150 knots for $150k

I have an extremely nice 182rg that may be for sale. 81 Hartley top prop low time remain garmin 345/340/750 newer interior.
 
I’m looking at exactly this- the first gen steam gauge Cirrus’ seem to be a great value-
Less than a same year or older 182
what am I missing?


markab said:
A Generation 1 Cirrus SR-20, you can pick one up for about $120k and it will do an honest 144-148 knots at 9gph.
Click to expand...
 
Most any injected Mooney will do 150 knots true and do it on less than 10 gph. MANY nice, well paneled examples are available for under $150K.
 
Just read thru this whole thread...it's a snowy Sunday morning. A couple notes ref the 182RG, based on several years of current ownership...

The fuel flow quoted in OP's chart matches our real-world numbers... 12g or so @ 150k...not too shabby on 235hp. Only mod is a 3-blade Black Mac.

182rg vs. Pponk discussion.... our next door neighbor had a Pponk and got tired of us walking away from him in cruise. Bought into an RG. His Pponk climbed faster, but much noisier. Both are great airplanes.

YMMV...

Jim
 
I was excited about Mooneys, especially when I read that quote about Mooney being 6’5” and “built himself an airplane”. The cabin width was real tight for me though as a big and tall.

MBDiagMan said:
Most any injected Mooney will do 150 knots true and do it on less than 10 gph. MANY nice, well paneled examples are available for under $150K.
Click to expand...
 
Scott Mitchell said:
I’m looking at exactly this- the first gen steam gauge Cirrus’ seem to be a great value-
Less than a same year or older 182
what am I missing?
Click to expand...

You can take the 182 far more places than you can take the Cirrus.
And the older SR-20 Cirrus are pretty well a 2-place airplane if you plan to do any lengthy cross-country. We had one in our Club for a few years but it did not prove very popular as a rental (same few pilots were the only ones using it).
We replaced it with a fixed gear turbo 182T. Waaaay more popular. And the insurance is much less expensive as the underwriters see the 182 as not significantly riskier than our 172s.
 
Scott Mitchell said:
I’m looking at exactly this- the first gen steam gauge Cirrus’ seem to be a great value-
Less than a same year or older 182
what am I missing?
Click to expand...

You're missing that 182 prices have always been set based on whatever drugs they give pilots who like fixed gear, strut wing Cessnas :p.

SR20s are dogs in climb, heat and DA generally. This is a known issue with them. Comparable to a Grumman Cheetah in this way. 182s don't have nearly as many issues with that, but you pay for it in their slow cruise and crappy flying dynamics. 182s will carry more weight and have bigger gas tanks as well. I personally would take the SR20 as well, over a 182, like for like, but I wouldn't buy either one of those airplanes.

MBDiagMan said:
Most any injected Mooney will do 150 knots true and do it on less than 10 gph. MANY nice, well paneled examples are available for under $150K.
Click to expand...

All Mooney's suffer primarily from useful load and the Pre-F models suffer from a lack of rear seat space . Someone looking for a strictly 2 person airplane that the back seat is mostly just an extra baggage area is very well served by a Mooney. If you want to put someone in the back, you're better off with a BE33 or PA24.

Jim Rosenow said:
Just read thru this whole thread...it's a snowy Sunday morning. A couple notes ref the 182RG, based on several years of current ownership...

The fuel flow quoted in OP's chart matches our real-world numbers... 12g or so @ 150k...not too shabby on 235hp. Only mod is a 3-blade Black Mac.

182rg vs. Pponk discussion.... our next door neighbor had a Pponk and got tired of us walking away from him in cruise. Bought into an RG. His Pponk climbed faster, but much noisier. Both are great airplanes.

YMMV...

Jim
Click to expand...

The 182RG is the plane the 182 really should be. It is the most underrated of the line, the rest of which is terribly overrated. They even handle better.

Scott Mitchell said:
I was excited about Mooneys, especially when I read that quote about Mooney being 6’5” and “built himself an airplane”. The cabin width was real tight for me though as a big and tall.
Click to expand...

I hear fewer people complaining about Bonanzas, and don't have a problem with flying with my also broad shouldered co-owner in the 33, yet Mooneys are actually wider. I think it is often perception and panels.
 
steingar said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't mind the tandem if there was at least some space for luggage but if I'm flying a plane to go places, I need to be able to fit at least a carry-on and a laptop bag without being concerned with it interfering with the controls. Preferably 2 + the usual inflight consumables and small maintenance box/crate (oil, rags, fuel strainer+gauge).

For me I have 3 missions that I'd love to meet.
I want an IFR distance traveler that will take me places fast. I do most of my flying solo or with my +1 but would want something capable of taking passengers if/when needed or as my family expands and need to be able to pack at least a carry on.
I'd love to have a seaplane just for having fun.
I'd love to have an aerobatic-capable tailwheel for putting around the local area and having fun while doing it.

That's 3 distinct planes though.

Lately I've been considering giving up the aerobatic portion of my tailwheel mission in favor of combining tailwheel+seaplane mission in something like a searey or tailwheel+going places mission in something like an RV (though the luggage, pax and fuel limitations make that difficult).

For my primary mission of IFR going-places, I keep coming back to the Bellanca Viking. I fell in love with Bellanca's flying a Citabria and everything I've read about the Vikings just makes me want it more. Fast, capable, 4 seater that's typically well under 100k. Leaves me enough left over to go and get one of my other planes.

I've been talking about it for several years now but haven't been settled in one place long enough to really invest the time in to all the leg work involved. Now that I am more settled and have most/all of the ratings I intend to get for the foreseeable future, I am getting closer to pulling the trigger...
 
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? And which ones would not be named Mooney or Bo? Also required, 4 seats. This is what I have so far:

Socata TB20/21
RV-10
Piper Saratoga / Lance
Cessna 210
Pponk 182?
Commander 114B

What others am I missing? Diamond came to mind but I don't think it meets the $150k requirement. I did see a gen 1 Cirrus for $150k, but no thanks. And the Saratogas in the $150k range all have run out engines, so maybe does not belong on the list.
Click to expand...

ktup-flyer said:
I’m sure some people do. I was taught to never finance toys
Click to expand...

why are you not interested in a Mooney or Bonanza? These are among the best choices to fill your criteria.
 
N1120A said:
...182s don't have nearly as many issues with that, but you pay for it in their slow cruise and crappy flying dynamics...

...The 182RG is the plane the 182 really should be. It is the most underrated of the line, the rest of which is terribly overrated...

...I hear fewer people complaining about Bonanzas, and don't have a problem with flying with my also broad shouldered co-owner in the 33, yet Mooneys are actually wider. I think it is often perception and panels.
Click to expand...

Considering how many 182s have been sold over the decades and the fact in recent years, despite declining production, it still handily outsells Bonanzas + Mooneys combined, the "crappy flying dynamics" and being "terribly overrated" seem to be objections an extraordinarily large number of owners are prepared accomodate. ;)

As for Mooneys and Bonanzas, if one is of a certain dimension they are great airplanes, fast and comfortable. But if one is both tall and long of torso (as I am), both are an utter PITA to endure - especially the constant banging of the headset against the curved cabin top unless you fly with your head tilted permanently.

Aircraft design and dimensions are a constant compromise. Beech put the front seats on top of the spar limiting headroom. Piper, in the PA-46, put the front seats in front of the spar limiting legroom to the rudder pedals. I'm 6'4" and don't fit comfortably in either.
 
Last edited:
I’m 6’1” and long wasted. Don’t remember ever bumping a headset on the ceiling, or any where close. I do, however, agree with your take on 182 flying characteristics.
 
MBDiagMan said:
I’m 6’1” and long wasted.
Click to expand...
Your drug use not withstanding ;-)
you can adjust the seat back to a more reclining position to give more headroom.

If you have wide shoulders, short arms and short legs, Mooney definitely won’t be comfortable.
 
Okay, if it’s a joke I won’t take any offense, but I am lost trying to figure out what the joke is. Just call me naive I suppose.
 
MBDiagMan said:
why are you not interested in a Mooney or Bonanza? These are among the best choices to fill your criteria.
Click to expand...

Agreed

GRG55 said:
Considering how many 182s have been sold over the decades and the fact in recent years, despite declining production, it still handily outsells Bonanzas + Mooneys combined, the "crappy flying dynamics" and being "terribly overrated" seem to be objections an extraordinarily large number of owners are prepared accomodate. ;)

As for Mooneys and Bonanzas, if one is of a certain dimension they are great airplanes, fast and comfortable. But if one is both tall and long of torso (as I am), both are an utter PITA to endure - especially the constant banging of the headset against the curved cabin top unless you fly with your head tilted permanently.

Aircraft design and dimensions are a constant compromise. Beech put the front seats on top of the spar limiting headroom. Piper, in the PA-46, put the front seats in front of the spar limiting legroom to the rudder pedals. I'm 6'4" and don't fit comfortably in either.
Click to expand...

People learn on 172s, so they want something that is similar. Marketing is powerful. It can sell people on inferior goods
 
N1120A said:
...People learn on 172s, so they want something that is similar. Marketing is powerful. It can sell people on inferior goods
Click to expand...

Not for decades on end it can't.

And Mooney didn't go bankrupt repeatedly simply because it couldn't fix its marketing.
 
apr911 said:
...3 missions that I'd love to meet...IFR distance traveler .... aerobatic-capable tailwheel ...
Click to expand...

Screams RV-14 as a good compromise to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top