Talk Me Out of Speed

GaryP1007 said:
OK, I need a therapy session. I have been flying a Dakota for about 10 years now. Nice plane, well maintained and it has always been good to me.

I seem to always want more speed. I flight plan at 137 kts in the Dakota. I love the idea of 160+ in a Mooney but I am not sure that ditching the Dakota for a Mooney makes sense. Obviously useful load decreases considerably etc. etc. etc.

Can you help me convince myself that another 20-25 kts won't matter?
Click to expand...

A clean, later model J will do about 160ktas on 10gph with close to a 1000lb useful load. (our club has one with a 970lb useful and there are probably close to 30lbs of weight savings that could be had by removing obsolete avionics). The GW was bumped to 2900 on the later model J's.

Also when thinking about useful load, consider how much less fuel you are burning, and the extra speed. The tanks hold 64 gallons but tabs are 50, and that is 5 hours fuel. So you can count on a 670lb payload with 5 hours fuel.

Fuel burn will obviously be less, not just per hour but significantly less per mile than a Dakota. Maintenance is probably a wash. The Mooney gear is a great design and very low maintenance.

I have never flown the Dakota but I do have about 100 or so hours in a PA-28-161 which I believe is the same airframe/interior size. I enjoy flying the M20J a lot more and the interior, while being a bit more difficult to enter/exit, feels bigger than the Warrior in some ways.
 
Last edited:
COL4Driver said:
Give me a M!
Give me a U!
Give me a S!
Give me a T!
Give me a A!
Give me a N!
Give me a G!

What does that spell?
Indentured Servitude:)
But at least you will be happy disposing of the disposable income! And it wouldn't be just for you! It's for the family! Save the children from the horrors of unpressurized reciprocating travel...
Click to expand...
My friend's clincher when trying to convince the wife that he needs a new toy for the plane "It's for safety."
 
dell30rb said:
...I have never flown the Dakota but I do have about 100 or so hours in a PA-28-161 which I believe is the same airframe/interior size.....
Click to expand...

I'm curious about this, @Pilawt . I thought the dakota frame was a bit bigger, no?
 
NoHeat said:
True.

But since you are coming up with additional details that affect time, we might as well recognize that the percentage difference generally gets bigger due to wind. Headwinds cost more minutes than tailwinds save, and that situation worsens with a slower plane.
Click to expand...
That is also true, but the OP asked to talk him out of speed, not into :D
 
The biggest problem with the Mooney for some is the low seating position, with legs stretched out. If you drive a SUV it may feel weird, if you drive a sports car you will feel at home.
You can stagger the front seats if you have wide shoulders to give you more room. There is plenty of leg room to stretch out.
 
arkvet said:
Here’s a pic from a beach trip. Do you think the ladies in the back would trade those seats for a sardine can to shave off 10-15 minutes on the beach trip? And note myself and my copilot are having to lean in to get in the pic. Comfort matters.
View attachment 60395
Click to expand...

Are the ladies in back under the blankets because you won't turn on the heater for them? Or is it because of leering POA'ers?
 
arkvet said:
I’ve heard the argument many times regarding bigger fuel tanks being the biggest factor on making faster trips. While I agree in theory I just find that 4 hours of fuel (3+1 hour reserve) is about the most I’m going to need and remain comfortable. Now if I’m solo or am lucky with one other adult pax we might stretch beyond that 3 hour leg but most of my longer cross countries are with the wife and kids when the size of my fuel tanks always far exceed the size of pax bladders (relatively speaking).

Nothing wrong with the Mooney. However there are trade offs in getting that extra speed. I like speed too, but I also like to be comfortable.

Here’s a pic from a beach trip. Do you think the ladies in the back would trade those seats for a sardine can to shave off 10-15 minutes on the beach trip? And note myself and my copilot are having to lean in to get in the pic. Comfort matters.
View attachment 60395
Click to expand...

Turn up the heat, dude... sheesh. You’re freezing them to death! LOL.
 
denverpilot said:
You guys could just strip down in the front. Haha....
Click to expand...



3ru9d.jpg
 
eman1200 said:
I'm curious about this, @Pilawt . I thought the dakota frame was a bit bigger, no?
Click to expand...
Firewall aft the fuselages have the same dimensions; except Dakota’s rear bulkhead incorporates a hat shelf, and the rear seats are individual bucket seats, instead of the Warrior’s bench-type rear seat.
 
Talk you out of speed? Ok, Speed kills. Just say no to drugs.

You meant for airplanes? Sorry. The only time you have too much speed is when you're flying with a beautiful girl. I encourage more speed.
 
Everyone over here is talking about speed and I'm just dreaming about owning a good ol taildragger and going low and slow :D
 
Cricket1 said:
Yep, Dakota /Archer/ Warrior are the same cabin 42" wide

Saratoga/ Cherokee Six/ Lance are the big boys, 49" wide cabin.
Click to expand...
Ronbonjovi said:
Everyone over here is talking about speed and I'm just dreaming about owning a good ol taildragger and going low and slow :D
Click to expand...
I've never been a low and slow guy (at least not for flying).
 
I can't speak for speed - My typical mission and the type of flying didn't call for speed. The Commander 114 has a good sized cabin, two doors, and a great useful load. A few years back I went camping - 200 lbs of gear in the back, myself and another adult up front, 70 lbs of stuff in the back seats and full fuel - I had plenty of useful load. Now, being normally aspirated, on that warm summer morning I departed Denver, I used about 6,000 of runway.

While a turbo would be great in the mountains - my normally aspirated plane works well enough and most of my flying takes me South and East - so it becomes less of an issue. I've been to the East coast and south (TX and OK).

You just need to look at where you are going to fly, what you will be taking with you and what you can afford - When you start balancing those aspects, there won't be as many options as you think.

Good luck!

Dean
 
denverpilot said:
Turn up the heat, dude... sheesh. You’re freezing them to death! LOL.
Click to expand...
Lol. Actually that was intentional. They were both complaining ahead of time about how hot it was going to be flying on a hot August day. When I told them it would actually be a little cool at cruise altitude I got eye rolls. I waited till the complaints got pretty rough before turning it on. :D

Them being covered up was actually what inspired the pic.

The heat actually works really well from front to back.
 
coloradobluesky said:
Trouble is, there is ALWAYS a faster airplane.....
Click to expand...

I thought going from 100 knots to 160 was great for about 10 hours. After that, I need 250 to make a real difference. At some point, you're not going fast enough unless you can bend time or have a teleporter...
 
FormerHangie said:
Fast cars and alcohol don't mix anyway. I'd rather be hauling a** than drinking anytime.
Click to expand...

They don't mix..?? :lol::lol:

One summer I went drag racing and drove a front engine dragster that ran on alcohol. Most of our dirt track cars ran on alcohol.

Not me but very similar to what I drove. Ran mid 7:90s at around 183mph on the 1/4 mile. The short wheel base was a real handful to drive. It did have a 'chute..

39634070-386-Front-Engine-Dragster.jpg

Speed thrills..!!!
 
Zeldman said:
They don't mix..?? :lol::lol:

One summer I went drag racing and drove a front engine dragster that ran on alcohol. Most of our dirt track cars ran on alcohol.

Not me but very similar to what I drove. Ran mid 7:90s at around 183mph on the 1/4 mile. The short wheel base was a real handful to drive. It did have a 'chute..

39634070-386-Front-Engine-Dragster.jpg

Speed thrills..!!!
Click to expand...
Love it!

OK, drinking alcohol and fast cars don't mix.
 
teejayevans said:
It’s something about the roofline, lower or more rounded, makes it feel less spacious.
Click to expand...
The Mooney that I flew, the panel was up close and personal while the windscreen was a little ways away. That gave it a bit of a claustrophobic feel to it.
 
Zeldman said:
They don't mix..?? :lol::lol:

One summer I went drag racing and drove a front engine dragster that ran on alcohol. Most of our dirt track cars ran on alcohol.

Not me but very similar to what I drove. Ran mid 7:90s at around 183mph on the 1/4 mile. The short wheel base was a real handful to drive. It did have a 'chute..

39634070-386-Front-Engine-Dragster.jpg

Speed thrills..!!!
Click to expand...

No 'CHUTE? How are the Cirrus Fan-boys not all over that already? C'mon, guys... he soft-balled it for ya!
 
Last edited:
asicer said:
The Mooney that I flew, the panel was up close and personal while the windscreen was a little ways away. That gave it a bit of a claustrophobic feel to it.
Click to expand...

Mooney was designed for a tall pilot, those that are vertically challenged commonly have that problem, they sell rudder pedal extensions, ~3” IIRC.
I’ve got a 33” inseam, at the furthest aft position my legs are straight and I use the balls of my feet to work the pedals and have to stretch to apply the brakes.
 
Last edited:
One other advantage of higher cruise speed is the decreased effect of headwinds. 180 KTAS into a 30 Kt headwind makes the trip about 20% longer. E.G. a 3hr no wind leg takes 3.6 hrs in a 180 kt airplane while that 3 hr leg in a 120 kt airplane (which covers significantly less ground in the first place) extends to 4 hrs (33% longer).
 
If you really like to fly then you should buy a slow airplane, it will give you more time in the cockpit!
 
teejayevans said:
If you really like to fly then you should buy a slow airplane, it will give you more time in the cockpit!
Click to expand...
You don’t HAVE to fly at max cruise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top