benyflyguy
En-Route
Whoa. That’s a lot of plane for 145k. Decent engine time too eh?
150 knots for $150k
- Thread starter NealRomeoGolf
- Start date
MonkeyClaw
Pre-takeoff checklist
Columbia 300's are around that price now I think. You'll beat 150kts but you can always pull back the power.
This. Maybe Mooney M20E?
schmookeeg
En-Route
Yes or possibly a Bonanza.
If only we could find a conjoined Mooney+Bonanza to offer for this search.
Someone buy pigpen's M35 so we can saw the tail off, weld it to a Mooney, and make an M20-35 to satisfy the exact opposite of OP's request.Then we can argue over which is more accurate, M20-35 or M35-20.
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
FormerHangie
En-Route
What tailwheel airplane are you thinking of?
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
Well I’d wager a 185 on wheels would get pretty close
Bellanca Cruisemaster Should do it
195 is pretty quick
Smaller, but a wittman tailwind is a fast and economical little ride.
Oh and a P51
Because it is often enough that other people do like to go with me. And maybe someday we will get her to stop puking in my airship.
I am going to try to steal a ride in @Mtns2Skies 185 this year. Maybe it will change my mind. At this point I am not a big tailwheel fan, even if it did wake my feet up and make me a "real" pilot.
RV4. And with the extra $105k buy a 182rg
steingar
Taxi to Parking
Like I said, tandem. Great if you don't feel like looking at your passenger, and your passenger doesn't mind staring at the back of your head, and neither of you have much in the way of luggage.
TheGolfPilot
Line Up and Wait
you could go faster, 200Kts, with less.....turbo Bo. lol
I fly and manage two Factory Turbo BOs.
Great airplanes. Super reliable. In the last year I put a combined 550 hours on them with nothing but oil changes and brake liners. But to make the engine last you will be planning 170 without oxygen, 180 with cannula and 190 with mask.
Carrying 6 is tough but it’s doable if the pax are light and the trip isn’t far.
A normally aspirated Bonanza would fit this guys mission as well as any 6 place piston single.
I have about 250 hours in a 182RG. It is a club airplane and relative to the Bonanza it is riddled with issues. Constantly getting things fixed. Part of this probably has to do with it being flown as a complex trainer and being used by people who don't fly often while the Bonanza is being flown by almost 1 person exclusively and averaging maybe 1 cycle per hour. The 182RG the club has trues out somewhere between 150-154 depending on altitude and condition. The engine is very easy to run and manage and the gear is fairly reliable. I would certainly recommend it over a fixed gear 182. Extra cost of gear is well worth the money and you don't lose much baggage area, if any.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Last edited:
OneCharlieTango
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 1,165
- Display Name
Display name:
OneCharlieTango
A Grumman tiger might be a little slower than the OP's target, but a lot cheaper. And a lot faster than the Archer.
Bonchie
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 1,505
- Display Name
Display name:
Bonchie
If you want certified, with room, comfort, two doors, good fuel burns, and getting close to that 150kts, I'd look at Cessna Cardinal 177RGs.
The instructor who did my CPL has one with a redone panel, and I'd take it over a lot of retracts people normally suggest. Even though I fly a 182, I prefer the Cardinal's ergonomics, seating position, and cabin.
The instructor who did my CPL has one with a redone panel, and I'd take it over a lot of retracts people normally suggest. Even though I fly a 182, I prefer the Cardinal's ergonomics, seating position, and cabin.
FormerHangie
En-Route
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?
Commanche 250 and a non-trainer C-182RG non-turbo, are probably your best bet outside of Mooney/Bonanza. Turbo is great(fly one for work) but if I'm spending my own money, it would be a C-182RG or C-210.
Caramon13
Pattern Altitude
I've been looking hard at 177's recently. They are actually pretty reasonably priced all things considered. What's the GPH burn on one like? Similar to a 172?
Bonchie
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 1,505
- Display Name
Display name:
Bonchie
Like 10GPH.
I am seeing 142 knots at best on the 177RGs. I suppose that is close, but not quite there.
You caught me at a good time, went ahead and scanned my POH. I wanted to stick a copy of this in foreflight anyway.
Based on my homework so far, assuming I read POH graphs correctly, this is what it takes to get 150 knots in most of the planes suggested. The Lance is certainly a guzzler. I couldn't find performance graphs on the BSV. I was surprised at the 182RG gph. Maybe I read the graph wrong.
Just an aside my Lance has GAMI injectors and I can lean that out to 15-16gph and 145kts is a more realistic speed but yes, you're paying a price for all that extra space and load carrying capacity.
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 7,837
- Location
- Marietta, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Drake the Outlaw
I've flown/flown in a couple of Comanche 250's. You really had to put the hammer down to spool them up to 150 knots. But wow, did they climb.
That's one airplane that (IMO) could go substantially faster with a better cowl design.
Tradeoffs everywhere. I really like the numbers on the TB20, but the panels are butt ugly.
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?
Rgbeard
En-Route
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2017
- Messages
- 4,343
- Location
- Phoenix, AZ and Ensenada, Mexico
- Display Name
Display name:
rgbeard
the Turbo costs about the same and delivers the targeted speed.
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 7,837
- Location
- Marietta, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Drake the Outlaw
Being that I'm only *building* an RV-10, I expect it to easily do 150 knots on 10 gph. I hope I'm not disappointed. The folks who track this stuff seem to do closer to 160 knots on 10-11 GPH, but there's no telling who's telling a fishing story and who's being honest.
That's right, you're flying a Lance II Turbo right?
Rgbeard
En-Route
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2017
- Messages
- 4,343
- Location
- Phoenix, AZ and Ensenada, Mexico
- Display Name
Display name:
rgbeard
I couldn't find anything but forum posts on the RV-10 numbers, although I admittedly did not look hard and used the first stuff I could find.
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 7,837
- Location
- Marietta, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Drake the Outlaw
You've got that right. I feel like Captain Nemo piloting the Nautilus when I'm in a Comanche 250. Limited visibility, a freakin' handbrake, etc. The only thing missing is someone ringing up bells in the engine compartment and yelling Aye, Aye, Captain.
Edit: Harsh, I know, but it is amazing how good a basic airframe the Comanche is but how the little details remind you that it is a 60 year old design.
Last edited:
Stephen Shore
Pre-takeoff checklist
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.
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.
hindsight2020
Final Approach
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Messages
- 6,998
- Display Name
Display name:
hindsight2020
Ah, don't be so self-deprecating. I am exactly an FAA std male (5'9-5'10 170#), and I too find Bos, PA28s and Mooneys cramped when sitting next to another adult. We don't need the useful load either (2+1 mission) and yet we're still looking for cabin comfort improvements over my Arrow, which airplanes like the Commander does offer in spades.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Are you vertically challenged? There's plenty of visibility in Comanches. I actually prefer the hand brake. Had foot brakes in the PA28, and used the hand brake anyway. I will give you that the panels in 250s absolutely suck though:
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Depends on airframe, rigging, etc... 8000' fly 2300/2400 RPM/WOT right bout there on the fuel burn and get about 154ktas. Some days a little better, some days a little worse; DA and all that jazz.
The 250 I fly was bought in 2009 for
45k added the following
10k tip tanks - a must on a 250 if flying IFR or else you're limited to really short legs
20k-25k in panel upgrades (engine monitor, dual G5, Lynx, but also get cheap labor rates)
3k in Comanche specific AD fixes (tail horn)
8k in cylinder replacement when I got screwed over by Harrison cylinder
So that's the major stuff that's been done in 10 years.
Well south of your 150k
The reason you only see the older ones for sale, is because everyone holds on to the newer ones, or they get sold without even being listed.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 7,837
- Location
- Marietta, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Drake the Outlaw
Visibility is relative. I'm spoiled by my RV-6. The RV-10 is very good too. The Comanche's windows seem like (relative) tank viewing slits to me. A Bo has an advantage there, IMO.
Your panel is nice, but most Comanches (250, 260x, 400, or Twink) haven't had the benefit of a $40K (?) panel upgrade.
And I'm happy you like the handbrake. I thought it sucked, but at least you have a steerable nosewheel, which I'll be lacking on the RV-10.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Well, yeah, compared to a bubble canopy, everything is going to be visibility limited. No argument there. Funny thing is when going to it from other airplanes, Ive had a number of people say "wow the visibility is so much better in this than x." so yeah, definitly relative. If you are a short person, you're gonna need the adjustable seats or a boat cushion to see where you are going. My deal with the footbrakes was I could never get the pressure on each one balanced, so I was always "swimming" down the runway when braking. I ended up switching to the hand brake. Of course, I have monkey arms and a 6'7" wingspan, so reaching for the hand brake is a non issue.
Getting in and out of low wings is not fun though. And I'm sure in the next 10-15 years it will get less fun, unless I'm flying something with an airstair.
FormerHangie
En-Route
Here are some figures: http://www.kokomopilotsclub.org/sites/default/files/2006_08_15 Bellanca Checklist.pdf
Looks like 12.2 GPH will get you 150 knots at 7500 feet.
jimhorner
Line Up and Wait
Here’s the relevant info for the Viking. I’ve highlighted the speeds near 150 knots. The Viking is an mph bird. Note, this is at 7500 ft. I didn’t feel like doing all the interpolation math to get the numbers for 8000 and 150 knots exactly. But, you get the idea. Somewhere around 13 gal per hour for 150 knots. I tend to cruise higher for better performance. Around 9000ft is the sweet spot. I also tend to cruise at the highest airspeed.
