Fixed Leg Options for 3-4 people 135 or more kts

steingar said:
Vaporware. There aren't very many aircraft that will do those speeds with the gear welded down for that money. The Tiger can kinda depending on the aircraft, but they are a bit scarce. Skylanes can do it if you don't mind burning lots and lots of gas in an aircraft your grandfather could have flown when he was young. Sad thing is the money will buy a lot of Bo or Mooney, but the gear isn't welded down. Don't know why the OP is so frightened of retractable, it's just a switch.
Click to expand...

After reading Kathryn's report, I'm thoroughly convinced that fixed trigear is the way to go.
 
Last edited:
hindsight2020 said:
70.
Click to expand...
I've had a couple friends forced out of their Mooneys, but they were UFO members. Even then, right record and right insurance company and you'll be OK. A pilot recently took off in his his Mooney to celebrate his hundredth birthday.
 
WDD said:
Liability only?
Click to expand...
Assuming you can pay cash. There's a discussion of this on beechtalk recently. Don't know if they'll write liability only, but I think that thread had some people who did it. Tbh the 1mm standard liability limit is a joke, too.
 
steingar said:
I've had a couple friends forced out of their Mooneys, but they were UFO members. Even then, right record and right insurance company and you'll be OK. A pilot recently took off in his his Mooney to celebrate his hundredth birthday.
Click to expand...
UFO??
 
Jim K said:
Assuming you can pay cash. There's a discussion of this on beechtalk recently. Don't know if they'll write liability only, but I think that thread had some people who did it. Tbh the 1mm standard liability limit is a joke, too.
Click to expand...
Yes, I would pay cash for plane. Would be nice if another option would be full insurance EXCEPT if I crunch things because I forgot to drop the gear.
 
steingar said:
Vaporware. There aren't very many aircraft that will do those speeds with the gear welded down for that money. The Tiger can kinda depending on the aircraft, but they are a bit scarce. Skylanes can do it if you don't mind burning lots and lots of gas in an aircraft your grandfather could have flown when he was young. Sad thing is the money will buy a lot of Bo or Mooney, but the gear isn't welded down. Don't know why the OP is so frightened of retractable, it's just a switch.
Click to expand...

Skylanes don't seem to be that expensive to run, and it has a cabin volume that can comfortably meet the OP's specs and an engine capable of lifting that payload and moving it along at a reasonable pace.

I didn't see anywhere where the OP said he was "frightened" of a retractable...but a retractable gear airplane, any retractable, is more complex than fixed gear, and thus has more failure modes, and will almost certainly add to the cost over any reasonable ownership time span. Those would seem worthy reasons to explore options, which is what it appears the OP is trying to do. Unfortunately, his price point makes finding a reasonable example of a Skylane rather difficult in this market.
 
Last edited:
WDD said:
Yes, I would pay cash for plane. Would be nice if another option would be full insurance EXCEPT if I crunch things because I forgot to drop the gear.
Click to expand...

"Not in motion" coverage would cover most of the things that are out of your control. Of course the one big risk is an engine failure in flight. In that case though even if you're fully insured you still foot the bill for the engine, which is half the cost of the airplane.

A gear up landing exclusion would be a great idea. I'd take it if it would get me the same rate as the fixed gear equivalent. Insurance on the lance is double that for a 6/300.
 
Not in motion - “hey, the plane wasn’t in motion after it hit the ground.”
 
Called an insurance guy. His answer is - “hard to tell about insurability. 2 years ago they (underwriters?))didn’t care about age. Now they do. Who knows in 10 years.” He did say that if you have a retract and are under 70 they’ll probably keep you when you pass 70. Probably won’t write a new policy for a new guy who is over 70.
 
The "135 knots" requirement seems oddly specific to me.

It would seem the the OP can have everything he wants and have a lot of options if he was willing to accept the 120-130 knot range. In the total time of a trip (to/from airport, preflight, fueling, etc) this would result in an almost negligible time difference.
 
I think I get what the OP is wanting - he wants to save time, just like all of us.

It took me a while to figure it out myself but in my case I thought I wanted speed but really needed fuel range. Being able to go non stop saved me an hour door to door.

Unfortunately, when I do the math for my mission now, I need at least 185kts in order for a different plane to make sense.
 
samiamPA said:
The "135 knots" requirement seems oddly specific to me.
Click to expand...

It’s a good place to reference, based on my trips in a rented Tiger and C182 straight leg, vs when I did the same trips in a 172.

My mission with the wife would be 2 maybe 3 hours max - regardless of the remaining fuel / range. The passenger “range” is driving factor here. She is the boss after all :) .
 
A whole lot more choices are available if you drop your desired cruise to 125 instead of 135. 400 nm ÷ 125 = 3.2 hrs. 400nm ÷ 135 = 2.96 hours. You only save 14 minutes. If fixed gear is what you really want, 135 kts is a pretty tall order.
 
Last checkout I did for a new retract pilot was 5 dual required, but we did 10 because he was rusty. According to him, the ownership group added him with high time but no retract, then a low time gal with some retract time a couple months later. Covering him added 10% to the insurance premium, the low time gal another 30%.
 
William Pete Hodges said:
A whole lot more choices are available if you drop your desired cruise to 125 instead of 135. 400 nm ÷ 125 = 3.2 hrs. 400nm ÷ 135 = 2.96 hours. You only save 14 minutes. If fixed gear is what you really want, 135 kts is a pretty tall order.
Click to expand...

I like your POV. Here is what I'm looking at. Assume calm wind, to go from Atlanta to Louisville to see my daughter:
1) Arrow at 135 kts - 2h04m
2) Plane X at 124 kts - 2h11m

What 125 kt fixed leg would you recommend?
 
Last edited:
WDD said:
What 125 kt fixed leg would you recommend?
Click to expand...

An Archer would do that...

Another airplane worth considering would be a fixed gear Cardinal.

As you see, the time spent or saved with a speed increase or decrease is small unless the delta between desired and actual is considerable. Loosening up on 135 knots as a must have opens things up a bit but so would having four seats. If two seats is an option there are quite a few experimentals that would easily surpass the 135 knot requirement and have fixed gear and be under $100k.
 
As above, I think the difference of 20nm in 2 hours is pretty negligible.

However, you said it is mostly for travel with your wife. If that is the case, it seems like an RV-7/9 would be perfect for the mission. The speed difference would be substantial over a 172/Cherokee, and they can easily haul 2+luggage.
 
Need the back seat for the “kids” on occasion (who are all grown adults)
 
Gotya. Well depending on how often the "occasion" is, I'd either get the RV and rent for the kids, or just live with 120-130kts and the standard options. Which will satisfy your mission the greater percentage of the time?
 
The number of rv 9a’s on the market is close for most of the time 0 unfortunately. Archers (and Arrows) seem to be available. I guess it’s a side effect of a popular model used in schools.
 
Last edited:
Just as a data point, three years ago I added a 72-year-old pilot as a name pilot my insurance for my piper arrow two. Upon renewal this year I was told that if I ever dropped him I could never bring him back. So from what I’m hearing is if you are already with an insurance company at a younger age and as you get older you need to stay with that insurance company.
 
SO.... will an Archer II really do 125 kts?
 
WDD said:
SO.... will an Archer II really do 125 kts?
Click to expand...
Not the archer I flew.... well not in level flight anyway.

I flight planned 110. It would do 115 firewalled at 7k ish. It doesn't have wheel pants. Book says they're worth 3 knots iirc.
 
WDD said:
From what I’m reading the arrow’s gear would be a lot more robust - and forgiving.
Click to expand...

Piper Arrow (and all the PA-32 variants) have stone simple gear. Extended by gravity, and raised by simple hydraulics.

-Skip
 
Jim K said:
Not the archer I flew.... well not in level flight anyway.

I flight planned 110. It would do 115 firewalled at 7k ish. It doesn't have wheel pants. Book says they're worth 3 knots iirc.
Click to expand...

Firewalled, and on a high pressure day (30.6") and cold, too. I wouldn't count on more speed ever:
 

Attachments

  • High Pressure - high performance.jpg
    High Pressure - high performance.jpg
    247.7 KB · Views: 31
Jim K said:
Not the archer I flew.... well not in level flight anyway.

I flight planned 110. It would do 115 firewalled at 7k ish. It doesn't have wheel pants. Book says they're worth 3 knots iirc.
Click to expand...
Well that won’t work for what I need. Wonder why I keep reading “125” - hence my question of “will it really”.

Edit - 110 indicated or true?
 
Realistically, a clean and well rigged archer is probably more in the 120 knot range. It could probably be pushed a little higher with some airframe cleanup. There was an article a few years back on the "fastest Cherokee 140" that got 120kts after a bunch of speed mods.

They are more rare, but you might stay in the market for a 235hp model which would get you closer to your targeted airspeed.

As previously mentioned, a Tiger would still seem to be one of the best fits, but probably more expensive.
 
Will a 180hp FG Cardinal do 125kts?
 
Dakota's are pricey and lost a little useful.

73-77 Pathfinder/Charger. Post Fuselage stretch, still have a good useful load. But not a crazy price....if you can find one. It's what I'm looking for
 
WDD said:
Probably as much as the archer II would, as they both list 125 as the cruising speed.
Click to expand...
Well, some POH/AFM authors were more honest than others...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top