Cross Country Aircraft

Turbo bonanza is sounding like the perfect fit for me. Cruises at 190-200 knots, can carry me, a couple passengers and a decent amount of bags. And it will still get 500 nm of range.
 
What altitude do you need to get to to get that 200kts? Willing to put everyone on O2?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Stets656 said:
Either that or a prssurized 210 Centurion
Click to expand...
I've heard that those have engine reliability issues because you're asking a single engine to do a whole lot.

Disclaimer - no first hand experience with this.
 
No one said this was easy...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Mtns2Skies said:
I've heard that those have engine reliability issues because you're asking a single engine to do a whole lot.

Disclaimer - no first hand experience with this.
Click to expand...

gsengle said:
No one said this was easy...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Lol, just kidding around, gotta love forums. Any aircraft that would be similar to a 210?
 
Last edited:
The Turbo-Normalized option for Bonanzas provides a lot of utility. There are some variations that you want to keep in mind...

I'd say most, but not all, TNed birds come with an IO-550 mod for those that didn't originally have it. That's an extra 15 ponies.

To really get the most out of a TNed bird, you really need tip tanks. These come in various flavors, but most are either the 15 gallon or 20 gallon variety, so you wind up between 104 and 114 gallons of fuel.

The combination of TN mods and tip tanks provides a variety of gross weight increases. There are two TN mods (Tornado Alley & Western Skyways). I am most familiar with the TAT setup. It doesn't provide any gross weight increase (GWI) for V35s, but provides a good bump for both the A36 and F33A. The GWI is actually quite significant for the F33A (on the order of 350 lbs), and turns it into quite a hauler.

Tip tanks also provide a GWI for most Bonanzas (both DeShannon and Osborne). V-tails & Debbies (33s) (depending on year) get up to 200lbs, and the A36s can get more.

The mods don't "stack", meaning that you cant add the GWIs together, but you do wind up with MTOWs with tips/TN of 3600 lbs for V35s, 3750ish for F33s and 4000 for the A36s. That leads to average useful loads of 1100-1400ish lbs unless you've got a lot of equipment or factory air conditioning (the aftermarket AC weighs less).

Real world performance depends on the generation of the system you have (latest TAT TN setups have a ram induction intercooler), but speeds are about the 180 range above 8000, 185 in the low teens. 190 in the mid teens, and touching 200 above 16k. Practically any ordinary certified piston is going to require flight above 10k (and probably above 15k) to get to 200 knots, unless it has some kind of exotic mod (turbine). Fuel flow is around 16.5 to 17.5 GPH depending on your setup. There seems to be enough variation in the TN setups and tip tanks that you really want to work the numbers for the particular bird you are looking at. Vs seem to be the fastest (light weight S35s are the speed masters), with F33s close behind, a A36s a tad slower. The TAT system is fully automatic. Wide open throttle for climb and cruise. 2500 RPM and lean to your desired fuel flow for cruise. The only time you pull the throttle back is for descent.

Bonanzas have all kinds of setups, so you need look at the weight and balance for the individual airplane you are looking at and your specific mission. The CG envelope narrows as the weight increase, and some airplanes it is possible to be in CG for takeoff, but move out of CG as fuel burns off. The empty CG can be tweaked with ballast, and the TN mod adds a good amount of weight to the nose. Aftermarket O2 can also add some weight.

V35TCs/A36TCs are a different animal, and B36TCs a different animal yet. Some report getting very good results with the factory turbo birds, but good engine baffling is the key. Some also report that getting them to efficiently run lean of peak is very difficult. All can be retrofitted with a TN mod. Many consider the B36TC with the TN mod to be the ultimate piston cruiser in that category. It has a longer wing, similar to the Baron, and doesn't require tips to carry a lot of fuel.

The key here is to realize that there is a LOT of variation in setups. Certainly you can group Bos into certain categories, but you really need to examine the setup and CG of the aircraft individually to make sure it fits your mission.

There's probably more than you could ever read on Bonanzas (and Barons) over at Beechtalk.com. It's free.

If your folks aren't keen to wearing O2, then you need a different solution. You can do a Malibu/Mirage, a P210 or similar, or you can consider a twin like a 58P Baron or Cessna 340. Pressurization in and of itself is not a huge MX hassle (assuming the system is setup correctly & no leaks), but it often comes on aircraft that have other components that required increased attention...turbos, electrical, environmental...etc.

My $0.02...

Richman
 
Stets656 said:
Looking for an aircraft for personal/business use. Will mostly be used for medium to long range cross countries. (Anywhere from 900 to 1300 miles). Max price point is 250k. Like it to be at least 180 knots, (190-200 knots would be ideal) range that can make these trips without a fuel stop and can hold 3 people and a decent amount of baggage. Doesn't have to be glass, has to be a somewhat decent IFR platform. Is there anything out there that fits this bill within the price range?
Click to expand...

Boeing 737. Seriously.

Stets656 said:
Now that I think about it, range isn't a deal breaker, the longer the better tho.
Click to expand...

Anything more than four hours from closing the doors to opening them won't often get used. Most people have to go to the bathroom by then.


Stets656 said:
yea, lets bump the range down to say 600 miles minimum.
Click to expand...

For a 180 knot airplane, 600 nm is about all you'll use

Stets656 said:
Main goal is to make it from Wisconsin to South Florida in a reasonable amount of time. However, making a fuel stop somewhere along the trip is probably a win win for everybody that is flying in the airplane.
Click to expand...

A fuel stop wouldn't be optional. You didn't say exactly where to where, but from MKE to MIA is 1100 nm, a little more than six hours at 180 knots, plus taxi, takeoff, climb, maneuvering around the terminal area, weather avoidance, etc. Again looking at 180 kts, you're probably going to have two legs of 3:45 or so if there's no wind, which is never the case. Going one way you'll beat that time, going back you may need a second fuel stop. Since winds are usually stronger at altitude, are you prepared to fly low all the way back from Miami? I recently took a flight from ATL to TPA, at 4000 feet there was a 25 knot tailwind and it just went up from there. Great for us, not so good if you were heading northbound. To minimize your headwind you'd stay low, and it was bumpy down there. On that day, you could easily spend nine hours in the airplane.

If you were wanting to go from Wisconsin to Minnesota or Iowa, GA is a great way to travel. For a mission like yours, Delta is ready when you are.
 
No one has mentioned an Aerostar? I know the OP said twin costs are out of the question... but, if the OP is looking for a fast miniature airliner then the Aerostar seems like a good fit. Crazy fast planes. And you can find plenty of them well within your price range. The money saved on the upfront purchase can be used for engine maintenance down the line and fuel

FormerHangie said:
Boeing 737. Seriously.
Click to expand...
There was (or still is?) a jet conversion to the Aerostar. It's not as sharp looking at the Cirrus Jet, but it's a pretty sick plane and the performance is killer. Would be cool to look out the window for pax and have it feel like your very own 737

 
Tantalum said:
No one has mentioned an Aerostar? I know the OP said twin costs are out of the question... but, if the OP is looking for a fast miniature airliner then the Aerostar seems like a good fit. Crazy fast planes. And you can find plenty of them well within your price range. The money saved on the upfront purchase can be used for engine maintenance down the line and fuel
Click to expand...
My guess is he isn't multi certified or he'd already have one picked out as that is the only thing that would have gotten close to his original parameters. His updated range opened up some reality for singles.
 
True... but if he is IFR rated then it would seem $$ is not necessarily an issue with ratings. And if you are looking at the big picture and want a fast plane with good range and decent payload then a twin is really the best answer

Not that the Mooneys and Bonanzas mentioned here are not capable planes...but if he really wants to make it from MKE to MIA then with winds aloft, etc., that starts to turn into a pretty grueling day
 
Radar Contact said:
My guess is he isn't multi certified or he'd already have one picked out as that is the only thing that would have gotten close to his original parameters. His updated range opened up some reality for singles.
Click to expand...

You say that but there are singles with much better range profiles than a lot of twins.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Radar Contact said:
My guess is he isn't multi certified or he'd already have one picked out as that is the only thing that would have gotten close to his original parameters. His updated range opened up some reality for singles.
Click to expand...

gsengle said:
You say that but there are singles with much better range profiles than a lot of twins.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Oh boy, here we go....:popcorn:
 
Rcmutz said:
I think it has to do with the smallish Windows, and panel being close when you pull the seat up.
Click to expand...

I don't think the windows are small, personally - Maybe in the vertical dimension, but on the windscreen that's due to the slope (for speed!) and overall it's due to the plane not being as tall. Visibility is much better than some other planes, even those with higher windows...

Panel is definitely closer when you put the seat in the right spot - But that's good! I did my IR in an Archer and always had a backache at the end of every flight from having to lean forward to reach things on the panel.

Also, how many screws do you have to remove for the annual. Lots of wing access panels to remove, and the cowl... Probably like 500 number 8's. I heard AnPs love Mooney's.... Cha Ching!
Click to expand...

I don't think it's really that many more than any other airplane. All of 'em have access panels to look in. If there is a difference, it's on the planes that have three panels on the belly to take off instead of the single big one.

The bigger issue with Mooney maintenance is how tightly things are packed under the cowl, and on the IO-550s the intake is on top of the engine so it has to be removed for a lot more things than otherwise. The trade-off there is that it's a balanced intake and allows you to run lean of peak quite easily (in fact, that is book procedure on mine).

However, not once have I ever had to replace a Mooney part. Plenty from King, Whelen, Continental, et al but the parts of the plane that were built by Mooney have been 100% rock solid. The plane may be heavier empty than others would be, but it is very stoutly built and very sturdy!

gsengle said:
The new ones are easier to work on, and all my cowl screws are the captive half turn type I forget what they are called...
Click to expand...

Camlocs. At least, that's what I call 'em. ;) https://www.afsrcamloc.net
 
gsengle said:
You say that but there are singles with much better range profiles than a lot of twins.
Click to expand...
For sure. A Seminole or Duchess would never go up against many singles, but the *original* post was looking for a 200 knot 1,300 nm plane that would hold 3 people and a "decent" amount of baggage. That puts you into Cessna 340, 414, Aerostar, Navajo territory

...but I know he changed his original specs somewhat.. but if the mission really calls for MKE to MIA then with a fuel stop and head winds Delta starts to look like a better and better option. @FormerHangie had a very nice summary
 
Radar Contact said:
My guess is he isn't multi certified or he'd already have one picked out as that is the only thing that would have gotten close to his original parameters. His updated range opened up some reality for singles.
Click to expand...

I will be multi rated soon, I wouldn't say that twins are completely out of the question, obviously a Cessna 421 or 414 would be ideal, although not sure about the cost.
 
Stets656 said:
I will be multi rated soon, I wouldn't say that twins are completely out of the question, obviously a Cessna 421 or 414 would be ideal, although not sure about the cost.
Click to expand...

Better not mind writing checks. Lot's of 'em. Neither plane, or the Aerostar, is for low time pilots.
 
Stets656 said:
Lol, just kidding around, gotta love forums. Any aircraft that would be similar to a 210?
Click to expand...

Yes, but no.

Malibus are kind of similar in that they're pressurized singles, but you won't find a decent one for $250K and they do have the most engine reliability issues of any certified single. That's probably in large part due to the additional pressurization (5.5psid vs. 3.5psid on the P210).

Mooney M-22 Mustang is also a pressurized single, but only three dozen were built, and that was back in the late 60s. Only 17 left on the registry. In fact, they were the first pressurized singles. Maintenance is likely somewhat difficult.

There's the Extra 400, but there's only a dozen of those on the FAA registry and they'd be well out of your price range.

Those three are the only certified, pressurized singles I can think of aside from the P210.
 
gsengle said:
You say that but there are singles with much better range profiles than a lot of twins.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I agree with the lot of twins part. I'm not against singles by any stretch. I was getting close to putting an offer on an Ovation before I went all in on the 310 (fits my mission profile/personal preference better).

I'm just saying that if he was going to stick to the original mission requirements, a twin would basically be the only chance. Most HP singles would have to offload a lot of gas to get 3 adults and bags in there making the original range no where near possible. A 310, or most 3XX/4XX cessna's, would come very close to the original spec's (speed/distance/purchase price). My 310 with locker tanks could do a little over 1300nm (no reserve) at 192 kts @ 75% (If I ran it that hard, which I don't). I also have zero desire, nor do my pax's to sit that long or run that hard.

Even the Saratoga II TC I flew would only have about 450-500 mile range with 3 total average adults in the plane at 60 lbs of baggage.
 
Stets656 said:
How bout a 58P baron?
Click to expand...

Nice plane. Not sure it's for a beginner and the insurance company will feel the same way. Nonetheless, with the right amount of instruction (with a BPPP instructor) I'm sure they won't cut you loose until you're ready. Go to www.beechtalk.com . There is a "twins" section with a lot of Baron owners. Ask some questions there. From what I've read (I own a V35b) the P Barons, like most pressurized planes, have more systems and therefore more maintenance but the owners seem to love 'em.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top