Piston Aircraft with 200 kts cruise?

Alexb2000 said:
New family would help the most, haven't figured that one out yet.
Click to expand...

It's worked out well for me, but my family and I never got along very well.
 
The hard part is finding the combination of people who will ride with you and also can afford to pay their share.

Many pilots are harder to get to come because they want to split the flying.

It's not that hard for me to find non-pilot friends who are interested in going with me, so long as they don't have to pay. The fuel costs, even split, can be more than what the budgets of some can (or are willing to) tolerate.
 
EdFred said:
Yeah, but you live in a hub city. For us non-hubbers, I can beat the airlines to just about any non-hub city east of Denver, and that's at a measly 150kts
Click to expand...

This is true in Wichita as well. There are practically no direct flights anywhere.

It takes 14 hrs plus door to door from home to home in Palm Springs, CA.

Comanche makes it in 5:30 hrs or add an hour or hour and a half if high head winds. The Fuel cost is never as much as a walk up ticket and a fraction of 1st class.
 
I get the whole idea about living in a hub. From Denver you can get just about anywhere with many destinations being non-stop and inexpensive.
 
N747JB said:
No, but it's a lot more comfortable? :yes:
Click to expand...

The ride in the Pilots seat is the same.:) I can't fill the four seats in a Comanche. I'll stick with my 12-14 gph fuel and $3k annuals.

I have flown in a 421 a few times and it is quite the plane but no comparison to any single I know of (well maybe a P12).
 
Fearless Tower said:
FWIW, for that particular trip, 121 is only a little quicker.

DAL quickest (one stop in ATL).

With early enough arrival to get the family checked in and through the TSA, plus layover at ATL (you ain't making a 45 min connection at ATL hearding a 2 and 5 year old). It is around 11.5 hrs travel time door to door.

West bound, if you limit to one fuel stop with a decent lunch break (~2 hrs on the ground) you get there door to door in 14 hrs.

Not saying that the wife would agree to make the trip more than once.......but that is the overall time comparison.

I think the AC 685 is the only piston aircraft I would attempt that kind of endurance flying in simply due to the pressurization, quiet cabin and overall cabin comfort for pax. But the cost to operate it combined with my wife's expected reaction after the first trip makes me want to rethink the idea.
Click to expand...

Maria nor my son likes flying in the plane. So I just fly with my brother and if anyone else wants to go they meet me there....that is it. I either do it that way or I need a new family.

I have had luck finding other aviators who want to share a ride to fly ins, or winter breaks in Florida. that is ok for me.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Now that sounds like a helluva lot of fun! Maybe EdFred will caravan with you...
Click to expand...

I'm trying to talk Wayne & Rotor&Wing into going with me. :D. :yikes:

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Seriously! We could make a reality show out of that little adventure! :rofl:

Look out Honey Boo boo! :rofl:
 
Last edited:
What's the range on your RV (no wind) ?
 
Tony_Scarpelli said:
The ride in the Pilots seat is the same.:) I can't fill the four seats in a Comanche. I'll stick with my 12-14 gph fuel and $3k annuals.
Click to expand...

Is now a good time to say my RV-10 annuals cost $200, I can do the work myself, and I can burn $3.60 per gallon car gas and go 200 MPH? :dunno:

Probably not. :no: :lol:


:redface:
 
Geico266 said:
Is now a good time to say my RV-10 annuals cost $200, I can do the work myself, and I can burn $3.60 per gallon car gas and go 200 MPH? :dunno:

Probably not. :no: :lol:


:redface:
Click to expand...

I'd have to hire you to do the annuals. I am a big proponent of mogas and 200 mph.:)
 
Tony_Scarpelli said:
I'd have to hire you to do the annuals. I am a big proponent of mogas and 200 mph.:)
Click to expand...

Sorry, I can only work on my own stuff. ;)

Lots of RV's burn mogas, some even burn ethanol blended. BTW, I notice no difference in performance, CHT's, EGT's, or fuel burn using 100ll.

Realistically, it is rare I push the engine that hard. I usually run LOP burn 10.5 mogas per hour, and cruise 185ish. I'm in no hurry, I enjoy the time in the air, and I really enjoy the $25 per hour savings in fuel.

Also nice to know I'm not polluting the air with lead. ;)
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
Also nice to know I'm not polluting the air with lead. ;)
Click to expand...

Have you seen how cold it is outside? How do you ever expect global warming to work if selfish people like you create fewer greenhouse gasses? Plus lead makes the air taste sweeter.
 
Geico266 said:
Is now a good time to say my RV-10 annuals cost $200, I can do the work myself, and I can burn $3.60 per gallon car gas and go 200 MPH? :dunno:

Probably not. :no: :lol:


:redface:
Click to expand...

This RV 10 sounds the ultimate aircraft. Tell us more, please. Oh, BTW is there anyone you would recommend that sells them?
 
Alexb2000 said:
This RV 10 sounds the ultimate aircraft. Tell us more, please. Oh, BTW is there anyone you would recommend that sells them?
Click to expand...

There is no "ultimate" aircraft. They are all compromises based on availability of funds. :lol:

Try TAP or Barnstormers for buying one. Mine has not been for sale for years. Contrary to popular belief I am not a dealer. ;)

I have a nice LSA RV-12 for sale I built! :D When I get that sold I want to build another plane, maybe an -8. I want to learn formation flying and more aerobatics. I've self taught myself some aerobatics, but that is not wise. ;)
 
Last edited:
Ted DuPuis said:
Have you seen how cold it is outside? How do you ever expect global warming to work if selfish people like you create fewer greenhouse gasses? Plus lead makes the air taste sweeter.
Click to expand...

I fly a lot! :dunno:

Oh! And the -12 has a great heater. :D


:rofl:
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
I'm trying to talk Wayne & Rotor&Wing into going with me. :D. :yikes:

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Seriously! We could make a reality show out of that little adventure! :rofl:

Look out Honey Boo boo! :rofl:
Click to expand...

I will throw my hat /headphones into the mix to take the trip to AK....

And...... I won't pick on Geico and his experimental either..;)
 
Agreed. The Aerostars are very good buys and you get a lot of plane for the money. The reason they're so reasonably priced is that they're pretty complex, but mainly many people are scared of them - Scareostar, Deathstar etc. It's all nonsense. They do takeoff fast, land fast and they'll kill you if you get slow. But if you don't get slow, they're just like any other twin. They're also probably built sturdier than any other, as Ted Smith designed it to be a jet originally. It was stressed to over 6g both pos and neg without breaking during certification. The skins on the wings are much thicker than on other aircraft. You'll never see an oil-canning Aerostar under load and there has never been an inflight breakup of an Aerostar, as far as I know. You literally can't say that about many other airplanes.

If you don't need pressurisation, look at the 600, 600A, 601B.
If you do, it's 601P, 602P, 700, 702.

aerostar.jpg

Here's a nice 700 Superstar with the 4-blade MT props. This sucker will outrun many turbines.
 
Last edited:
stratobee said:
Agreed. The Aerostars are very good buys and you get a lot of plane for the money. The reason they're so reasonably priced is that they're pretty complex, but mainly many people are scared of them - Scareostar, Deathstar etc. It's all nonsense. They do takeoff fast, land fast and they'll kill you if you get slow. But if you don't get slow, they're just like any other twin. They're also probably built sturdier than any other, as Ted Smith designed it to be a jet originally. It was stressed to over 6g both pos and neg without breaking during certification. The skins on the wings are much thicker than on other aircraft. You'll never see an oil-canning Aerostar under load and there has never been an inflight breakup of an Aerostar, as far as I know. You literally can't say that about many other airplanes.
Click to expand...

You forgot OEI operations, for which Aerostars are reportedly a handful. The guy who crashed one in Las Vegas the other day (his second Aerostar crash in a year) can probably tell you about that.
 
wabower said:
It's interesting to hear people who used to fly SWA talk about their travel to Austin, Houston, San Antonio, Shreveport and other cities within ~200 mile radius. Door-to-door is now faster by car for many such trips due to airport hassles, parking, car rental, etc.
Click to expand...

This.

I flew to El Paso yesterday on SWA. Airline was fine, TSA: 45 minutes!

I could have flown the Bo, time would have been about a wash. It is nuts.
 
SCCutler said:
This.

I flew to El Paso yesterday on SWA. Airline was fine, TSA: 45 minutes!

I could have flown the Bo, time would have been about a wash. It is nuts.
Click to expand...

So the real question: why didn't you fly the Bo? ;)
 
Ted DuPuis said:
So the real question: why didn't you fly the Bo? ;)
Click to expand...

This! With rare exceptions, I can beat the airlines on anything less than 800nm in a 182. With the extra speed of the Bo (or the Mooney I'm flying now), that number is surely larger... I've flown trips to Baltimore, Myrtle Beach, NW AR, etc. where I've gotten there via Mooney in less than half the time the airlines would have taken. Even if the time is a wash, I'd much rather be flying GA and getting some air therapy in.

The only time the airlines win is when cash is really tight or the distances are very long... And that means that for pretty much anything east of the Rockies, GA wins for me. :)
 
Alexb2000 said:
No kidding, yesterday was as pretty a day as you will ever see in January.
Click to expand...

We have snow here today. I miss flying in the snow. :(
 
I've had a 600, 601T and 602P. 600 perfromance was poor, MX cost on the turbo version was high, MX cost on the P was staggering. The tiny gain in cruise speed as more than offset by the downsides. No mas
stratobee said:
Agreed. The Aerostars are very good buys and you get a lot of plane for the money. The reason they're so reasonably priced is that they're pretty complex, but mainly many people are scared of them - Scareostar, Deathstar etc. It's all nonsense. They do takeoff fast, land fast and they'll kill you if you get slow. But if you don't get slow, they're just like any other twin. They're also probably built sturdier than any other, as Ted Smith designed it to be a jet originally. It was stressed to over 6g both pos and neg without breaking during certification. The skins on the wings are much thicker than on other aircraft. You'll never see an oil-canning Aerostar under load and there has never been an inflight breakup of an Aerostar, as far as I know. You literally can't say that about many other airplanes.

If you don't need pressurisation, look at the 600, 600A, 601B.
If you do, it's 601P, 602P, 700, 702.

aerostar.jpg

Here's a nice 700 Superstar with the 4-blade MT props. This sucker will outrun many turbines.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
I've had a 600, 601T and 602P. 600 perfromance was poor, MX cost on the turbo version was high, MX cost on the P was staggering. The tiny gain in cruise speed as more than offset by the downsides. No mas
Click to expand...
But have you flown the jet?

FWIW, I've narrowed down my choices/adjusted my priorities (focus on shorter family trips around the east coast and making the occasional VA-AZ trip in two days with an overnight in the DFW area with family):

C310
AC500
BE18

Obviously a big difference between the three.

The 310 has the speed, economy and fits in a T-hangar. The other two do not have any of those attributes, but have nicer cabins.

310....cheapest to acquire, maintain and operate. Just a good, efficient and fast airplane, but I suspect my wife will not be thrilled with the single over-wing entry.....she much prefers the 210 to the Duchess based on this for example.

AC 500.....Nice cabin....as mentioned earlier I love the personal airliner feel. I suspect my wife will like the cabin size and underwing entrance best.

BE18....My personal favorite....a mini-DC-3 with large cabin, engine are in the proper shape, make sweet sounds to my ears, wheel in back where it belongs and something that we can take to airshows.

In short, my bank account will probably prefer the 310, my style of flying prefers the Twin Beech and my wife will probably like the AC 500 best.

Of course, all of this is just dreaming until I get the approval from the spouse.....
 
You can probably buy some AC500s pretty cheaply, although who knows on condition. The problem as I see it is poor support on the engines (for most, anyway) and lots of hydraulics. But you're right, it does have that "mini airliner" feel. I don't like the cabin layout much, but others might.

The 310 feels like a sporty family car rather than a personal airliner. My mom hates the "on the wing" entry. Consequently, she doesn't fly with me much. But she wouldn't anyway. The nice part about a 310 is that you can get a good one cheaply. I'd expect the lowest $/mile ratio.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
You can probably buy some AC500s pretty cheaply, although who knows on condition. The problem as I see it is poor support on the engines (for most, anyway) and lots of hydraulics. But you're right, it does have that "mini airliner" feel. I don't like the cabin layout much, but others might.

The 310 feels like a sporty family car rather than a personal airliner. My mom hates the "on the wing" entry. Consequently, she doesn't fly with me much. But she wouldn't anyway. The nice part about a 310 is that you can get a good one cheaply. I'd expect the lowest $/mile ratio.
Click to expand...

LOL, for sure the 310 will have the lowest $$/mile figure. If one wants a cabin but doesn't care about pressure, a Chieftain is hard to beat.
 
Henning said:
LOL, for sure the 310 will have the lowest $$/mile figure. If one wants a cabin but doesn't care about pressure, a Chieftain is hard to beat.
Click to expand...

Chieftains aren't cheap to buy, aren't cheap to feed, aren't cheap to maintain, and have crappy OEI performance.

Other than that... ;)
 
N801BH said:
I know they can hold 54 cats...:yes::)

Or was that a Navaho ?
Click to expand...

That was a short-body Navajo. The Chieftain was a Navajo with wing lockers and an extra 24" of cabin length, plus 350 HP engines instead of 310. I found the short body Navajo to have better take off and climb performance, and also better OEI in simulations. In the middle they made the Navajo C/R with a short body, wing lockers, and 325 HP (up from 310) engines with counter-rotating props. Supposedly the wing lockers are what really hurt performance.

But yes, Navajos are great for saving kittens. :)
 
Fearless Tower said:
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?
Click to expand...

Corvalis

SR22 GTS with FIKI

Though with those, you will either have to minimize baggage, or reduce legs to three hours or so.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Chieftains aren't cheap to buy, aren't cheap to feed, aren't cheap to maintain, and have crappy OEI performance.

Other than that... ;)
Click to expand...

I've dealt with a few Aero Commanders, excellent OEI performance, however I've not seen anything anything 'cheap' about dealing with them lol, on that end I'd say a Chieftain would win, and if you can get away with a short body Navajo, even better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top