Pretty Efficient

[dkkim73]

1 hour ago, LANCECASPER said:

That write-up would be longer than War and Peace. .  Lol

https://tableau.uchicago.edu/articles/2013/04/why-read-war-and-peace#:~:text=The book's complexity and prodigious,reputation as a literary crucible.

That's a pretty good essay. Pushing me to finally get around to reading it.

[MikeOH]

2 hours ago, dkkim73 said:

That's a pretty good essay. Pushing me to finally get around to reading it.

Yeah, now that I'm retired I'm going to read it...in Russian....NOT

That reviewer lost me at, "it's a page turner"...sorry, I don't think so

[bonal]

Interesting subject,  no doubt an SR20 is a much improved aircraft compared to my 60 year old m20 converted D model and I should hope so. However on a recent trip to MSO with a fuel stop at Lewiston ID I found these numbers.  513nm from 1o2 took 4.5 hours with a 15 knot head wind at calculated airspeed of 140 knots and an average gps ground speed of 125.  We topped fuel requiring 32 gallons for an average fuel burn of 8.4 per hour including an 8000ft climb to 9500 feet 16 miles per gallon and if you take out the wind component it’s slightly better than 18mpg. Not bad.

Ken your aircraft history is beyond impressive and I’ve always like the Cessna Skymaster.  They have a very unique sound and I can always tell when one is flying overhead.  Here is one of your acquisitions hope you still enjoy the painting.

 

Edited August 28 by bonal

[KLRDMD]

39 minutes ago, bonal said:

Interesting subject,  no doubt an SR20 is a much improved aircraft compared to my 60 year old m20 converted D model and I should hope so. However on a recent trip to MSO with a fuel stop at Lewiston ID I found these numbers.  513nm from 1o2 took 4.5 hours with a 15 knot head wind at calculated airspeed of 140 knots and an average gps ground speed of 125.  We topped fuel requiring 32 gallons for an average fuel burn of 8.4 per hour including an 8000ft climb to 9500 feet 16 miles per gallon and if you take out the wind component it’s slightly better than 18mpg. Not bad.

Ken your aircraft history is beyond impressive and I’ve always like the Cessna Skymaster.  They have a very unique sound and I can always tell when one is flying overhead.  Here is one of your acquisitions hope you still enjoy the painting.

 

That painting still hangs in my house. 

[TheAv8r]

Enjoying this comparison  . 

147kts TAS at 13,500 at 7.5gph in my M20E. ABQ to SGR, I made it in 1 shot (helped by a great tailwind).

[bonal]

And on a side note I am so lucky to have the privilege of owning and flying such a nice simple eloquent aircraft on my modest income. Once did a three heading GPSground speed test WOT 8000 feet with two on board and got 149 knots true. Not bad for 180hp

[Skates97]

1 hour ago, bonal said:

Interesting subject,  no doubt an SR20 is a much improved aircraft compared to my 60 year old m20 converted D model and I should hope so. However on a recent trip to MSO with a fuel stop at Lewiston ID I found these numbers.  513nm from 1o2 took 4.5 hours with a 15 knot head wind at calculated airspeed of 140 knots and an average gps ground speed of 125.  We topped fuel requiring 32 gallons for an average fuel burn of 8.4 per hour including an 8000ft climb to 9500 feet 16 miles per gallon and if you take out the wind component it’s slightly better than 18mpg. Not bad.

Ken your aircraft history is beyond impressive and I’ve always like the Cessna Skymaster.  They have a very unique sound and I can always tell when one is flying overhead.  Here is one of your acquisitions hope you still enjoy the painting.

 

John, I have loved all your paintings I have seen, got outbid a few years back at the Mooney Summit. I keep telling myself that I need to get a photographer for an air to air shoot now that the plane is painted and commission you for a painting.

[dkkim73]

That is a wonderful painting. Giving me ideas.

The Cessna Mixmaster has always held an odd fascination for me. 

[Parker_Woodruff]

On 8/26/2024 at 8:26 PM, KLRDMD said:

 

Which was my favorite? The first P337. Which one should I have kept? The first P337. 

 

Don't give the people on this board any ideas.  Finding coverage for a pilot of your experience isn't the problem.  Finding quality coverage is...

...usually one of the companies with hail damage limits, it seems.

[KLRDMD]

Just now, Parker_Woodruff said:

Don't give the people on this board any ideas.  TFinding coverage for a pilot of your experience isn't the problem.  Finding quality coverage is...

Things ain't what they used to be in the insurance market. I got into that P337 with 5 hours of dual, no formal school. Try that today!

[Parker_Woodruff]

1 minute ago, KLRDMD said:

Things ain't what they used to be in the insurance market. I got into that P337 with 5 hours of dual, no formal school. Try that today!

The good thing about this insurance market is some of the old twins it weeded out.  But...that market is leaving.  About to be a race to the bottom in underwriting first, then pricing.

[cliffy]

On 8/28/2024 at 11:33 AM, bonal said:

nteresting subject,  no doubt an SR20 is a much improved aircraft compared to my 60 year old m20 converted D model and I should hope so. However on a recent trip to MSO with a fuel stop at Lewiston ID I found these numbers.  513nm from 1o2 took 4.5 hours with a 15 knot head wind at calculated airspeed of 140 knots and an average gps ground speed of 125.  We topped fuel requiring 32 gallons for an average fuel burn of 8.4 per hour including an 8000ft climb to 9500 feet 16 miles per gallon and if you take out the wind component it’s slightly better than 18mpg. Not bad.

That is about as close to exactly what my converted D model does as I have ever seen!!!! Absolute twins in performance :-)

[hais]

On 8/26/2024 at 5:34 AM, KLRDMD said:

I'll start by listing them. If I have time tonight I'll start a different thread and discuss them.

1. Piper Cherokee 140
2. Mooney M20C
3. Cirrus SR22
4. Cessna 152 (bought for my CFI to be able to go independent from the flight school)
5. Mooney Bravo M20M
6. Piper Seneca III
7. Mooney M20F
8. Beech B55 Colemill Baron
9. Cessna 182
10. Piper Twin Comanche
11. Lancair 320
12. Cessna P337
13. Cessna 182
14. Mooney 231 M20K
15. Beech B55 Baron
16. Beech S35 Bonanza
17. Cessna P337
18. Cessna 310Q
19. Beech M35 Bonanza
20. Cirrus SR20

No one dared to ask the question, so I'll be the brave one :). Tell us, of those, which one is subjectively the best? 

[cliffy]

34 minutes ago, hais said:

No one dared to ask the question, so I'll be the brave one :). Tell us, of those, which one is subjectively the best? 

Sitting back with popcorn waiting for the fire trucks to arrive!   :-)

[KLRDMD]

8 hours ago, hais said:

No one dared to ask the question, so I'll be the brave one :). Tell us, of those, which one is subjectively the best? 

You need to define a mission before this may be answered.

[KLRDMD]

8 hours ago, cliffy said:

That is about as close to exactly what my converted D model does as I have ever seen!!!! Absolute twins in performance :-)

Your D model did not meet these specs before it was converted to retractable gear. This is for a fixed gear, 49" wide cabin true four-seat airplane. What are the specs of your airplane with the gear down?

[cliffy]

36 minutes ago, KLRDMD said:

Your D model did not meet these specs before it was converted to retractable gear. This is for a fixed gear, 49" wide cabin true four-seat airplane. What are the specs of your airplane with the gear down?

That's true BUT now that it does it is just as speed/alt/fuel efficient as the SR20 so NOW we move to the next efficiency column - $$$$ per MPH!

With all that cost to enter the game for the SR20 it losses in the $$$$/MPH contest  :-) :-)

What is the computed HP output at your cruising setting shown and how does that compare to mine at the same parameters?

That would be interesting to know

 

BTW "I" was referring to the D model Mooney for comparison as there has been much speculation over the years a s to just how "fast"

a D model really is in the real world.

Mine matches his and by default it matches yours (albeit your cost of entry was higher).

Granted engineering has now moved fwd to where we can design a stiff gear airplane and only suffer a 2-3 mph degradation in speed.

Two different engineering exercises a half century apart

As Al Mooney said- "They all fly through the same air"  and there are a myriad number of ways to get to the same end point.  

[KLRDMD]

11 minutes ago, cliffy said:

That's true BUT now that it does it is just as speed/alt/fuel efficient as the SR20 so NOW we move to the next efficiency column - $$$$ per MPH! With all that cost to enter the game for the SR20 it losses in the $$$$/MPH contest  :-) :-) What is the computed HP output at your cruising setting shown and how does that compare to mine at the same parameters? That would be interesting to know

The photo I posted showed 66% power, LOP. In a 200 HP engine that's 132 HP. As has been noted many times, the purchase price of an airplane is relatively unimportant in long-term airplane ownership. Over time, insurance, fuel, maintenance, hangar, etc. make the purchase price minor in the big scheme of things. But trust me, I bought the Cirrus right and paid many tens of thousands of dollars less than what similar ones are advertised for. I paid less than what a similar M20J would sell for. And when I sell it I'll make a profit so the purchase price is truly irrelevant in any case.

[A64Pilot]

1 hour ago, KLRDMD said:

Your D model did not meet these specs before it was converted to retractable gear. This is for a fixed gear, 49" wide cabin true four-seat airplane. What are the specs of your airplane with the gear down?

Why would any of us cruise gear down?

Do you cruise flaps down?

But it’s a silly discussion really as they are different aircraft, I doubt you or many others bought a Cirrus for its fuel efficiency, but sure it’s got good numbers, and that wide cabin is likely worth a slight dip in efficiency.

Might be a better discussion to compare it’s speed / efficiency to other fixed gear aircraft, more apples to apples. I’m sure it would shine there

If or when I slow to 145 kts I can get significantly better efficiency, but if I’m traveling my average speed is roughly 10 kts faster

[NotarPilot]

One reason I’ll never own a Cirrus is that $25,000 cost to repack the parachute. Talk about a deal breaker. 

[A64Pilot]

39 minutes ago, NotarPilot said:

One reason I’ll never own a Cirrus is that $25,000 cost to repack the parachute. Talk about a deal breaker. 

I think it depends on the year of manufacture.

Pretty sure the older aircraft you literally have to cut a hole in the aircraft to remove it, but the newer ones it’s not as difficult to remove.

I get this from Military, but there it’s not just a re-pack, the pyro has to be replaced too, I assume  the Cirrus shoot is deployed by rocket?

To some 25K is nothing, I mean if I paid 1Mil for one I don’t think I would worry about 25K down the road if I even owned it then.

Cars, aircraft etc are manufactured for the original purchaser not the second or third etc.

[Paul Thomas]

3 hours ago, KLRDMD said:

The photo I posted showed 66% power, LOP. In a 200 HP engine that's 132 HP. As has been noted many times, the purchase price of an airplane is relatively unimportant in long-term airplane ownership. Over time, insurance, fuel, maintenance, hangar, etc. make the purchase price minor in the big scheme of things. But trust me, I bought the Cirrus right and paid many tens of thousands of dollars less than what similar ones are advertised for. I paid less than what a similar M20J would sell for. And when I sell it I'll make a profit so the purchase price is truly irrelevant in any case.

Do you normally buy airplanes for a discount like that? If so, I would love to learn.

[KLRDMD]

Just now, Paul Thomas said:

Do you normally buy airplanes for a discount like that? If so, I would love to learn.

I never overpay for them. Often I'll pay fair market value but now and then I'm in the right place at the right time.

[Paul Thomas]

1 minute ago, KLRDMD said:

I never overpay for them. Often I'll pay fair market value but now and then I'm in the right place at the right time.

Whenever I buy something, I try to be patient so that I buy at a fair price. I'm often amazed, even with today's technology and access to information, at how inefficient the market can still be due to people's impatience.

[A64Pilot]

2 hours ago, Paul Thomas said:

Do you normally buy airplanes for a discount like that? If so, I would love to learn.

Not to be smart, but as an older person I’ve learned that if your patient and have cash in hand, you can get some good deals, two things, you have to be looking and willing to jump when the deal becomes available, because if it’s a good deal it will be gone fast. Often your buying the “deal” not so much the exact thing you were looking for.

Many do this and flip from one house, automobile, boat, airplane or whatever. Many essentially own for free in that whatever they have is for sale, at the right price, but as they don’t need to sell they won’t unless they get their price. Occasionally though they get bit and that great deal came with a cracked crankcase or severe corrosion in a wing spar or whatever. It’s a risk.

That’s where I differ from them, I usually do good buying but have a tendency to hang onto something for a long time when I do, but I’ve seen others that buy and sell and often do well doing so.

Last week I bought a 2016 Jeep Rubicon with 26,000 miles on it for 28K, or about 4K under retail, from a dealer no less with a 90 day warranty. Perfect condition, owned apparently by an old Woman from the added tid bits, I get old from the phone that the radio was paired with, it was one of the consumer cellular flip phones. It has obviously never been off road. Dealer is flooded with inventory and I guess if it didn’t sell fast they were going to wholesale it.

‘I was looking for a TOAD for the Motorhome and honestly was looking for anything that was a good deal that would work, from a Honda Fit to a Jeep.