Save me from my Wife’s Piper Lance aspirations!

[MisfitSELF]

With your dog habit you may want to consider a Caravan or King Air 

[Mcstealth]

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

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.

Sort of like the 280hp Mooneys. Those engines go up to what, 350hp in other airplanes?

IMy point is, if TBM wanted to develope a plane with 1200shp, they would have and it would look different than the TBM we all know now. Same for the Pilatus. If it only had 850shp to utilize, it would be a Pilatus we don't have now. 

[N201MKTurbo]

Remember that turboprop engines loose power with altitude. When they put a 1600 HP engine flat rated to 800 HP, it can make that 800HP up into the flight levels. So the engine is never running more than 50% power so it will last forever and you get good high altitude performance.

[Pinecone]

23 hours ago, Shadrach said:

I think A10 warthogs are better than Mooneys. 

That is not a great comparison as there is no airplane better than the Hog.

 

[Kelpro999]

While putting time in a 6-300 with its wide shoulder room, bowling alley interior and rear side barn door I have to admit I was impressed even feeling a little jelly but most of those feelings melted away at the fuel island.

[Hank]

On 9/7/2023 at 8:23 PM, Shadrach said:

I think A10 warthogs are better than Mooneys. 

 

9 hours ago, Kelpro999 said:

While putting time in a 6-300 . . . feeling a little jelly but most of those feelings melted away at the fuel island.

Personally, I find the fuel consumption of an A-10 to be in the range I call "bankrupt before takeoff." To say nothing of its limited passenger and baggage space. (Have you seen the way my wife packs for a weekend away??? I'm the one pushing a full luggage cart around at the Mooney Summits!)

So I will be staying with the mighty M20-C Ranger instead. Unlike the Warthog, the acquisition cost did not cause financial ruin, although both are dwarfed by long-term operating expenses. 

Go Mooney!

[A64Pilot]

11 hours ago, Kelpro999 said:

While putting time in a 6-300 with its wide shoulder room, bowling alley interior and rear side barn door I have to admit I was impressed even feeling a little jelly but most of those feelings melted away at the fuel island.

The C-210 would burn if I was in a hurry and about 7500 ft about 10 MPG, but surprisingly if you were willing to back it down to 150 kts  and run LOP it would return 14 MPG or so, which is really very respectable.

To put that in perspective a J model Mooney at the often quoted 155 kts and 10.5 GPH is 14.8 MPG.

I just ran the numbers on a 500 mile trip at cruise the 210 would burn 2 more gallons of fuel than the J model Mooney, at the same airspeed. You can’t I don’t believe run 150 kts in a J model LOP, some will say they do, but I wouldn’t try at that high a power

However if I slow to 135 kts at 23 squared LOP I burn 8 GPH and get 17 MPG in my J model, slowing down is the key to burning less fuel and significantly extends engine life.

A Turbo 210 is a 200 kt airplane at altitude also, but not having flown one I don’t know what it’s fuel burn is at that speed, but surely not over 20 GPH, which still gives it 10 MPG?

I’m convinced that yes it possible to make a fixed gear aircraft go quick by putting a big enough engine in a small enough aircraft, it’s going to burn a lot of fuel doing so and to be efficient your going to have to retract the gear.

[N201MKTurbo]

FWIW in the high teens my turbo J LOP will do 170 KTS on 9.5 GPH for 17.9 KMPG or 20.6 SMPG.

About the same mileage as my F150 while going 3 times faster.

[ArtVandelay]

About the same mileage as my F150 while going 3 times faster.

But it’s useful load a wee bit less than the F150.

[N201MKTurbo]

3 minutes ago, ArtVandelay said:

But it’s useful load a wee bit less than the F150.

Luckily, I haven’t needed to carry a 1/2 ton of dirt in the Mooney. 

[Hank]

4 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

Luckily, I haven’t needed to carry a 1/2 ton of dirt in the Mooney. 

I'm sorry the useful load in your 150 is so small. I just brought a new 48" zero turn mower home in the bed of my Ridgeline--it was a snug fit, but didn't challenge the 1600 lb payload. 

Even after 16 years of ownership, it still amazes me how much "volume of stuff" I can pack into my C! Only 970 lb available, including 200 lb of me and 300 lb of fuel . . . Ive.not.bothered figuring the MPG of the Mooney, since I don't have fuel flow, and pump-to-pump can be seriously affected (in both directions) by the winds aloft. The truck constantly displays mog, and it's normally 25-26 mpg. Go Honda!

Good luck with your airplane search. Keep us posted with your final solution. 

[A64Pilot]

46 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

FWIW in the high teens my turbo J LOP will do 170 KTS on 9.5 GPH for 17.9 KMPG or 20.6 SMPG.

About the same mileage as my F150 while going 3 times faster.

But you have to get up there which takes fuel and means that it’s pretty much restricted to long trips. The fuel you burn in climb you didn’t get back in the descent. A turbo is I think a mountain airplane and or a long distance traveller, but then you have to be on O2 which brings the next step, pressurization which is hugely expensive and most often turns one into a dog and a maintenance headache.

Just trying to point out that a C-210 can be operated very efficiently, while you will save some with a -6 but not nearly as much I don’t think because of drag

There are two ways to go moderately quick, one way is use HP to overcome drag (the Van’s RV way) or reduce drag and be efficient, the Mooney and C-210 way. 
Realize the L Model 210 I had was only a 285 hp engine (300 for 5 min) and it was honestly probably twice the interior volume of a J model, but carried a whole lot more and was at least 10 kts faster. The 210 and 206 are I believe the same fuselage, the 210 doesn’t have the cargo door and does have a hump in the floor to accommodate the wheels, sort of like the driveshaft tunnel in cars, but you have to load one to believe how much they will haul.

When I was hauling heavy and taking the kids I took the middle row of seats out and put the kids in the third row, put all of our clothes etc in the baggage compt and packed loaded coolers full of food and ice where the middle row of seats go for CG. Things useful load was honestly close to a Ton which is significantly more than your F-150, standard fuel was 90 gls but I carried 120 with the flint tanks that came with a gross weight increase that wiped out their weight.

That 120 gls of fuel gave me a theoretical 10 hours of fuel if LOP and a zero wind range of 1500 NM with no reserve.

If I had need of an 1800 lb useful load and interior space of a Suburban I’d want a C-210, it’s also the best IFR airplane I’ve flown, which means it’s very stable and not sporty at all, heavy control forces, you learn quickly to land using electric trim.

Just do NOT get into a departure stall in a 210, at TO power it will roll left and go over on its back, with power on you can’t stop it

It’s interesting to see how newer airplanes have evolved, seems anything newer has dropped retracts in favor of bigger motors and higher fuel burn for the same speed, cheaper to build I think.

[Kelpro999]

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

But you have to get up there which takes fuel and means that it’s pretty much restricted to long trips. The fuel you burn in climb you didn’t get back in the descent. A turbo is I think a mountain airplane and or a long distance traveller, but then you have to be on O2 which brings the next step, pressurization which is hugely expensive and most often turns one into a dog and a maintenance headache.

Just trying to point out that a C-210 can be operated very efficiently, while you will save some with a -6 but not nearly as much I don’t think because of drag

There are two ways to go moderately quick, one way is use HP to overcome drag (the Van’s RV way) or reduce drag and be efficient, the Mooney and C-210 way. 
Realize the L Model 210 I had was only a 285 hp engine (300 for 5 min) and it was honestly probably twice the interior volume of a J model, but carried a whole lot more and was at least 10 kts faster. The 210 and 206 are I believe the same fuselage, the 210 doesn’t have the cargo door and does have a hump in the floor to accommodate the wheels, sort of like the driveshaft tunnel in cars, but you have to load one to believe how much they will haul.

When I was hauling heavy and taking the kids I took the middle row of seats out and put the kids in the third row, put all of our clothes etc in the baggage compt and packed loaded coolers full of food and ice where the middle row of seats go for CG. Things useful load was honestly close to a Ton which is significantly more than your F-150, standard fuel was 90 gls but I carried 120 with the flint tanks that came with a gross weight increase that wiped out their weight.

That 120 gls of fuel gave me a theoretical 10 hours of fuel if LOP and a zero wind range of 1500 NM with no reserve.

If I had need of an 1800 lb useful load and interior space of a Suburban I’d want a C-210, it’s also the best IFR airplane I’ve flown, which means it’s very stable and not sporty at all, heavy control forces, you learn quickly to land using electric trim.

Just do NOT get into a departure stall in a 210, at TO power it will roll left and go over on its back, with power on you can’t stop it

It’s interesting to see how newer airplanes have evolved, seems anything newer has dropped retracts in favor

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

It’s interesting to see how newer airplanes have evolved, seems anything newer has dropped retracts in favor of bigger motors and higher fuel burn for the same speed, cheaper to build I think.of bigger motors and higher fuel burn for the same speed, cheaper to build I think.

Cost of ownership over time may also have some effect on development decisions .

[A64Pilot]

4 minutes ago, Kelpro999 said:

Cost of ownership over time may also have some effect on development decisions .

Of course and except for insurance which I don’t know because the company was paying for it, in all honesty the cost of ownership of a 210 and a J model Mooney seem similar, now the acquisition cost surely is much higher for the 210 depending on which Mooney. It’s a six cylinder engine vs a four cylinder being the biggest difference, because everything else is essentially the same, just it’s bigger.

If you think about it there are no more additional systems on a 210 that aren’t on a Mooney, there is an inspection AD of the main spar which isn’t unusual for older aircraft, Bo for example.

I just don’t have any need of a 210 myself, in truth it’s becoming hard to justify a Mooney to just fly to Lunch which has pretty much become the majority of my flying.

If it’s looked at logically aircraft selection is all about the mission

[M20F]

48 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

 

If it’s looked at logically aircraft selection is all about the mission

Why my neighbor is selling his Skymaster and moving to a 182.  It is the wrong plane for $100 hamburgers.  It was the right plane when he was hitting IFR over the mountains at night every week back and forth to BNA.  

[Pinecone]

On 9/9/2023 at 7:43 AM, Hank said:

Personally, I find the fuel consumption of an A-10 to be in the range I call "bankrupt before takeoff." To say nothing of its limited passenger and baggage space. (Have you seen the way my wife packs for a weekend away??? I'm the one pushing a full luggage cart around at the Mooney Summits!)

Fuel consumption is not THAT bad.  Typically on a low altitude run (that is 1000 feet or under, you would burn about 1000 gallons for a 1.5 or so flight.

Baggage space is great.  10 hard point, each which can carry baggage pod and a fuel fuel useful load of some 10,000 pounds.

[Hank]

1 hour ago, Pinecone said:

Fuel consumption is not THAT bad.  Typically on a low altitude run (that is 1000 feet or under, you would burn about 1000 gallons for a 1.5 or so flight.

Baggage space is great.  10 hard point, each which can carry baggage pod and a fuel fuel useful load of some 10,000 pounds.

More than a year's fuel, to make a lunch run? Truly "bankrupt before takeoff!"

What suitcase attaches to the hars points? How many clothes and shoes can my wife fit into them?

[Pinecone]

2 hours ago, Hank said:

More than a year's fuel, to make a lunch run? Truly "bankrupt before takeoff!"

What suitcase attaches to the hars points? How many clothes and shoes can my wife fit into them?

There are travel pods.  They look like a bomb without fins, but they are aluminum and hollow.  A door allows loading stuff.

 

It is JP-4, so it is cheaper than 100LL.

[A64Pilot]

My Daughter inherited her Great Grandmothers Japanese China.

It was smuggled back to Albany Ga (Turner Field) in a B-52 from Japan.  Story is her Great Grandfather who was a civilian working at Turner Field built a Cargo pod for I think an F-100 for a Col who brought the China back as a gift for him, some kind of single seat with hard points anyway.

Back in the 50’s they apparently just did things like building a cargo pod.

I tried to make my Daughter understand that not many have China that was smuggled back in the bomb bay of a Nuclear bomber. It’s sort of unusual.

Back as a kid growing up in Albany it was common to see Honda motorcycles and other things that weren’t for sale in the US as they were brought back from Japan in Globemasters, B-52’s whatever went to Japan and back.

[A64Pilot]

1 hour ago, Pinecone said:

There are travel pods.  They look like a bomb without fins, but they are aluminum and hollow.  A door allows loading stuff.

 

It is JP-4, so it is cheaper than 100LL.

JP-4 has been gone I think for more than 30 years and I think maybe only the Army burnt it anyway, it was a cheap gasoline based fuel, not as safe as kerosene based fuel.

I guess the Air Force did burn it. It was gone in the Army prior to the Gulf war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP-4

Anyway in the adoption of a single fuel back in the 80’s I think JP-4 went away and JP-8 came online and was used in everything, trucks, tanks, forklifts whatever but cookstoves or when I retired anyway still burned Mogas, I’m sure not now.

I remember the changeover well because suddenly we carried 100 lbs or so more fuel, our fuel gauges were capacitance gauges so they literally weighed the fuel and of course fuel was displayed as weight not volume, but we didn’t know if our burn rate in lbs per hour would change or not, it didn’t thankfully or all our performance charts would have been invalid.

[Pinecone]

Cargo pods were locally manufactured in the 80s.  The sheet metal shop would add a door to a container.

The dirty secret was that the containers were originally for napalm.  But after the early 70s, the US no longer used/stocked/trained for napalm use.  But we had a LOT of empty containers.

In the 80s, the USAF was still burning JP-4.  The USN used JP-5, which was more kerosene and less flammable due to shipboard use.