10 Reasons You Don't Need To Fly Fast

[201er]

Cherokee owner explains 10 reasons flying a slower airplane is better. Or at least tries to rationalize it.

For the most part he has good points. But they don't exactly apply the same way to flying a Mooney and here's why:

1) Price of Avgas vs Time Flying

Craig says his Cherokee gets 7.5gph for 108knots on a good day. That works out to 14.4nmpg

M20J will get 135ktas on same 7.5gph (18nmpg) and 155ktas on 9.5gph (16.3nmpg). It uses less fuel to go faster on a calm day. Factor in some headwind and that extra speed makes an even bigger difference.

20knot headwind:
Cherokee - 7.5gph for 88 knots is 11.7nmpg

Mooney - 9.5gph for 135ktas is 14.2nmpg

That's over 50% faster while also consuming less fuel in total. On a 500nm flight, Mooney would get there 2 hours faster while consuming 10 gallons less.

2) Relaxation

Craig says that faster airplanes are more work and stress. This is true. However, arriving 2 hours sooner means there's plenty of time to relax after the flight.

 

3) Cost of acquisition and maintenance

Craig is quite right that the faster planes are more expensive to buy and upkeep. I would only say that it's less drastic than it sounds because you can travel the same distance in a year using less time. Less time means less wear and tear on components. This and the fuel savings slightly offset the higher costs making them more but not as much more.

4) Cost of insurance

Craig says he insures his Cherokee for $800. It's over $2000 to insure most Mooneys. Most of this is due to higher hull value. I bet cost difference between insuring a $200k retractable vs a $200k fixed gear would be less significant than the fact that most retractables are significantly more to begin with. But overall, this is a fair point. I'll go further to say that activities that are deemed more costly to insure also carry great risk of death or injury so that is something to consider as well.

5) Safety of simple systems

He says that simpler systems are safer because they do not provide the same opportunities to get into as dangerous of situations. This is largely a personal choice as it is possible to fly a fast airplane only in the same "good" weather as well. The simpler airplanes lack the choice. But, I do agree that having the capability to make that choice may carry those extra risks of failure.

 

6) More money for avionics/paint

Craig says that for a similar budget, you can get newer avionics or paint by flying a slower airplane. I would say that a fully array of modern avionics makes an airplane no more capable than simply adding an ipad to a WAAS equipped airplane. Except not having panel GPS, newer avionics don't play any role in the utility of that airplane getting you places.

7) Good paint job makes it look faster

Craig says that a new paint job can make a slow plane look faster. A Mooney with any paint still looks and actually is faster

 

8) Lower performance margins might make you a better aviator

He says if an airplane has less capability, pilot has to be sharper to make up for it. I suppose you can do reduced power takeoffs or fly slower in a faster plane to get the same benefits? I don't really know the purpose of this point.

9) 90 kts gets as much respect as 160 kts

Craig says that slower flying planes get same amount of respect from ATC as faster ones. While largely true, I can say first hand that I've had much better accommodation from ATC in busy situations in Mooney than back when I flew slower planes. I can't say for sure if it's from having more experience and being able to ask things the right way or the plane. But, I hear far less of "too busy to take on VFR or remain outside the Bravo" than Cessnas and Cherokees in the same area.

10) You just might have more fun

I agree that any airplane is fun regardless of how fast it goes!

 

Ultimately it comes down to mission and budget and any airplane is better than no airplane. If you don't use it to travel much or far, for local flying they are all just as good.


I would say the #1 biggest benefit to the Mooney's speed advantage is the kind of range it opens up for the same amount of time flying! There's only so many hours in a day that you can spend in the air going some place. That extra speed extends the range so much that it makes the plane beneficial for many more trips! So, the plane gets used for more travel instead of being sidelined by airline tickets because the distance becomes impractical.

[ArtVandelay]

I don’t NEED an airplane either, if flying that slow, I would just drive.

[Joshua Blackh4t]

Sounds kind of valid, until you want to travel anywhere long distance.

BUT, if thats the case, why stop at a Cherokee? My ultralight uses 15litres/hr (4gal), has neglegible maintenance costs and 'cruises' at 55kts.

However, it can land on a bumpy paddock in 50m over a fence.

My point is: a stol plane can argue that fast isn't everything. A Cherokee really only has the argument that its cheaper. 

And really, we would all trade up to a PC 12 if we could afford it. 

[Schllc]

I think this borders on blasphemy. 

[Huckster79]

Just went on a 700nm trip Tuesday, I do the return tomorrow morning.  We flew w friends, he and his bride were in his 180hp Skyhawk, and my bride and I in my m20F (first real trip in her).  They left an hour and 20 mins before us.  We passed him 30miles out from our planned evening stop point.  
 

He about crapped his drawers when he put 15 gallons in, after putting 30 in at his first stop, and I put 30 gallons in as my first fill up.  He said “are you kidding me? It costs that much less to fly a Mooney than a Skyhawk? And you beat me leaving later? That’s crazy! I thought you were going to go broke buying fuel w those speeds”.  I just shrugged n grinned    

Oh then I rubbed it in, “well we could have just finished the trip and got gas once there, I was only at half tanks”  

 

 

 

[T. Peterson]

8 hours ago, 201er said:

Cherokee owner explains 10 reasons flying a slower airplane is better. Or at least tries to rationalize it.

For the most part he has good points. But they don't exactly apply the same way to flying a Mooney and here's why:

1) Price of Avgas vs Time Flying

Craig says his Cherokee gets 7.5gph for 108knots on a good day. That works out to 14.4nmpg

M20J will get 135ktas on same 7.5gph (18nmpg) and 155ktas on 9.5gph (16.3nmpg). It uses less fuel to go faster on a calm day. Factor in some headwind and that extra speed makes an even bigger difference.

20knot headwind:
Cherokee - 7.5gph for 88 knots is 11.7nmpg

Mooney - 9.5gph for 135ktas is 14.2nmpg

That's over 50% faster while also consuming less fuel in total. On a 500nm flight, Mooney would get there 2 hours faster while consuming 10 gallons less.

2) Relaxation

Craig says that faster airplanes are more work and stress. This is true. However, arriving 2 hours sooner means there's plenty of time to relax after the flight.

 

3) Cost of acquisition and maintenance

Craig is quite right that the faster planes are more expensive to buy and upkeep. I would only say that it's less drastic than it sounds because you can travel the same distance in a year using less time. Less time means less wear and tear on components. This and the fuel savings slightly offset the higher costs making them more but not as much more.

4) Cost of insurance

Craig says he insures his Cherokee for $800. It's over $2000 to insure most Mooneys. Most of this is due to higher hull value. I bet cost difference between insuring a $200k retractable vs a $200k fixed gear would be less significant than the fact that most retractables are significantly more to begin with. But overall, this is a fair point. I'll go further to say that activities that are deemed more costly to insure also carry great risk of death or injury so that is something to consider as well.

5) Safety of simple systems

He says that simpler systems are safer because they do not provide the same opportunities to get into as dangerous of situations. This is largely a personal choice as it is possible to fly a fast airplane only in the same "good" weather as well. The simpler airplanes lack the choice. But, I do agree that having the capability to make that choice may carry those extra risks of failure.

 

6) More money for avionics/paint

Craig says that for a similar budget, you can get newer avionics or paint by flying a slower airplane. I would say that a fully array of modern avionics makes an airplane no more capable than simply adding an ipad to a WAAS equipped airplane. Except not having panel GPS, newer avionics don't play any role in the utility of that airplane getting you places.

7) Good paint job makes it look faster

Craig says that a new paint job can make a slow plane look faster. A Mooney with any paint still looks and actually is faster

 

8) Lower performance margins might make you a better aviator

He says if an airplane has less capability, pilot has to be sharper to make up for it. I suppose you can do reduced power takeoffs or fly slower in a faster plane to get the same benefits? I don't really know the purpose of this point.

9) 90 kts gets as much respect as 160 kts

Craig says that slower flying planes get same amount of respect from ATC as faster ones. While largely true, I can say first hand that I've had much better accommodation from ATC in busy situations in Mooney than back when I flew slower planes. I can't say for sure if it's from having more experience and being able to ask things the right way or the plane. But, I hear far less of "too busy to take on VFR or remain outside the Bravo" than Cessnas and Cherokees in the same area.

10) You just might have more fun

I agree that any airplane is fun regardless of how fast it goes!

 

Ultimately it comes down to mission and budget and any airplane is better than no airplane. If you don't use it to travel much or far, for local flying they are all just as good.


I would say the #1 biggest benefit to the Mooney's speed advantage is the kind of range it opens up for the same amount of time flying! There's only so many hours in a day that you can spend in the air going some place. That extra speed extends the range so much that it makes the plane beneficial for many more trips! So, the plane gets used for more travel instead of being sidelined by airline tickets because the distance becomes impractical.

Your last paragraph hits the nail on the head! The trips I make in the Mooney are simply impractical in one of the generic slow planes.

[hubcap]

I don’t need an airplane. I want an airplane, and I want a fast one. 
 

 

[aviatoreb]

Its kind of funny - but I do enjoy that he enjoys his airplane and I do enjoy the sort of people who are when life gives you lemons make lemonade sorta people - which this guy clearly is.

That said - in all but one of his categories - his argument eventually leads to slower is better in general and I should get a kick scooter because they are cheap, simple systems, easy to operate, with a good paint job it will look fast (hahah....), etc...

[midlifeflyer]

When I did my flight up the Hudson corridor, I flew  90-100 KIAS. In an Ovation. 

With a fast airplane, slow is a choice. With a slow airplane, slow is a requirement.

[Pinecone]

Hmm, this summer I did a leg of 1333 nm.  I was helped by being at 17,000 and having a roaring tailwind.  I was airborne for 7 hours and 3 minutes according to Flight Aware.

In his Cherokee, lower with no wind, that flight is over 12 hours.  Meaning the addition of at least two stops.  So not really a one day trip.

Also add in the cost of meals and a night in a hotel to the overall cost.

I burned about 80 gallons.  Cherokee would have been around 92 gallons at 7.5 per hour.

[bcg]

Life is too short to go slow.  I'm making a trip Monday and renting a 172 because my C is still waiting on some parts so I can finish it up.  The 172 cruises at Vy in the Mooney and burns 1GPH less.  It's only a 2 hour flight vs 1.5 in the Mooney, so the difference is negligible in this case but, cruising at what is normally Vy kind of sucks.  It will save me a couple of hours over driving though, so there's that.

 

Bottom line, given the choice, I'll always take faster but, if I want to fly at Cherokee or 172 speeds, I can always dial the power back to 19 squared and do it on 6GPH instead of his 7.5.  I've tracked my fuel usage over the last year and 200 hours, recording block time and every fill-up, right now I'm at an average burn of 8.24GPH, block to block, which includes ground ops, take off and climb.  My typical TAS is 136kn so I'm averaging 16.5KMPG, block to block, that's hard to beat.

[Hank]

He left out some important reasons to fly slow:

• This is all that I can afford.
• This plane was available locally.
• I'm building time to go to the airlines.

But slower isn't safer. A Piper Cub is very slow, but it's still fast enough to kill you.

[Danb]

5 hours ago, Pinecone said:

Hmm, this summer I did a leg of 1333 nm.  I was helped by being at 17,000 and having a roaring tailwind.  I was airborne for 7 hours and 3 minutes according to Flight Aware.

In his Cherokee, lower with no wind, that flight is over 12 hours.  Meaning the addition of at least two stops.  So not really a one day trip.

Also add in the cost of meals and a night in a hotel to the overall cost.

I burned about 80 gallons.  Cherokee would have been around 92 gallons at 7.5 per hour.

Terry I’m not so lucky, on long trim currently south of Memphis had headwinds from Wilmington to St. Louis to Amarillo to Albuquerque to Las Vegas, told Fran well we will have a tailwind home not so, headwind to Vegas to Amarillo then again to Tunica Ms, tomorrow forecast 10-12 knot headwind to Wilmington. Poop.

[Fly Boomer]

10 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

That said - in all but one of his categories - his argument eventually leads to slower is better in general and I should get a kick scooter because they are cheap, simple systems, easy to operate, with a good paint job it will look fast (hahah....), etc...

Or he could get what you have:  fast AND beautiful paint.

[Pinecone]

15 hours ago, Danb said:

Terry I’m not so lucky, on long trim currently south of Memphis had headwinds from Wilmington to St. Louis to Amarillo to Albuquerque to Las Vegas, told Fran well we will have a tailwind home not so, headwind to Vegas to Amarillo then again to Tunica Ms, tomorrow forecast 10-12 knot headwind to Wilmington. Poop.

My trip was golden.  Tail wind MD to Longview. About neutral the next two legs.  Tailwind home.  At one point, 52 knots directly on the tail.  229 ground speed.

But a 40 knot head wind, I am still doing 135 over the ground.  The Cherokee would be doing 68.   Headwinds are less of a factor the faster you go.   Heck, 40 knots headwind in a T-38 still has you doing 500 knots.

 

[Austintatious]

What you wrote in section 3 is so underrated....

""I would only say that it's less drastic than it sounds because you can travel the same distance in a year using less time. Less time means less wear and tear on components. This and the fuel savings slightly offset the higher costs making them more but not as much more.""

This is so true, and when you look at what a Lancair 4 does it becomes very obvious.  Sleeker and faster is better

[carusoam]

On 9/29/2023 at 2:56 PM, 201er said:

Cherokee owner explains 10 reasons flying a slower airplane is better. Or at least tries to rationalize it.

For the most part he has good points. But they don't exactly apply the same way to flying a Mooney and here's why:

1) Price of Avgas vs Time Flying

Craig says his Cherokee gets 7.5gph for 108knots on a good day. That works out to 14.4nmpg

M20J will get 135ktas on same 7.5gph (18nmpg) and 155ktas on 9.5gph (16.3nmpg). It uses less fuel to go faster on a calm day. Factor in some headwind and that extra speed makes an even bigger difference.

20knot headwind:
Cherokee - 7.5gph for 88 knots is 11.7nmpg

Mooney - 9.5gph for 135ktas is 14.2nmpg

That's over 50% faster while also consuming less fuel in total. On a 500nm flight, Mooney would get there 2 hours faster while consuming 10 gallons less.

2) Relaxation

Craig says that faster airplanes are more work and stress. This is true. However, arriving 2 hours sooner means there's plenty of time to relax after the flight.

 

3) Cost of acquisition and maintenance

Craig is quite right that the faster planes are more expensive to buy and upkeep. I would only say that it's less drastic than it sounds because you can travel the same distance in a year using less time. Less time means less wear and tear on components. This and the fuel savings slightly offset the higher costs making them more but not as much more.

4) Cost of insurance

Craig says he insures his Cherokee for $800. It's over $2000 to insure most Mooneys. Most of this is due to higher hull value. I bet cost difference between insuring a $200k retractable vs a $200k fixed gear would be less significant than the fact that most retractables are significantly more to begin with. But overall, this is a fair point. I'll go further to say that activities that are deemed more costly to insure also carry great risk of death or injury so that is something to consider as well.

5) Safety of simple systems

He says that simpler systems are safer because they do not provide the same opportunities to get into as dangerous of situations. This is largely a personal choice as it is possible to fly a fast airplane only in the same "good" weather as well. The simpler airplanes lack the choice. But, I do agree that having the capability to make that choice may carry those extra risks of failure.

 

6) More money for avionics/paint

Craig says that for a similar budget, you can get newer avionics or paint by flying a slower airplane. I would say that a fully array of modern avionics makes an airplane no more capable than simply adding an ipad to a WAAS equipped airplane. Except not having panel GPS, newer avionics don't play any role in the utility of that airplane getting you places.

7) Good paint job makes it look faster

Craig says that a new paint job can make a slow plane look faster. A Mooney with any paint still looks and actually is faster

 

8) Lower performance margins might make you a better aviator

He says if an airplane has less capability, pilot has to be sharper to make up for it. I suppose you can do reduced power takeoffs or fly slower in a faster plane to get the same benefits? I don't really know the purpose of this point.

9) 90 kts gets as much respect as 160 kts

Craig says that slower flying planes get same amount of respect from ATC as faster ones. While largely true, I can say first hand that I've had much better accommodation from ATC in busy situations in Mooney than back when I flew slower planes. I can't say for sure if it's from having more experience and being able to ask things the right way or the plane. But, I hear far less of "too busy to take on VFR or remain outside the Bravo" than Cessnas and Cherokees in the same area.

10) You just might have more fun

I agree that any airplane is fun regardless of how fast it goes!

 

Ultimately it comes down to mission and budget and any airplane is better than no airplane. If you don't use it to travel much or far, for local flying they are all just as good.


I would say the #1 biggest benefit to the Mooney's speed advantage is the kind of range it opens up for the same amount of time flying! There's only so many hours in a day that you can spend in the air going some place. That extra speed extends the range so much that it makes the plane beneficial for many more trips! So, the plane gets used for more travel instead of being sidelined by airline tickets because the distance becomes impractical.

 

1) I really like you writing style!  

2) Hank’s is my second favorite… bullet points!

 

• Life is Short, Fly Fast!
• When dough or fuel is short, Fly efficiently!
• Always fly on the downwind side of the big H!
• Pray that Dan get’s a tailwind for that last hop!

 

Go Mooney!

 

Best regards,

-a-

 

[Danb]

7 hours ago, carusoam said:

 

1) I really like you writing style!  

2) Hank’s is my second favorite… bullet points!

 

• Life is Short, Fly Fast!
• When dough or fuel is short, Fly efficiently!
• Always fly on the downwind side of the big H!
• Pray that Dan get’s a tailwind for that last hop!

 

Go Mooney!

 

Best regards,

-a-

 

Didn’t happen Anthony had to milk the acclaim the last couple hours flying LOP and just 24/2400 still provided 185 at 15,000 until Fran wanted to eat and take off her mask so I went to 11,000 and lost 25 knots between more headwinds and slower TAS still made Memphis to Wilmington without stopping a trip my Bravo would have made no problem with LR tanks. The Acclaims lower useful really sucks.

[201er]

16 hours ago, Danb said:

Didn’t happen Anthony had to milk the acclaim the last couple hours flying LOP and just 24/2400 still provided 185 at 15,000 until Fran wanted to eat and take off her mask so I went to 11,000 and lost 25 knots between more headwinds and slower TAS still made Memphis to Wilmington without stopping a trip my Bravo would have made no problem with LR tanks. The Acclaims lower useful really sucks.

Why did you downgrade?

[Danb]

7 minutes ago, 201er said:

Why did you downgrade?

Mistake and story, my insurance broker told me id have to fly with cfi or other pilot since I turned 75, seller market being pissed off i sold the Bravo then he later told me if i get an annual Ipc im covered I get one anyway so i was now plane shopping. I liked the Bravo considerably more was equipped the way i wanted including LR tanks plus my Bravo was faster than most the Acclaim isnt much faster although it more fuel efficient  It was a downgrade IMO

[Huckster79]

I certainly would contend there is nothing wrong with a slow bird, I was proud as a peacock of my ol 1947 Cessna 140- she was my pride and joy and I traversed this great nation in her at all 90kts… Where it sounds like he took it too far was the “these slow birds are better”.  
 

my c140 was the bestest bird I could afford when I got her, I’d fallen flat on my face in life and had to rebuild and she was my first extra expenditure, but 5 more years went on and I wanted more bird… So if your budget allows for a basic Cessna or an old Cherokee- GREAT! If ya can afford a nice vintage Mooney - GREAT, if ya can afford a modern Mooney or a Cirrus- GREAT.

what I’ve always disliked is looking down on others stuff… my Mooney is far more comfortable to travel in, hauls more and is fast n efficient like us Mooniacs love- but she can’t to a rough beaten strip like the ol 140.  Every bird is best for something…

Edited October 3 by Huckster79

[hubcap]

I prefer this. Flew Myrtle home yesterday from Oklahoma City…over 190 Kts ground speed on 10 gallons/ hr. The same trip in the Cherokee would have taken an extra hour and burned 10 gallons more gas. 

[A64Pilot]

I’ve brought this up before but flying to Breakfast with a group I’ve leaned it out and brought power back to 120 kts and burned 6 GPH.

Flew past a neighbor is his Legend Cub equipped with everything and asked him what his fuel burn and speed was. It was 80 kts and 6 GPH.

So I was flying a four place airplane 50% faster with the identical fuel burn.

To me it’s not speed, face it if you look at an F or J model many aircraft are faster, but it’s a rare one that’s four place with 1000 lb useful load that’s as efficient. So for me it’s not really the speed it’s the efficiency.

‘My last two airplanes an M-6-235 Maule and a Cessna C-210L both burned exactly the same amount of fuel over a distance, but the Cessna was 30 kts faster and could carry hundreds of lbs more weight than the Maule, so while I loved the Maule it was an inefficient airplane, and the 210 really only burned about 1/3 more fuel than my J at similar speeds.