Gotta Go Faster

[jax88]

It's official, I'm in the market for something faster than my '75F.  Leaning toward a 252, still considering the bigger engine models (Rocket, Missile, Eagle, Bravo).  Any leads on available aircraft would be appreciated.

[WardHolbrook]

Quote: jax88

It's official, I'm in the market for something faster than my '75F.  Leaning toward a 252, still considering the bigger engine models (Rocket, Missile, Eagle, Bravo).  Any leads on available aircraft would be appreciated.

[Parker_Woodruff]

Quote: WardHolbrook

 How far ya fly'n?

[jax88]

I live in San Antonio and I need to get to either coast and the upper midwest.  Lots of trips to Vegas, other semi-regular trips to Florida, and the typical vacation trips around the country.  Only me and the co-pilot/wife.

[John Pleisse]

Get the Bravo.........Lyc, lot's to choose from under $215k, some FIKI. No Continental cylinders, lifters and cams to replace.

[Parker_Woodruff]

Quote: jax88

I live in San Antonio and I need to get to either coast and the upper midwest.  Lots of trips to Vegas, other semi-regular trips to Florida, and the typical vacation trips around the country.  Only me and the co-pilot/wife.

[WardHolbrook]

Quote: jax88

I live in San Antonio and I need to get to either coast and the upper midwest.  Lots of trips to Vegas, other semi-regular trips to Florida, and the typical vacation trips around the country.  Only me and the co-pilot/wife.

[Piloto]

What Wardholbrook indicates is very true, specially going westbound. For any turbocharge option you need to have the extra fuel otherwise the fuel stop will kill you advantage. If you slow down for range you are no better off. Take a look at a comparison chart by Monroy at http://www.monroyaero.com/lrupgd.html.

José

[jax88]

Yep, I'd rather have 185 knots and no stops than 200 knots and a stop, no doubt.

[rbridges]

Quote: WardHolbrook

 The reason I asked is because, frequently, the best "speed mod" you can buy for your airplane is to simply add fuel capacity. It's like the tortus and the hare, simply being able to continue flying along at your present airspeed and making the trip nonstop will often result in better door to door times when compared to flying it 50 (or 300) knots faster, but with a required fuel stop. Turbos and big engines are nice, but they won't gain you as much as you might expect if one solution involves a fuel stop and another eliminates one. It takes one heck of a fast airplane to make up for a 45 minute stop enroute.

 

[jlunseth]

My mission plan is the mirror image of yours, I live in Minn. and make trips to TX, OK, NM, NY, MT and points in between.  I fly high most of the time, because high is fast most of the time.  The Bravo may have less range than my 231, I don't know cause I don't fly one, but I have looked at the Bravo specs and they are pretty good.  I can tell you that for most purposes, fuel range in the 231 is just not an issue because of the bladder and leg stretching thing.  I can make about 5 hours in my plane if I want to push to the limits (with a VRF reserve), but we generally are looking for a pit stop somewhere around 3 1/2 to 4 hours.  If you are by yourself and don't mind using the little red bottle and doing long, non-stop flying you can go further.  But in 4 hours and at a TAS of 170 you have covered alot of ground (680 n.m.).  So I don't really buy into the slow, long range fuel thing.  Five or six hours of nonstop is not alot of fun even if your tanks will let you.  It is especially not alot of fun if you are flying a normally aspirated aircraft down in the bumpy, lower 12k feet of the atmosphere.  I did one of those rockin' and rollin' trips at 3000 in a 182 last year, over six hours with one hurried fuel stop.  I felt like I had done 15 rounds with Muhammed Ali before he changed his name.

If you want a recommendation, I would not stop, not pass go, not collect $200, and buy a FIKI Bravo.  High, far, fast and in most weather.  About the only issue is that the Bravos were mostly made in the HSI and VOR era of navigation.  The plane itself is a thing of beauty, getting together a panel that is worthy of the plane and makes use of the GPS, SatWX, and other advance nav aids is the harder part.

Flying long cross countries of the type you are talking about is a different animal than what is generally talked about in flight schools.  In every flight, you are going to be taken out of your normal element.  If you live in the flatlands of TX, your flight might end, for example, in the middle of the Rockies.  Over a long route of flight like that, there will always be some weather to dodge, if you are able to plan the outbound leg so that you miss it, then you will invariably catch it on the return trip.  So you need tools that help you dodge large weather systems, and also that help you deal with weather you are probably completely unfamiliar with, like mountain waves and obscurations, needing to get to at least 14,000 to cross mountains and finding that the freezing level is at 10 thou even in the summer, that sort of stuff.

One other thing.  One great aspect of the turbo is that you can fly high enough that most of the time, what you see are the upper parts of the isolated very large cells, but you are above the solid layers.  You get a whole different view up there, and it makes it much easier to dodge the really bad cells and clouds, the one's that want to hurt you.  

The only downside of having a turbo Mooney is you won't build hours very fast, and you especially won't build IMC hours very fast.  Although I fly for many hours above IMC, I get very few hours of actually IMC in a year's flying.  Moslty just going up and coming back down. 

[Piloto]

In the 1980s I used to fly to Puerto Rico from FLL stopping in Providenciales for fuel. Besides refueling I needed to do some Customs paper work. Then after  Providenciales I needed to do Customs again at San Juan (TJIG) since I came from another country. After my stop in San Juan I flew to TJMZ (Mayaguez, PR) which was my final destination. The whole ordeal took 9 hours assuming I was lucky and there was no line at Customs or for refueling. After putting long range tanks I was able to do the trip direct non-stop to TJMZ (no Customs required) in 5:40hrs with 35 gallons left in the wings. Lesson learned: fuel stops do slow you down. And the faster you want to go the more fuel you will burn. Turbo advantage for long trips is only worth it you have the extra fuel.

José

  

[John Pleisse]

Theres was some guy in Maine who wrote a MAPA Log article some years back about the Monroy tanks in a FIKI Bravo.....the guy routinely one-hopped it from Bangor to Miami with reserves. Stunning.

[jax88]

I'd like to get from San Antonio to Vegas non-stop in 5 hours.  Anything longer than that, and the co-pilot will likely demand a stop.

[carusoam]

Randy,

I plugged the basics into the AOPA flight planner....

An Ovation leaving from KSAT direct McCarren KLAS takes 5:36 to complete the 928 mile distance.

Roughly speaking.....16gph, 180kts, 89gal capacity

This flight would need constant monitoring of fuel levels vs. headwinds, vs. reserves.

The flight out with headwinds would probably require a stop.  The return with a tailwind probably non stop....

IFR flight would add a few percent to the overall distance.

YMMV....

-a-

[Piloto]

Quote: jax88

I'd like to get from San Antonio to Vegas non-stop in 5 hours.  Anything longer than that, and the co-pilot will likely demand a stop.

[BorealOne]

I'm doing 1200 mile non-stop legs pretty regularly in my Ovation with IFR reserves - single pilot w/ long range tanks, above 14,000 and with fuel burn dialed back to 11.7 gph.

[kortopates]

I've done a similar flight MYF-KERV non-stop in my 252 - once - which took close to 6hrs and required use of the long range tanks. For comparison to the Ovation, I plugged in LAS to SAT and got 5:13 and 77.2 gal which still necessitates the LR tanks. At 17.5 my 252 is burning 13.5 G/hr to do 191 kt ROP. Per some (unverified) Bravo performance numbers I got some time ago, it would be burning 21.3 gal/hr to do 208 Kts - So the Bravo will get you another 17 kts for another 7.7 gal/hr - that's more than 50% more fuel burn in cruise than my 252 to save another 20 min, but a Bravo person could confirm those numbers. The Bravo though will have more room in the back and should have a higher useful load. But overall, any K or newer model will need the long range tanks to get you there at their max cruise setting. You'll have to decide how much of a fuel bill you want to pay to get there given the performance options. And you'll  seriously need to look closely at the specific useful loads to verify practicality to put on enough fuel to do so with your expected pax and baggage weight. Then as discussed, there is always slowing down to stretch range - but remind me again why we fly Mooneys?  Personally though, long legs more than 3 hrs take all the fun out if it, so I'd be stopping for lunch in Las Cruces at the Crossroads Grill.

[jax88]

Tried the grill at Las Cruces once, not that impressed.  Now I like to stop at Santa Teresa for the burritos.

Oh, and yes, speed over distance, any day.

[mooniac58]

My issue with the long range tanks is weight.  I have me, my wife, two carseats with 20-30lb kids in them (and growing every year) plus at least 50-70lbs in baggage.  Even if I had long range tanks I could not fill them unless flying solo.  Sadly my J model is just a couple years off from being able to get the weight increase STC.

[Shadrach]

Go with an Ovation.  I personally beleive that the Bravo never lived up to it's potential...  It's just way too thirsty for the speed...

[KLRDMD]

Quote: Shadrach

I personally beleive that the Bravo never lived up to it's potential...  It's just way to thirsty for the speed...

[jax88]

Well, weight isn't an issue for me, I'm almost always just using the two front seats.  And when I have more than just two in the aircraft, it's always been for short, local sightseeing trips.

I've seen it suggested here numerous times, and it is my intention to follow the advice to consider all models from the 252 and newer and purchase the best example that meets my needs.  I will be looking for something with long range tanks, built in oxygen, and a service ceiling that allows me to take advantage of winds to maximize speed and range.

[John Pleisse]

Comparing a Bravo to more efficient Mooney's is fair. Comparing a Bravo to comparably slower twins is fair as well. Also, when messing with FIKI, there is no substitute for raw, sustainable power at altitude.  I think Monroy tanks and wheel barrel loads of cash are the x-factor.

[carqwik]

My Bravo is not limited by fuel but by the co-pilot's bladder time...anything longer than 2.5 hours gets tough for her.  By myself, my seat time is only a little bit longer of 3.5 hours...which is typically where my Bravo has only 1.5 hours to go before fuel exhaustion. 

For trips over the intermountain West, I consider a turbo mandatory to get above the bumps in the summer (and above the rocks as well).  My plane is not FIKI and the wx with lots of icing is a no-go for a piston single anyways out west IMHO. 

Bang for the buck, the 252 is the best value given the tradeoff of speed vs fuel against teh Bravo.  But the extra 20 kts provided by the Bravo is cool...it will easily cruise at 200 kts in the high teens.