What plane do I want to have 1.5 years from now?

TimRF79

TimRF79

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Dec 10, 2017
Messages
352
Location
Houston, TX
Display Name
Display name:
Tim
I was talking to my wife about getting ADS-B Out and she noted that by an 2020, I probably have another plane anyhow.

Made me wonder, have a 79 Bellanca Super Viking now. What plane would be a step up, while still being affordable?
Something with maybe 1,000lbs capacity AFTER full tanks
Cruise Speeds of ~ 200knts

Thoughts? Looking for some ideas
 
What’s the mission?

ETA: an affordable ADSB out now with the $500 rebate back in play may help your plane sell quicker over the next 12 months.

But, the Bellanca is kind of a niche market, so all bets are off with that one.
 
1000 pounds AFTER full tanks? yeesh, I was gonna say TBM 900, website says 891lbs with full fuel.
 
Mission:
We live in Texas and would like to be able to fly as far as Seattle.

Doesn't need to be 1,000lbs exactly, thought is I way about 270, wife 180, dog 70, would be nice to have capacity for some luggage and a 3 person.

Thinking potential future budget around 150k
 
TimRF79 said:
Mission:
We live in Texas and would like to be able to fly as far as Seattle.

Doesn't need to be 1,000lbs exactly, thought is I way about 270, wife 180, dog 70, would be nice to have capacity for some luggage and a 3 person.

Thinking potential future budget around 150k
Click to expand...
Saratoga (retractable version). Won't get you to Seattle nonstop, and cruise will be about 155 KTAS, but it will be a comfortable ride.
 
Damn. 480lbs for 1 more passenger and bags? Probably going to want a Baron 58 or something similar
 
I know a former Super Viking owner who wanted to upgrade. He was looking at Turbo Vikings, Mooney M20K's, and eventually ended up with a V-tail Bonanza that he loves. I don't know if he loves it as much as the Viking, though. You're already in a very good plane so be careful that you're not just looking at the grass on the other side of the fence and thinking it's greener without checking your own side of the fence as well.
 
TimRF79 said:
Mission:
We live in Texas and would like to be able to fly as far as Seattle.

Doesn't need to be 1,000lbs exactly, thought is I way about 270, wife 180, dog 70, would be nice to have capacity for some luggage and a 3 person.

Thinking potential future budget around 150k
Click to expand...

Lot of competing interests here.

An airframe large enough to carry all that means more empty weight and more drag, which means it needs more HP to move it at 200 kts, which means more fuel must be carried, which means more weight and a bigger airframe, which means...:D

Even a Cessna 340 or 414 won't give you 1000 lbs payload with full fuel. You are probably into Conquest territory. And if you want to fly into the PNW in winter better have FIKI. ;)
 
TN A36. But not sure you’ll find one for 150 K.
 
Not trying to be harsh.. But one of the best morivators for me to drop some tonnage in recent times was to increase my useful load. Very effective.
 
Not much out their to meet your mission ,on the budget you propose.
 
Doesn't necessarily meet the parameters you posted, but a Turbo 210 K or later gets you a 200-300 more pounds of useful load, 20 more kts, and way more cabin room, with 15 fewer HP. It's an upgrade in my book, but maybe not enough to justify changing planes. I would imagine a Viking is more fun to fly.
 
Aerostar is good choice. They'll do 1000nm on the standard tanks. With aux fuel tank, they can nudge 1500nm, but then payload is way down.
 
1974 or later E55 Baron will - almost - do all that, or if you’re feeling flush, an ‘84 or later 58. As mentioned, a T210N will do 180ish up high (but will feel like a tank, after a sweet Bellanca). A TN A36 is right there also, ditto the Aerostar. Nice example of any of these is probanly north of $200K.

As a practical matter, on a 5-hour flight ALL the passengers will need to (at least) pee. Even family might find such a flight objectionable when, for about two hundred grand less, you could get on an airliner. Just sayin’.
 
j1b3h0 said:
As a practical matter, on a 5-hour flight ALL the passengers will need to (at least) pee. Even family might find such a flight objectionable when
Click to expand...

No kidding there. 2.5 - 3 hours is my/our limit. That's why I never need to worry about fuel starvation. ;)
 
wayne said:
It has 1,000 lbs of payload with full fuel? That's small tanks for a turbo Bo. It can probably cover his current 2 people, plus dog and luggage, but 1,000+ lbs of full fuel payload?
Click to expand...
It's 1,100 lbs useful load.....with fuel. With the tips add another 200 lbs. and 40 gal. I don't have tips....another nice to have.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
It's 1,100 lbs useful load.....with fuel. With the tips add another 200 lbs. and 40 gal. I don't have tips....another nice to have.
Click to expand...

I would fill my tanks and drink a bottle of water before the flight. Never have to worry about running out of fuel.
 
Ravioli said:
No kidding there. 2.5 - 3 hours is my/our limit. That's why I never need to worry about fuel starvation. ;)
Click to expand...
Wow, really? Even when my kids were little we'd routinely do 4-5 hours and never had an issue at all. I took a camping potty when the kids were super little, but they never used it.
 
It’s one thing to have an airplane that could, in a pinch do that mission, but it’s a whole nother matter if it were required to provide regular transportation of 1000nm @200kts with 1000lbs of people/payload. My first choice: Learjet 60. Or, because I want to fly it myself, either a dash 10 turbo Commander, C-441, Merlin IIIB or MU-2. With a skilled hand at the helm, all will provide safe, all weather transportation on that mission. All of them will cruise @300kts give or take; even then, it’s darn near 4hr flight. Gotta have a lavatory. Commanders, Merlins, and MU-2s are orphans, but there are still some maintenance centers that specialize. I’ve heard Cessna wants nothing to do with 441s, but it may be just a rumor.
 
if you're really talking Texas to Seattle, maybe a 56TC? Not too many around, but you can head up higher and cover some ground in 3-4 hours. at 220 kts, it's 6.5 hours. so if you find a good fuel/lunch stop halfway it's not too bad.

you have to spend a LOT of money to get over 200, and you're paying a lot to get there. As others have mentioned. if you can live with 160-180 kts then lots of planes open up from larger singles (Lance/A36 Bo) to "entry level" twins (B55, Aztecs, Twin Comache, 310s)

Here's one asking $109K. one new engine, one not so new. Has a 430W.
I don't know this plane, but it gives you an idea what's out there. Looks to have de-ice.
https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/26754963/1967-beechcraft-56tc-baron
 
None of the numbers are firm numbers, around 200 knots, around 1,000 lbs after fuel.
Houston - Seattle does not have to be nonstop..
But the Viking would make Houston- Seattle a 3 day trip, wish carefully routing over lower parts of the Rockies.
 
MIFlyer said:
if you're really talking Texas to Seattle, maybe a 56TC? Not too many around, but you can head up higher and cover some ground in 3-4 hours. at 220 kts, it's 6.5 hours. so if you find a good fuel/lunch stop halfway it's not too bad.

you have to spend a LOT of money to get over 200, and you're paying a lot to get there. As others have mentioned. if you can live with 160-180 kts then lots of planes open up from larger singles (Lance/A36 Bo) to "entry level" twins (B55, Aztecs, Twin Comache, 310s)

Here's one asking $109K. one new engine, one not so new. Has a 430W.
I don't know this plane, but it gives you an idea what's out there. Looks to have de-ice.
https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/26754963/1967-beechcraft-56tc-baron
Click to expand...
Thanks, that is what I am thinking, but trying to figure out if it is worth going from a high performance single to an entry level twin.
Given a $150k budget, at that time 2-3 years of pilot experience.
Or are the cost of owning a twin so high that it doesn't make sense, or is $150k not enough budget, or is 2-3 years not enough experience to consider a entry level twin?
 
TimRF79 said:
Thanks, that is what I am thinking, but trying to figure out if it is worth going from a high performance single to an entry level twin.
Given a $150k budget, at that time 2-3 years of pilot experience.
Or are the cost of owning a twin so high that it doesn't make sense, or is $150k not enough budget, or is 2-3 years not enough experience to consider a entry level twin?
Click to expand...
So, you and I are in similar spots. I'm 2 years of pilot experience, 150 hours, and am planning to buy in the next 12-18 months. I'll 99% buy a twin.

There's a lot of opinion on this, but that's what I think i'll end up with. Are you handy at all? How many hours a year do you fly?

Also, I personally will prioritize ease of flight vs ultimate speed. You may want to consider the same. this means a slower airframe that's less twitchy (ie Aztec vs a Comanche) etc. Not saying one is better than the other, but for me safety trumps speed.
 
Last edited:
FormerHangie said:
Just a reminder, all the turbocharged stuff makes their speed at altitudes where the wind blows hard sometimes. So you'll get those big TAS numbers on one leg of your trip, but not the other.
Click to expand...
or...if you're lucky you'll have a head wind both ways. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top