Guest Posted March 27, 2012 Report Posted March 27, 2012 That little old AEROBATIC fat wing RV with a fixed pitched O320 does good against our thin wing Mooneys. I sure wouldnt bet against a -7 with a 200 Hp constant speed against a 201 either cruise or climb. Quote
Lood Posted March 28, 2012 Report Posted March 28, 2012 A friend of mine had an RV6 that he built himself. It had the O360 with constant speed prop and cruised comfortably at 165-170kts. Apart from the high cruise speed, it also climbed incredibly. However, he didn't fly it very long before selling it. He kept his C170, also with O360 as well as his Piper Vagabond? Quote
jetdriven Posted March 28, 2012 Report Posted March 28, 2012 Quote: johnggreen I had a friend who built and owned an 0-360 RV-6. I flew the airplane several times and we mad a couple of cross country trips together. It would true 175 knots all day long. I would put my money on a well built O-320 powered RV-6 being slightly faster than a 201 and smoke any E model. The more interessting comparison would be the 201 and a 225 HP Beech Debonair. I suspect they would be neck and neck. Jgreen Quote
jetdriven Posted March 28, 2012 Report Posted March 28, 2012 Jim, your friend should hve bought an A36. True 4 seats, 170 KTAS, and 4 people no kidding. The CG on one is not an issue, and it has a 1400 LB useful load. Quote
jetdriven Posted March 28, 2012 Report Posted March 28, 2012 A Baron is the ultimate airplane. The principal problem is its ability to burn through 2% of its value (1100$) per day in avgas, or 1/3rd of its value in a single annual with repairs. Quote
aviatoreb Posted March 28, 2012 Report Posted March 28, 2012 Quote: jetdriven A Baron is the ultimate airplane. The principal problem is its ability to burn through 2% of its value (1100$) per day in avgas, or 1/3rd of its value in a single annual with repairs. Quote
John Pleisse Posted March 28, 2012 Report Posted March 28, 2012 Quote: jetdriven A Baron is the ultimate airplane. The principal problem is its ability to burn through 2% of its value (1100$) per day in avgas, or 1/3rd of its value in a single annual with repairs. Quote
jetdriven Posted March 28, 2012 Report Posted March 28, 2012 I think 8$ avgas is going to push all airplanes prices substatially further down. This price level is either a long stable bottom, or a final shelf before the abyss. Quote
Shadrach Posted March 28, 2012 Report Posted March 28, 2012 Quote: N4352H Here's an RV 7A with an E model Mooney. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKVeBY4gRA8 Quote
John Pleisse Posted March 28, 2012 Report Posted March 28, 2012 Quote: jetdriven I think 8$ avgas is going to push all airplanes prices substatially further down. This price level is either a long stable bottom, or a final shelf before the abyss. Quote
Shadrach Posted March 29, 2012 Report Posted March 29, 2012 Quote: N4352H I find this analysis flawed. Thriftiness is admirable and worthy of one's respect. Purporting cheapness is, well, cheap. People don't buy Barons to calculate the cost of avgas vs. value. The either buy one, or they don't. They can afford it, or they have an overriding mission. Prices have firmed back up. Let me ask you this.......when avgas hits 8 bucks in June, do you think we'll see the glutt of supply drive the market down again this fall? Or was the last crash of the twin market a function of the 08 crash, (more so than avgas)? To stay on thread....... an 0-320 RV6 is more effcient than a Mooney and as reliable (if well built). I have a friend who went from a Baron 58 to an RV because he had a beef paying for TSO-Production aircraft. He wanted engines for half price...new avionics for a third less and to build and maintain himself.................leaving for less fixation on avgas. Quote
aviatoreb Posted March 29, 2012 Report Posted March 29, 2012 Quote: Shadrach I think that vid is bogus. While an RV7A will certainly outrun an M20E by 15-20kts, the closure rate of the RV in that vid was more like 40 to 50kts. Quote
Shadrach Posted March 29, 2012 Report Posted March 29, 2012 Quote: aviatoreb I think that vid is bogus. While an RV7A will certainly outrun an M20E by 15-20kts, the closure rate of the RV in that vid was more like 40 to 50kts. Quote
John Pleisse Posted March 29, 2012 Report Posted March 29, 2012 Quote: Shadrach I find this analysis flawed. Thriftiness is admirable and worthy of one's respect. Purporting cheapness is, well, cheap. People don't buy Barons to calculate the cost of avgas vs. value. The either buy one, or they don't. They can afford it, or they have an overriding mission. Prices have firmed back up. Let me ask you this.......when avgas hits 8 bucks in June, do you think we'll see the glutt of supply drive the market down again this fall? Or was the last crash of the twin market a function of the 08 crash, (more so than avgas)? To stay on thread....... an 0-320 RV6 is more effcient than a Mooney and as reliable (if well built). I have a friend who went from a Baron 58 to an RV because he had a beef paying for TSO-Production aircraft. He wanted engines for half price...new avionics for a third less and to build and maintain himself.................leaving for less fixation on avgas. Quote
RJBrown Posted March 29, 2012 Report Posted March 29, 2012 All well and fine with a Baron but a Rocket will walk away from them on half the fuel and 1/4 the total cost per hour. Barons and twins in general are cheap BECAUSE they are so d@** expensive to operate. Quote
Skybrd Posted March 29, 2012 Author Report Posted March 29, 2012 Quote: jetdriven A Baron is the ultimate airplane. The principal problem is its ability to burn through 2% of its value (1100$) per day in avgas, or 1/3rd of its value in a single annual with repairs. Quote
aviatoreb Posted March 29, 2012 Report Posted March 29, 2012 Quote: Skybrd Another good twin that has good performance but less costly is a Piper PA-30 Twin Commanche. My dad had two of them before buying a C-340. I wouldn't mind having one but my Mooney is just right for me at this time. I remember the first PA-30 my dad had went over 2300 hours smoh before an engine change. He took good care of it and flew it often. Here is a web site on the PA-30: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_PA-30_Twin_Comanche Quote
Shadrach Posted March 30, 2012 Report Posted March 30, 2012 Quote: aviatoreb Another good twin that has good performance but less costly is a Piper PA-30 Twin Commanche. My dad had two of them before buying a C-340. I wouldn't mind having one but my Mooney is just right for me at this time. I remember the first PA-30 my dad had went over 2300 hours smoh before an engine change. He took good care of it and flew it often. Here is a web site on the PA-30: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_PA-30_Twin_Comanche Quote
Shadrach Posted March 30, 2012 Report Posted March 30, 2012 Quote: JimR Those PA-30's with a pair of IO320s are pretty nice. The guy in the hangar right next to me had a M20C last year and after a gear collapse, landed himself in a PA-30. He burns 16gph total at 170TAS. Not too shabby. And he claims 1800fpm initial climb rate. I wonder what his climb rate is with one engine out with those little engines. When I asked him that, he said it is better than my airplanes climb rate with one engine out. And a former Mooney owner he was too. How quickly he has turned! Quote
jetdriven Posted March 30, 2012 Report Posted March 30, 2012 The Twin pilot also statistically has twice the chance of engine failure. You do know the fatal accident rate per 100,000 hours is the same for twins and singles. it is FAR higher for Cirrus and they have a parachute to convince your wife to let you get one! Quote
John Pleisse Posted March 30, 2012 Report Posted March 30, 2012 SEROC on a Twin Commanche is worrisome max gross, even the Miller conversions. If 90% of the mission is just single pilot over the Appalchians at night, it's a great plane. Quote
201er Posted March 30, 2012 Report Posted March 30, 2012 Quote: jetdriven The Twin pilot also statistically has twice the chance of engine failure. You do know the fatal accident rate per 100,000 hours is the same for twins and singles. it is FAR higher for Cirrus and they have a parachute to convince your wife to let you get one! Quote
jetdriven Posted March 30, 2012 Report Posted March 30, 2012 Quote: Shadrach Hey, maybe you are right. Not to mention it is very suspicious that the Vans would pass that closely to the Mooney if the two airplanes had not pre-arranged it. 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.