Looking for buying advice. A need for speed in new plane.

What about a Long EZ? Not as fast as you want, but less fuel stops?
 
Racerx said:
I heard 15k annuals are the norm on the pa46
Click to expand...

Annual inspection and ongoing maintenance costs can vary greatly depending on how nice the airplane is to begin with and what work it needs. Anything firewall forward can be labor intensive to get to and fix so the labor hours will go up fast. The rest of the airframe isn’t too bad. I wouldn’t charge much to do a straight forward annual inspection, if such a thing existed.

Insurance is another matter. For any of the pressurized airplanes you can count on initial and annual recurrent training by an approved instructor. And the premiums aren’t cheap; you can get insurance with less than 1000 hours but for the price of one years worth of insurance you could probably buy a second airplane outright.
 
I cast my vote for the SF-260. 2-place, fast, aerobatic and sexy as hell. The biggest downside is the crowd of onlookers you’ll attract whenever you roll it out of the hangar.
 
Glasair III ! One on Barnstormers now for $130,000. Easily cruise at 220+ kts
 
  • Like
Reactions: JEB
Country Flier said:
I'm a turbo Mooney owner, but with the OPs situation, I'd also say just Lancair or Glasair is a better fit.
Click to expand...

I hope you're speaking figuratively because the 2-seat Lancair/Glasair are way smaller inside than a Mooney.
 
Not a lot of budget, for a lot of speed.
Lancair would get my vote though for your wants, and Mooney second. You are only 6' tall, which is not that tall, and said you're usually alone, so room shouldn't be an issue.
 
I'll second the earlier vote of Cessna 210 (or Turbo 210).
 
OneCharlieTango said:
Living in Chicago, you’re going to need some kind of anti-ice or you can forget about dispatch reliability from November into April. If you really want to make long, cross-country flights on your own schedule, you’ll want boots or TKS. That means Bonanza, Baron, Meridian, 210, 310, or Cirrus.
Click to expand...
Lived in the Chicago area for 15 years with a 182-RG. Cancelled two flights in that time for ice.

If you’re planning trips with a SEP aircraft without factoring in some flexibility, you’re going to have a bad time.
 
V35 or short body straight tail Bonanza with Tornado Alley turbonormalizer. Cruise at 190+ KTAS.
 
Oh, and Comanche 400’s are sweet. I’ve heard of engine heat management issues on extended climbs tho - something maybe to look into if it’s turbocharged.
 
What about Mooney 231s?
 
WDD said:
What is your price point?

A 2 place RV 7 will get you 200 mph for $200,000.

If you have a higher price point and can afford the insurance, there are twins that can give you some speed.
Click to expand...

A descent 2 seat RV7 should be about 125,000 in todays market.
 
That Glasair video... Made me want to buy that plane on the spot... .

And I could have used that Glasair speed yesterday on an impromptu trip down to Chattanooga. Arrow still got me here to TN, but with a headwind from the south it took longer than I would have liked... Also quick unrelated PIREP: first time here in Chattanooga and the Wilson FBO at KCHA is amazing. Treat you like royalty even in an arrow. Truly impressed.

On the buying front it sounds I still have lots of research to do on everyone's suggestions. It also sounds like I'll need to find a way to check out some of these planes in person to make sure I fit comfortably in them, perhaps that could help whittle down the list. Though given that my height/weight aren't insane, I don't know if that's really going to a limiting factor. TBD. There's other considerations like ease of maintenance, finding parts, finding A&Ps who have experience working on them (not so much an issue with Mooney, but probably moreso with Lancair/Glasair. Just guessing).

And re: Malibu. They're awesome but there's no chance of me buying one. Not just for insurance but because the plane is (comparatively) huge and expensive. I'd feel like I'm 1 person flying my own regional airliner.
 
My Columbia 400 will do 185 KTAS without even trying hard. Carries 2 people with baggage easy, and can throw 2 more in if you don't fill the tanks (carries 100 gallons). They were getting cheap, but now it looks like the have gone up in price along with everything else.

Lancairs are a bit twitchy at low speed. Not sure about Glasairs, but they look nice.

When you're flight planning to look at time differences, add in a 20 kt headwind for good measure. The speed really comes in handy when you're flying into the wind!
 
Who is writing insurance on 300 hour pilots in these slippery hot chit retract E-AB aircraft?
 
MonkeyClaw said:
My Columbia 400 will do 185 KTAS without even trying hard. Carries 2 people with baggage easy, and can throw 2 more in if you don't fill the tanks (carries 100 gallons). They were getting cheap, but now it looks like the have gone up in price along with everything else.

Lancairs are a bit twitchy at low speed. Not sure about Glasairs, but they look nice.

When you're flight planning to look at time differences, add in a 20 kt headwind for good measure. The speed really comes in handy when you're flying into the wind!
Click to expand...

Sounds like exactly what I need. I have a knack for choosing the optimally bad headwind days to travel, so the extra speed would go a long way.

How many hours did you have before getting into the Columbia 400? Would you discourage someone w/300 hours from looking at one?
 
Tom Wells said:
Sounds like exactly what I need. I have a knack for choosing the optimally bad headwind days to travel, so the extra speed would go a long way.

How many hours did you have before getting into the Columbia 400? Would you discourage someone w/300 hours from looking at one?
Click to expand...
Not exactly a Columbia, but I stepped into a Cirrus SR22TN with just under 200 hours TT. I spent 10-15hrs with a CFI, was endorsed for my high performance, and felt proficient.
 
I like the saratoga suggestion, because it's a progression from the Arrow and insurers seem to have secret brownie points for moving up in a marque's food chain. You could probably sneak in a turbo and get your knots that way, and nobody is unhappy in a PA32 cabin.

I keep getting calls to do dual instruction in really high amounts (35 hours is the most recent) for some really well-qualified pilots (one airline captain with like 21,000 hours) -- and it's in simple old Bonanzas. I can't even imagine the lancair+lowtime+high hull value combo getting anywhere, but maybe? I genuinely don't know. I just suspect not.

I'd try to limit the number of "stories" I was having my insurance broker pass upstream right now. They're tight as hell in underwriting with no sign of improving.

I'd also pick a subject/interesting aircraft (say a Glasair III) off of tradeaplane and quote insurance on the N# and see what comes back. It's free and quick and current intel -- I do that when I'm contemplating moving into an unfamiliar/no-time-in type. The brokers are all pestering the same underwriters, so no reason not to just pick one broker you like and pepper them with quote requests.

$0.02
 
Update:
1) The first casualty of my shopping process was my budget (originally $250k); I found myself stretching higher.
2) Insurance underwriters are buzzkills... Total squares.

I found an aircraft that checked most of my boxes, is newer, has a full g1000 setup and significant curb appeal (a columbia 350). Slightly slower than the target speed, though. The deal would, without question completely shatter my budget. C'est la vie.

But then insurance shot me down :(. Turns out I'm only insurable up to 250k$ at 300h TT through AVEMCO. The underwriter also had their supervisor review it. What I found very interesting is that they're willing to put me into faster planes with more passenger capacity, so long as it's below 250k$ purchase price. Apparently having the complex/retractable hours makes me eligible to hop into some even quicker Mooneys, for instance. Is that surprising to anyone, or just me? I'd think the odds of me screwing up a fixed gear aircraft that cruises at 170kts with a fairly low stall speed is lower than me flying the comparatively faster, higher service ceiling, complex M20M Bravo.

Also, I asked if I could intentionally underinsure the plane in order to get down to that 250k$ mark and sadly they don't allow underinsurance (given how I'm paying for the a/c I wouldn't have to worry about the bank naysaying that). So now I'm exploring a broker recommended by VanBortel who apparently routinely gets 150-200h pilots into 350s+400s. Essentially giving them my gameplan: faster plane for IFR training and single person XCs. Will see how that works out and which makes/models and $values I end up being eligible for...

Still haven't discarded the other planes, but this opportunity came along and seemed worth exploring.
 
Interesting.

I was able to insure my Velocity at whatever hull value I chose (pretty sure there is an upper limit though).

Same with my 182-RG. They asked me what I wanted for hull value and I told them.
 
Tom Wells said:
What I found very interesting is that they're willing to put me into faster planes with more passenger capacity, so long as it's below $250K purchase price.
Click to expand...

That speaks volumes.
 
donjohnston said:
Interesting.

I was able to insure my Velocity at whatever hull value I chose (pretty sure there is an upper limit though).

Same with my 182-RG. They asked me what I wanted for hull value and I told them.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the same as it was for my arrow. Pretty much just got to choose the hull coverage, with the only constraint being that I had to make sure the bank was covered.

Clearly not the case this time around. They explained that it has to do with their methodology of choosing when to total the aircraft (when damage is at 70% of the coverage level). They said it would be unethical on their behalf to accept an underinsured value since that could end up with me losing the plane to them and then me only receiving the reduced value in a payout situation (and they get to keep the plane, which would still have a higher residual value). I imagine that would create some angry policy holders (their own fault though).

So hypothetically.. True value 375k$... Grossly underinsure it at 200k$. "Totaled" to the insureCo at $140k of damage. Now let's say I do 150k$ of damage to it. I have to hand them the keys to get the 200k$ totaled value check, and then they get to keep a plane that's *actually* still worth $225k (375k$ - 150k damage; ignoring the damage history now on the plane that will def drop its 'true' value). At least that was my understanding of why they feel it's unethical. Might make some people upset? Anywho that was my interpretation of it!
 
schmookeeg said:
I like the saratoga suggestion, because it's a progression from the Arrow and insurers seem to have secret brownie points for moving up in a marque's food chain. You could probably sneak in a turbo and get your knots that way, and nobody is unhappy in a PA32 cabin.
Click to expand...

It always ends up PA-32..... ;)
 
G2 SR22 with TKS, non Turbo. 170 TAS LOP at about 13.5 gph. Lots of options out there. For us, 4 usable seats and a comfortable airplane with great avionics it was an easy winner.
 
Tom Wells said:
Clearly not the case this time around. They explained that it has to do with their methodology of choosing when to total the aircraft (when damage is at 70% of the coverage level). They said it would be unethical on their behalf to accept an underinsured value since that could end up with me losing the plane to them and then me only receiving the reduced value in a payout situation (and they get to keep the plane, which would still have a higher residual value). I imagine that would create some angry policy holders (their own fault though).

So hypothetically.. True value 375k$... Grossly underinsure it at 200k$. "Totaled" to the insureCo at $140k of damage. Now let's say I do 150k$ of damage to it. I have to hand them the keys to get the 200k$ totaled value check, and then they get to keep a plane that's *actually* still worth $225k (375k$ - 150k damage; ignoring the damage history now on the plane that will def drop its 'true' value). At least that was my understanding of why they feel it's unethical. Might make some people upset? Anywho that was my interpretation of it!
Click to expand...

I bought a minimally damaged airplane at salvage auction for exactly that reason. It happens, so they're doing you a favor by declining to be part of underinsuring an aircraft.
 
Tom Wells said:
Turns out I'm only insurable up to 250k$ at 300h TT through AVEMCO
Click to expand...
Sounds like they have some sort of tiering model whereby they'll insure more with more hours. Did you get a sense as to where the next tranche was?
 
kaiser said:
Sounds like they have some sort of tiering model whereby they'll insure more with more hours. Did you get a sense as to where the next tranche was?
Click to expand...

From what I could tell from my call, your description of tiers/tranches is a good way to describe their methodology. The next one seems to be at 500h when it steps up a bit more and the aircraft value would have been acceptable to them. She didn't mention any milestones between 300-500 that would help my case. That includes instrument rating. When I earn that it'll lower my existing premiums 10% but doesn't qualify me for a different airframe/higher $ insured value.
 
mondtster said:
I bought a minimally damaged airplane at salvage auction for exactly that reason. It happens, so they're doing you a favor by declining to be part of underinsuring an aircraft.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I can understand their logic in doing that. You'd be mega-angry if your expensive policy didn't cover you when you needed it most. Just a little frustrating.
 
SethV said:
G2 SR22 with TKS, non Turbo. 170 TAS LOP at about 13.5 gph. Lots of options out there. For us, 4 usable seats and a comfortable airplane with great avionics it was an easy winner.
Click to expand...
I hear ya. They're just too expensive ATM. Virtually any of the ones I see with somewhat approachable price tags have close to run-out engines. I'd be OK putting some money into it, but the idea of throwing down 300k+$ for the airframe and then having to do an OH a year later or so (+a chute repack or something)... that's just not very appealing. That said, I still keep my eyes open.
 
Tom Wells said:
Yeah, I can understand their logic in doing that. You'd be mega-angry if your expensive policy didn't cover you when you needed it most. Just a little frustrating.
Click to expand...

The insurance policy covered exactly what the owner asked for it to cover. I don't see how an owner could be upset about that. There are likely a lot of underinsured aircraft in the current market. The owners of them had better either increase the agreed upon value to compensate for what the aircraft is worth now if there is an accident or hope that they never have a claim.

Another thing you might run into with insurance these days is trying to insure an aircraft for a value higher than normal. I've run across that a few times when trying to insure some airplanes that are either very rare or very nice (mainly both). In cases like that you may either have to accept the highest valuation the underwriter will give you or have the aircraft appraised to establish a value that the underwriter will accept.

In my opinion, I'd sit tight and fly a few hundred hours more then visit this again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top