Save me from my Wife’s Piper Lance aspirations!

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, M20F said:

It is a 140-145kt plane that will carry anything in comfort.   If it takes off at same time as you and you go 3 hrs, you probably get there 15  mins faster.   Buy a plane based on your mission not on brand loyalty.   There are many planes out there that are much better than Mooney’s.  Given a choice of 6 seat singles the Cherokee 6 would be my choice.     

 

Cherokee 6 300 is one of the few planes  that I have raced in level flight. It would touch 140kts balls to the wall but he never flew it that way. I had no problems walking away from him.  My neighbor’s turbo toga with a different wing and no gear hanging out is about 25-30 kts faster than a Cherokee 6 300 but he needs to be on oxygen to see it. 

[Parker_Woodruff]

1 hour ago, MikeOH said:

And, what kind of insurance premium is an experienced Mooney pilot with zero P337 time looking at?

Insurance is more or less disastrous for most pilots on a Cessna P337.

[Parker_Woodruff]

I am a big fan of the PA32R and PA34 products if they've been well maintained.

The under-powered 260hp Cherokee Six (and potentially the 300hp variant) will quite possibly come with an insurance checkout requirement that the pilot fly with an instructor at 90% or more of the max takeoff weight.

[Parker_Woodruff]

44 minutes ago, Hank said:

At least it's centerline thrust!

@Parker_Woodruff?

Multi-engine pilots should be flying 100+ hours per year and doing regular OEI training, whether or not they have centerline thrust or a "critical engine".

And every SE & ME pilot should be doing training (at appropriate altitudes) for what they should do in a engine failure (lower the nose!).

[gmonnig]

I loved the T-tail NA Lance. Despite what the internet says, I really like the way it flew. I don't know if I'd mess with the Turbo Lance unless you need it, I've heard the maintenance is crazy on it (my previous partner in our Comanche 250 bought a Turbo Lance). Basically you are paying Cessna 310 maintenance but still have a slower single with less useful load. The T-tail made walking around the aft end, parking cars by the cargo door and loading easy! I saw 155kts on 14gph with about 1400lbs useful. In my option, the "all forward facing" seats were the better than the club seating since everyone has more legroom. The biggest drawback for the Lance was the ceiling. I'd have to pull out a POH but I recall the ceiling being around 14k feet. If you fly around the mountains, then better keep the plane light, and even then they can ruin your day with high density airports.

[KLRDMD]

2 hours ago, MikeOH said:

And, what kind of insurance premium is an experienced Mooney pilot with zero P337 time looking at?

I most recently had a P337 insured in 2020 and paid $4,000 for a $130k hull. More than likely someone with no pressurized time would need formal school, but the specifics may be negotiated. They never required formal school for me, though. The market is different today so I have no idea what the premium and other requirements would be.

[KLRDMD]

1 hour ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

Insurance is more or less disastrous for most pilots on a Cessna P337.

That's a shame, they are great airplanes.

[KLRDMD]

1 hour ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

Multi-engine pilots should be flying 100+ hours per year and doing regular OEI training, whether or not they have centerline thrust or a "critical engine". And every SE & ME pilot should be doing training (at appropriate altitudes) for what they should do in a engine failure (lower the nose!).

Agree 100%. *I* had to fly at least 100 hours a year to feel comfortable in a multi-engine airplane. 

[Mcstealth]

On 9/3/2023 at 10:17 AM, M20F said:

   There are many planes out there that are much better than Mooney’s. 

 

OK, I'll bite. "There are many planes out there that are much better....."

That statement needs some clarity or context. 

Edited September 7, 2023 by Mcstealth

[N201MKTurbo]

When my wife and I flew the Toga to New Orleans, after we returned, she said, “That plane sure is comfy”

[Shadrach]

5 hours ago, Mcstealth said:

OK, I'll bite. "There are many planes out there that are much better....."

That statement needs some clarity or context. 

It’s meant to be a provocative statement.

I think A10 warthogs are better than Mooneys. However, my mission constitutes taking 2-4 people and bags, 300-600nm in a reasonably short time using only as much fuel as is necessary. For that mission, there are only a handful GA singles that do all of it reasonably well. I can’t think of any that do it better than my Mooney.

[N201MKTurbo]

There are faster planes.

There are roomier planes.

There are planes that haul more.

They all use a lot more fuel.

There are few out there that use less fuel. My 56 Cessna 172 uses more fuel to go the same distance.

For a plane that will take my wife and I 1/2 way across this country in a day, there are few if any that will do it for less money.

[M20F]

13 hours ago, Mcstealth said:

OK, I'll bite. "There are many planes out there that are much better....."

That statement needs some clarity or context. 

I said in my original post and dozens of others.  In terms of speed, useful load, efficiency, and cost a classic Mooney checks all the boxes better than anything in terms of production aircraft.  The newer Mooney’s less so due to higher costs (purchase/operating) and useful load.  It’s a mixed bag on them.
 
What plane is better depends on your mission and if it is is carrying 5+ people there are better options than strapping a person in your baggage department.  Is a Saratoga better than a Cherokee-6 in speed, comfort, etc it is.  In terms of purchase and operating expenses it isn’t. 
 
I think Bonanza’s are certainly better than Mooney’s if operating and purchase costs are removed from the equation.  Money though matters a lot for most of us. 

[Mcstealth]

15 minutes ago, M20F said:

I said in my original post and dozens of others.  In terms of speed, useful load, efficiency, and cost a classic Mooney checks all the boxes better than anything in terms of production aircraft.  The newer Mooney’s less so due to higher costs (purchase/operating) and useful load.  It’s a mixed bag on them.
 
What plane is better depends on your mission and if it is is carrying 5+ people there are better options than strapping a person in your baggage department.  Is a Saratoga better than a Cherokee-6 in speed, comfort, etc it is.  In terms of purchase and operating expenses it isn’t. 
 
I think Bonanza’s are certainly better than Mooney’s if operating and purchase costs are removed from the equation.  Money though matters a lot for most of us. 

Well, that is not what you said. You made a blanket statement with no context. Now you backtrack. 

As for your Bo comparison: Which Bo? The four seat you are talking about? Hmmmmm. I would debate you on that one. Can't compare a six seater obviously....

[BloodRedSkies]

On 9/1/2023 at 8:51 AM, BigD said:

 

Hello! I have had a C model for about five years. She's been great, and last year we flew her 85 hours, with 100% dispatch. I can't say enough good things about her. Unfortunately, our family has grown over the years to where we now have four dogs, three of which are pretty large (huskies). The fourth is a 20 pounder and can sit in a lap. When we had one, two and even three, we were able to fly our plane with them on trips, which we really enjoyed. They even have earmuffs and earplugs! Well, to make a long story short, now with the fourth rescue dog, we have outsized the old C, and my wife is going crazy, she misses traveling with them. She is sort of stuck on the idea of a Piper Lance, and I REAAALLLY am trying to stay in a mooney. I am thinking if I could remove back seats of a long body (question number 1), maybe we can make it work. We are 615 pounds (with 100# of bags), so I think a useful load of 1000 or more would work out for us. I have been trying to see pictures of the interior rear area of a long body mooney, and it seems like an Eagle might be a good fit for us, as we won't be doing any high altitude stuff with dogs, and our trips are typically no higher than 10k, as we fly in Eastern U.S. Love to get some feedback. The Lance numbers really are horrible with fuel burns and speed. I think a long body would be the right fit, just not sure about rear area sizing. Thanks!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

What about a Comanche 260(b)? Has the Jumpseat area 4+2 seating and can carry a lot relatively efficiently vs a lance and should be better on the budget than a Saratoga vs a Lance. Just a thought. 

[M20F]

8 minutes ago, Mcstealth said:

Well, that is not what you said. You made a blanket statement with no context. Now you backtrack. 

As for your Bo comparison: Which Bo? The four seat you are talking about? Hmmmmm. I would debate you on that one. Can't compare a six seater obviously....

My post history and opinions here are very clear, so are yours.  I am not interested in a debate.  

[Shadrach]

10 minutes ago, BloodRedSkies said:

What about a Comanche 260(b)? Has the Jumpseat area 4+2 seating and can carry a lot relatively efficiently vs a lance and should be better on the budget than a Saratoga vs a Lance. Just a thought. 

I think they’re very capable. They sort of split the difference between a Bonanza and a Mooney in terms of space and efficiency. I’ve heard they are easy to wheelbarrow on both landing and takeoff. I’ve never had the opportunity to land one so I can’t say for sure. I had a buddy with a 250. He always carried some power into the landing. He gave me the impression that he disliked full stall, power off, landings in the 250/260. I always wanted to see for myself but understandably he wasn’t willing to let me experiment with his airplane…

[Echo]

13 minutes ago, M20F said:

My post history and opinions here are very clear, so are yours.  I am not interested in a debate.  

Agent provocateur .  Nice.  I am reminded of flying rabbits in Monty Python.  "Run Away!!" lol

[A64Pilot]

12 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

There are faster planes.

There are roomier planes.

There are planes that haul more.

They all use a lot more fuel.

There are few out there that use less fuel. My 56 Cessna 172 uses more fuel to go the same distance.

For a plane that will take my wife and I 1/2 way across this country in a day, there are few if any that will do it for less money.

I’ve run the numbers, assuming you pull the Mooney back to 60% power or so LOP pretty much everything uses more fuel over a distance, some like a Piper Cub will burn less per hour but return less MPG.

Yeah, I know it’s darned tough to believe, but run the numbers yourself, even my C-140 which is about the most efficient of the little airplanes burn more fuel than a Mooney, but they can burn car gas though as can a Cub.

But when you get to four place airplanes with about the same useful load, it’s not even close, nothing Certified that I’ve found is as fuel stingy as a Mooney

Fuel milage or cost per mile is often not what you think, even for Auto’s. Years ago I had a little Dodge Dakota with the 318, it my Fathers K-3500 Diesel Dually and my Brothers 3/4 ton Suburban all had almost exactly the same fuel cost per mile. Diesel back then was cheap, the Dodge required Premium and the Suburban didn’t.

But back to airplanes, the M6-235 Maule I had and the C-210 had identical MPG, but the 210 carried a whole lot more and was 30 kts faster.

The old Cherokee 6 is seriously underestimated, meaning you can get a real deal on them, but they are old and many have been freight dogs which they excell at, so buyer beware.

A 6 can do most things a C-206 can if your not after skis or floats, for a whole lot less money.

BTW a C-206 is nearly identical to the C-210, just quite a bit slower and of course you can’t put floats / skis on a 210

[Mcstealth]

40 minutes ago, M20F said:

My post history and opinions here are very clear, so are yours.  I am not interested in a debate.  

I'm not invoking a debate, but blanket statements such as your first one, and then the second "Bo" one are ripe for a rebuttal, which I supplied and you then exited stage left. 

Edited September 8, 2023 by Mcstealth

[M20F]

10 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

The old Cherokee 6 is seriously underestimated, meaning you can get a real deal on them, but they are old and many have been freight dogs which they excell at, so buyer beware.

206’s have been crazy expensive for years.  A great airplane but the purchase prices are nuts.  Unsurprisingly the price of 6’s have skyrocketed like everything else.  $200K plus on Controller, the $112K on is for a 50% partnership…..

[A64Pilot]

Pretty good article on the big singles

https://www.aviationconsumer.com/aircraftreviews/load-hauler-bargains-pipers-have-an-edge/

[A64Pilot]

Ref the Bo vs Mooney, if you consider the same year models and similar equipped, the Bo will in my opinion come up way on top. (my opinion)

But it’s going to cost twice as much at least to purchase and operate so therefore it’s a silly comparison, may as well bring in a TBM and Piper Meridian into the discussion if $$$ isn’t a consideration.

[Mcstealth]

48 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

Ref the Bo vs Mooney, if you consider the same year models and similar equipped, the Bo will in my opinion come up way on top. (my opinion)

But it’s going to cost twice as much at least to purchase and operate so therefore it’s a silly comparison, may as well bring in a TBM and Piper Meridian into the discussion if $$$ isn’t a consideration.

I find it funny when people compare a TBM and Pilatus. I always ask them how do you compare a plane designed for 1200shp against one with 850shp? They usually have no sane rebuttal.

No more thread hijack. 

Tell the wife Comanche, not Arrow!!

[A64Pilot]

2 hours ago, Mcstealth said:

I find it funny when people compare a TBM and Pilatus. I always ask them how do you compare a plane designed for 1200shp against one with 850shp? They usually have no sane rebuttal.

No more thread hijack. 

Tell the wife Comanche, not Arrow!!

Actually the Pilatus and the TBM engine cores are pretty much identical, the core is what makes the HP, both can make roughly at least 1700 SHP at sea level like the -67F can. 

Point I’m making is that while on paper there is roughly 350 to 400 SHP difference, there isn’t at altitude, and pressurized turbines usually fly high.

The -67F is a crop duster engine specifically for the 802 and meant for the 1002 that never was, so it has a gearbox that can take all the motor can make.

I built a military aircraft, the customer wanted the -F because on paper it’s 1700 SHP, I tried unsuccessfully to sell them on the Pilatus motor because it was more optimized for high altitudes where the mission was and it had a second generator pad so it could carry a back up electrical supply. The mission was to fly at FL 250 and drop laser guided ordinance. But they wanted to market 1700 SHP of course. I tried to get them to go with the GE-T700 and kind of glad they didn’t because that would have been a lot harder, but it would blow the doors off of any PT-6.

But the Pilatus is more of a Station Wagon and a surprisingly good off airport airplane, great for short grass strips, and has that wonderful cargo door and all that room.

The TBM is a cramped hot rod by comparison and about as good off road as a Ferrari is, but it is faster but not as much as you would think, maybe 10% or so?

I assume the TBM engine has much longer life cycle limits due to it not being run nearly as hard.

If I won the Lottery the PC-12 would be really appealing to me, which brings up what happened to the Cessna Denali?