Piston Aircraft with 200 kts cruise?

[kmead]

Nothing makes for hotter discussion than just mentioning the word Malibu. Sometimes I miss how just uttering that word on AOPA would cause all of the crazy guys to come running out. It was like running the mower over a yellow jacket's nest. You know they're coming for you, you can't outrun them, and you can be sure you were going to be stung.

I did a lot of thinking before I bought the Malibu in 2005. I came close to getting a couple different twins but chose the Malibu. It fits the mission for me and my work and I had better be able to fix it. The only thing better for me would be a Jetprop or Meridian.

The first Malibu engine was the TCM TSIO520-BE. The second engine in mine was one of the replacement program engines from the 1989-1990 time frame. It was a great engine, it went to 2650 hrs with one cylinder removed. I had another 520 BE overhauled and waiting for me. this engine needed a top at 700 hrs SMOH. I won't use their engine parts again.

 

[kmead]

That was a nice discovery with the 310, it fits in a standard T hangar.

When my father bought his 310L I was impressed how the old owner had cut holes through the back walls for the aft ends of the tip tanks to pass in order to close the hangar doors.

I do miss that 310. It was a lot heavier to handle than the 310G we had before it. Poor old N2251F had a bad ending years after we sold it.

 

[JHW]

200kts, 4 people, some bags, TN A36 is about the minimum that will work

 

[Cmercado]

Well... You have to wait until 2015 but this may be an option if it performs as promised...

www.panthera-aircraft.com

Lets see if it really comes out....

 

[RotorAndWing]

As you found out an RV-10 is more than capable of carrying a family of 4, full fuel, and a 100 pounds of baggage at 200 MPH, COMFORTABLY. And certainly more economically. That is the mission it was designed for.

4 pages of this thread and so far no one else other than you has written of the marvels of the RV and how it would meet the OP's requirements says a lot already.

Your idea of comfort is not what most others would consider.

 

[Utah-Jay]

Well... You have to wait until 2015 but this may be an option if it performs as promised...

www.panthera-aircraft.com

Lets see if it really comes out....

Sweet looking plane, how much?

 

[bbchien]

All this is just dreaming. If you want to move 900 lbs of stuff from Virginia to Arizona, you need a Conquest II, TBM 850, etc, unless you want to "pill your family". There, I said it.

I'm just LAUGHING O.L. about the RV 10. Yeah, maybe with 2 stops but my wife would never tolerate that and 14 hours of travel. You've got 10-11 hours of flight time and two stops. When you get the 30 knot headwind, you've got 13 hours of flying and 2 or three stops. Not sweetness and light.

Also on a trip like that you'll encounter TRW or Ice. 1700 nm is the length of two fronts.

You simply need something more capable than a NA six banger in a piston single to do that trip....in a day, as you say. Now if you're willing to wait out weather, that's another matter.

 

[Geico266]

All this is just dreaming. If you want to move 900 lbs of stuff from Virginia to Arizona, you need a Conquest II, TBM 850, etc, unless you want to "pill your family". There, I said it.

I'm just LAUGHING O.L. about the RV 10. Yeah, maybe with 2 stops but my wife would never tolerate that and 14 hours of travel.

To each his own Doc. Not many pilots here can afford $3mill for TBM 850.

How many do you own?

 

[bbchien]

I don't. However, being centrally located, my effective range is home to DEN or the ski slopes, home to NYC where the girls are at. 800 nm is far more humane.

At 160 knots in a gasoline powered NA single, I predict the OP's spouse will make the trip EXACTLY ONCE. Or you could pill the family.

 

[Geico266]

I don't. However, being centrally located, my effective range is home to DEN or the ski slopes, home to NYC where the girls are at. 800 nm is far more humane.

At 160 knots in a gasoline powered NA single, I predict the OP's spouse will make the trip EXACTLY ONCE. Or you could pill the family.

Oh, Got it. So what the OP's requirements are mean nothing to the conversation?

How many TBM 850's are piston powered per the OP's requirements?

Also, it would be under 10 hour trip in a RV-10. Gosh golly, might as well drive huh?

We travel several times a year to Phoenix from NE. Takes 6 hours or so depending on where we stop for fuel. Sometimes we rent a car and explore the local area. If we like it we stay over night. Flying is not be a race for us, it's a means of transportation to be enjoyed. The journey is the enjoyment for us, and every trip is different and an adventure.

The RV-10 is more than comfortable enough for 4 adults to travel long distances with full fuel and bagage, and it is a good IFR platorm. I've done it many times.

Unless you have done it how and why would you knock it?

At 160 knots in a gasoline powered NA single, I predict the OP's spouse will make the trip EXACTLY ONCE. Or you could pill the family.

Nice of the resident DR. to suggest drugging your family to get them to fly. Nice touch.

 

[stratobee]

Fearless. I'm a twin commander owner (520), but just as you I'm looking for a fast all weather type. It's between the Aerostar or the AC 685. I've done extensive research on the subject. There are major pros and cons.

PROS 685:

The 685 has the longest range of any piston twin (327 gal). It will easily do 1200-1500nm if you're willing to pull back a bit. It's also the quietest of all twins as the props are both far back and far out on the wing and are geared. It's roomy and has great visibility. Certified for known icing. Landing gear can take a beating and if you can find a long enough grass or gravel strip, you can do it. Built tough, like the 690 (it's the same plane).

CONS 685:
Unfortunately, they suffer from being a compromise in many ways. It's basically a 690 with piston engines, so as such it's underpowered. Lightly loaded they'll do fine, but at 9000lbs full up, they use a lot of rwy and do not climb that well. Lose an engine at climbout at high elevation, and you have your work cut out for you. It also has to contend with almost all the SB's the 690 does. This means the recurring spar inspection every 36 month (unless you eliminate it with an STC), the rear pressure bulkhead inspection, the gear teardown and inspection every 5 years etc. Add to this the highly strung geared GTSO engines, and you're looking at a pretty expensive plane to run. The engine will probably make TBO if you baby it, but you will have to swap some cylinders before you get there. The turbos are hard to get replacements for. They also guzzle gas unless you pullback to run-of-the-mill-twin speeds. An Aerostar can do almost 200kts on 25gph LOP, the 685 will not get near those numbers. Granted, it's a bigger plane, but still.

I'm an Aero Commander fanatic and love the aircrafts to death, and would also love a 685, but compared to an Aerostar it's just a very big financial commitment. I can take my old 520 into small grass fields in the Idaho mountains without any trouble at all. I love how rugged they are and how they're equally at home in the bush and executive role. However, the 685 is not that plane. It's strictly a tarmac plane for great big long rwys and then for me some of the utility is gone. The Aerostar is no better in this regard, but at least there it's cheaper to run.

Please read Milt Colcannon's experiences with owning his 685. Sums the performance up:

http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.147832118601815.37560.144424762275884&type=3

 

[Cmercado]

Sweet looking plane, how much?

I have no clue, but probably in the range of Cirrus and Corvalis.... Lets see if they are for real. Doing 200 kts on 10gph is a very optimistic number though..

 

[wabower]

One-trick ponies are all the same. They nod their head and stomp three times no matter what their trainer says. After the first time nobody pays attention anwyay.

4 pages of this thread and so far no one else other than you has written of the marvels of the RV and how it would meet the OP's requirements says a lot already.

Your idea of comfort is not what most others would consider.

 

[Geico266]

One-trick ponies are all the same. They nod their head and stomp three times no matter what their trainer says. After the first time nobody pays attention anwyay.

How much weight are you trying to lose? No wonder you are not comfortable flying.

 

[AdamZ]

I think the SR22T would do that. Not specifically aware of the numbers but I hear the useful is pretty good and it does go zoom zoom.

Well... You have to wait until 2015 but this may be an option if it performs as promised...

www.panthera-aircraft.com

Lets see if it really comes out....

OH Man I can't wait till that plane hits the market. If it does It will give Cirrus a serious run for the money.

 

[Geico266]

So lets review all of the pages of BS are see what planes still fit the OP's suggestions stall we?

Just curious as to what piston a/c will haul a family of 4 plus luggage and do at least 200 kts cruise.

I'm thinking:
AC 685
PA31 Navajo
C310
C340
PA46

Any others worth considering?

Of those that can do the job, any thoughts on best for overall cost/value(acquisition, maintenance, insurance...etc)?

This is a half pipe-dream half reality based question.

Right now, I'm thinking 310 is the best overall value and utility (if you get a good one). The AC 685 is my personal favorite for pax comfort, but I fear that it may have the highest operating cost.

FWIW, the 200 kts cruise requirement is a rough number I figured to make a Virginia to Arizona trip doable in one day.

Thoughts?

Operating cost, maintenance cost, holding value, market demand for resale. RV-10

 

[Geico266]

4 pages of this thread and so far no one else other than you has written of the marvels of the RV and how it would meet the OP's requirements says a lot already.

Your idea of comfort is not what most others would consider.

Have you been inside one?

Have you flown one?

Comfort is subjective. You said the RV-10 was "hardly" a contender for the mission of the OP. You were wrong then and you are wrong now. Stick to the subject and stop trying to cover up your ignorance of the -10.

 

[Geico266]

Well... You have to wait until 2015 but this may be an option if it performs as promised...

www.panthera-aircraft.com

Lets see if it really comes out....

Count on it.

 

[wabower]

How much weight are you trying to lose? No wonder you are not comfortable flying.

"Neigh, Snort, Clop-Clop-Clop."

About five more. Do you know any more about weight loss than you do about airplanes? In which program have you enrolled the 320# dude that you haul around in your shed-built?

 

[RotorAndWing]

Have you been inside one?

Have you flown one?

Yes and Yes.

 

[wabower]

So lets review all of the pages of BS are see what planes still fit the OP's suggestions stall we?




Operating cost, maintenance cost, holding value, market demand for resale. RV-10

"Neigh, snort, Clop-clop-clop."

Will he stop if we give him a carrot?

 

[Geico266]

About 75 more. Do you know any more about weight loss than you do about airplanes?

Fixed it for ya!

 

[elmetal]

Family of 4 with luggage? Hardly.

how so? it has over 1000lbs of usable load. add 300lbs for fuel and you still got 750-800 pounds (depending on your avionics)

2 grown males and 2 grown females should be around 380+300, leaves plenty of weight for luggage

 

[RotorAndWing]

how so? it has over 1000lbs of usable load. add 300lbs for fuel and you still got 750-800 pounds (depending on your avionics)

2 grown males and 2 grown females should be around 380+300, leaves plenty of weight for luggage

The question here is not weight, but room. The RV10 is a very small airplane and the baggage compartment is only 13 cubic feet. Trying putting 4 normal suitcases in 13 cubic feet.

Like previously stated, if you don't mind shoe horning 4 people into a tight cabin and have each one carry a small bag, then sitting for hours with little movement then this may be the plane for you.

Everyone has different ideas on what "comfort" means. Dr. Chen summed it rather nice in his post.

 

[wabower]

Fixed it for ya!

"Neigh, snort, Clop-clop-clop."

Just send me a picture of big-un and whoever else gets to sit in the back with him on the 1,800 mile trips. Don't forget to lock the barn door.

 

[Geico266]

The question here is not weight, but room. The RV10 is a very small airplane and the baggage compartment is only 13 cubic feet. Trying putting 4 normal suitcases in 13 cubic feet.

Like previously stated, if you don't mind shoe horning 4 people into a tight cabin and have each one carry a small bag, then sitting for hours with little movement then this may be the plane for you.

Everyone has different ideas on what "comfort" means.

Wrong. Here is your quote..

Family of 4 with luggage? Hardly.

Obviously you were commenting on the useful load. You brought up the subjective comfort issue to cover your ass.

 

[LDJones]

I have no clue, but probably in the range of Cirrus and Corvalis.... Lets see if they are for real. Doing 200 kts on 10gph is a very optimistic number though..

But why? Do you think the laws of physics apply to everyone?

 

[kyleb]

how so? it has over 1000lbs of usable load. add 300lbs for fuel and you still got 750-800 pounds (depending on your avionics)

2 grown males and 2 grown females should be around 380+300, leaves plenty of weight for luggage

The people, luggage, and fuel are not the problem(s). The speed, distance, and weather capabilities are. No wind, VA to AZ is 10 hours in that airplane. Add stops and weather, and the trip is brutal in that airplane. Heck, I have a need for an airplane for a 600 NM mission with 2 pax and bags and would love to have an RV-10 for that mission, but that's 4 hours in the airplane. That's about where the fun ends in anything but perfect conditions.

 

[Geico266]

4 pages of this thread and so far no one else other than you has written of the marvels of the RV and how it would meet the OP's requirements says a lot already.

Your idea of comfort is not what most others would consider.

how so? it has over 1000lbs of usable load. add 300lbs for fuel and you still got 750-800 pounds (depending on your avionics)

2 grown males and 2 grown females should be around 380+300, leaves plenty of weight for luggage

Spoke too soon, as usual.

 

[Geico266]

But why? Do you think the laws of physics apply to everyone?

They do apply to everyone. That is why Pipestral has won $4million in NASA sponsored CAFE challenges over the years. The plane is for real, the numbers are for real.

 

[bbchien]

'Beasts chest and declares: "my airplane is fine for the task".'

How many TBM 850's are piston powered per the OP's requirements?

AS for not meeting the OP's specs, the RV10, unless you equipped it with a P&W PT6, doesn't make 200 knots, either. No Sir.

Did you look at HFD-Ohio trip from December 2012? That is a MAX capability trip for my bird. If you look at it you will realize it is more capable than an RV 10. I don't want to do that trip again, for quite a while.

My TAS is also about 160-170. You can see what I was facing....about 40 knots and ice.

I ran it around the Northeast end of a nor-easter.

Geico, one more thing. 160 kts in a Mooney size a/c is good for me and 2 pilot buddies making such a trip in fair weather. But my wife and kids, no way.

 

[Fearless Tower]

All this is just dreaming. If you want to move 900 lbs of stuff from Virginia to Arizona, you need a Conquest II, TBM 850, etc, unless you want to "pill your family". There, I said it.

I'm just LAUGHING O.L. about the RV 10. Yeah, maybe with 2 stops but my wife would never tolerate that and 14 hours of travel. You've got 10-11 hours of flight time and two stops. When you get the 30 knot headwind, you've got 13 hours of flying and 2 or three stops. Not sweetness and light.

Also on a trip like that you'll encounter TRW or Ice. 1700 nm is the length of two fronts.

You simply need something more capable than a NA six banger in a piston single to do that trip....in a day, as you say. Now if you're willing to wait out weather, that's another matter.

Well, I am starting to agree that it is probably pushing it. It is very doable for me, but pax (mostly the wife) may not be so thrilled after the first trip. The kids travel easy - give 'em portable DVDs and sufficient potty breaks and they'll go for days.

Problem with the turbine idea is that the acquisition cost plus op cost of any turbine makes the whole idea seem quite silly given the frequency that I might make the long trips. If I find myself making enough business related (family real estate/property management stuff) trips to the SW to justify a turbine, then I need to quit my day job and move closer!

So, the 310 may be a good fit for other general shorter family hauling and possibly an occasional trip across the continent.

But then again, if I stop worrying about the speed.....a Beech 18 might be a whole lot more fun.

 

[wabower]

I can't make that trip westbound in a swept-wing Citation 650 that trues 460 without a gas stop and would be lucky to make it the other way. You're peeing up a rope thinking any airplane that you will ever be able to afford will do it like you would like, so take the smoker and buy what makes sense for the trips that GA was meant for.

Well, I am starting to agree that it is probably pushing it. It is very doable for me, but pax (mostly the wife) may not be so thrilled after the first trip. The kids travel easy - give 'em portable DVDs and sufficient potty breaks and they'll go for days.

Problem with the turbine idea is that the acquisition cost plus op cost of any turbine makes the whole idea seem quite silly given the frequency that I might make the long trips. If I find myself making enough business related (family real estate/property management stuff) trips to the SW to justify a turbine, then I need to quit my day job and move closer!

So, the 310 may be a good fit for other general shorter family hauling and possibly an occasional trip across the continent.

But then again, if I stop worrying about the speed.....a Beech 18 might be a whole lot more fun.

 

[elmetal]

but that's 4 hours in the airplane. That's about where the fun ends in anything but perfect conditions.

Agreed. did a trip in a 172 with my 2 nieces and my sister and it was KFXE to KCUB. ended up being around 5 hours. definitely too much for my little nieces

 

[RotorAndWing]

Well, I am starting to agree that it is probably pushing it. It is very doable for me, but pax (mostly the wife) may not be so thrilled after the first trip. The kids travel easy - give 'em portable DVDs and sufficient potty breaks and they'll go for days.

Problem with the turbine idea is that the acquisition cost plus op cost of any turbine makes the whole idea seem quite silly given the frequency that I might make the long trips. If I find myself making enough business related (family real estate/property management stuff) trips to the SW to justify a turbine, then I need to quit my day job and move closer!

So, the 310 may be a good fit for other general shorter family hauling and possibly an occasional trip across the continent.

But then again, if I stop worrying about the speed.....a Beech 18 might be a whole lot more fun.

I owned a '64 BE-18H. Definitely more fun and more fun for the GA type of stuff (airshows, weekend type get aways). Downside is hangaring and upkeep.

The 310's are hard to beat.

 

[bbchien]

Peeing up a rope....

Our local charter operators will not do that in the King Air. They will refer out to a straight turbine charter. The Beech 400 is also a bit short legged for that trip, EITHER direction. But at least you do not arrive exhausted.

About ten years ago when my F-I-L had an MI in Palo alto, my wife went out part 121 that night (operation the next AM). 36 hours later, on Friday, departing at noon after half a day, I brought both middle school daughters out in the Turbo Bullet M20J and had to RM OVN in SLC as I was just too beat.Good travellers, they. It was winter and crossing the great basin at night in a piston single with the two most precious things in our lives, was just not going to be a happening thing.

It's dark over Delta, Milford, Price, Cedar "City" UT - uh uh. There are many things other than a pimply measly 160 knots that affect such trips.

 

[Everskyward]

I can't make that trip westbound in a swept-wing Citation 650 that trues 460 without a gas stop and would be lucky to make it the other way. You're peeing up a rope thinking any airplane that you will ever be able to afford will do it like you would like, so take the smoker and buy what makes sense for the trips that GA was meant for.

Just out of curiosity I ran the numbers in the C-680. Virginia to Arizona is a long way. We could do it non-stop with 4 people (passengers) and bags but it would be a long trip.

 

[Ted]

All this is just dreaming. If you want to move 900 lbs of stuff from Virginia to Arizona, you need a Conquest II, TBM 850, etc, unless you want to "pill your family". There, I said it.

Also on a trip like that you'll encounter TRW or Ice. 1700 nm is the length of two fronts.

(edited to limit Bruce's quote to what was relevant for the below)

Well, Dr. Bruce, you know I respect your opinion, but we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

I'm at 2,000 hours pretty much on the dot, and about 1,500 of those are in naturally aspirated piston twins. For a while I was doing trips of the same duration as what the OP is discussing on a monthly basis. For that matter, over Christmas I flew to Belize and back in about a 40 hour period - came out to about 1700 nm each way. That was 19 hours of flying, 9 hours of sleep, and a few hours to cover being on the ground and eating dinner. I flew from LA to NYC in one day in the Aztec.

The number of times I've had to cancel for weather I can count on one hand and have fingers left over, including crossing no shortage of fronts, often more than one in a day. Jet-A isn't required.

Now, whether or not the family will tolerate it just depends on the specifics and attitude. I know many families for whom 10 hour car trips in a day is no big deal. My wife and I both used to be honorary participants of the Cannonball Run (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannonball_Baker_Sea-To-Shining-Sea_Memorial_Trophy_Dash for anyone who doesn't understand the reference), so spending 10 hours in a plane in a day is no big deal, either. For many families, it's not fun, and that does drive those who can afford it to typically purchase a cabin class plane so the family can happily sit in back. OTOH, I have friends who've told their families "This is how we get places" and leave it at that.

Jet-A simply isn't required most of the time. In all my trips, only one time did I call my boss and say "I need to borrow a turbine" and we took the Cheyenne. Is it nicer to have extra speed? You bet. And if that's the case and the OP can consider a single, he could consider a Lancair IV-P. But that's another can of worms...

 

[bbchien]

Sovereign is a pretty capable a/c....

 

[Everskyward]

Sovereign is a pretty capable a/c....

Yes.

It doesn't quite have the legs to do east coast to west coast reliably but we virtually never need to do that being based in the middle of the country. But it's got great numbers for high and hot fields which is important to us here. They definitely bought the right A/C for their mission.