How fast can I go for $50k

You'll probably never find what you want in the usual spots... Controller, TAP, Barnstormers, etc. Check around local airports, get to some of the FBOs and flying clubs... EAA chapters. I have learned this, you'll miss the shoulder room in the Cardinal...
 
cgrab said:
I sold my 150hp Cardinal when I moved and now I have farther to go to the places I like. I would like something to carry two and our bags and do more than the 105 knots I saw in the Cardinal. Since it is not a necessity (debatable) I would like to keep it to the $50Kk I have on hand.
Click to expand...
If you want to fly on a tight budget, it's more important to look at ongoing operating costs than initial purchase price. Something like a Piper PA-28-180 may not be a speed daemon, but it has decent load and performance, sells for much less than an equally-capable brand C, and most-importantly, is relatively cheap to maintain (lots of parts availability, new and salvage, and every shop knows how to work on it). A few years ago, you could have found a decent 180 in the USD 50K range, but you're probably looking more at 75K these days. Make sure it's had the eddy-current wing-spar AD done already.

If you want to go a bit faster in the future, good after-market wheel fairings (similar to the ones that come stock on the later PA-28-181) would buy you a few extra knots, and replacing the coffee-can tail beacon might buy another, but I'd skip any additional speed-mod snake oil.
 
elvisAteMySandwich said:
How expensive would you say is maintaining a Super Viking compared to other similarly performing singles? Is it mandatory to hanger it due to the wood and fabric wings?
Click to expand...

It's comparable to maintain, there's nothing particularly unique or special about it that makes is hard to work on (though like every airplane, it's got a few quirks that your A&P needs to understand and appreciate, or be willing to pick up the phone and call one of the specialists; the gear is one of those items). I don't buy into the idea that you have to have your BSV maintained at one of the "specialty" shops, we've had zero issues having ours maintained by a general shop (but our A&P is smart and open-minded and knows when to stop and ask us to look into specialist issues).
 
That twin navion is freakin cool. I assume it has some bizarre engines hung on it that can only be overhauled by Orville's ghost, using parts found slathered in cosmoline under a tarp in the cambodian jungle?
 
schmookeeg said:
That twin navion is freakin cool. I assume it has some bizarre engines hung on it that can only be overhauled by Orville's ghost, using parts found slathered in cosmoline under a tarp in the cambodian jungle?
Click to expand...

Lycoming o-340s ...

So yes, fairly rare. I suspect the odd engines are why the ad is silent on them. Get someone thinking the plane is cool before they realize that it is going to be a challenge to support.
 
Sigh, isn't that always the way.

I wonder if anyone would notice the swap-in of some, say, Duchess or Seminole 360s. What's 20 cubic inches between friends? :D Probably adios what look to be some fussy Hartzell clamped propellers into the bargain too. I recall the rest of the navion airframe to be easy to work on, with no real oddities.

That thing is just begging for a little resto-mod action.
 
kyleb said:
I missed that they are 340’s. Where did it say that? Wiki thinks D-16 Navions have 320’s.
Click to expand...

It didn’t. Going off memory, there were two different outfits that did twin conversions on the Navion. One used the 340 and I can’t remember what the other one was. In this case I’m going to assume that the FAA registry is correct when it listed that it has Lycoming 340s on it.

Like I said, I think it is a game being played by the seller to limit information.
 
schmookeeg said:
Sigh, isn't that always the way.

I wonder if anyone would notice the swap-in of some, say, Duchess or Seminole 360s. What's 20 cubic inches between friends? :D Probably adios what look to be some fussy Hartzell clamped propellers into the bargain too. I recall the rest of the navion airframe to be easy to work on, with no real oddities.

That thing is just begging for a little resto-mod action.
Click to expand...

Seems like if anything has a case for going experimental-exhibition that would be it.
 
schmookeeg said:
Sigh, isn't that always the way.

I wonder if anyone would notice the swap-in of some, say, Duchess or Seminole 360s. What's 20 cubic inches between friends? :D Probably adios what look to be some fussy Hartzell clamped propellers into the bargain too. I recall the rest of the navion airframe to be easy to work on, with no real oddities.

That thing is just begging for a little resto-mod action.
Click to expand...

Ive thought the same. They’re neat airplanes, and I’d like to own one. Me being the masochist that I am would be trying to get a set of 360s field approved because I see it as a challenge and it would be better for supportability. The props would be gone too.

Early Travel Air engines and props may be another option too.
 
steingar said:
MooneyM20c Ranger. 140 knots all day long burning 8-9 gallons an hour. Get the manual gear and say goodbye to gear problems. You can get one and with 50K have enough left over to pay for some squawks. And did I forget to mention that the Mooney will carry around a thousand pounds of you, your woman, and your woman's ****.

None of the experimentals will do this for the money. You can't buy a decent RV for Mooney money, they get pricey fast. Don't believe me, do some shopping. You put you and your favorite skirt in a Varieze and you won't have enough room for a sandwich. There is no greater bang for the buck in GA than a vintage Mooney.
Click to expand...
tenor.png
 
I always loved how the Navion looked, in many ways it's exactly how a small airplane is supposed to look.. wings low, stands tall, sleek lines, big cockpit, sliding canopy

surprised there are not more of them around. There's one flying around somewhere in Southern California that the owner beautifully rebuilt however for some unknown reason he decided to paint it to look like every single flight school Cessna out there with those tacky swoopy blue lines on a white fuselage
 
I can get you a RATO unit for $9k.
I get to keep what's left of the money when you're done?
 
Thanks to everyone for the advice and humor. I've been crammed into the back of a Mooney and think it is a two place plane. I'll start looking around the "neighborhood."
 
cgrab said:
I've been crammed into the back of a Mooney and think it is a two place plane
Click to expand...
Yes! It's barely even a two place plane.. really barely a "one place" plane.. if even that.

I want to like that Mooney, but they're just.so.small.



..queue the "I've had 4 people and two dogs in my Mooney, it's fine" crowd in 3.. 2.. 1..
 
Tantalum said:
Yes! It's barely even a two place plane.. really barely a "one place" plane.. if even that.

I want to like that Mooney, but they're just.so.small.



..queue the "I've had 4 people and two dogs in my Mooney, it's fine" crowd in 3.. 2.. 1..
Click to expand...
That's just the thing. I'd rather spend 3:00 in comfortable flight than 2:15 in a miserable, cramped one.
 
OP asked for speed for the money. I fit just fine in my Mooney, and I don't fly it from the back seat. And if you think my back seat is small, try sitting in the one in the RV that you're buying for 50 AMUs. Good luck with that.
 
For what it's worth the backseat of most planes aren't that comfortable..

In the case of the Mooney it might just be an overall personal thing. My friend fits great in his and loves it. Some people like the "I'm wearing it" feeling. I don't.

For overall speed verse dollars spent the Mooney is the best buy.
 
I got my '64 Mooney Super21 2-1/2 years ago for 42k. It now has 850 SMOH and 2850 TTAF. I may have got lucky, but I'll take it. I cruise at 140kts and 8 GPH. It'll cruise at 150+ but it burns more fuel. I don't need to go faster but I could.
 
Tantalum said:
I always loved how the Navion looked, in many ways it's exactly how a small airplane is supposed to look.. wings low, stands tall, sleek lines, big cockpit, sliding canopy

surprised there are not more of them around. There's one flying around somewhere in Southern California that the owner beautifully rebuilt however for some unknown reason he decided to paint it to look like every single flight school Cessna out there with those tacky swoopy blue lines on a white fuselage
Click to expand...

I saw that Navion just a couple weeks ago at Hemet-Ryan. 100-point restoration for sure!

You're right about the paint scheme...poor choice.
 
That's a nice looking traveler. The traveler has plenty room in the back for a passenger and the rear seat backs fold down to make one larger cargo compartment.
 
OP said two people and bags. Why the back seat comfort concerns? Mooney is very comfortable up front and accommodates people with long legs very well. And the baggage loads from the top so easier to properly stack your stuff.

[/edit - added baggage comment]
 
Arnold said:
OP said two people and bags. Why the back seat comfort concerns? Mooney is very comfortable up front and accommodates people with long legs very well. And the baggage loads from the top so easier to properly stack your stuff.

[/edit - added baggage comment]
Click to expand...
You're right. I will say this about loading the Traveler, the sliding canopy helps and having a relatively spacious back seat also means plenty space that's available for loading bags.
On long flights my wife goes to sleep in the back of the Traveler. I don't have any Mooney experience but it doesn't seem like that is as comfortable.
 
farangutan said:
I don't have any Mooney experience but it doesn't seem like that is as comfortable.
Click to expand...
I've flown both. Front seat is about the same. Both could use an extra few inches of width and and extra few inches of length to the panel IMO, but neither was particularly uncomfortable for me.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
I've flown both. Front seat is about the same. Both could use an extra few inches of width and and extra few inches of length to the panel IMO, but neither was particularly uncomfortable for me.
Click to expand...

Twice a year I do my IPC in a Mooney 201. I've flown Mooney's from the M20B to the Ovation. If you are shortish, like I am (66"), the panel seems close but I have full rudder travel. If you are tall like the owner is (75") he has plenty of leg room and doesn't hit his head on the roof. For me the panel seems close for the first ten minutes but I quickly get comfortable with it. YMMV.
 
And that Grumman won't keep up with a Mooney. The only ones that will are Tigers, and even then they can't. And good luck scoring one of those for Mooney money.
 
2 people with bags that goes fast and priced at 50k (or possibly more importantly won't break the bank with maintenance or upgrades after the purchase) is the stuff experimentals are are made of.
 
FORANE said:
2 people with bags that goes fast and priced at 50k (or possibly more importantly won't break the bank with maintenance or upgrades after the purchase) is the stuff experimentals are are made of.
Click to expand...

I keep hearing this but - I have not found a $50,000 experimental that will take 2 x 200 lb pax plus 200 lb bags, has four seats if needed, and a traceable maintenance history AND is already built, licensed and airworthy. I'm open to suggestions.
 
FORANE said:
2 people with bags that goes fast and priced at 50k (or possibly more importantly won't break the bank with maintenance or upgrades after the purchase) is the stuff experimentals are are made of.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. I don’t think there is going to be a TCd airplane that would be a worthy contender if the goal is mainly “how fast can I go”.
 
Arnold said:
I keep hearing this but - I have not found a $50,000 experimental that will take 2 x 200 lb pax plus 200 lb bags, has four seats if needed, and a traceable maintenance history AND is already built, licensed and airworthy. I'm open to suggestions.
Click to expand...
You are adding to the requirements list. The biggest obstacle you added is the has 4 seats if needed part. 4 seats in the experimental world is indeed rare.
Additionally, you pack like my wife.
 
I was just presuming every wife packed like my wife. I can pack a week long camping trip for two in 70lbs. I know the 2 back seats are not required but they are a nice bonus for the money. Two seat experimentals that are well built and have just a bit of baggage space, RV-6 for example sell for over $60K. A friend of mine sold his PA-28 and went in search of the elusive reasonably well priced, well built VFR RV-6 or similar for six months. He ended up buying his PA-28 back from the guy he sold it to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top