If you had $500,000

[decadence]

This is a hypothetical question: If you were to buy a new plane in the $500,000 area with the following ideas in mind, what would it be?;
Here is the scenario. You live in southern Florida. You have large acreage in upstate New York and would like to be able to fly to your property. You would probably have a grass runway setup so something that would be able to hold up well to that would be ideal. Your also love going fast. Double engines are a possibility
Priorities in order:
1.Ability to do grass landings no problems
2.Long Range
3.Speed
4.Price(not that big of a deal, price is negotiable)

 

[SkykingC310]

Cessna 310

 

[flyingcheesehead]

This is a hypothetical question: If you were to buy a new plane in the $500,000 area with the following ideas in mind, what would it be?;
Here is the scenario. You live in southern Florida. You have large acreage in upstate New York and would like to be able to fly to your property. You would probably have a grass runway setup so something that would be able to hold up well to that would be ideal. Your also love going fast. Double engines are a possibility
Priorities in order:
1.Ability to do grass landings no problems
2.Long Range
3.Speed
4.Price(not that big of a deal, price is negotiable)

Joe,

You'll get some excellent answers if you provide just a bit more info: New or used? How much weight do you need to carry? What's your maintenance budget? How long is said grass field, and is it obstructed?

I doubt you'll find anything in the half mil range that will make that trip without refueling. Maybe something that'll do it with two stops max? How many nm between the two places?

Would you be interested in a homebuilt? An RV might be an ideal bird if it'll carry what you want.

When I think fast, I think Mooney. There's been some disagreement in another thread about whether it's good to do a lot of grass fields in a Mooney or not.

Cirrus is fast too, but insurance is expensive.

Most of the time grass asks for a taildragger, but I can't think of any good fast taildraggers that are certified.

 

[Paul Allen]

Mooney!

 

[RotaryWingBob]

The same R44 I'm buying with three other guys, except it would be MINE, ALL MINE HaHaHaHa!

 

[SkyHog]

Mooney!

You did it wrong, its:

Mooney, Mooney, Mooney!

but I disagree - buy a New Archer or Arrow. Delicious.

 

[Paul Allen]

You did it wrong, its:

Mooney, Mooney, Mooney!

but I disagree - buy a New Archer or Arrow. Delicious.

Can you say "sloooowww"

 

[EdFred]

Comanche. Heavy duty landing gear. 155-160kts. They love grass. 1200 useful load. With 90 gallon tanks, you reduce your payload, but cruise at 55% and your range can be almost 1200 miles. Of course it doesn't cost 500,000 but I cant think of any brand spanking new planes that are built for grass and that are fast.

 

[Bill]

Comanche. Heavy duty landing gear. 155-160kts. They love grass. 1200 useful load. With 90 gallon tanks, you reduce your payload, but cruise at 55% and your range can be almost 1200 miles. Of course it doesn't cost 500,000 but I cant think of any brand spanking new planes that are built for grass and that are fast.

Geez, Ed, you've fallen head over heels for that Comanche

 

[EdFred]

Geez, Ed, you've fallen head over heels for that Comanche

Well, I'd totally forgotten about them for a while.

 

[Keith Lane]

I watched a demo of this at Sun -n Fun a few years ago. I wanted one!
Abour $300k fully equipped.​

Comp Air 6 kits being readied

for shipment from the factory.​

All Aerocomp kits are simple and easy to​

assemble. Numerous options are available

so that you may build the airplane
that is perfect for you.​

U G E c a p a c i t y
(up to 3000 lbs. useful load) characterizes the Comp Air 10XL Turbine. This aircraft can seat 8 adults comfortably, with room left over for baggage or a couple children. It is ideally suited for ranchers, outfitters, fish camp operators, or anyone who needs to carry a big load. Powered by the 657 shp Walter M601D turboprop, it cruises between 175 and 200 mph TAS (depending on loading, altitude, power setting, etc).

Inside cabin dimensions:​

13 feet x 5 feet

(9 feet available​

aft of the front seats)​

The Comp Air 10 features modern all-composite construction, and is available in tricycle, tailwheel, or float configuration.
Numerous options are available to custom-tailor this airplane to your own specifications.
Cruise 175 to 200 mph TAS

- 7 to 10 Place Airplane -

Loaded with full fuel and 5 people, the CA10 can launch with an incredibly short takeoff run of only 250 feet (3½ seconds)! Then, once airborne, it can continue to climb at 2000 feet per minute (90-95 mph) or cruise-climb at a more comfortable 1500 feet per minute (120 -130 mph). Leveling off in cruise flight, a Walter-equipped Comp Air 10 will effortlessly maintain speeds between 175 and 200 mph TAS, while carrying full fuel, 8 or more people, and baggage. The cockpit is roomy and wide (60"), with a panoramic view.
Still need more room? ...the optional exterior cargo pod is big enough to carry 10 sheets of plywood!
​

 

[Ken Ibold]

Dudes, he said NEW in the original post. Grass and speed/range tend to conflict with each other. Assuming the grass would be kept in excellent condition, I personally would look at a Mooney Ovation 3 with known icing or, if that budget is in fact flexible, I would also look at the Diamond TwinStar, which with KI will exceed 500K -- list price, at least. I'm sure if you were a buyer you could do better.

 

[Everskyward]

Dudes, he said NEW in the original post.

New Bonanza? but he would have to stretch his budget a little...

 

[JasonCT]

Maule!

And then with all that money I had left over --- I would build myself a nice hangar on the property(ies)!

 

[grattonja]

Number of seats needed to be filled, please? If you have two or more kids, plus the missus, then the Mooney is probably not such a good idea. Agreed too on the poster requesting useful load. That's a biggie too. Some faster planes won't hold much weight, some slower planes (think Saratoga) will haul a ranch plus fuel.

Jim G

 

[gprellwitz]

I notice the Columbia's haven't been mentioned. Is that because of the grass strip limitation?

 

[decadence]

ok, to answer some questions, 4 seats is just fine. Anything less is no and anything more is ok.
2 stops max
no homebuilts
By the way, this was a hypothetical question.
Weight isn't that big of a deal
I also want to comment on how fast the replies are on this forum

 

[Henning]

ok, to answer some questions, 4 seats is just fine. Anything less is no and anything more is ok.
2 stops max
no homebuilts
By the way, this was a hypothetical question.
Weight isn't that big of a deal
I also want to comment on how fast the replies are on this forum

Well, since you didn't change the NEW factor, twins are out at $500k. If the loads are light, an Arrow or Ovation, if the loads are heavier, a 182. If you can get a Saratoga for for your price, that would also be a good choice. Come up a bit an go for a Bonanza. You'll need to come up considerably for a Baron.

 

[gprellwitz]

I notice the Columbia's haven't been mentioned. Is that because of the grass strip limitation?

Answering my own question, I come up with 3155' landing over a 50' obstacle on a standard day at sea level with a 10kt headwind on grass. Almost 3400' no wind. But, since you have a hypothetical "large acreage", just build yourself a longer runway!

 

[grattonja]

If speed isn't a factor, I think you can get a new Saratoga, or a 6X anyway, for those $. Good hauler, good avionics (you can get the Avidyne panel if you want it). That SHOULD make the trip with two fuel stops. Not as fast as a Mooney but roomy.

Jim G

 

[Tom-D]

This is a hypothetical question: If you were to buy a new plane in the $500,000 area with the following ideas in mind, what would it be?;
Here is the scenario. You live in southern Florida. You have large acreage in upstate New York and would like to be able to fly to your property. You would probably have a grass runway setup so something that would be able to hold up well to that would be ideal. Your also love going fast. Double engines are a possibility
Priorities in order:
1.Ability to do grass landings no problems
2.Long Range
3.Speed
4.Price(not that big of a deal, price is negotiable)

If you had half a mil to spend on transportation, why not buy into a corporate air consortium, and get a safe ride in upper class jet traffic. With out all the pain of maintenance, ownership. No hangar to deal with, no pilot recurrency to deal with.

Nothing, just call and schedual and go.

 

[decadence]

1. enjoyment of flying
2. upper class jets don't land on grass fields in my backyard
3. this was a hypothetical question

 

[jdwatson]

Well, since you didn't change the NEW factor, twins are out at $500k. If the loads are light, an Arrow or Ovation, if the loads are heavier, a 182. If you can get a Saratoga for for your price, that would also be a good choice. Come up a bit an go for a Bonanza. You'll need to come up considerably for a Baron.

Why not a Cessna Stationair (206) ?

 

[EdFred]

Why not a Cessna Stationair (206) ?

Because it's a high wing.

 

[JRitt]

RV-10 cruise at 160kts @12gph. 48" wide cabin and room in the back for real size adults. Takes off in less than 500'. 1100lb usefull load. You can buy the one that won in Osh last year for 225K

 

[Frank Browne]

A 182 would do me just fine.

 

[gprellwitz]

RV-10 cruise at 160kts @12gph. 48" wide cabin and room in the back for real size adults. Takes off in less than 500'. 1100lb usefull load. You can buy the one that won in Osh last year for 225K

unfortunately he said

no homebuilts

 

[JRitt]

OK columbia 400 but I don't know how they do on grass. but everything else fits the bill

 

[gprellwitz]

OK columbia 400 but I don't know how they do on grass. but everything else fits the bill

I figure they do no better than the Columbia 350, whose short-field landing chart I posted above. 3400' on a standard day at sea level with no wind over a 50' obstruction. Utility class, but not for short grass runways.

 

[jdwatson]

Because it's a high wing.

I had that coming to me.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

Comanche. Heavy duty landing gear. 155-160kts. They love grass. 1200 useful load. With 90 gallon tanks, you reduce your payload, but cruise at 55% and your range can be almost 1200 miles. Of course it doesn't cost 500,000 but I cant think of any brand spanking new planes that are built for grass and that are fast.

Specifically, this one: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Pipe...7QQihZ007QQcategoryZ63677QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

The leftover $430K will buy a lot of gas and hamburgers.

 

[wsuffa]

Half a million and the time to build it?

This:
http://www.lancair.com/Main/propjet.html

 

[Henning]

Why not a Cessna Stationair (206) ?

I thought, perhaps incorrectly, that a new 206 was > $500k, and then I'd just get the Bo. Personnally I wouldn't really consider any of the above, but he ruled out experimentals which is where all the planes of my choice would lie.

 

[jdwatson]

I thought, perhaps incorrectly, that a new 206 was > $500k, and then I'd just get the Bo. Personnally I wouldn't really consider any of the above, but he ruled out experimentals which is where all the planes of my choice would lie.

Nearly $500K:
Nav III Equipped Stationair 206H: $448,160
NAV III Equipped Stationair T206H: $482,160 <--- I like this one !

Altho, I'm not sold on all glass just yet. I'd prefer traditional 6-pack,SN4500 EHSI, MX200, GNS-480, SL-30s, and ADS-B (GDL-90), GTX-327, vertical compass card, 2-axis A/P with Altitude Preset. Not that I've given it any thought.

 

[One Short]

Maule!

And then with all that money I had left over --- I would build myself a nice hangar on the property(ies)!

Maule with the Allison engine. Then you don't need a runway. A long heliport would do and Bob could visit in his Robinson. Save the cost of the runway and build the hangar.

Barb

 

[flyingcheesehead]

but I disagree - buy a New Archer or Arrow. Delicious.

Nick, I know you're a Piper guy, and I like 'em too, but a new one? You've gotta be kidding. Piper is dead. Where's the innovation? Piper hasn't come out with anything new in many years (bringing back the Cherokee 6, a great airplane, and calling it the 6X does not count). The value is absolutely terrible:

New Piper Archer with glass: $292,260. 125kts (being generous, it's got a new cowl), 578 lbs full fuel payload, range to zero fuel 600nm
New Diamond Star with glass: $255,708, 145 kts, 660 lbs payload, range 580nm.

The Arrow is even worse: $345,100, 135 kts, 523lb payload, range 877nm (this last number is the only favorable one of the bunch!)
The regular DA40 still compares favorably in everything but range; for $15K less than the Arrow you can get the DA40XL, every option the DA40 had, 150+ kts cruise, 624 lbs payload, and 750+nm range

The biggie: Why does a new Archer cost $292,260 while a new 172 costs $241,000? There's a reason there are glass Cessnas available for rent in lots of places, but I haven't even seen a glass Piper outside of Oshkosh.

I think they also screwed up going with Avidyne. The only other manufacturer that's strictly Avidyne is Cirrus. People buy the Cirrus in spite of the Avidyne, not because of it. (Cirrus is the marketing king in piston aircraft.) The manufacturers that offer a choice between Avidyne and Garmin glass are almost strictly selling Garmin. Columbia claims "99% Garmin" while Diamond has built ONE plane with Avidyne. ONE!

Comparing the Archer to late 70's planes, it compares favorably. It was a wonderful plane in its day, and I still love N8483F. But, Piper is lagging far behind the modern crop of airplanes, and I don't expect them to last a whole lot longer.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Comanche. Heavy duty landing gear. 155-160kts. They love grass. 1200 useful load. With 90 gallon tanks, you reduce your payload, but cruise at 55% and your range can be almost 1200 miles. Of course it doesn't cost 500,000 but I cant think of any brand spanking new planes that are built for grass and that are fast.

Good call, Ed. It's too bad Piper didn't continue making the Comanches. 34 years to modernize them and I bet they might actually have something competitive. The Comanches and Twin Comanches were wonderful airplanes.

Damn floods.

 

[Henning]

Nearly $500K:
Nav III Equipped Stationair 206H: $448,160
NAV III Equipped Stationair T206H: $482,160 <--- I like this one !

Altho, I'm not sold on all glass just yet. I'd prefer traditional 6-pack,SN4500 EHSI, MX200, GNS-480, SL-30s, and ADS-B (GDL-90), GTX-327, vertical compass card, 2-axis A/P with Altitude Preset. Not that I've given it any thought.

Yeah, I think you should spend more time looking over your options.

I think I'd meld a set of 421C wings to an AT-802 fuse preferably or a Drom if on a hard budget, remove the hopper and build a nice forward club seating with fold downs for sleepers. 4 seats with lav & Galley. Next is to fit the deisel burning Wankels that the Navy is using on their outboard applications, gear them down and swing long meaty props and potentially running 4 rotors. Have to move the gear in the wing, make the TW retract and clean up the plane overall as well as rearrainge the cockpit (they're pretty fair sized) for staggered side by side to allow pilot transfer down front to the cabin. I could build that for less than half a mil. If I had more, I'd probably just scavenge the gear out of those wings and build the NASA foil that the LanceAir IV uses, fully wet and which would have fold down floats/tip tanks and a retractable float molded to the bottom of the fuse. It forms the fuse and tank tucked behind the cabin and below the cockpit and empenage that goes down and forward on a set of parallel links to make it amphibious. On the left side of the panel goes the Chelton EFIS with terrain above an MX 20. A slim double stack of engine instrumentation to the right of that above the fuel management panel. On the right side of that is the radio stack with an MX 20, 480 and 530. The only add on I would get is the radar. On the very right would be a standard six pack with HSI. The switchology would all be set HOTAS or dang close to it.

300+ kt cruise, amphibious, deisel/JetA/JP4 burning non-turbine engine, legs to cross the Pacific (which means world wide range), comfort to handle sustained long range operations, well built for surviveability and streamlined for efficiency. There would also be the head turning factor.

But I haven't thought it over to much either.

 

[Tom-D]

1. enjoyment of flying
2. upper class jets don't land on grass fields in my backyard
3. this was a hypothetical question

1. enjoyment of flying,,, then buy 2, J-3s 1 north and 1 south, and enjoy

2. upper class jets don't land on grass fields in my backyard,,,,,then call the lemo..

3. this was a hypothetical question,,,,, then this is a hypothetical answer

 

[rpadula]

Lotsa Mooney replies but none for the newest speedster: the Acclaim!

It's on the cover of AOPA Pilot in all its bright red glory. 237kts and $495,000. Just under the limit.


-Rich