flew with for quite some time and found it to be a perfectly adequate GPS navigator. Not that I miss it now, but it was useful.

I would not advise anyone to NOT buy the older Rockwell 114, but at the budget the OP put in place, I just think a 114B is doable.
 
FormerHangie said:
It does, but you pay a premium because they are working airplanes



Depending on the engine installed, yes, but they are very rare and are likely to have ancient radios.



Also uncommon and likely to be equipped with a vintage radio stack. Not a lot of mechanics with Jacobs experience these days.


Tiny, scarce. Same is true for the Thorp T-18


For 150k?

The OP expressed a preference for a trigear airplane, why does that bother you?
Click to expand...

It doesn’t, read what he wrote above my response.

Radios are all over the place, lots of folks who own a 195 or the like might be into it enough to swap in a 430 when that old radio dies.

That said, easy answer is a PA24
 
zaitcev said:
I have an M20E and it's not a 4-place plane even for someone as short as OP. The useful load is not there. I only have 880 lbs. With 30 gallons of gas, it's only 175 lbs per person. Although with $150k to throw at this project, he does not need to limit himself to an M20E. But a J isn't going to carry much more. The gross is only bumped on it by 165 pounds and the longer fuselage is heavier. Also, I'm not making 150 knots unless at 2700 rpms and down low, burning 13 gph at best power. 150 kt at 10 gph is pure fantasy. Well, a J can do it. M20E - no way.
Click to expand...

A modified E can do it (J cowling and windshield).

Early Js were delivered 1000lbs empty weight, so if you shorted the fuel (44 gals...about 5 hours worth at 150Knots), you are looking at 184lbs per person if carrying 4.
Later Js got heavier (additional gear doors, extra farings, wing tips, more avionics....so they increase the maximum load 160lbs, but the net was about the same.
Early Js usually have gained weight with age (haven’t we all).
I never burn close to 10gph, usually more like 8-9 because I fly 8000 or above and always LOP.


Tom
 
Was up today and had the presence of mind to snap this. Just shy of 150 TAS at 6500 on 14gph ~60% power.

and yeah if OP can catch me on a day in free with good weather we can go for a ride around the quincy area or something.
 

Attachments

  • 5E8677F8-3CCD-494A-8B1B-7A8F7A73104B.jpeg
    5E8677F8-3CCD-494A-8B1B-7A8F7A73104B.jpeg
    374.5 KB · Views: 82
NealRomeoGolf said:
@EdFred am I looking at the Comanche charts right that the Comanche 250 is basically 150 knots at 65% and 13.5 gph?
Click to expand...
My Chart says 12.3gph at 65% at 8000ft. In my plane thats 150-155kts. I run full throttle try to fly in the sweet spot of 9000-11k feet and you can get 160kts on less than 13gph at peak EGTs. Now every airframe will be different but it's not really slow. Plus with 90gals of fuel on board, range is also speed.
 
yup.....I think I was pushing 15.5 gph with this...and maybe 10 kts tail wind.....and I'd be glad to let it go for $150K. ;)
 

Attachments

  • 098C8616-7121-419E-851A-7893FC7AC51B.jpg
    098C8616-7121-419E-851A-7893FC7AC51B.jpg
    101.6 KB · Views: 68
Checkout_my_Six said:
yup.....I think I was pushing 15.5 gph with this...and maybe 10 kts tail wind.....and I'd be glad to let it go for $150K. ;)
Click to expand...
Don’t you have one of those dreaded V tails? Kinda like the arrow with the spar issue, I ain’t touching a V tail until that problem is solved. I already have my own spar issue hanging over my current plane (PA28).
 
meh....the V tail isn't a problem. They just need a home....not one of those to sit out side and forget about.

Sounds like you may require two engines....with that kinda lore. a 55 or 56 could work....or the 33 series with an IO-550R mod. Those are hot rods.

But the thread title is a bit telling of your aircraft ownership experience.....it ain't the purchase price....it's the cost of ownership that needs to be pondered.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
meh....the V tail isn't a problem. They just need a home....not one of those to sit out side and forget about.

Sounds like you may require two engines....with that kinda lore. a 55 or 56 could work....or the 33 series with an IO-550R mod. Those are hot rods.

But the thread title is a bit telling of your aircraft ownership experience.....it ain't the purchase price....it's the cost of ownership that needs to be pondered.
Click to expand...
I think you underestimate me. First step is to narrow down the capex. Next step is to narrow down the opex. I already published above the fuel burn specs for each to get 150 knots. Next step would be researching ADs and other heart burn that go with each model. This is just the beginning. I may get tired and say screw it and just overpay for an A36. We’ll see.
 
analysis....of....paralysis. Wow....:D


Better just stick with your Cherokee....you're not gonna find a Prius of the sky. ;)
 
The 182RG also has the dual mag, but the O-540 is only rated at 235 hp, which means you’re watching manifold pressure during climb until you get high enough to go wide open. I get 150kts all day between 6000 and 8000. And you can definitely find one for substantially less than $150k. If you really want to spend that much, I would be happy to sell you mine and throw in my car with it.
 
Looks like the TB20 has gone the fate of the Mooney on my list. Terrible baggage door.
 
You could look at a Debonair. 150kts and burn Mogas while doing it. I paid $2.80 last week, burn a little less than 12gph for 150kts.

Less than $35 hr for fuel at 150kts.
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
After I did the math in another thread about flying to football games, it got me to thinking that my airplane (Piper Archer) is really slow. So what 150 knot airplanes could I get for around $150k?
Click to expand...

Have you looked into the bigger brother of your Archer? The 236 Dakota. With a few speed mods, it gets close to 150 knots. No retractable concerns, and the useful load makes it a true 4 place.
 
lsaway said:
Have you looked into the bigger brother of your Archer? The 236 Dakota. With a few speed mods, it gets close to 150 knots. No retractable concerns, and the useful load makes it a true 4 place.
Click to expand...
I was researching it today, actually. I didn't see any articles that said it could hit 150. Maybe I will look harder.
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
I was researching it today, actually. I didn't see any articles that said it could hit 150. Maybe I will look harder.
Click to expand...

The turbo Dakota will but then you're swapping the reduced maintenance of a fixed gear for a turbo maintenance burden. I have no idea how much that burden is.
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
I was researching it today, actually. I didn't see any articles that said it could hit 150. Maybe I will look harder.
Click to expand...

Well, it won't hit 150, but it is close. Years ago, I had some time in a 236 with some Knots-2-U speed mods. I usually flew it light, but 145ish + knots is what I would see. I think it was a good compromise of speed, simplicity, and useful load. It did like to drink. They used to be priced high, but the prices have come way down on them.
 
I was in the hangar yesterday and checked how high the lower edge of the baggage door is on my Mooney. It is definitely higher than the belt of my trousers and comes at around the level of the solar plexus. Frankly, I can imagine someone who's too short to load a dog crate in there. A petite Asian woman, for example. Also, if the crate is large enough to hold a German Shepherd, it may not even fit.
 
OneCharlieTango said:
A Grumman tiger might be a little slower than the OP's target, but a lot cheaper. And a lot faster than the Archer.
Click to expand...

I would not say the Grumman is a lot faster. I true my Archer2 133-134kts at 75% from 8.5-9.5k 100 degrees rich of peak at around 10.5gph.
 
zaitcev said:
I was in the hangar yesterday and checked how high the lower edge of the baggage door is on my Mooney. It is definitely higher than the belt of my trousers and comes at around the level of the solar plexus. Frankly, I can imagine someone who's too short to load a dog crate in there. A petite Asian woman, for example. Also, if the crate is large enough to hold a German Shepherd, it may not even fit.
Click to expand...
I once transported 6 cats and a dog spread among six crates. It took some tetris magic to fit but the lower access in my Archer made it possible. I am sure it would still be doable in a Mooney but it would most likely require going up and down the wing a lot. Not ideal, which is why Mooneys are probably staying off the list. I know a Mooney on the field that I could try it on before completely ruling them out.
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
I once transported 6 cats and a dog spread among six crates. It took some tetris magic to fit but the lower access in my Archer made it possible. I am sure it would still be doable in a Mooney but it would most likely require going up and down the wing a lot. Not ideal, which is why Mooneys are probably staying off the list. I know a Mooney on the field that I could try it on before completely ruling them out.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a rear door might be more valuable than 150 knots? If so, Lance/Cherokee 6/Saratoga or a 205/206 might be good enough in speed but get you the loading ease you're after?
 
Last edited:
My wife and I load our Lance somewhat fully, quite reguarly. I just can't get her to go away for a week or two without it looking like we're moving there and buying real estate! Haha.

Here's two pics from this morning's pre-preflight loading.

JDKA5698.JPG LLWQ4133.JPG
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
Tradeoffs everywhere. I really like the numbers on the TB20, but the panels are butt ugly. :cool: I like Comanche numbers too but they are ancient airplanes. Can I hop down to UIN this summer and get a ride in your Lance?
Click to expand...


I rather like the panel layout of my TB20. It’ll cruise at 150, but you’ll probably be a little closer to 13.5gph, book speeds are usually without antennas. But, you have a 50 inch wide cabin, and 4 full room seats. I’m writing this from Long Island Bahama, flew here with my wife and two adult kids. Run 60 gals of gas with this load, but still plenty of range. Gen 2s have a larger baggage door than gen 1.C4693ADB-2DFC-4187-97A8-598EA0C0D1EB.jpeg
 
GBSoren said:
I rather like the panel layout of my TB20. It’ll cruise at 150, but you’ll probably be a little closer to 13.5gph, book speeds are usually without antennas. But, you have a 50 inch wide cabin, and 4 full room seats. I’m writing this from Long Island Bahama, flew here with my wife and two adult kids. Run 60 gals of gas with this load, but still plenty of range. Gen 2s have a larger baggage door than gen 1.View attachment 81319
Click to expand...
Would you sell that for $150k? None of the current ones on the market come close to that panel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top