Airplane comparison discussion and poll

In this class of aircraft, I'd get:

  • Total voters
    37
  • Poll closed .
G-Man

G-Man

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Nov 13, 2012
Messages
1,064
Location
Boulder, CO
Display Name
Display name:
AirmanG
Vans RV-14 vs Mooney M20E vs Grumman Tiger vs Commander 112/112TC !!

All are good-looking, respected, aluminum, low-wing cruisers. RV-14 is two seats in a 50" fuselage, the rest hold four on paper. Two with canopies, one two-door, one single-door. Two retracts.

All are decent cross-country machines (in the 180-220hp class). Costs will be all over the map, especially based on avionics and upgrades, except for the 'new' RV-14. Costs of acquisition, fuel, and maintenance should be part of your rationale.

What do you prefer? Why? What compromises? What would you get for what mission?
Let the discussion begin!
 
Last edited:
Tiger - roughly equivalent speed over the course of a cross country, easy ingress/egress, simplicity/economy of fixed gear, good type support, good useful load. Flies like a sports coupe according to many.
 
Of that list, I'll have to lean toward the RV14. Nice cruise speed and it's EAB.
 
Do all of those have 360's?
I really like the size of the commanders. The 112 is underpowered but the TC version works. The TCA version is even better. I actually like the numbers on that better than the NA 114. Parts can be more expensive though so that needs to be a thought.
M20E is a small plane. It is faster but it sacrifices comfort. One door, small baggage compartment. Good plane, but in my opinion, the added speed just isn't worth it. Big people do fit in it, but I (210 pounds) flew with a 240 pound guy and it was worse than just uncomfortable...
I can't speak on the tiger. Or the rv
 
Sitting in an M20E is very much what drove me away from the 20F/J and into the Arrow. That was way too close to the panel and the seating position a bit too awkward for a family cruiser for my taste. I was eating the panel. The F and Js do away with the backseat leg room problem, but not the seating position and clearance to the panel.
 
Id just get a PA24 in that field, WAAY more airplane for the buck

or if you can handle smaller, get a shot winged and big engine Lanceair or glassair
 
Hm...

Between the 112 and the Tiger I'd choose the Tiger. The Tiger is just as fast and can haul about as much on less fuel and complexity. A turbo might tilt that decision depending on the mission, but I'm not a big fan of increased MX and fuel burn.

Between the Tiger and the Mooney I'd pick the Mooney unless insurance is a problem, you actually want to use the backseat for people or your most frequent passenger is bothered by the single door. One last knock against the Mooney (and the Commander) is that it's an angle valve IO-360 rather than a parallel valve so it's not quite as bullet proof as the Tiger's O-360.

The RV14 is a serious contender. The only question is whether you carry passengers and how many. Also, many non-pilots mentally equate that giant "EXPERIMENTAL" placard with "Rejected by the FAA".

With those given choices the non-turbo 112 is the only one I would not pick, not because it's bad but because I'd rather have one of the rest.
 
wrbix said:
Tiger - roughly equivalent speed over the course of a cross country, easy ingress/egress, simplicity/economy of fixed gear, good type support, good useful load. Flies like a sports coupe according to many.
Click to expand...
Pretty much my thoughts also.
 
Ask for a copy of the maintenance logs for any of the non EAB aircraft from your list above. Read them carefully and focus on all the nit picky little sh*t that the mechanics zero in on and how those issues jack up the price of what should be a simple straight forward validation of airworthiness.

Once you go EAB and have the repairmans certificate it's pretty hard to go back to manufactured aircraft. And yes I do have a real A&P go over my plane every other year because having another set of eyes look at something is good - but he doesn't get to vote any more.
 
wrbix said:
Tiger - roughly equivalent speed over the course of a cross country, easy ingress/egress, simplicity/economy of fixed gear, good type support, good useful load. Flies like a sports coupe according to many.
Click to expand...

I agree, but then again that's what I fly. They are a very simple airplane, not much to go wrong. I do owner assist annuals that are very inexpensive and easy compared to many other models.
 
IMG_0988.JPG
tspear said:
Is this your Velocity?

Tim
Click to expand...

Nope, this is mine. I prefer his over mine though. Gullwing doors make all the difference. A slight panel upgrade and you've got yourself nice Velocity there. I'd ditch the wooden prop for a Catto also.
 
Last edited:
Man, I love the looks of the RG Velocities.

Nauga,
maybe tomorrow, maybe someday
 
Velocity173 said:
View attachment 54475

Nope, this is mine. I prefer his over mine though. Gullwing doors make all the difference. A slight panel upgrade and you've got yourself nice Velocity there. I'd ditch the wooden prop for a Catto also.
Click to expand...

I also like Velocity, but I dream of going for the V-Twin though.

Tim
 
tspear said:
I also like Velocity, but I dream of going for the V-Twin though.

Tim
Click to expand...

You know they're building a turbo prop version right? Two little TP100s at 243 HP a side! :)
 
Velocity173 said:
You know they're building a turbo prop version right? Two little TP100s at 243 HP a side! :)
Click to expand...
Yes, I actually crunched the numbers on it. Cool in concept, but too impractical for me. Sustained cruise is closer to 200HP per side at 12K, with a fuel flow of 20GPH per engine. There is an effective no fuel range of roughly four hours stuffing fuel into every corner. Cruise speed should be close to 220 to 240 KTAS. In addition, the engines are a paltry ~115K each.
Avgas is currently a better solution, the turboprop solutions are way too fuel inefficient, and so far no viable diesel engines that are available. The Continental CD-155 is just a tad under powered down low, but actually will out run most avgas non-turbo versions by 8K. Deltahawk, although finally may have a stable funding source, are not willing to sell engines until certified; now it seems like most of the major items are dealt with it is certification nitpick issues. So, for now, I am just dreaming and recovering from paying for two kids in college.

Tim
 
Add in the K35 through S35 Bonanzas.

At the end of the day, you won't know until you're in the left seat.
 
nauga said:
Man, I love the looks of the RG Velocities.

Nauga,
maybe tomorrow, maybe someday
Click to expand...

I love the looks of the Commander 112/114s as well. To get a nice one, is well outside of my budget. That and the fact I prefer speed over payload led me to the Velocity.
 
1RTK1 said:
I agree, but then again that's what I fly. They are a very simple airplane, not much to go wrong. I do owner assist annuals that are very inexpensive and easy compared to many other models.
Click to expand...

+2. Fixed gear/fixed pitch/solid gear simplicity makes for low MX costs. The Tiger will get you where you're going reasonably quickly, and all the AA5's handle wonderfully. On a hot day being able to taxi with the canopy open is a big plus, and you can fly with it partially open. I learned in AA1s and to this date the Cheetah is my favorite flying experience. The Tiger is just 30 hp better.
 
I selected "other". Do I really even have to say it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top