Want To Buy WTB small 2 seat aircraft. Specifics within

G

goodson

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
10
Display Name
Display name:
goodson
I'm looking for an aircraft that I may not even know about and would like to see what the forum's suggestions may be.

Looking to make trips often to and from that are 911NM each way. Stops for fuel are ok, Travel time should be under 8 hours each way and ideally accomplish the lowest $ per trip.
 
possible. 5.6GPH a good enough guess for fuel burn at 75% power?
 
Any 180hp Mooney. A Grumman AA-anything. An RV-4 or -6
 
Do you know the fuel burn rates of those planes?
 
120 knot used LSA that runs on Mogas?
 
Ryanb said:
That would be a long and uncomfortable 911nm trip.

Why specific to a two-seater?

My suggestion would be an RV of some model.
Click to expand...


4+ seats is ok, just listed 2 because Ill only have one passenger maximum. I just need something that gets better fuel than my current 172 as I may end up doing these trips twice per month. Time I have for the trip, Money will start to add up with a bigger plane.
 
tawood said:
Swift...just don't bring much luggage.
Click to expand...

zero luggage. Just picking my son up if custody doesnt change here soon. We are moving our family out of state and want to make sure I have a cost effective way of seeing my son as often as possible.
 
goodson said:
zero luggage. Just picking my son up if custody doesnt change here soon. We are moving our family out of state and want to make sure I have a cost effective way of seeing my son as often as possible.
Click to expand...
Swifts very efficient two seaters...they are complex though...and a little pricey for what they are.
 
I second the short body Mooneys. There just isn't a bigger bang for your buck in general aviation, the most miles fastest at the least cost for the least money. I know the OP said 2 seater, but if you look at the back seat of a vintage Mooney, isn't much there.
 
steingar said:
I second the short body Mooneys. There just isn't a bigger bang for your buck in general aviation, the most miles fastest at the least cost for the least money. I know the OP said 2 seater, but if you look at the back seat of a vintage Mooney, isn't much there.
Click to expand...
Steingar for the win.

His description is spot on. They are lots of good examples still in the fleet. Fuel mileage (when figured in ground miles per gallon) is good, as are the speeds.
 
The only issue with an M20 series is the initial cost. looking at $80,000+ for something halfway decent.... I technically have a 172 with glass cockpit that would be a dream to fly. I typically burn close to 14gph in the 172. Time I have, so something around the 106 knots would put me at roughly 8.5 hours each way. I'm ok with this if the fuel can be around 5gph and have super inexpensive maintenance.

Wife and I have considered a cessna 210 with struts as you can find those in decent shape for around $50,000. Doesnt exactly fit the need for the fuel economy but it would allow us to fit our 9 million children for the trip if we wanted. Flight time is around 5.5 hours in that plane with fuel being the same as the 172 I currently have.


RV6 has been a strong consideration as well but its right in the price range of the 210 and about the same fuel burn. It's looking like a cessna 150 is about the best fuel burn/price for the plane... $20,000 for the plane and 5.6 gph.

Is there anything that can come close to 20k for the plane and 5.6gph?
 
RV-6 has the same fuel burn as a 210? I thought most people were putting smaller engines in those?

I do 14-15 gph in my 182RG. Didn’t realize a newer 172 was that high. I think I used to plan 9 gph when I rented 172s, but those were 70s era 172s.
 
RV-6 I have my eye on but with the pricetag of an RV The wife is pushing for something bigger like a C210. May end up going the 150 route.
 
goodson said:
I'm looking for an aircraft that I may not even know about and would like to see what the forum's suggestions may be.

Looking to make trips often to and from that are 911NM each way. Stops for fuel are ok, Travel time should be under 8 hours each way and ideally accomplish the lowest $ per trip.
Click to expand...
Lowest $ per trip = slick airframe with smallish motor. Think Lancair 235, long ez, vari ez, that sort of thing.

mscard88 said:
Cessna 150/152 maybe?
Click to expand...
Oh hell no. Our C150 cost 1.5-2 times as much in fuel burn per mile as the Lancair.

ktup-flyer said:
911nm regularly..... I’d want a RV or Lancair. Sitting gets old
Click to expand...
Yup
 
mscard88 said:
Cessna 150/152 maybe?
Click to expand...

911 nm in 8 hours = 113 knots groundspeed
I doubt a 150/152 can do that even zero wind.

I would concentrate on finding a 150hp RV4 or RV6, or an older Mooney, both have been suggested earlier.
 
GRG55 said:
911 nm in 8 hours = 113 knots groundspeed
I doubt a 150/152 can do that even zero wind.

I would concentrate on finding a 150hp RV4 or RV6, or an older Mooney, both have been suggested earlier.
Click to expand...
I cannot find any info on fuel burn rates for any of those 3 planes.

There has to be a point where it makes sense buying another plane with fuel savings and maintenance savings vs using my current 172.
 
GRG55 said:
911 nm in 8 hours = 113 knots groundspeed
I doubt a 150/152 can do that even zero wind.

I would concentrate on finding a 150hp RV4 or RV6, or an older Mooney, both have been suggested earlier.
Click to expand...

Welll I assumed he'd make a stop or three. :D
 
goodson said:
The only issue with an M20 series is the initial cost. looking at $80,000+ for something halfway decent.... I technically have a 172 with glass cockpit that would be a dream to fly. I typically burn close to 14gph in the 172. Time I have, so something around the 106 knots would put me at roughly 8.5 hours each way. I'm ok with this if the fuel can be around 5gph and have super inexpensive maintenance.

Wife and I have considered a cessna 210 with struts as you can find those in decent shape for around $50,000. Doesnt exactly fit the need for the fuel economy but it would allow us to fit our 9 million children for the trip if we wanted. Flight time is around 5.5 hours in that plane with fuel being the same as the 172 I currently have.


RV6 has been a strong consideration as well but its right in the price range of the 210 and about the same fuel burn. It's looking like a cessna 150 is about the best fuel burn/price for the plane... $20,000 for the plane and 5.6 gph.

Is there anything that can come close to 20k for the plane and 5.6gph?
Click to expand...

This doesn't sound right. 14 gph is more like 182 fuel burn @ 135 knots, not a 172.
And most RV6s have 150hp or 160hp engines and there is no way they burn as much fuel as a 260 hp Cessna 210.
 
There's a little red knob.

14gph in a C172!? Balls to the wall and leave the fuel caps off? I used to plan 8gph in an O-320 powered 172 and 10.5 in a 200hp O-360 Cardinal. 12-14 in a 182RG.

An RV-6 (or Mooney like I said the first time) will burn the same O or IO-360 gph depending on the pilot moving the flippers and buying the gas.

It would be hard to spend $80k on the Mooneys I'm suggesting. You can get a J model for that kind of cash.

My girlfriend tolerates my Citabria. Barely. We got a ride in a Mooney and she got out and elbowed me with a "how much for one of those?"
 
mooney is out. I cant justify 80k on a plane to save a few gph. Ive got a 2010 172 skyhawk with G1000 now. I was hoping I could get away with something cheap like under 20k but it doesnt look like thats going to happen.

Plus the 150 is out after checking weights... thing can barely lift me and my son. nuts.
 
goodson said:
I cannot find any info on fuel burn rates for any of those 3 planes.

There has to be a point where it makes sense buying another plane with fuel savings and maintenance savings vs using my current 172.
Click to expand...

A 150 hp RV4 or 6 should burn at most 8 gph at 55% and you should have a TAS of about 145 knots (as long as you aren't hugging the sagebrush).

The guys here who fly Mooneys have a good handle on their numbers (NOTHING gets a Mooney pilot more exciting than lots of fuel left over in the tanks at the end of the trip - its almost like they want to be paid to ferry the stuff all over the sky without using it ;)).

But I expect the RV will be the more economical ride all in. RV-4s go for some pretty reasonable prices given how they perform, but they are not going to be as comfortable as a 6 or a Mooney for the passenger in particular.
 
goodson said:
mooney is out. I cant justify 80k on a plane to save a few gph. Ive got a 2010 172 skyhawk with G1000 now. I was hoping I could get away with something cheap like under 20k but it doesnt look like thats going to happen.

Plus the 150 is out after checking weights... thing can barely lift me and my son. nuts.
Click to expand...

Here's one for less than half that mythical $80k. Has the simple, economical, almost-nothing-can-go-wrong-with-it manual gear retract system too. If I recall correctly this is the same year and model of Mooney that Gordon Baxter flew as his personal airplane.

https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/20715355/1968-mooney-m20c-ranger

I do think you will have some difficulty finding an airplane suitable for a 900 nm trip, airworthy and ready to fly for $20k. At that price point you are going to find a lot of "projects".
 
Last edited:
A buddy has a Whittman Tailwind that he claims is comfortable. They are very fast for the engine they use. Of course, try and find a good one.
 
Default answer is a glasair RG with a CS prop.


DanWilkins said:
A buddy has a Whittman Tailwind that he claims is comfortable. They are very fast for the engine they use. Of course, try and find a good one.
Click to expand...

Or that.
 
Southwest Airlines.

I’m not sure a regular 911nm trip is the kind of thing you’d want to do in any kind of ‘budget’ airplane.

EDIT: I just read the twice per month. That’s not as often as I thought, but man, 911nm isn’t exactly a fun distance for a plane that needs to be more economical than a 172.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top