Thought experiment... what’s the step up model?

[KLRDMD]

1 hour ago, jetdriven said:

Your previous post shows 19 GPH and 165KT. But you say this is 30-40 knots  faster and 50% more fuel  so you have a 125-135 knot 231 that burns 12.2 GPH?  That has to be the worst 231 ever  

8.9 + 8.8 = 19 GPH ? Must be that new math stuff.

I was demonstrating what the fuel burn was to get 165 KTAS, similar to what a Twin Comanche would do.

I also said for a given trip, not in cruise. Reading comprehension problem or deliberate misconstruction of information ? The Baron climbs 1700 FPM at 35 GPH. The Mooney climbs at 800 FPM at 25 GPH. The Mooney, the way I fly it in cruise is a 150-160 kt airplane. The Baron, the way I fly it in cruise is a 180-190 kt airplane.

This has been way too much of a pissing match for me. In your vast experience owning and operating a Baron you've decreed that the Baron is a piece of shit that no one should ever own for any reason. Never mind what people that actually do own and operate them say, they don't know what they're talking about. It costs a bajillion dollars an hour to operate a Baron too. A J model Mooney is the only airplane anyone should ever own for any reason. There is no excuse to own any other airplane on the face of the earth and there should actually be a law against it since if it isn't right for you, it isn't right for anyone else in the world. Happy ? 

I'm done with this conversation.

[MIm20c]

I’d really like to own a 55 for a couple years to try something new. However, I realize in my income bracket I cannot support it for the long term.  

This thread is about stepping stones, the baron fits that mold very well IMO.  Just the TVM with a 100k twin vs a 800k turbo prop is a real expense. Not to mention insurance and a larger hanger that many require. 

I also feel (guessing really) that the jump from my C to a 55 would be closer in operating expense than going from a 55 to a Duke or similar. 

Keep those twins in tip top shape until I can justify one!

[Hank]

3 hours ago, jetdriven said:

Most of these Mooney annuals are around 3 grand with no repairs. There are always small repairs so call it 5k. Meanwhile my baron and Aerostar friends are paying 15k at minimum and often more  

Hmmmm . . . . Just finished annual a week and a half ago. Changed oil & filter, replaced nose tire and Air Stop tube, replaced all main gear wheel bearings & components. Am now in midst of static leak repairs as part of IFR pitot-static test. All said and done, I should come out under your 3AMU "annual with no repairs." Glad I live in the boonies!

[jetdriven]

Wow, dude. That’s a lot of words you put in my mouth. A lot of stuff I never said about a Baron. 

 Perhaps you can go back and re-read what I did say, and what I said on the previous thread where you trotted out this cost theory. Or better yet, post it on Beechtalk, it’s a great board. 

[jetdriven]

8 minutes ago, Hank said:

Hmmmm . . . . Just finished annual a week and a half ago. Changed oil & filter, replaced nose tire and Air Stop tube, replaced all main gear wheel bearings & components. Am now in midst of static leak repairs as part of IFR pitot-static test. All said and done, I should come out under your 3AMU "annual with no repairs." Glad I live in the boonies!

I bet you’ll come out quite a bit less than that. 

Edited January 30, 2018 by jetdriven

[jetdriven]

2 hours ago, Wayne Cease said:

It's all about how you slice the data.    

A twin shouldn't be twice as much, but it will definitely be more.  I was flying a SR22 and it cost me all-in around $220/hr depending upon fuel prices at ~90 hrs/year.  The Baron 58 I'm flying now runs ~$380/hr for the same conditions.  Now, this Baron has a bad temp spread on the engines, so I can't run it LOP; I wish I could.  But that would knock off only about $20-25/hr.  The Baron will haul a heck of a lot more than the SR22, but it only flies 10 kts faster ROP than the SR22 did LOP at the same altitude.  It costs more in handling and parking fees even though it's about the same size as the SR22; yeah, it's a little bigger and definitely heavier, but still.

The Baron KLRDMD has will run fine LOP, so that helps.  Sounds like it's running better than the Baron 58 I'm flying too.

I'm looking to get back into a SR22 or a Mooney.  The cost of flying the Baron I'm flying is just too high.  Looking like the Mooney option may come together sooner; and it would be really nice to only feed 4 cylinders again.  Only two or maybe three times in two years have I used the Baron where the SR22 would not have been able to handle the flight (seats and/or weight).  A M20F or M20J with a good useful load could do them as well.

 

Nah you might as well stay with the Baron. A Mooney is only 34% cheaper.  Haven’t you heard?

perhaps I bought the wrong airplane. But I do distinctly remember the only time I ever spent 2 grand in one day on fuel (3% of the airplane’s value) was the Baron C55 I used to teach in. 

Edited January 30, 2018 by jetdriven

[Wayne Cease]

6 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

Nah you might as well stay with the Baron. A Mooney is only 34% cheaper.  Haven’t you heard?

perhaps I bought the wrong airplane. But I do distinctly remember the only time I ever spent 2 grand in one day on fuel (3% of the airplane’s value) was the Baron C55 I used to teach in. 

So I hear.  

If it's working great for KLRDMD that's great.  I wish it worked that well for me, but it's not.  Different plane, different set-up, different costs.  Got a $150/hr dry rate, plus fuel and this one won't run LOP, so figure another $150/hr, less if I get some cheaper fuel.  Plus a monthly fixed fee.  And it will only do 190 kts down low (and then 30-32 gal/hr), not up at 10k like KLRDMD's plane does.  Even with cheap fuel I'm running about $270/hr for variable costs alone, and that doesn't always work out, so sometimes I'm $300+/hr.  

The SR22 I flew was ~$220/hr all-in, about $135/hr for the variable at the high end, less when I could manage to pick up cheaper fuel.

The Mooney would be somewhere around $105/hr for the variable costs, less than that if I pick up cheap fuel.  Flying somewhere looks a lot more appealing at that rate.    Flying is just transportation to my wife.  If it's $600 for a trip versus $1800 she's much happier.  She's happy then I get to fly more.  Then I'm happy too.  

My fixed costs would be pretty much the same (fewer people sharing the plane), but my variable costs would only be 1/3 that of what I have now.  Yeah, I'll lose about 25-30 kts.  I won't be able to put 6 people in the plane, which I've only done once, nor be able move my daughter out of her dorm, which I doubt I'll ever do again.

I'll have to see how well my bike fits in a Mooney for going to a triathlon.  Not that I do that a lot, typically I drive to those.  I can put it in a SR22.  I put two in it a few years ago when my daughter went with me to one of them.  Pull the back two seats in the Baron and there's a huge space there.

 

[Shadrach]

2 hours ago, KLRDMD said:

My 231 has 892 lb useful load. My B55 has 1702 lb useful load. That's pretty close to twice the useful load. I guess you could call 800+ lb "a few 100lbs".

For me, the Baron makes sense. I really don't care if it works for anyone else and I'm not trying to convince anyone to do anything. I have many years of experience owing and operating both singles and twins so I have real world knowledge of the true costs associated with this.

For my Flying Samaritans trips, which I make a number of times a year, I cannot expect that fuel will be available in Mexico. In fact fuel has not been available the last three trips I've made. So I need to carry enough fuel to get from Tucson to the west coast of the Baja and back, plus reserves. That includes four take-offs and four climbs to altitude. In the Mooney that means I can take two small to small/average passengers with me. In the Baron I can take five average sized passengers with me, or more commonly four passengers with a lot of supplies. Or even three passengers with a whole lot of supplies. The Baron has an extended baggage area and nose baggage. Try to get that volume of people and stuff in a Mooney. 

Not only that, these trips have me over water for over an hour and over remote areas of the Baja of Mexico. If you're really lucky and really good, you may successfully make an engine out landing in the remote areas of the Baja where I travel, but you'll die before anyone gets there to rescue you. A parachute doesn't help you over the water or the Baja either.

I can also do Angel Flights now that I couldn't in the Mooney due to useful load issues and also Veteran's Airlift Command.

The Baron is the right airplane for me today. I never said it was the right airplane for anyone else.

Payload for distance...I could not give two sh*t's about useful load comparisons unless it's the same model with the same fuel burn.  I am glad the B55 works for you.  It is a sweet bird and is the only twin Beech I have any time in (rt seat only).  I have no doubt you are familiar with the B55 W & B which would handle this trip easily (I think the CG challenges for B55s is vastly overstated) unless you put a few of Chris's girls in rear most seats (they'd never clear the middle row any way).  However, the OP is a family of four looking for an upgrade.

My initial comment was that there was no SINGLE that really offered a significant upgrade in speed and payload. Maybe a TN'd A36 or Turbo Centurion, but not a lot more speed with either and one would need to have everyone on O2 to see the real benefits.

Some Barons are more portly than others.  Not all of them have large useful loads and in fact some of the newest 58s barely eek out 1500 lbs useful with bigger thirstier engines the speed delta increases slightly but the payload delta shrinks to barely one FAA sized Adult.  That's a lot of noise, fuel, complexity and expense to arrive 45 mins earlier with an additional few hundred pounds at best.

A family of four can want an airplane that can be packed like an SUV, but would get a much better value from traveling on the light side and making the J work.  When I was a kid my stepdad rented a Lance (had a potty we were forbidden to use) for a while and then bought a share in a P210.  At the same time my Dad had the F model.  When I was a non flying passenger my perspective is that they were all noisy and cramped compared to ground transport but all of them were much, much faster. We aren't heavy folks payload was never an issue in any of them. None of them seemed much better than the other though I did like the rear window in the 210.  We were just happy not to be driving.  As pilots we really start to place a lot of value on some pretty small performance differences while simultaneously ignoring huge cost differences.

You should have just kept your TN'd M20F...it probably did more on a gallon of gas then any plane you'll ever own.

 

 

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, Wayne Cease said:

So I hear.  

If it's working great for KLRDMD that's great.  I wish it worked that well for me, but it's not.  Different plane, different set-up, different costs.  Got a $150/hr dry rate, plus fuel and this one won't run LOP, so figure another $150/hr, less if I get some cheaper fuel.  Plus a monthly fixed fee.  And it will only do 190 kts down low (and then 30-32 gal/hr), not up at 10k like KLRDMD's plane does.  Even with cheap fuel I'm running about $270/hr for variable costs alone, and that doesn't always work out, so sometimes I'm $300+/hr.  

The SR22 I flew was ~$220/hr all-in, about $135/hr for the variable at the high end, less when I could manage to pick up cheaper fuel.

The Mooney would be somewhere around $105/hr for the variable costs, less than that if I pick up cheap fuel.  Flying somewhere looks a lot more appealing at that rate.    Flying is just transportation to my wife.  If it's $600 for a trip versus $1800 she's much happier.  She's happy then I get to fly more.  Then I'm happy too.  

My fixed costs would be pretty much the same (fewer people sharing the plane), but my variable costs would only be 1/3 that of what I have now.  Yeah, I'll lose about 25-30 kts.  I won't be able to put 6 people in the plane, which I've only done once, nor be able move my daughter out of her dorm, which I doubt I'll ever do again.

I'll have to see how well my bike fits in a Mooney for going to a triathlon.  Not that I do that a lot, typically I drive to those.  I can put it in a SR22.  I put two in it a few years ago when my daughter went with me to one of them.  Pull the back two seats in the Baron and there's a huge space there.

 

I have individual fold down rear seats in my Mooney.  Wheels and seat post removed it was I have flown with my old Cinelli in the back no problem, but the wheels needed to come through the front door IRRC. I have never had more than one bike in the plane but it may be doable.  The wheels take up way more room than you'd think. Deflating helps.  The weirdest thing I've ever had in my bird was a staggered set of rims and tires in 225/50/17 and 265/45/17.  They was a bit of a hassle loading up, but only took about 10 mins.  Lot's of gawking at the FBO during the load...

Edited January 30, 2018 by Shadrach

[bonal]

We are so Blessed OH to be able to have such a wonderful set of options that we can argue such things.  I always thought Barrons were very cool

[peevee]

I bet a turbocharged twin Comanche would be sweet.

[Shadrach]

4 hours ago, KLRDMD said:

8.9 + 8.8 = 19 GPH ? Must be that new math stuff.

I was demonstrating what the fuel burn was to get 165 KTAS, similar to what a Twin Comanche would do.

I also said for a given trip, not in cruise. Reading comprehension problem or deliberate misconstruction of information ? The Baron climbs 1700 FPM at 35 GPH. The Mooney climbs at 800 FPM at 25 GPH. The Mooney, the way I fly it in cruise is a 150-160 kt airplane. The Baron, the way I fly it in cruise is a 180-190 kt airplane.

This has been way too much of a pissing match for me. In your vast experience owning and operating a Baron you've decreed that the Baron is a piece of shit that no one should ever own for any reason. Never mind what people that actually do own and operate them say, they don't know what they're talking about. It costs a bajillion dollars an hour to operate a Baron too. A J model Mooney is the only airplane anyone should ever own for any reason. There is no excuse to own any other airplane on the face of the earth and there should actually be a law against it since if it isn't right for you, it isn't right for anyone else in the world. Happy ? 

I'm done with this conversation.

Ken, I was sure that you once had a TN'd F model.  Why did you go to a 231 that by your numbers is slower in cruise, slower in climb, carries less and burns more fuel? Seems like a poor "upgrade".

[Wayne Cease]

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

I have individual fold down rear seats in my Mooney.  Wheels and seat post removed it was I have flown with my old Cinelli in the back no problem, but the wheels needed to come through the front door IRRC. I have never had more than one bike in the plane but it may be doable.  The wheels take up way more room than you'd think. Deflating helps.  The weirdest thing I've ever had in my bird was a staggered set of rims and tires in 225/50/17 and 265/45/17.  They was a bit of a hassle loading up, but only took about 10 mins.  Lot's of gawking at the FBO during the load...

Four wheels fit in the luggage area of the SR22 fine, but I had to put them in through the front doors.  The luggage door was too small.  Then I put the frames on the back seat.  Fortunately both bike have quick release, so it was easy to take them apart and put them back together again.  I think I released some air pressure too, just to make sure there was no problems at altitude; my road bike tires are typically at 120 psi.  I was bringing a pump anyway, so no big deal.

 

[rpcc]

Yikes - old men getting their heads up their Asspens.

you guys just crapped all over this guys question - it was a good question.   Mooneys are nice and b55s are nice - and they both cost stupid money.  who the hell cares if one is 50% more stupid or 100% more stupid than the next.  

 

[KLRDMD]

1 hour ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

If I recall correctly, Ken had at least one and maybe more airplanes between the turbocharged F and the K.  

Between the turbo F and the 231 I had a Baron, 182, Twin Comanche, Lancair 235/320, P337 and another 182.

[KLRDMD]

2 hours ago, Shadrach said:

Ken, I was sure that you once had a TN'd F model.  Why did you go to a 231 that by your numbers is slower in cruise, slower in climb, carries less and burns more fuel? Seems like a poor "upgrade".

The turbo F wasn't all that fast. It was completely stock except for the turbo and oil cooler relocation.  No second set of gear doors, original cowl, original windshield - lots of drag. The 231 is better in all categories than my turbo F was . . . EXCEPT, I really would like the manual gear and hydraulic flaps of the F.

[Shadrach]

On 1/30/2018 at 6:36 PM, KLRDMD said:

The turbo F wasn't all that fast. It was completely stock except for the turbo and oil cooler relocation.  No second set of gear doors, original cowl, original windshield - lots of drag. The 231 is better in all categories than my turbo F was . . . EXCEPT, I really would like the manual gear and hydraulic flaps of the F.

Dear god how bad was the useful on your old F?  Mine bests your old 231 by 180lbs.  If I installed the Rayjay on my bird I'd still have 1000lbs of useful.  I have a box stock NA '67 F that does 150KTAS all day long in the 4-9K range  and  will hold the 140s until you get to O2 altitudes. It burns a lot less 25GPH in the climb and does quite a bit better than 800FPM for the first 5000 ft of climb. This time of year I can get to 10,000 in under well 10 minutes with just me and full fuel (field elv 703').  The NA IO Lycoming is  more fuel efficient at a given power setting than the LB or GB Conti.  So how exactly was your K better in every way?  If TNd I would think my F would manage a TAS of 170ish at 17-18K with little trouble. 

Edited February 1, 2018 by Shadrach

[KLRDMD]

40 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Dear god how bad was the useful on your old F?  If I installed the Rayjay on my bird I'd still have 1000lbs of useful.  I have a box stock NA '67 F that does 150KTAS all day long in the 4-9K range  and hold the 140s until you get to O2 altitudes. It burns a lot less 25GPH in the climb and does quite a bit better than 800FPM for the first 5000 ft of climb. This time of year I can get to 10,000 in under well 10 minutes with just me and full fuel (field elv 703').  The NA IO Lycoming is  more fuel efficient at a given power setting than the LB or GB Conti.  So how exactly was the K better in every way?  If TNd I would think it would manage a TAS of 170ish at 17-18K with little trouble. 

The useful load may have been a few pounds more in the F, I don't recall. But the smooth belly, cowl, windshield, gear doors, panel, engine management, power and speed are all better in the K. The turbo F was limited to 27" as I recall (I take off and climb in the K at 37") and you had to manually adjust the MP as you climbed. The F took a lot more fooling with the engine controls, it was a lot more susceptible to bootstrapping and I couldn't get it to run LOP well.  I never got anywhere near 170 KTAS in the turbo F and regularly flew in the mid teens. It would do 155 KTAS maybe at 15,500 ft. 

Real life numbers from actual ownership experiences, not speculation.

[Hank]

Wow . . . . I know people with NA Fs that fly 150-155 KTAS at 8-10K.

[bradp]

On 1/29/2018 at 3:20 PM, carusoam said:

Does the wife take interest in flying the plane?

She has a bit of an interest but knows it takes a bit of an obsession to pull off what we all do in a safe fashion.  She’s not ready. 

When I was looking for my J - I visited one at an Air park hangar that was shared with a beautiful 58 baron.  Now that’s not compromising... 

@KLRDMD didn’t you drive a P337 for a while?  How does that compare to the 55 baron?

@ whatever Dr Breda’s callsign is I can’t remember. I recall a gentleman at OWD who got his A&P to be able to feed and water his 310.  He had all his toolage in the back of a VW minivan or something.  Something like that might seriously be in the cards for me ... anything more complicated than NA or having more than one turbo will require getting an A&P in some modicum of spare time.  ;-)

As many have alluded to any potential upgrading of our ride would be treated more as a two partner partnership between Mrs and I.  If she’s wanting something comfy and spacious then I have no problem to oblige.   Just have to know exactly what we’re getting into.  As of now I keep coming back to keep the J unless gaining a lot of redundancy and near all Weather capability in which case it’s probably Mooney, Aerostar,  or bust.  

Fun conversation if not a bit too spicy at times. 

-Brad  

[KLRDMD]

1 minute ago, bradp said:

 

@KLRDMD didn’t you drive a P337 for a while?

I don't care much for the term "driver" but yes I did own and fly a P337.

[Shadrach]

51 minutes ago, Hank said:

Wow . . . . I know people with NA Fs that fly 150-155 KTAS at 8-10K.

I resemble that remark.  155ktas is a lousy return for hauling a turbo up to 15,000 to go nearly or the same speed as the NAs down at 7,000-9,000'.

Edited January 31, 2018 by Shadrach

[Shadrach]

6 minutes ago, KLRDMD said:

I don't care much for the term "driver" but yes I did own and fly a P337.

[KLRDMD]

23 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

I resemble that remark.  155ktas is a lousy return for hauling a turbo up to 15,000 to go nearly or the same speed as the NAs down at 7,000-9,000'.

On paper, a turbo F looks great. And with a bunch of speed mods maybe it would be. But a stock F with a Ray Jay turbo is nice, but not fantastic. 27" MP at altitude is better than 15-20".

[Shadrach]

1 minute ago, KLRDMD said:

On paper, a turbo F looks great. And with a bunch of speed mods maybe it would be. But a stock F with a Ray Jay turbo is nice, but not fantastic. 27" MP at altitude is better than 15-20".

Speeds for the F seem to vary a bit by year but 150ktas is not atypical for the early models.  I can personally verify this to be the case. I have actually done a bit better on non standard days but 150 is a number I can usually count on and what I use for flight planning. I am baffled as to why with 8,000 additional feet and 8" of additional MP your bird was just 5 kts faster.