Plane that fits these specs

brian] said:
Could be tips. But I just don't have waggle that or it is so minimal I don't notice.

Go figure. Guess my yaw inducer is broken. I'll have it checked.

CG however is an issue.
Click to expand...

Ride in the back seat. ;)
 
EdFred said:
Ride in the back seat. ;)
Click to expand...

Um, my wife would not hesitate to let me know.



Ok, I'll drop the OWT label (too controversial) and simply say to the OP- if you are afraid of a little bonanza boogie then forget about flying in any kind of turbulence. There are better reasons to buy something other than an old bonanza.
 
The waggle is a OWT
Click to expand...
I am going to take a video of this next trip. I am flying one right now that almost makes me seasick in mild turb. I think there are differences between models and individual airplanes because I have been in others that aren't so bad. Last flight, I studied it for 45 minutes. If there was any turbulence, it sets the wingtip into a repetitive, oval pattern. I tried blocking the rudder pedals to no avail. I tried to anticipate, and counter the effect - and I either made it worse or effected no change. I love so many things about the plane....but I fear my wife is not going to see it my way.

PS I notice this, in this aircraft when one person aboard, no bags and either half or full fuel.
 
There should be a master index of POA threads to map mission profiles to airplane recommendations. Or a flow chart.
Click to expand...

I have said the same. It really is surprising no one has come up with "fill in these requirements" and the algorithm spits out some options
(My problem is I want a free supersonic airplane which is comfortable, uses no fuel, has unlimited range, can carry all my friends and their bags, land on a short grass strip high in the mountains at 95F, has zero maintenance requirements or costs, and attracts a crowd of lovely ladies wherever I land (if we are to shoot for the moon)
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
I have said the same. It really is surprising no one has come up with "fill in these requirements" and the algorithm spits out some options
(My problem is I want a free supersonic airplane which is comfortable, uses no fuel, has unlimited range, can carry all my friends and their bags, land on a short grass strip high in the mountains at 95F, has zero maintenance requirements or costs, and attracts a crowd of lovely ladies wherever I land (if we are to shoot for the moon)
Click to expand...
That's an RV you just described.
 
I've flown in Dave's Viking. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too cramped for me. Flies nice, but I'd want out after about 30 minutes.
Click to expand...

I am pragmatic about airplanes and try not to get emotionally attached (so Ed's comment is not offending; actually I agree with many of the negative comments I have heard through the years about it but....I also look at the whole picture on the Viking). I have enjoyed a great many years (17) with the Viking and realize its limitations. It has taken me to 3 corners of the country, to Canada and Mexico, in awful weather and good, into the flight levels, in really hard ifr, mostly without mechanical problems (although there were a few aggravating ones - but rarely stranding me away from home), into the mountains and onto grass, at a decent 155kt TAS, carrying insane amounts of crap, etc etc- and no way could I ever have done all that with another airplane because of its very low purchase price. It is a very capable airplane and the entry price could not be beat.
However, I occasionally think, how could I be happier?
 
It does have the best wake up sound of all the planes that ever show up at Gaston's though. You and your 2900 RPMs.
 
I liked riding in Dave's Viking at Gastons. I thought it handled great. It might have handled better if I could have reached the rudder pedals. I didn't think it was cramped at all. :p
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
I am going to take a video of this next trip. I am flying one right now that almost makes me seasick in mild turb. I think there are differences between models and individual airplanes because I have been in others that aren't so bad. Last flight, I studied it for 45 minutes. If there was any turbulence, it sets the wingtip into a repetitive, oval pattern. I tried blocking the rudder pedals to no avail. I tried to anticipate, and counter the effect - and I either made it worse or effected no change. I love so many things about the plane....but I fear my wife is not going to see it my way.

PS I notice this, in this aircraft when one person aboard, no bags and either half or full fuel.
Click to expand...

Seems to describe a Dutch Roll motion?

My hangar partner has had a series of Bonanzas including straight tail Debonairs and late-50s to mid-60s V-tails. He claims there is no tail wag issue and both types fly just fine, but then he also claims anybody flying anything but a Bonanza needs mental health assistance...
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
I have said the same. It really is surprising no one has come up with "fill in these requirements" and the algorithm spits out some options
(My problem is I want a free supersonic airplane which is comfortable, uses no fuel, has unlimited range, can carry all my friends and their bags, land on a short grass strip high in the mountains at 95F, has zero maintenance requirements or costs, and attracts a crowd of lovely ladies wherever I land (if we are to shoot for the moon)
Click to expand...

You need to be flying one of the taxpayer's Hercs, with a hot tub bolted in the cargo bay. Checks off all your criteria except the supersonic part.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Haven't seen too many in flyable condition for 100K. Maybe this is an offer to crowdfund my quest?
http://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/list/manufacturer/harmon?FullText=harmon&byp=1

But I like how you think. Speed is king!
Click to expand...

Most of them seem to trade privately by word-of-mouth within the Rocket community. The older ones are usually built simpler/lighter, with less gee-whiz stuff in the panels and therefore can be had for much more reasonable prices.

My ex-fighter pilot, Boeing 787 driver brother and I have been casually looking for a Rocket. At my advanced age I can't afford to go slow, and he doesn't know how to. :cool:
 
Last edited:
Do any exp's have the IO-720 installed?
Seems like that would get some of these sleeker craft 250kts (minimizing the fuel burn issue).
Or maybe that powerplant is maintenance intensive?
 
Is that Comanche 400 at your home base still available?
 
I would say a Questair Venture fits your bill minus the 4 seats. Not much out there that is more efficient than 240kts at 13 gph. The cockpit is 46 inches wide with plenty of leg room.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Do any exp's have the IO-720 installed?
Seems like that would get some of these sleeker craft 250kts (minimizing the fuel burn issue).
Or maybe that powerplant is maintenance intensive?
Click to expand...

Lycoming no doubt has good engineers, but that's a long crankshaft to keep straight under load in an alloy case with a cantilever mount (or is the IO-720 suspended differently from other Lycomings?). I also wonder about cooling drag - it would be an "interesting" design exercise to create a drag efficient pressure cowl that will keep those back cylinders cool in order to get the most out of those 400 hp. The Comanche 400 in stock form doesn't seem that much faster for the amount of engine available. The airframe can be cleaned up with aftermarket bits, but I suspect the cooling drag losses probably leave a lot to be desired. Maybe LoPresti makes a speed cowl for this limited edition airplane?

Then again, might be better to divide the 720 into two and hang one-half on each wing...and call it a Twin Comanche. :rolleyes:
 
TR182 or 182RG is a possibility. It is quite a bit roomier than a Mooney if that matters to you. My TR182 cruises 162 TAS at 10k to 12k hauling four people. It can get faster TAS if you take it up really high (which I do on occasion to avoid turbulence). While my example was over $100k, I saw several examples for under $100k when I was looking.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Do any exp's have the IO-720 installed?
Seems like that would get some of these sleeker craft 250kts (minimizing the fuel burn issue).
Or maybe that powerplant is maintenance intensive?
Click to expand...
One of Mike Patey's Lancairs has a supercharged io-780 in it. I think it's around 300kts
 
Have thought briefly about them.. didn't I see they were 160kts...what engine?
 
Grum.Man said:
I would say a Questair Venture fits your bill minus the 4 seats. Not much out there that is more efficient than 240kts at 13 gph. The cockpit is 46 inches wide with plenty of leg room.
Click to expand...
I like the specs on that. Kinda reminds me of the SX300. None for sale on tradeaplane/controllers/barnstormers. I wonder what they go for (thinking 200K)
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Have thought briefly about them.. didn't I see they were 160kts...what engine?
Click to expand...
I think the slowest one you can get (SE-FG) does 155ktas. The XL does anywhere from 175-250KTAS depending on the model.
 
Last edited:
Let'sgoflying! said:
I like the specs on that. Kinda reminds me of the SX300. None for sale on tradeaplane/controllers/barnstormers. I wonder what they go for (thinking 200K)
Click to expand...

They don't come up for sale very often. They change hands amongst other venture owners most often. Prices can range widely but you want find a fly able one under 100k very often. A yellow one from Canada sold about 6 months ago off Controller for under 100k but it was well loved.
 
Well, I had to ask other 35 drivers what they have seen with the bonanza boogie. Answer below. (Did get a piper driver to say there is a little wag in their arrow's tail too.).

 
Not to derail the thread, but I agree. We do need a section for tire-kickers, where people can ask about future or dream purchases. Maybe with a short form or pre-defined questions to fill out and get peoples answers. I know I love reading posts where people ask "what kind of plane should I get" and hearing the answers and debate. Even if I will never afford that type of plane, its still a fun read.
 
All that section would end up being is Bonanza Drivers saying get a Bonanza, Grumman owners saying get a Tiger, dogs with worms saying get a taildragger, Ted saying get a twin, garage builders saying get an RV, and the ones that want to spend other people's money saying get a Pilatus, regardless of what the question actually is.
 
EdFred said:
All that section would end up being is Bonanza Drivers saying get a Bonanza, Grumman owners saying get a Tiger, dogs with worms saying get a taildragger, Ted saying get a twin, garage builders saying get an RV, and the ones that want to spend other people's money saying get a Pilatus, regardless of what the question actually is.
Click to expand...

You've been hanging around these parts for a while, haven't you.:)

Looks like we have our thread. except the red handle brigade will never forgive you for not including.
 
Glasair taildragger should be considered in the mix for pure speed.
 
bullwinkle said:
Glasair taildragger should be considered in the mix for pure speed.
Click to expand...

Glasair with fixed gear, oh the humanity!

Poor thing flying around with all that junk hanging in the wind, how un-glasair like ;)


I've always looked at the FG glasairs like the fat girls who happen to have a really hot sister, you're like how on earth did that happen, different parent or something?
 
GRG55 said:
You've been hanging around these parts for a while, haven't you.:)

Looks like we have our thread. except the red handle brigade will never forgive you for not including.
Click to expand...
That's because those aren't even real planes. Real planes are made with metal and brawn.
 
James331 said:
Glasair with fixed gear, oh the humanity!

Poor thing flying around with all that junk hanging in the wind, how un-glasair like ;)


I've always looked at the FG glasairs like the fat girls who happen to have a really hot sister, you're like how on earth did that happen, different parent or something?
Click to expand...

All the Glasairs I have seen personally have fixed gear. I forgot they make an RG...my bad. I just know I have a buddy with a 0-320 powered TD with fixed pitch prop, and it's insanely fast...180mph "economy" cruise and and about 220mph "fast" cruise. Nuts.
 
EdFred said:
Lawyers don't have the emotional capability to generate their own tears!
Click to expand...

True but their simulated emotions when they lose cases (and thus money) can cause their tear ducts to leak.
 
bullwinkle said:
True but their simulated emotions when they lose cases (and thus money) can cause their tear ducts to leak.
Click to expand...

I think they keep a tack in their shoe that they step on upon losing to induce such things.
 
Dave, is there a reason why you're wanting to get a different airplane which is basically already what you own?

If you're looking to get away from your Viking, a V-tail with a 520 strikes me as the best option for what you're looking for as it will go the fastest. If you go Lancair 320/360, you can get more speed and efficiency, but 2 seats. I rode in Bill Harrelson's 320 7 years ago at Wings (Bill did the Lancair IV around the world record last year). I didn't find it particularly cramped or uncomfortable, and as you know I'm tall and thin. However, it definitely would not be as comfortable for a long trip as one of the more spacious 4-seaters. The standard speed for space trade-off.

If you want raw speed with some more comfort, a Lancair IV will do the job better, but now you're looking at a horrifically unforgiving airplane and a significantly higher purchase cost that won't meet your budget.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top