business / pleasure aircraft

R

RRman

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
May 24, 2011
Messages
8
Display Name
Display name:
RRman
My business is taking me throughout the northwest(Oregon, Idaho, Washington, Montana) with a few trips to Southern Ca. and Arizona. I will normally be flying with 1 other person and 150 lbs of samples. I am a new pilot and would like to use the plane to complete my IFR training. My budget is in the $80,000 range. I am looking at a 182 but am wondering if I would be better served with a Mooney 201. I know the retract will be more for insurance but the faster time is appealing. Any input would be appreciated.
Thanks
 
Either will work in your scenario. Probably should try before you buy... find both on rental and see which one fits you best. Some people don't fit well in Mooneys. Others find them tight but comfortable. Some people don't like how slow the Cessna flies. You can do some time/speed/distance calculations to see if it makes a significant difference in your schedule.
 
Before it gets to 40 posts, I will just say it now: buy a King Air, because at some point, one idiot on here will chime in with that as the only possible answer. :rolleyes:

Look at the following aircraft:

182RG
210
Comanche
Bonanza

Sit in a Mooney for 3 hours, and see how it feels. They fit some people well, others they don't. I fall into the latter category. I can't even sit in one for 30 minutes. But for what you are doing, you are going to want a turbo for that area. So look for a turbo model of the above.
 
The 182 will haul WAY more than the Mooney. Two adults and 150lbs of samples, plus luggage... you're going to lose a lot of range and have to be really on top of the W&B.

There are a lot of other craft that would do the job nicely. The Arrow I fly has 1,100lbs of useful load and cruises around 140kts at 11 GPH. It's also ridiculously stable airplane -- great for IFR training. Also much more docile in a cross wind.

Keep the options open!
 
probably out of the budget for 80,000! but maybe not...

you can get a nice specimen of either for that price. If the majority of your flying is going to be longer business trips with just one passenger and 150lbs of supplies... that is exactly the mission the Mooney is designed for. You'll really appreciate the extra 30 knots.

That said if you or your regular passenger is of the big and tall variety, you'll find the mooney cramped and an extra 40 minutes in a much larger cockpit might be more appealing.

As far as the retract issue... depending on how much you fly you're going to find that the extra cost of mx plus insurance on the retract will be more or less canceled out by the extra fuel you'll burn in the 182. If you fly on business alot you'll probably find the mooney will save you money.
 
thomascannon said:
The 182 will haul WAY more than the Mooney. Two adults and 150lbs of samples, plus luggage... you're going to lose a lot of range and have to be really on top of the W&B.

There are a lot of other craft that would do the job nicely. The Arrow I fly has 1,100lbs of useful load and cruises around 140kts at 11 GPH. It's also ridiculously stable airplane -- great for IFR training. Also much more docile in a cross wind.

Keep the options open!
Click to expand...

The arrow is a good suggestion.

Really depends on how big you are. I am 135lbs and my girlfriend who I travel with alot is 100lbs. I have alot more options than other pilots... nice to be able to fill a 152 to full tanks and have plenty of weight to spare. I hate flying those things near gross anyway, too impatient
 
For your mission the Mooney would be about the perfect airplane. It is fast at around 160kts on 10gph and trims out rock solid in cruise. The cockpit is really not cramped but you sit low with your legs stretched out like a sports car. For anything like fun flying the Mooney is not very fun to yank and bank around. What makes it a great cross country airplane makes it work to do anything else. I've got around 100hrs in a 201.
A Comanche is a lot nicer all around airplane. Roomy and a delight to fly, but you'll be burning around 13gph for about the same speed.
A P-Ponk 182 275hp conversion would be a good mount also but again 145-150kts on 13gph.
 
How long will your flight legs be? And in that country, a turbocharger would probably be a good idea.
 
RRman said:
My business is taking me throughout the northwest(Oregon, Idaho, Washington, Montana) with a few trips to Southern Ca. and Arizona. I will normally be flying with 1 other person and 150 lbs of samples. I am a new pilot and would like to use the plane to complete my IFR training. My budget is in the $80,000 range. I am looking at a 182 but am wondering if I would be better served with a Mooney 201. I know the retract will be more for insurance but the faster time is appealing. Any input would be appreciated.
Thanks
Click to expand...

The area that you are wanting to fly is my back yard, you will be crossing the Rockies on many of your flights.

Grab a IFR en route and have a look at the MEA's of many of the IFR routes.

To do this dispatch with any regularity you'll need De-Ice, and a turbo, hot props, and a windshield hot patch.

your 80 grand isn't going to buy much of any aircraft that will do this.
 
Ron Levy said:
How long will your flight legs be? And in that country, a turbocharger would probably be a good idea.
Click to expand...

Sadly the turbo is the easy part..... Crossing the high rocks in the winter will require a lot more equipment than that.
 
Thanks for the input.
Samples are small but heavy. We are an ammunition manufacturer and sell to Law Enforcement and Training facilities. We are hoping to develop more clients in the Northwest so we are trying to find a way to give more personalized service. Sample cases weigh between 20 and 55 pounds. Longest flight legs would be 4 - 6 hours with the exception of Arizona which would only be a couple of times a year. I am not a 135 pound adult I weigh 200 lbs and my other passenger depending on who goes would weigh between 150 and 200 pounds.That puts me between 500 - 600 pounds before fuel.
How about a turbo arrow or a turbo 182RG? I saw some turbo arrows on tradeaplane that would be in my price range.Would these fit the bill? Would the Mooney still be in the ballpark?
 
RRman said:
Thanks for the input.
Samples are small but heavy. We are an ammunition manufacturer and sell to Law Enforcement and Training facilities. We are hoping to develop more clients in the Northwest so we are trying to find a way to give more personalized service. Sample cases weigh between 20 and 55 pounds. Longest flight legs would be 4 - 6 hours with the exception of Arizona which would only be a couple of times a year. I am not a 135 pound adult I weigh 200 lbs and my other passenger depending on who goes would weigh between 150 and 200 pounds.That puts me between 500 - 600 pounds before fuel.
How about a turbo arrow or a turbo 182RG? I saw some turbo arrows on tradeaplane that would be in my price range.Would these fit the bill? Would the Mooney still be in the ballpark?
Click to expand...

In the turbo Arrow you will either learn really good engine management or you will know what short engine life costs.

the POH allows you to push 41 HQ at full power, that really short lifes the engine.
 
The Mooney will work fine. Has a bunch of useful load. Mooney's are comfortable to fly. Once in and settled they are really not that tight. I'm 6' 240 and flew with several other 200+ people in the front. One thing nice about your baggage is Moony's like some weight in the back. Makes them land nicer. Also this is from a guy who thinks that other than straight and level cross country I hate the way the airplane flies. Also flying single engine hard IFR in the winter in Idaho,Montana, Nevada etc is insane. Don
 
RRman said:
How about a turbo arrow or a turbo 182RG? I saw some turbo arrows on tradeaplane that would be in my price range.Would these fit the bill? Would the Mooney still be in the ballpark?
Click to expand...

Tom was correct about what you're looking at to cross a lot of those routes IFR in the winter. The T182RG is a nice package, and that will give you space, altitude, and decent speed. Keep in mind there are also turbo Mooneys that will do even better on the speed, which I think is more valuable.

I would look at Bonanzas, too, especially if you could find a turbo Bonanza. But even naturally aspirated, you could get a V-tail that makes for a nice performer, and rather economical as well. Ed's list is a good one.

You should know ahead of time that you'll end up with a decent amount of days that you'll have to cancel due to weather, even with your instrument rating. Accept that going in, because that's not a place you want to ice up. If you can eventually get to the point where you can justify it, you can then look at stepping up to something that's more capable after you get some more experience. But to really have something that will do those areas well, you're looking at something pretty high end in the piston world. The RAM T310/320s are what I'd look at for that, personally. Got the power to climb, speed, load, and de-ice. And pretty economical to operate, as far as aircraft in that range go. But that's a few years down the road. You're on the right path to start.

See, Ed, I didn't tell him he needed a King Air, just a twin. ;)
 
Glad I'm not the only one thinking that a single is an issue for mountain, winter, IMC...


If multi rated a deiced 337 could be had with some careful shopping. Would need careful maintenance but has a spare engine.
 
Skylane81E said:
If multi rated a deiced 337 could be had with some careful shopping. Would need careful maintenance but has a spare engine.
Click to expand...

It's not just about having a second engine, though, it's about having the power to climb, and the capability to fly that high on one engine. A 337 would be marginal, if it would even do it. Then you're still in the mountains.

That's why I mentioned the RAM T310/320s. With one of those, you've actually got the power you need for it to be a useful twin at those altitudes.

The 310 I fly is a Colemill conversion. That works great over on this side of the country since we don't have hills that tall. But if out west, I would definitely figure out a way to bolt turbos on.
 
The T337 have a decent single engine ceiling IIRC,

It's an option that could fall into his budget.
 
I think it was the roll down window that tipped it over from "cool plane" to "I want one" for me...


That and round engines are purdy
 
That particular 195 looks like it'd need a pile of avionics to do the job, though. I love that the seller put "Garmin 195" on the ad, as if it were a selling point. ;)
 
Skylane81E said:
The T337 have a decent single engine ceiling IIRC,

It's an option that could fall into his budget.
Click to expand...

There's a rocket conversion that puts 310HP turbo'd engines in the 337. Then, you've got a plane that won't flip over if an engine quits and can still climb. Dunno if you can get deice on it though.

Insurance on the fancier birds is going to be expensive until he gets his IR though. For me the insurance rate dropped in half when I got my IR (PA-32, normally aspirated, fixed gear). I think the insurance companies think that if you have an IFR cross-county machine, that you're more likely to get into IMC when you shouldn't if you don't yet have your IR.
 
Skylane81E said:
The T337 have a decent single engine ceiling IIRC,

It's an option that could fall into his budget.
Click to expand...

The single engine service ceiling and useful ability to climb and maintain altitude in those conditions are two different things. The published numbers tend to be optimistic.

COFlyBoy said:
There's a rocket conversion that puts 310HP turbo'd engines in the 337. Then, you've got a plane that won't flip over if an engine quits and can still climb. Dunno if you can get deice on it though.
Click to expand...

The engine conversion would work power wise, but please try doing a Vmc demo yourself first before you make a statement like that. The biggest problem that 337 owners have is picking the wrong engine as the dead one, and feathering the good prop.
 
Harbor Air did a fine job with the Piper Chieftains.

The PA-31P was powered by 425 hp (317 kW) Lycoming TIGO-541-E engines

In 1971 Piper introduced improvements to the PA-31 model. The Navajo B featured airconditioning, increased baggage space achieved by the addition of storage lockers in the rear part of extended nacelles, a third door next to the cabin entry doors to facilitate the loading of baggage, and an optional separate door for the pilot to enter the cockpit.

But they are a little over budget..
 
The Cessna 337 is the most efficient airplane in the world. At converting mass quantities of avgas into weird noise. :wink2:
 
Tom-D said:
Harbor Air did a fine job with the Piper Chieftains.
Click to expand...

The Chieftain has the advantage of being able to handle ice well. However, they are marginal on two engines, even moreso on one. I've got about 50 hours in them. I'd take a 310 HP Navajo (no wing lockers) first any day (got another 50 hours in them). Much better takeoff and climb performance, and better single engine performance.

The PA-31P was powered by 425 hp (317 kW) Lycoming TIGO-541-E engines
Click to expand...

Haven't flown those, but then you're looking at lots of fuel burn, and unsupported engines. P-Baron or 340 would be more economical if you want pressurized.
 
pericynthion said:
What's Vmc in a centerline-thrust twin?
Click to expand...

My point is try doing a Vmc demo before you go off about "It'll flip over when you lose an engine." It's really not bad. Come on over to Williamsport, I'll show you.

Not saying that centerline thrust twins don't have advantages. However, if those advantages were so great, don't you think we'd see more of them?
 
thomascannon said:
The 182 will haul WAY more than the Mooney. Two adults and 150lbs of samples, plus luggage... you're going to lose a lot of range and have to be really on top of the W&B.

There are a lot of other craft that would do the job nicely. The Arrow I fly has 1,100lbs of useful load and cruises around 140kts at 11 GPH. It's also ridiculously stable airplane -- great for IFR training. Also much more docile in a cross wind.

Keep the options open!
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that you will want to sit in an Arrow for 3 hours before deciding on it, as well. My club has a 172, 182 and an Arrow. I'm 6'2" and there's something about the seating in the Arrow that limits me to 3 hours. And that's stretching it. At that point after landing my knees are shot and it's all I can do to crawl out of the plane. YMMV. No problem with the 182. And if I'm not wearing foggles (and the stress that goes with them) the 172 isn't bad, either. :D

Whatever way you go, you will have more flexibility on exchanging fuel for payload. Our club rules require putting the plane away with full tanks, so I don't have that. The 172N with the Penn Yan 180 hp STC can carry 755 pounds in the cabin with full long range (50 gal) tanks. Subtract about 250 pounds without the higher hp engine and 30 degree flap limitation. The Arrow comes in second with about 700 pounds with full fuel. The 182 comes in last at about 627 pounds with full long range (75 gal) tanks. Seems counter intuitive, but those are from the W&B numbers for each.

Have fun with the search. Tom and others are right about the weather conditions here in the Pacific Northwe(s)t. Ice is a major problem in the clouds around here. Watch the freezing level and the cloud bases. None of the planes in the club are FIKI and it is not something to play with. I cancelled a number of flights before getting my IR, and even with it now I expect to drive across the state many times to avoid turning into a flying (briefly) popcicle. That stuff is bad ju-ju and we have a premier ice machine here.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The Chieftain has the advantage of being able to handle ice well. However, they are marginal on two engines, even moreso on one. I've got about 50 hours in them. I'd take a 310 HP Navajo (no wing lockers) first any day (got another 50 hours in them). Much better takeoff and climb performance, and better single engine performance.



Haven't flown those, but then you're looking at lots of fuel burn, and unsupported engines. P-Baron or 340 would be more economical if you want pressurized.
Click to expand...
Single engine performance is why my boss always insists that a PA31 be a -350, he likes that it will actually climb on one engine.

However if we are spending this much of his money Piper has a nice line of cabin class singles too:lol:
 
Skylane81E said:
Single engine performance is why my boss always insists that a PA31 be a -350, he likes that it will actually climb on one engine.
Click to expand...

My experience with the ones I've flown has been different. The PA-31-310 (TIO-540-A2C engines with no wing lockers) that I fly does much, much better than the PA-31-350 Chieftain (TIO-540-J2BD engines) in performance all around. I would not have guessed that until I started flying the two.

Remember that the Chieftain is 24" longer cabin plus the wing lockers than the base 310 Navajos. The Navajo CR had the wing lockers on it, and perhaps there were some 310s with wing lockers - I don't know. But it is a remarkable difference between the two examples that I fly.

I've taken the 310 Navajo up to 3500 ft gravel strips and gotten it in and out of them at gross very comfortably, with ~1000 fpm climb rates. The Chieftain with just the two of us in it will do about 700 fpm (with 40"/2400 RPM instead of 35"/2400). Load it up, goes down further.

The other Chieftain at the airport does the same...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top