YACMAT - Yet another choose my airplane thread

[AnthonyS1]

Yawn. Here we go again with another... "no way you are getting those airspeeds" series of posts. If it makes you feel better, call BS on it. Haven't dug too deep, but here is a quick pic showing 168 MPH (145 kts) TAS at 3000' (density altitude higher, I will admit) and I'm pretty sure I can dig just a bit harder and find some from higher altitudes that are, again, I will quote myself.... "close. pretty pretty close" to 150 KTAS.

But go ahead and keep the folks entertained by arguing it. This is the equivalent of the "Your stock xxxx won't pull sub-14 second quarter mile times..." arguments in the car forums I used to peruse. Always fun, interesting reads.

View attachment 93779

What were the power settings in that photo? I guess its possible you may just have an unusually fast arrow.. I still wouldn't belive it unless you do a 4 way GPS test like I said before.. Those TAS calculators are not always as accurate as you may think.

 

[Deelee]

I'm sure 24 squared up. Didn't get the MP gauge or tach in that shot.

Here is another one from 5000':


Again, most likely 24 squared up. Arrow is a '69 (shorter body) with all the speed mods (lol on that one, I admit). It isn't a complete speed demon, but it is faster than other Arrows I have flown.

 

[Peter Anderson]

GPS ground speed has nothing to do with true air speed. How can you be sure the wind doesn’t change at all during your so called 90 degree 4 way test?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[AnthonyS1]

GPS ground speed has nothing to do with true air speed. How can you be sure the wind doesn’t change at all during your so called 90 degree 4 way test?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Wind shouldnt change much over maybe a 7 at the most square mile area. When I do a GPS TAS test I fly each heading for maybe 2 minutes at the most. Wind shouldnt change that much over 8 minutes. This is the best way to check your TAS. Fly heading 360, 090, 180, 270. Find the average GS. This is your TAS.

 

[GRG55]

What were the power settings in that photo? I guess its possible you may just have an unusually fast arrow.. I still wouldn't belive it unless you do a 4 way GPS test like I said before.. Those TAS calculators are not always as accurate as you may think.

Well this is a new one on me.
Looking forward to one of you really smart PoAers to explain how the wind speed and direction influences TAS.

 

[AnthonyS1]

Well this is a new one on me.
Looking forward to one of you really smart PoAers to explain how the wind speed and direction influences TAS.

Wind speed and direction does not influence TAS... That is why you do this test flying 4 different cardinal headings and recording the GS at each heading. When you average these all together you are eliminating the wind component which leaves you with TAS. This isn't very hard to understand.

 

[Sinistar]

@bflynn - in case it wasn't already mentioned there might be another possibility.

Since you didn't call out fuel prices as one of your biggest concerns (but it probably is ). There are mod'd Skylanes (PPonk, Skyways, etc) that might hit close to 150kts TAS. Probably doing it burning the fuel that a 190kt cirrus or 160kt BO will burn but it is an option. They are also great planes for the flying up in Alaska and any high DA stops along the way. I think you are partial to low wing so maybe there is a Dakota mod for 265HP or 280HP or 300HP. I am guessing the prices would exceed $100K but if the panel is old and mid time motor maybe just in range.

 

[mondtster]

Again, most likely 24 squared up. Arrow is a '69 (shorter body) with all the speed mods (lol on that one, I admit). It isn't a complete speed demon, but it is faster than other Arrows I have flown.

Your experience is not unusual for an early Arrow in good nick. Don't believe the guys saying it isn't possible.

 

[Deelee]

Don't believe the guys saying it isn't possible

Ya. It runs strong and is slick. Heck even the POH has it cruising at 145 at around 7000'... and that's without the aerodynamic mods the previous owner stuck on it. Haters gonna hate.

 

[GRG55]

Wind speed and direction does not influence TAS... That is why you do this test flying 4 different cardinal headings and recording the GS at each heading. When you average these all together you are eliminating the wind component which leaves you with TAS. This isn't very hard to understand.

Easy to understand the process. Difficult for me to understand why anybody would waste the time and fuel.

I think I'll stick with reading IAS, adjusting to CAS with the POH chart and then calculating TAS using whatever temp I'm reading at the altitude I'm cruising at the time. I remain unconvinced that flying in a square on that day, at that altitude, at that OAT will provide anything materially more accurate.

 

[bflynn]

I like the long ez recommendation. I don’t know much about them.but for solo travel, using the other cockpit for well secured baggage is an option.

looked up the CSA, but it appears all the information is behind a paywall. This gives me something else to read up on.

 

[Jim K]

I said fixed was for insurance reason - but also because I don't trust myself to not be that guy. I think it's a fault in primary training programs to not call out gear every time and go ahead and make it a habit.

I was worried about that, too, but i bought the lance anyway. Once I started flying it and understanding the warning system, that fear disappeared. The fact that you're worried about it makes you check it over & over. On top of that the piper has a giant red light & horn that go off if you have low throttle with the gear up. It'd be REAL hard to land with the gear up accidentally. Not saying a guy can't get distracted, but there's a lot of holes to line up in that swiss cheese.

The increased insurance and mx are very real though. A Lance is about 2x the cost to insure of a cherokee 6 for a low time pilot like me, and I've spent 3-4 amu on my gear already. It was neglected, so hopefully it'll be good to go for a few years now.

 

[asicer]

Wind speed and direction does not influence TAS... That is why you do this test flying 4 different cardinal headings and recording the GS at each heading. When you average these all together you are eliminating the wind component which leaves you with TAS. This isn't very hard to understand.

Except when one leg is leeward of a mountain peak and the opposing leg is leeward of a mountain pass.

I think I'll stick with reading IAS, adjusting to CAS with the POH chart and then calculating TAS using whatever temp I'm reading at the altitude I'm cruising at the time.

I think I'll stick with letting the FADC/EFIS/EHSI feed IAS/OAT/PALT/HDG to the GPS and seeing what TAS it spits out.

 

[texasclouds]

I didn’t read your post, but the answer is always Cessna One Ninety Five. Thank me later.

 

[SoCal RV Flyer]

An RV9 as opposed to a 6, 7, or 14 has a wing that loves to fly at much higher altitudes. I haven’t crossed the Rockies in mine yet but have had it to 17k where I was still climbing at almost 400fpm at 120 knots. Up high mine likes to cruise 155 knots and with a fixed pitch prop uses under 8gph at that speed. For the mission you described there is no more affordable airplane than an RV9. Good luck!!

My -9A has similar cruise speed and fuel burn...a great blend of velocity and economy that works out to 22 mpg at 178 mph (with no wind). And even with a fixed pitch prop in standard conditions, it'll climb at 1800 fpm with just me and half-full tanks. Roncz airfoil (the 4-seat RV-10 also has this) is indeed quite efficient up high, though I've never had mine over about 11,500'.

I like the safety of a good glide ratio (12:1) and a very low dirty stall speed of 39 KIAS at solo weight. Bubble-canopy visibility is wonderful. The biggest downside? You need to be at 78 KIAS for full flap deployment, and throttle off these suckers don't slow down like a 172, especially with an FP prop! I'll put in up to 15 degrees starting at 87 KIAS.

Shameless show-off photo taken by the talented Jack Fleetwood :

 

[MarkH]

Looking through different airplanes and not quite seeing what I want to find, so I figured I'd just ask the collective knowledge. There might be something simple I'm missing.

Mission - long cross country travel, crossing Rockies comfortably. Vacation flying NC to CA or around Alaska. FL in April and WI in July.
go fast - 150kts min
fixed gear preferred, mainly for insurance
price, sub $100K?
Nose dragger
I'd rather fly than build, but not opposed to experimental. Not opposed to building either, but see rather fly.

Seating isn't important, I probably fly myself 99% of the time.

And that's about it. Not asking for much, right?

Vans A models are a key target.
Cirrus is nice, but too expensive. I'd be stretched to get to the minimum prices I'm seeing (about 150)
Cessna and Pipers are too slow or too expensive.
Mooney and Bonanza are retracts (too bad)

What am I missing?

On a budget, with those requirements (for the reasons given), I would suggest a Mooney M20C Ranger.

$90K will buy a middle of the road RV-A, $70K will buy the best M20C on the market. $20K will cover the insurance difference vs fixed gear, the maintenance difference vs experimental, an instructor for your first 50 hours and will still leave money in the bank.

Both will haul 2 people and baggage very well, and do 150Kts.

RVs are amazing planes, but if you aren't working on them yourself and not flying aero, the Mooney makes for a decent budget alternative.

At minimum, I suggest you rent and fly a Mooney before you buy an RV. All else equal, the RV is a better plane than the Mooney (20 years of technological advancement will do that), but all else is not equal, for what you are describing, I would choose a Mooney with $20K in the baggage compartment vs an RV.
(Side note, I haven't checked prices on Mooneys in almost 3 months, if you can buy an RV for the same price as an equivalent Mooney, then this advice is void).