![]() |
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 8 Dec 2003 11:36:25 -0800, (Michael) wrote:
"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote 1. Fast: 160 kts 2. Price range: $75K-$120K 3. Four Seater 4. Range: 800nm 5. Useful Payload (with full fuel); 650lbs 6. Retains its value well over time 7. Reliable: Engine TBO of 2000 hrs, good saftey record 8. Insurable for a pilot with only 350 hrs PIC experience (no HP/complex time) No airplane in that class really has a good safety record (in the sense that something like a C-172 does). These airplanes are used for transportation, not training and going around the patch. Virtually any certified tri-gear landplane that can be bought for $120K in good condition is going to be insurable for you, but anything in the performance class you want will require 10-25 hours dual and a big hit in the first year (think $3K+). True with the dual, but ... I don't pay near that with 80,000 full hull coverage and never did. Max was around $1500 per year. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?) www.rogerhalstead.com Return address modified due to dumb virus checkers I have been thinking about a Piper Comanche 260 and a Piper Turbo Arrow III/IV. I was considering a Mooney M20J, but they feel a little cramped in the cabin to me. What I am looking for is the best dollars/kts airplane (what we call price/performance in the computer biz) that meets the above requirements. I would really appreciate suggestions and advice. First off, never compare top speeds between normally aspirated and turbo - they are not comparable. The turbo needs to go high to get its speed, and that means you never go very fast when Westbound. Pretty quick going East, though. Unless you NEED to go high (meaning you fly in the mountains) a turbo is rarely cost-effective. The Comanche 260 is a good choice for what you want - make sure it has at least 84 gallons of fuel. The Mooney is cramped in the cabin - if you're going to fly long legs, you won't enjoy it unless you are thin. Other planes you might consider: A 1960's era Bonanza. Most Bonanzas of that era don't make book speed because they were tested clean (without antennas) but they're still the fastest thing around with a reasonably roomy cabin. A Viking. Wood wings are an issue (get one from a dry climate and hangar it) but purchase price is low, and the speed is there. The 14-19 is the tailwheel version - way cool, but insurance will be an issue. You may also consider twins. The only ones that really fit your mission profile while maintianing similar operating costs are the Twin Comanche and Beech Travel Air. Insurance will be higher ($4K+) if you are instrument rated, and ridiculous ($6K+) if you are not. Purchase price will be lower than a comparably performing single. Michael |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Fwd: [BD4] Source of HIGH CHTs on O-320 and O-360 FOUND! | Bruce A. Frank | Home Built | 1 | July 4th 04 08:28 PM |
| Proposals for air breathing hypersonic craft. I | Robert Clark | Military Aviation | 2 | May 26th 04 07:42 PM |
| What if the germans... | Charles Gray | Military Aviation | 119 | January 27th 04 12:20 AM |
| be?st choices for new engine for P210? | Phil Kellman | Owning | 3 | November 7th 03 03:21 PM |
| Is taking off on single mag bad for engine | flyer | Home Built | 10 | September 21st 03 10:43 PM |