Seriously considering leaving Mooney behind....

[Stephen]

19 hours ago, Raptor05121 said:

Ive had this mental exercise and my end result was a 1976-1978 straight-tail, Hershey-bar wing Piper PA-32-300 Lance. Big cabin. Some parts commonality with the venerable Cherokee (cheaper than Beech) and the best part and big swinger in my book- Lycoming 540. Basically a -360 with two more jugs. The thought of Continentals tickle my wallet in ways I cant fathom. From what I read is they do 145-155KTAS at 11-13gph, 6 seats, 2x baggage compartments. Certainly not as fast as a Bo, but if it fits, it ships

 

We had a PA-32 300 growing up. It had a big door to get in the back and club seating. Would haul a crap load. Probably similar speed to your C, but like 24-14 gph

[MooneyMitch]

Had you thought about one of these?  Huge double doors and a 6 seater....... goes pretty high too.... turbo charged .

[GeeBee]

The one problem with all the airplanes mentioned is some expensive wing work. The Bonanza Pre-91 has center section issues which requires expensive inspection and if there is a crack, get real expensive to put the kit in and even then it does not relieve you of an inspection every 500 hours. Then there are the wing bolts if it is. a bathtub. fitting wing. Wing bolts SB is often ignored but if the wing bolts have corrosion which you cannot tell without pulling them, which IMHO. is a high risk maintenance procedure that demands the best of the best in shop skill. Last time I priced wing bolts for a King Air, 45K.The PA32 has the sword of Damocles hanging over its proposed wing spar AD. At the very minimum, it needs inspection plates, at the maximum new wing fittings. Ditto C-210. AD 2020-3-16. Eddy current inspection of the center section carry through and spar. 

If you are set on a course of wanting big doors and recip engine, make sure to get a 91 or new (check the S/N's) A-36 to say out. of the center section troubles. If you go PA-32, research carefully the S/N that will be affected by the upcoming AD and I would be very suspect of any affected C-210 that did not have the eddy current performed. Better to go with the N. or R models.

All this points to why I bought my M20R. Rock solid structure and construction. The Pipers and the Cessna's were not meant to last this long and the earlier Bonanzas were a product of the "go-go years" of GA where development costs were minimized by using old. design construction with a new coat of paint.  There is a reason why all the BE-18 fly around with straps under their wings and that same design was prevalent in all Beech products for a long time.

Don't get me wrong, I love Beech products, especially the A-36, love the PA32 and the C-210. Flew them all, have lots of great hours. I think Beech builds about the finest airplane around, but it is pricey to maintain,  and unless you get a later model you are on the bubble structure wise. 

 

[Raptor05121]

2 hours ago, GeeBee said:

The PA32 has the sword of Damocles hanging over its proposed wing spar AD. At the very minimum, it needs inspection plates, at the maximum new wing fittings. Ditto C-210. AD 2020-3-16. Eddy current inspection of the center section carry through and spar.

 

For the 32? I'm not up-to-date on Piper, but I remember some guys on the Six forums saying the proposed AD does not affect the 235s or PA32s because of the beefed up wing

[PMcClure]

I did exactly what you are thinking and ended back in a mooney a few years later. I sold my f and bought into a beautiful BT36TC. Thing was, he kids got bigger, too big really and busy. I ended up flying a lone 80% of the time. Maintenance and fuel was much more. Now the kids are gone and its almost always just me or me and my wife on trips to see the kids or parents. I loved the Bo but found i really belong in a mooney.
 

I also found the Bo was range OR payload limited. You could bring full fuel or full seats, not both. 

[KLRDMD]

Just now, PMcClure said:

I also found the Bo was range OR payload limited. You could bring full fuel or full seats, not both. 

Some are, some aren't. My empty CG of 77.8 allows full fuel and four seats filled with baggage.

[Guest]

On 5/23/2020 at 5:12 PM, airtim said:

Ever think of a Comanche 260C? 

For some strange reason I’d suggest the Comanche 400.  It will hand that Beech its bum on a plate.

Clarence

[GeeBee]

13 hours ago, Raptor05121 said:

For the 32? I'm not up-to-date on Piper, but I remember some guys on the Six forums saying the proposed AD does not affect the 235s or PA32s because of the beefed up wing

Oh yes. Same design and structure. 

https://www.piperflyer.org/maintenance-technical/item/1161-pa-28-pa-32-wing-spar-cracks-what-you-should-know.html

 

 

[GeeBee]

3 hours ago, M20Doc said:

For some strange reason I’d suggest the Comanche 400.  It will hand that Beech its bum on a plate.

Clarence

There is no replacement for displacement! That 720 is smooth!

 

[ragedracer1977]

1 hour ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

Agreed.  If an A36 is what you want I’m not sure why you would ask us to try to talk you out of it, to be honest.  

The more I look and run numbers (distance, weight, weather) the more I'm thinking i might actually want a twin.  

[cliffy]

As one who remembers when the first 400 came out-  I'm just thinking of the cost delta to run one though an overhaul as factory new is no longer an option (IIRC) :-)

I've got a friend here that went from a 33 to an A36 and then out of the airplane world as the costs were astronomical for him. 

With the use you say you have I wouldn't think you could stay on the cheap side of maintenance in an A36,. 

Family comfort is a big issue to get them to buy in. The cost of operation (Mx and fuel) will be yours. 

There's no secret to load and speed  $$$$$$$$$$      Go in with your eyes wide open. 

For me I'd go (and I said FOR ME) for a Navajo 310 hp. Full deice, big cabin, great engine package, fast but at 35 gals per hour. I'd trade the fuel for the cabin if I needed it. All for a buck and half to two bucks buy in.

Good SE performance. (for a piston twin IMO) 

I've got thousands of hours in them and did the maintenance also.  Never had any big surprises cost ways. Full TBO with only  a couple of cylinders every time. Turbos were not maintenance hogs nor was the exhaust system. Just never let anyone close the cabin door, only YOU! before flight. 

[KLRDMD]

4 minutes ago, ragedracer1977 said:

 The more I look and run numbers (distance, weight, weather) the more I'm thinking i might actually want a twin.  

Happy to talk twins, I've had five of 'em.

[ragedracer1977]

27 minutes ago, cliffy said:

 

Family comfort is a big issue to get them to buy in. The cost of operation (Mx and fuel) will be yours. 

There's no secret to load and speed  $$$$$$$$$$      Go in with your eyes wide open. 

 

Fortunately for me, my wife buys into the costs.  I've spent well into the 5 figures in upgrades to my C.  Dual G5s, electronic ignition, CIES senders, EDM900, new interior, etc etc etc.  She never balks. 

I also do my own maintenance.  As much as I fly, I have to.  

[rbridges]

Since you're used to C model speeds, was there a reason why something like a Saratoga wouldn't work?  I don't know UL right off hand, but I know it's more than a mooney.

 

edit--I guess it would help to read all the responses before posting.  lol

Edited May 25, 2020 by rbridges

[Bravoman]

Love my fixed gear Toga. Extremely reliable, inexpensive to maintain, lyc IO-540 which is virtually bulletproof, great instrument platform, big back door, nose compartment w / 100lbs capacity, 1400 pound plus useful load, and 145 kn true which ain’t  horrible. You can take full fuel,107 gallons, and four big people and all their luggage no problem.

[exM20K]

5 hours ago, Davidv said:

My friend is getting it installed as we speak and he will see 210+ at 15K on around 16-18GPH.

No, he won’t.  Even the TAT people wouldn’t make such an ambitious claim.

I tried unsuccessfully to paste the chart from their website.  See for yourself.  202KTAS @17GPH FL180

https://taturbo.com/frames.html

What he should reasonably expect is 1.5 - 2 KTAS increase per thousand feet.  So if a NA A36 is a 170KTAS cruiser at 8,000, it should be a 190 at FL180.

Edited May 25, 2020 by exM20K

[jaylw314]

22 hours ago, MooneyMitch said:

Had you thought about one of these?  Huge double doors and a 6 seater....... goes pretty high too.... turbo charged .

Hey, I've always wondered--what's with the tub underneath the Stationair?  Is that cargo space or something mechanical (or neither)?  I keep asking myself that when I see one, then forgetting to ask someone...

[Parker_Woodruff]

3 hours ago, ragedracer1977 said:

The more I look and run numbers (distance, weight, weather) the more I'm thinking i might actually want a twin.  

You want a Piper Seneca III, IV, or V.  *

No twin beats the Seneca III+, IMO.

*I suggest this as you disclosed how much you fly your Mooney.  I'm a firm believer that an owner-pilot who flies a twin needs to be flying a minimum of 100 hours per year with annual (or more frequent) OEI (one-engine inoperative) training & IPC.

[Parker_Woodruff]

3 minutes ago, jaylw314 said:

Hey, I've always wondered--what's with the tub underneath the Stationair?  Is that cargo space or something mechanical (or neither)?  I keep asking myself that when I see one, then forgetting to ask someone...

Optional cargo pod

[KLRDMD]

Just now, Parker_Woodruff said:

You want a Piper Seneca III, IV, or V. 

No twin beats the Seneca III+, IMO.

My first twin was a Seneca III. They're good airplanes but there are a lot of good twins.

[Parker_Woodruff]

Just now, KLRDMD said:

My first twin was a Seneca III. They're good airplanes but there are a lot of good twins.

There are, but the space inside and ability to fly one at a high DA on one engine seals the deal for me on 6-place, unpressurized models. Especially important for your region of the country.

[Parker_Woodruff]

1 hour ago, exM20K said:

 

What he should reasonably expect is 1.5 - 2 KTAS increase per thousand feet.  So if a NA A36 is a 170KTAS cruiser at 8,000, it should be a 190 at FL180.

Same for turbo Mooneys.  My M20K was 170 knots at 10,000 feet and you could safely assume a 2 knot increase per 1000' higher.

[KLRDMD]

Just now, Parker_Woodruff said:

There are, but the space inside and ability to fly one at a high DA on one engine seals the deal for me on 6-place, unpressurized models. Especially important for your region of the country.

Yes but normally aspirated 300HP per side does better than 220 HP turbo below about 12k and then they're similar for a while before the turbo eventually wins somewhere above 15k.

[Davidv]

2 hours ago, exM20K said:

No, he won’t.  Even the TAT people wouldn’t make such an ambitious claim.

I tried unsuccessfully to paste the chart from their website.  See for yourself.  202KTAS @17GPH FL180

https://taturbo.com/frames.html

What he should reasonably expect is 1.5 - 2 KTAS increase per thousand feet.  So if a NA A36 is a 170KTAS cruiser at 8,000, it should be a 190 at FL180.

It's interesting because I saw the same thing on that performance chart and I can't reconcile it to an older Paul Bertorelli article (or what my friend says he expects).  He's basically building a 550 with all new accessories including the latest TAT system.  I'm not a Bonanza expert by any stretch so feel free to correct me if I'm not looking at apples to apples but take a look at the article below:

https://www.aviationconsumer.com/accessories/tornado-alley-turbos/

"Here are some specifics: We flew a 1980 TAT-converted A36 Bonanza. The airframe had some Smith speed mods so it wasnt typical, however. On takeoff from Ada on a 38-degree day, we easily achieved 1400 FPM in initial climb rate, settling to about 1200 FPM above 5000 feet.

Leveling off at 14,000 feet, we recorded 207 knots TAS at 17 to 18 GPH, with cylinder head temps in the 250 to 280-degree range. As per George Bralys recommendation, the engine was operated with wide open throttle, and lean of peak by leaning to a target fuel flow, not an EGT/TIT value. Climbing higher, we saw 214 knots TAS at 17,500, on about 18 GPH."

I've never seen a company claim so much less performance than the real life test so I'm a little puzzled.  The article says to deduct about 5 knots for no speed mods.  

If this is not accurate, my jealously level will go way down.  It hurts to have another plane carry so much more, go faster, and burn less fuel than my Mooney.

 

 

[philiplane]

6 hours ago, Davidv said:

I say go for a NA A36 and when your budget allows (maybe it does now), put On a TN tornado alley system.  My friend is getting it installed as we speak and he will see 210+ at 15K on around 16-18GPH.  This system makes the A36 ultimate traveling machine for a high useful load piston single.

He'll have to fly at FL250 to reach 210 knots. All the gain in the TAT setup occurs above 11,000 feet. Its the same setup as a TN Cirrus, which makes a 175 knot plane at 11,000 feet into a 214 knot plane at FL250. It doesn't exceed 200 knots until FL200.

Edited May 25, 2020 by philiplane