Piston Aircraft with 200 kts cruise?

I was gonna say, "Ted, when I was your age, I could have done what you've described. Not now."

If (of course) I had been a pilot back then...
 
Just because you can do something doesn't always mean you should do it.
I have a Turbo Single Comanche 260TC. It probably works out to about $77 per hour fuel at current costs or about $150 per hour total ownership costs. I fly it most usually about 11k' at 175 knots. So cost wise it works out to less than 75 cents per statue mile direct.

My longest single day flight stands at 2100 statue miles flying from Grand Cayman Islands, Keywest, Fl panhandle, Mississippi, to Kansas. We were pretty exhausted, I was the only pilot on board with two passengers faunching to stop and I wouldn't plan a trip like that to be completed in one day again.

Generally I fly 1100-1300 sm trips and make Wichita to Tampa in about 5.25 hrs. I can usually find an altitude coming back and get the same speed. I also usually get to S Calif in about 5 1/2 hrs plus a bit more if I have higher than normal winds.

I use the plane purely for entertainment so I can leave a day early or day late to suit weather conditions, I don't fly over Tstorms and I am not IR although the airplane is.

The people that fly with me get pretty tired of sitting in a plane if we fly over 5 -6 hrs in one day. I enjoy it up to about that level as well anything more than that is a quest and becomes exhausting.

I think a A36 Turbo, T210 or P210 might also be a good plane for similar trips with the same qualifiers I stated above and with similar costs.

Of course if you have to run a schedule and leave and arrive on time then you push it into a IFR trip and sometimes FIKI which both are out side of my qualifications or interests.
 
MSPAviator said:
I actually have no idea how many are still flying. :sad: I saw one at Oshkosh last summer though and they seem like they would be a lot faster than a DC-3. :D
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure there are at least 2 of them... Personally if I was going that route I'd be looking for a Marksman A-26.:yes:
 
RotorAndWing said:
I've owned a 310, a Navajo, a King Air, have operated a 340, 414, 421, Commanders, etc. As for me and a few others we are not "dreaming" of these aircraft, we've been there/done that and some are still doing it.

A couple of other contributors have offered insights on the planes they have owned or currently own and operate that are within the OP's parameters.

So most of us actually fly or have flown these trips with various aircraft types.
Click to expand...

Past tense? Over the hill? Headed for the porch to watch the parade pass by?

Degrading other choices and name calling of those who found a better way than the "spam cans of old" is not useful to POA or this thread.

How many of the planes you site have been purchased new in the last 10 years?
 
wabower said:
And I submit that over time you will learn that it ain't over until the lady sings. When the song is "no, dear, that's the way we used to go places" all bets are off for the GA ride. I'd love to be a fly on the wall when any of them tried to sell her on the new ride being built in somebody's shed. But anyway, when I was your age many of my friends fell into the category you describe. Now none of them do. What do you think might have happened?
Click to expand...

They can't afford to maintain old spam cans? Do you see your career light dimming as more and more experimentals replace the aging fleet?

I would put most home builders knowledge and shops up against most spam can owners knowledge and shops any say of the week. You harping about building a plane "in a shed" is pathetic and weak, but typical of someone losing the argument.
 
Geico266 said:
Past tense? Over the hill? Headed for the porch to watch the parade pass by?
Click to expand...

Huh? :dunno: Seriously Dude, you need to switch to the decaffeinated stuff.

Geico266 said:
Degrading other choices and name calling of those who found a better way than the "spam cans of old" is not useful to POA or this thread.
Click to expand...

The only degrading going on here is your inane insistence that you little home builts can be the only logical choice for everything.

As far as what's useful to POA or this thread is not your call. Sorry, just a fact.

Geico266 said:
How many of the planes you site have been purchased new in the last 10 years?
Click to expand...

Again, Huh??? :dunno:
 
Everskyward said:
Right, but it's probably helpful to hear all the cons as well as the pros.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that be refreshing! Without name calling, degrading statement, attempting to divide home builders from the mix.

So flying a Cirrus or Corvallis wouldn't fit this mission? RV-10 is certainly in the same category.

I can't believe all of the negativity towards GA traveling being expressed here. New pilots are gonna read this thread and wonder why they even thought of becoming a pilot with the thought of actually leaving the pattern and traveling somewhere. I love the adventure, I love the traveling. Traveling GA is the only way to go!

Buying or building and maintaining and operating an experimental Vans Aircraft RV-10 would be an excellent choice for the mission described in post #1.
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
Leave the name calling and personal attacks out of the conversation and more people would contribute.
Click to expand...

Geico266 said:
Wouldn't that be refreshing! Without name calling, degrading statement,
Click to expand...

Well, let's just take a look at some name calling and degrading statements shall we? Let's see if we recognize the poster.


Geico266 said:
Hung over from night or are you aways this way on Sunday morning?
Click to expand...

Geico266 said:
Bozo.
Click to expand...

Geico266 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Geico266 said:
So lets review all of the pages of BS are see what planes still fit the OP's suggestions stall we?
Click to expand...

Geico266 said:
How much weight are you trying to lose? No wonder you are not comfortable flying.
Click to expand...

Geico266 said:
Nice of the resident DR. to suggest drugging your family to get them to fly. Nice touch.
Click to expand...

Geico266 said:
Obviously you were commenting on the useful load. You brought up the subjective comfort issue to cover your ass.
Click to expand...

Geico266 said:
Do you see your career light dimming as more and more experimentals replace the aging fleet?

I would put most home builders knowledge and shops up against most spam can owners knowledge and shops any say of the week. You harping about building a plane "in a shed" is pathetic and weak, but typical of someone losing the argument.
Click to expand...
 
Talk about the kettle. :rolleyes:

Should I go back and collect all of the insults you threw Chuckles ? Seriously? :rofl::rofl:

I didn't start the fight, but I sure as hell will not back down from your pathetic attempts at diverting the issue.

You were wrong then, and you are wrong now. The RV-10 is more than capable of meeting the mission set out in post #1. Comfortably. ;)
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
Wouldn't that be refreshing! Without name calling, degrading statement, attempting to divide home builders from the mix.

So flying a Cirrus or Corvallis wouldn't fit this mission? RV-10 is certainly in the same category.

I can't believe all of the negativity towards GA traveling being expressed here. New pilots are gonna read this thread and wonder why they even thought of becoming a pilot with the thought of actually leaving the pattern and traveling somewhere. I love the adventure, I love the traveling. Traveling GA is the only way to go!

Buying or building and maintaining and operating an experimental Vans Aircraft RV-10 would be an excellent choice for the mission described in post #1.
Click to expand...

I love RVs. Not sure why the military doesn't use them for air superiority fighters and cargo hauling. I hear a lot of people with slots on G650s are backing out after discovering that they can build an RV10 in their garage and just think how much they'll save in maintenance.
 
bartmc said:
I love RVs. Not sure why the military doesn't use them for air superiority fighters and cargo hauling. I hear a lot of people with slots on G650s are backing out after discovering that they can build an RV10 in their garage and just think how much they'll save in maintenance.
Click to expand...

Actually, the Nigerian Air Force uses RV-6s as trainers. :yes:
:rofl:



The rest of your sarcastic post is not relevant to the OP's post though. Nice try! :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
My Kentucky RV-10: My EW is 1654. Gross wt is 2700. With a 620 lb family, 360 lbs of fuel and 4 small 15 lb bags we are near gross. I cruise at 160 KTAS, burning 10.5 gph with 260 hp IO-540 and can fly 4.5 hrs with one hour reserve. These are my numbers. Yes, you cannot pack much as we knew this going in. It is very simple, affordable, and lightweight. If I had a ton more $, I would have definitely bought more and bought certified. I would not consider this plane anywhere close to the above. We are very happy with it and know its limitations well. It sure beats the airlines or interstate.
 
Fearless Tower said:
I've actually worked with the Nigerian military.....I wouldn't exactly put them in the 'cutting-edge' category....
Click to expand...

We can agree on that! :lol:

The point Rusty was trying to make is RV's are not used for military work when in fact they are used as flight trainers.
 
Last edited:
bartmc said:
Just like you, I didn't have a point.
Click to expand...

Again, lose an argument to facts and then attack. Read post one and try and contribute to the conversation is a productive and grown up manner. ;)

My point has been made, and is accurate. The rest of the whining is predictable.
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
Again, lose an argument to facts and then attack. Read post one and try and contribute to the conversation is a productive and grown up manner. ;)

My point has been made, and is accurate. The rest of the whining is predictable.
Click to expand...

I made a sarcastic post.

You replied that "The point Rusty was trying to make is RV's are not used for military work"

which, is just incorrect.

Then you declare I lost an argument we never had.

You complain about personal attacks.

Talk about "grown up manner"

Then switch over to "Whining is predictable"

Pot meet Kettle.

Maybe try boxers?
 
I swear someone took the iPad/nexus thread and cut and pasted names and products to create this thread. :)
 
RV10flyer said:
My Kentucky RV-10: My EW is 1654. Gross wt is 2700. With a 620 lb family, 360 lbs of fuel and 4 small 15 lb bags we are near gross. I cruise at 160 KTAS, burning 10.5 gph with 260 hp IO-540 and can fly 4.5 hrs with one hour reserve. These are my numbers. Yes, you cannot pack much as we knew this going in. It is very simple, affordable, and lightweight. If I had a ton more $, I would have definitely bought more and bought certified. I would not consider this plane anywhere close to the above. We are very happy with it and know its limitations well. It sure beats the airlines or interstate.
Click to expand...

Saw Wayne's RV yesterday and it is a beautiful aircraft indeed.
 
tmyers said:
Saw Wayne's RV yesterday and it is a beautiful aircraft indeed.
Click to expand...

Thank you! We completed all but the paint.

No matter what we all fly, it is always nice to get together, learn and share stories among the other 1%.
 
Perfect. Accurate, achievable, realistic.



RV10flyer said:
My Kentucky RV-10: My EW is 1654. Gross wt is 2700. With a 620 lb family, 360 lbs of fuel and 4 small 15 lb bags we are near gross. I cruise at 160 KTAS, burning 10.5 gph with 260 hp IO-540 and can fly 4.5 hrs with one hour reserve. These are my numbers. Yes, you cannot pack much as we knew this going in. It is very simple, affordable, and lightweight. If I had a ton more $, I would have definitely bought more and bought certified. I would not consider this plane anywhere close to the above. We are very happy with it and know its limitations well. It sure beats the airlines or interstate.
Click to expand...
 
RotorAndWing said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'll step in. I have flown two RV10s a bit and both are extremely comfortable with Oregon Aero Seats. Much more leg and shoulder room both front and back than a 182 and a large baggage compartment. One has a Lycon IO 540 in it putting out well over 300hp and cruises just under 200kt. The other has a 260hp IO 540 and does 185kt. It also has a Dynon Skyview EFIS/EMS with two axis autopilot and synthetic vision. My RV7 that I built was also very comfortable for two with excellent seats and cruise in the 190kt range. I have also flown all of the RV series except the 3 and 14. You have obviously never flown a RV because you would find they are really nice flying airplanes. Also the 3,4,6,7 and 8 are very capable aerobatic machines. Don
 
I don't think dealers with a dog in the fight whose obvious reason for participating on forums is to sell something should be allowed to participate in aircraft suitability discussions.

Geico266 said:
Wouldn't that be refreshing! Without name calling, degrading statement, attempting to divide home builders from the mix.

So flying a Cirrus or Corvallis wouldn't fit this mission? RV-10 is certainly in the same category.

I can't believe all of the negativity towards GA traveling being expressed here. New pilots are gonna read this thread and wonder why they even thought of becoming a pilot with the thought of actually leaving the pattern and traveling somewhere. I love the adventure, I love the traveling. Traveling GA is the only way to go!

Buying or building and maintaining and operating an experimental Vans Aircraft RV-10 would be an excellent choice for the mission described in post #1.
Click to expand...
 
Did somebody suggest a 182 for this trip? If so, I must have missed it.
yakdriver said:
I'll step in. I have flown two RV10s a bit and both are extremely comfortable with Oregon Aero Seats. Much more leg and shoulder room both front and back than a 182 and a large baggage compartment. One has a Lycon IO 540 in it putting out well over 300hp and cruises just under 200kt. The other has a 260hp IO 540 and does 185kt. It also has a Dynon Skyview EFIS/EMS with two axis autopilot and synthetic vision. My RV7 that I built was also very comfortable for two with excellent seats and cruise in the 190kt range. I have also flown all of the RV series except the 3 and 14. You have obviously never flown a RV because you would find they are really nice flying airplanes. Also the 3,4,6,7 and 8 are very capable aerobatic machines. Don
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Have you flown one?
Click to expand...

Not yet, but I did get a ride and a bit of stick in and almost took a stock A-26 that came with a $40k a trip job lol. It was one of the 5 times I was offered a plane with that job that I had a long hard thought about it. It's one of my favorites. There's an Onmark in New Mexico that can be picked up for a song, but it would probably take close to $350k to make into a plane again, much less the cost of feeding 2-R-2800s.:hairraise: Probably be cheaper to fly a Lear 24.

The A-26 is one of my favorites though, beautiful aircraft and the R-2800s have a wonderful sound to them.
 
And typical of your flawed logic you think some guy working in his basement by himself building his first airplane with hand-tools is as good at building airplanes as a factory that builds thousands of them. I can't wait for the Q&A session from the wives after than presentation--assuming any of them are still in the room.

Geico266 said:
They can't afford to maintain old spam cans? Do you see your career light dimming as more and more experimentals replace the aging fleet?

I would put most home builders knowledge and shops up against most spam can owners knowledge and shops any say of the week. You harping about building a plane "in a shed" is pathetic and weak, but typical of someone losing the argument.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
I don't think dealers with a dog in the fight whose obvious reason for participating on forums is to sell something should be allowed to participate in aircraft suitability discussions.
Click to expand...


Neither should shop supervisors that make their living from repairing planes they advocate in this thread.
 
wabower said:
How can it not be considered as such when the primary determinant is whether his partner and kids will go for it?
Click to expand...

Because ultimately he's the one who needs to determine it. A number of participants in the thread have tried to talk him out of it, primarily because (as far as I can tell) their wives aren't interested. The thoughts are helpful in providing considerations, but it bugs me when I see people declaring their experiences must fit everyone else. Seems to happen on both sides here, with Bruce's decree that drugs are the only answer and Geico's decree that an RV10 is the only answer.

*sigh*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top