160 knot airplanes with 2 doors

Challenged

Challenged

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Apr 4, 2011
Messages
1,901
Location
Louisiana
Display Name
Display name:
Challenged
I've been rummaging around what2fly.com for this info, but I was wondering if you guys could list any GA airplanes that had the following characteristics:

  • Single engine, non-turbo
  • 160 knot cruise or better
  • Passenger and Pilot side door
  • 950 or better useful
The only one that comes to mind off-hand for me is the 210, what other ones would fit this criteria? For what it's worth, my wife likes the two doors for loading convenience and safety reasons.
 
Rockwell Commander? The 114 is turbo, but I dont think the 112 is and I dont know what kind of cruise speed it's capable of.
 
Socata TB20, not faster than 160 but it'll do it on a sunny day.
 
RV-10 has two doors and cruises above 160kts.
 
Thanks for the suggestions so far guys, I definitely missed a number of these in my searching around. A Piper Lance could possibly work; those rear doors look pretty big.
 
Challenged said:
Thanks for the suggestions so far guys, I definitely missed a number of these in my searching around. A Piper Lance could possibly work; those rear doors look pretty big.
Click to expand...

They are big for sure, piano big, casket big if you need that.

A non-turbo Lance or Saratoga will be a stretch for the 160kts, and if you push it to do that, you are going to burn plenty of dinosaurs.
 
weilke said:
A non-turbo Lance or Saratoga will be a stretch for the 160kts, and if you push it to do that, you are going to burn plenty of dinosaurs.
Click to expand...

That is so very true.

If the 160 kts is really that important, the 210 is probably going to be the best value. If load capacity and pax comfort are the goal, I'd go for a Lance with club seating.
 
Ron Levy said:
How about payload and range? Useful load doesn't tell us much because fuel loads vary. OTOH, if you need a 950 lb payload and 160 knots, there aren't many non-turbo singles which can provide that.
Click to expand...
That is a very good point....if you are having to stop every 2 hrs for gas (because you can't take full fuel) it defeats any advantage of the 160kt cruise.
 
The main trip we take is 319 nm. I forgot to mention that I do take 3 passengers from time to time (but typically just me and my wife). If you throttle back on the Lance to say 65%, what sort of GPH and speed can you get?
 
I still owe you a ride in the white lightning
 
Challenged said:
If you throttle back on the Lance to say 65%, what sort of GPH and speed can you get?
Click to expand...

145-150 on 16gph.

If you are thinking about a Lance or 210, consider an A36 Bonanza. Conti engine, slightly faster than the Lance, somewhat more what the realtors call 'cozy' in the back, less dinosaurs.
 
My company has expressed some interest in partnering on a faster plane, so I'm just looking at options now.
 
Challenged said:
The main trip we take is about 319 nm. I forgot to mention that I do take 3 passengers from time to time (but typically just me and my wife).
Click to expand...
So, you want a plane with two doors, 160-knot cruise speed, and can carry three adults (plus baggage?) 320nm with IFR reserves?

I'd start by looking at the complex/high-performance group, probably in the 250HP and up class. Examples would include the Cessna 210, and, if the back door will do as the second door, the Beech 36 Bonanza, and maybe a Piper Lance/Saratoga RG (might be thin on the 160 knots, although you can really open the throttle if you only have to go 320nm, 'cause they can carry a lot of fuel with only three aboard).

As for the Cirrus SR22, it might suit you, too, but check the numbers closely. When you put three adults plus bags aboard a "typical" current-production SR22, you have to start limiting fuel. Only going 320nm helps that, but look carefully anyway. Also, check prices -- those birds ain't cheap, even the used ones. What's your budget?
 
weilke said:
145-150 on 16gph.

If you are thinking about a Lance or 210, consider an A36 Bonanza. Conti engine, slightly faster than the Lance, somewhat more what the realtors call 'cozy' in the back, less dinosaurs.
Click to expand...
Both of my Lances were faster than that. I got 155 on 15 gph on both, 77 and 78 straight tails with speed mods.
 
weilke said:
They are big for sure, piano big, casket big if you need that.

A non-turbo Lance or Saratoga will be a stretch for the 160kts, and if you push it to do that, you are going to burn plenty of dinosaurs.
Click to expand...

No kidding, I do 175kts on less fuel than a NA PA-32 will need to go 160kts...
 
Ken Ibold said:
Both of my Lances were faster than that. I got 155 on 15 gph on both, 77 and 78 straight tails with speed mods.
Click to expand...

Maybe I wasn't fair. 65% should be less than 16gph, maybe 14.

How much do you feel the speed mods give you ?
 
weilke said:
Maybe I wasn't fair. 65% should be less than 16gph, maybe 14.

How much do you feel the speed mods give you ?
Click to expand...
That sounds more realistic for a non-turbo.

I flight plan in the fixed gear PA32-300 for 13.5 gph at 65%.....but I'm not going anywhere near 160 with the gear welded down.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Well, it has a similar door arrangement as the Lance. BUT, an A36 will cost alot more and does not have anywhere near the baggage space that a Lance does.
Click to expand...

I thought he was looking for 4-seaters, with luggage the A36 is a good 4-seater.

Prices have come down, an early 70s A36 is not much more than a later 70s Lance.
 
weilke said:
Last time I counted, the A36 has two doors, both on the right. PA32 doesn't have a pilots door either.
Click to expand...

Technically I think it has 3 doors, but yeah. 160kts with what load and how far? Don't have a lot of choices in planes that will do 160 with 2 doors that will haul any weight any distance and they require being at O2 sucking altitudes. The only ones that come to mind are the Commander 114/115 TC and T-210. If you lose the door requirement you add a few more with the Turbo Comanche and PA-32-RTs and TC/TN Bonanzas. If you can deal with a 3 person plane you can add the Cirrus SR-22 and Corvalis to the mix with even better speed to boot.
 
Many A36 have tip tanks added. The STC not only boosts the fuel load to 120 gallons (80 standard + 20 each side), it increases MGW as well.

There are actually three doors -- Pax side entry, and two swing-out doors to the rear cargo/pax area.

I've flown non-stop Phoenix to Terre Haute, IN. Could have made Pittsburgh but bladders gave out before fuel.

:dunno:
 
dmccormack said:
Many A36 have tip tanks added. The STC not only boosts the fuel load to 120 gallons (80 standard + 20 each side), it increases MGW as well.

There are actually three doors -- Pax side entry, and two swing-out doors to the rear cargo/pax area.

I've flown non-stop Phoenix to Terre Haute, IN. Could have made Pittsburgh but bladders gave out before fuel.

:dunno:
Click to expand...

Yeah, but it doesn't have the pilot side door...
 
Challenged said:
I've been rummaging around what2fly.com for this info, but I was wondering if you guys could list any GA airplanes that had the following characteristics:

  • Single engine, non-turbo
  • 160 knot cruise or better
  • Passenger and Pilot side door
  • 950 or better useful
The only one that comes to mind off-hand for me is the 210, what other ones would fit this criteria? For what it's worth, my wife likes the two doors for loading convenience and safety reasons.
Click to expand...

You didn't mention the most limiting characteristic of all - cost of acquisition and cost of ownership?

I've owned two aircraft that hit all your points: Commander 115 TC and a Columbia 400. Both very capable and comfortable aircraft to spend long hours in with the wife.
 
PittsDriver said:
You didn't mention the most limiting characteristic of all - cost of acquisition and cost of ownership?

I've owned two aircraft that hit all your points: Commander 115 TC and a Columbia 400. Both very capable and comfortable aircraft to spend long hours in with the wife.
Click to expand...


Except the first bullet point, getting all that without a turbo is tough, you need something like a Spartan Exec or BE-17 with a 985, and both those plane's engines are supercharged.
 
Henning said:
Except the first bullet point, getting all that without a turbo is tough, you need something like a Spartan Exec or BE-17 with a 985, and both those plane's engines are supercharged.
Click to expand...
Commander 114/115 modded with the Super Commander IO-580 retrofit FTW!
 
Fearless Tower said:
Maybe...but it will cost you a lot more to maintain.
Click to expand...

How so ?

They both have pretty much the same complexity when it comes to systems and neither of the manufacturers is known to give away parts for free.
You overhaul a gearbox for the landing gear on the Bonana and a hydraulic pack and actuators on the PA32, dont see where the big differences should come from. The only scheduled item I could think off that the A36 has vs. the PA32 are the flap actuators. There are some scheduled inspections related to the wing attachment spar design, but that is probably no different from the corrosion inspections on the PA32.

Continental IO520-BB45B for the earlier A36: reman $31,411 (list from airpower)

Lycoming IO540-K1A5 for the PA32: reman $51,252 (list from lycoming)


Neither of them is 'cheap' to keep.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top