Best $200k(ish) Airplane?

[Ibra]

Damn, I got scammed: I would 1/ sell the beloved Mooney and 2/ get Cardinal that go 175kts at 10gph  I would then fly that Cardinal at 130kts at 4gph on it's Carson speeds ! 

I now have to stop thinking about that 252/Encore, I am on the market for the Cardinals 

You have less problems as you only have to do 2/

Edited Monday at 08:19 PM by Ibra

[Marc_B]

Always funny the posts for someone looking at anything other than a Mooney posting up on Mooneyspace to make a case for a Mooney..  Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  You can't argue with the aerodynamic efficiency of a Mooney...it's one of, if not the most, efficient and aerodynamic single engine pistons in the sky.  But all single engine pistons are a trade...want more cargo?  want more useful load?  want 6 seats?  want more aerobatics?  To the OP: decide what fits your needs most and jump in with both feet. 

As an aside, I don't feel that a turbo is only to use if you like flying high with oxygen.  Higher is less drag which means a turbo aircraft can fly high with similar power but less drag.  It also allows climbing over weather that you might not otherwise be flying under.  But you can just as easily fly lower.  You also generate full power at high density altitude and this allows mountain landings in summer without much worry.  So for me, a turbocharged aircraft is a huge bump in capability and an easy PRO.  (and my vote was and is a M20K...)

 

[AJ88V]

23 minutes ago, Jetter2 said:

I just keep coming back to them no matter what else I look at.    

Any of the older folks in here ever tire of getting in and out of a low wing? 

It's ok to have a preference.  Obviously here, everybody loves Mooneys.

As for the low wing, getting out of one has way more sex appeal than getting out of any Cessna short of a Citation.  Oh, the Citation has a low wing too! 'Nuff said.

[Andy95W]

35 minutes ago, Jetter2 said:

Any of the older folks in here ever tire of getting in and out of a low wing? 

I’m 59.  My answer is No.

Comparing my non-turbo M20C to a non-turbo Cardinal RG- my airplane is faster, flies better, and is less expensive to buy and maintain.

The Cardinal is a nice, good looking airplane.  But everything is a trade off. 

[Danb]

8 minutes ago, Andy95W said:

I’m 59.  My answer is No.

Comparing my non-turbo M20C to a non-turbo Cardinal RG- my airplane is faster, flies better, and is less expensive to buy and maintain.

The Cardinal is a nice, good looking airplane.  But everything is a trade off. 

76. Also no..

[Ragsf15e]

3 hours ago, Shiroyuki said:

I heard the TKS FIKI vs non FIKI makes no difference in actual anti ice capability. Only difference is FIKI version have 2 pumps and 2 alternator?

I'm always curious how someone is going to fly a non FIKI TKS plane. As I was taught when there is visible moisture and outside air temperature is below 0, it is going to have ice. So for how I was taught, any cloud in winter time is known icing. So do people with non FIKI TKS just fly into icing condition regardless if it is known? Or people interprelate what known icing in a certain way to some icing not "known"? I'm curious.

Living in Northern Ontario I'd love to get a TKS system, but only non fiki version if avalible for J and early K. Late model K and long body with FIKI goes for more then what I'm willing to pay for.

To answer your ice question… there are lots of factors dictating which clouds put ice on the airframe and which don’t.  It’s very hard to know them all, but it’s most conservative to just assume all visible moisture below freezing is going to yield ice.  However, there are a lot of clouds that meet that definition and don’t have ice.  It can depend on humidity levels, airspeed, type of wing and other factors.  Basically it’s really hard to tell before you try it.  So, although the inadvertent systems never really made sense to me, maybe they do to some degree?  I have launched in my non fiki airplane through a ~1000’ overcast below freezing after getting a pirep from a landing Pilatus that there was no ice.  I had a good “out” if I did find ice and felt ok about it, but it would have been more conservative to just cancel.  It can be a grey area.

[Schllc]

Someone spent a whole lot of money on that Cardinal. 
In my experience, no airplanes do “book numbers” in cruise. 
Most doesn’t even make book, but may get real close if you are wringing it out and flying it like you stole it.

That being said. The relative embellishments of them all still make them more or less accurate in comparison.

Aviation is completely discretionary, and it’s expensive, so why not just get what you want? 
I would be willing to bet any turbo Mooney is faster than that cardinal at the same altitude and fuel flow.  So for the sake of discussion let’s just say the cardinal is 10kts slower. 

On a 500mile trip that’s only about a 15min difference.   
500/160= 3.125 hours. 500/150=3.333 hours
That is not worth buying a plane you don’t like.   
I do say do the math on gpm as well as gph though, it can make a big difference in considering fuel burn. 
And as @dkkim73 said, using a conserver is a game changer for o2, or it was for me. 

I think if you compare apples to apples in appointments, age, engine time avionics etc, you get more bang for your buck with a Mooney.  But as others have said, everything is a trade off, and the money is not the only factor. 

[Ibra]

5 hours ago, Shiroyuki said:

I'm always curious how someone is going to fly a non FIKI TKS plane. As I was taught when there is visible moisture and outside air temperature is below 0, it is going to have ice. So for how I was taught, any cloud in winter time is known icing. So do people with non FIKI TKS just fly into icing condition regardless if it is known? Or people interprelate what known icing in a certain way to some icing not "known"? I'm curious

I have done winter trips with Clean, TKS, FIKI, Boot…there is so much grey in these capabilities depending if you are climbing, descending, cruising and how much VFR above/under 

“Known ice” is somewhere between actual clear ice splashes (10kts speed loss every 1min) and forecast of moisture bellow freezing level getting (where you can fly 10h), so at the end of the day, it matter of how much time you have versus how much time you need 

Pilots wants simple answers,

* Known ice = IMC < 0C 

* FIKI: go flying vs Non-FIKI: no flying 

* Jets: go flying vs Piston: no flying 

The reality is much more complex of course 

To add more more grey: “your equipment is proportional to airspace and airport complexity”: in busy ATC system and airspace, you should not fly if you can’t take some heat (wrong choice) and be fully equipped for that, otherwise, you are getting into the way of those who are equipped  

From FIKI certification, one can see it’s more about redundancy than effectiveness, however, empirical evidences shows that they cope more than +10min, even some clean wings can last +10min  Look at Appendix C to Part 25 (Part 23 as reference as well), to see just how limited FIKI certification is, you will see that the maximum droplet size contemplated is 40 microns...smaller than a human hair...so if you can see the droplets you are in conditions beyond which FIKI applies; if I recall the distance correctly, if the cloud you are in is stratus and extends more than 17 miles, you are once again outside of FIKI standards. All FIKI certification buys you is time to escape (10min at best), not permission to continue.

Edited Monday at 10:29 PM by Ibra

[LANCECASPER]

9 hours ago, Jetter2 said:

For ~ $220k - I can get a 100% turnkey Cardinal RG.   I love the high wing, the doors are 4ft wide, and the cabin is 48in wide. The Turnbonormalizer doesn't affect TBO - and folks are reporting 175kts @ 17k on 10gph.  Can any Mooney really compete with this efficiency? 

The last 177RG was made in 1978. I don't believe there is such a thing as a turnkey 46+ year old airplane. If at that very moment in time that you buy it everything works, congratulations! Check back in a week and there will be something on your squawk list. That's airplane ownership.

I'm not saying it has never happened, but in 40 years of following the market, although I've seen them advertised for more,  I've never seen a Cardinal RG actually sell for $220,000. (Maybe I could see it if it was a 1978 model-last year-most desirable, zero time engine, TAT, Hartzell Trailblazer prop, new paint, Garmin glass with new autopilot, new interior, etc.) I wouldn't want my first airplane to be the most expensive example of that model ever sold. It's unlikely that the next buyer who has more experience will pay anywhere close to that. Someone may have paid $50,000 for the Tornado Alley Turbo upgrade on the Cardinal, and that may have added capability, but that doesn't add $50,000 in value.

A legacy Cessna 182 (fixed gear) is a great airplane to build time in. It's a good step up from a 172 or Archer with a good margin of safety. If you buy it right, you can fly it and you'll get what you pay for it when you move up or stop flying. The maintenance costs are not crazy and they made enough of them that parts are easy to find. 

 

 

[PilotX]

9 hours ago, Jetter2 said:

 

Thoughts? 

 

Only one thought. Bravo.

[toto]

5 hours ago, Jetter2 said:

A Mirage is my lotto plane

You’ve got to think bigger than that

A first-gen PA-46 isn’t really much more expensive than the options we’re discussing in this thread, and you get pressurization and six seats. 

If I win the lottery, I’m getting a TBM just to commute to the private airport where I keep the fun planes.

[KSMooniac]

27 minutes ago, toto said:

You’ve got to think bigger than that

A first-gen PA-46 isn’t really much more expensive than the options we’re discussing in this thread, and you get pressurization and six seats. 

If I win the lottery, I’m getting a TBM just to commute to the private airport where I keep the fun planes.

Maybe in acquisition costs, but certainly not operating costs.  My sense from a couple decades of forum consumption now is that a solid annual inspection on those birds can hit  5 figures fairly regularly.  But if the mission calls for something like that, it is what it is.

Cardinal RG's are beautiful IMO.  And I have no doubt the Tornado Alley TN system really makes one into a great plane.  But I agree just about any M20K will likely be faster at the same altitude and fuel burn.  It might be close as I expect the TN- Lycoming IO-360 with high compression pistons is more efficient in terms of BSFC, but the Mooney airframe is more efficient aerodynamically.

At the end of the day, if you really want a Cardinal then go buy one!  Just demo an M20K before you do. 

[201Mooniac]

4 hours ago, Jetter2 said:

Any of the older folks in here ever tire of getting in and out of a low wing? 

I'm mid 60s and still have no issues, we've had 100 year old Mooney pilots (but rare obviously) so I think the question isn't age but fitness and flexibility.  Personally I find it much easier getting into and out of my Moonday then into a Cessna high wing as I keep hitting my head on something with the Cessna, says something about me I guess.

[201Mooniac]

59 minutes ago, toto said:

If I win the lottery, I’m getting a TBM just to commute to the private airport where I keep the fun planes.

Definitely this!!!!

[toto]

1 hour ago, KSMooniac said:

Maybe in acquisition costs, but certainly not operating costs.  My sense from a couple decades of forum consumption now is that a solid annual inspection on those birds can hit  5 figures fairly regularly.  But if the mission calls for something like that, it is what it is.

Yeah, I was not seriously suggesting that a Malibu is comparable - I was just trying to point out that “winning the lottery” should be like an order of magnitude more ambitious than “the thing I can afford to buy right now”

 

[Shiroyuki]

2 hours ago, Ibra said:

I have done winter trips with Clean, TKS, FIKI, Boot…there is so much grey in these capabilities depending if you are climbing, descending, cruising and how much VFR above/under 

“Known ice” is somewhere between actual clear ice splashes (10kts speed loss every 1min) and forecast of moisture bellow freezing level getting (where you can fly 10h), so at the end of the day, it matter of how much time you have versus how much time you need 

Pilots wants simple answers,

* Known ice = IMC < 0C 

* FIKI: go flying vs Non-FIKI: no flying 

* Jets: go flying vs Piston: no flying 

The reality is much more complex of course 

To add more more grey: “your equipment is proportional to airspace and airport complexity”: in busy ATC system and airspace, you should not fly if you can’t take some heat (wrong choice) and be fully equipped for that, otherwise, you are getting into the way of those who are equipped  

From FIKI certification, one can see it’s more about redundancy than effectiveness, however, empirical evidences shows that they cope more than +10min, even some clean wings can last +10min  Look at Appendix C to Part 25 (Part 23 as reference as well), to see just how limited FIKI certification is, you will see that the maximum droplet size contemplated is 40 microns...smaller than a human hair...so if you can see the droplets you are in conditions beyond which FIKI applies; if I recall the distance correctly, if the cloud you are in is stratus and extends more than 17 miles, you are once again outside of FIKI standards. All FIKI certification buys you is time to escape (10min at best), not permission to continue.

 

2 hours ago, Ibra said:

I have done winter trips with Clean, TKS, FIKI, Boot…there is so much grey in these capabilities depending if you are climbing, descending, cruising and how much VFR above/under 

“Known ice” is somewhere between actual clear ice splashes (10kts speed loss every 1min) and forecast of moisture bellow freezing level getting (where you can fly 10h), so at the end of the day, it matter of how much time you have versus how much time you need 

Pilots wants simple answers,

* Known ice = IMC < 0C 

* FIKI: go flying vs Non-FIKI: no flying 

* Jets: go flying vs Piston: no flying 

The reality is much more complex of course 

To add more more grey: “your equipment is proportional to airspace and airport complexity”: in busy ATC system and airspace, you should not fly if you can’t take some heat (wrong choice) and be fully equipped for that, otherwise, you are getting into the way of those who are equipped  

From FIKI certification, one can see it’s more about redundancy than effectiveness, however, empirical evidences shows that they cope more than +10min, even some clean wings can last +10min  Look at Appendix C to Part 25 (Part 23 as reference as well), to see just how limited FIKI certification is, you will see that the maximum droplet size contemplated is 40 microns...smaller than a human hair...so if you can see the droplets you are in conditions beyond which FIKI applies; if I recall the distance correctly, if the cloud you are in is stratus and extends more than 17 miles, you are once again outside of FIKI standards. All FIKI certification buys you is time to escape (10min at best), not permission to continue.

Thanks for the reply.

And THAT ALL, is my problem with winter flying, I never know which cloud will have icing and which won't. Even forecast can be very wrong. I have one of my worst icing on a day with only moderate icing forecasted (Canadian GFA literally paint any cloud above freezing level as moderate icing). And also had experience of picking up ZERO ice in forecasted severe icing.

I think you guys down south have better icing GFA but I'm not so sure how much I want to bet my life on that either, with a airplane without TKS, even when it is just for the purpose of punching throwing a layer.

Considering the limitation of single alternator and single pump, I think a reasonble way to fly a non FIKI TKS bird is to never get into something too deep. If it is icing in one specific altitude it'd be mostly ok to climb or descend through it since the likelyhood of alt or pump failure at this unfortunate time is pretty low, and even if it does fail it's not to hard to get out of icing before things get out of control. Please tell me if this is a stupid idea.

I've heard Caravan pilots in my company says TKS works like wonder, much better then phnumatic boots. I'd like to believe them. But the plane I flew also have boots and they work like wonders. I had picked up two inch of ice on one approach and didn't even notice any performance degradation. But then there's also ATR with boots and powerful turbine engine that seemingly fall out of ice like drunk birds... Very airframe specific I suppose.

[Slick Nick]

1 hour ago, Shiroyuki said:

 

Thanks for the reply.

And THAT ALL, is my problem with winter flying, I never know which cloud will have icing and which won't. Even forecast can be very wrong. I have one of my worst icing on a day with only moderate icing forecasted (Canadian GFA literally paint any cloud above freezing level as moderate icing). And also had experience of picking up ZERO ice in forecasted severe icing.

I think you guys down south have better icing GFA but I'm not so sure how much I want to bet my life on that either, with a airplane without TKS, even when it is just for the purpose of punching throwing a layer.

Considering the limitation of single alternator and single pump, I think a reasonble way to fly a non FIKI TKS bird is to never get into something too deep. If it is icing in one specific altitude it'd be mostly ok to climb or descend through it since the likelyhood of alt or pump failure at this unfortunate time is pretty low, and even if it does fail it's not to hard to get out of icing before things get out of control. Please tell me if this is a stupid idea.

I've heard Caravan pilots in my company says TKS works like wonder, much better then phnumatic boots. I'd like to believe them. But the plane I flew also have boots and they work like wonders. I had picked up two inch of ice on one approach and didn't even notice any performance degradation. But then there's also ATR with boots and powerful turbine engine that seemingly fall out of ice like drunk birds... Very airframe specific I suppose.

The reason TKS was so effective on the Caravan compared to the boots, is because the Caravan boots barely extended up to the top of the leading edge. One of the reasons caravans were so dangerous in the ice was because even with the boots knocking ice off regularly, it would still build up behind them on the upper surface of the wing. Since the TKS fluid flows back over the wing, this problem was alleviated on the 208. 
 

Last month, I did a trip from Calgary to Victoria in my J. Up at 16,000 the OAT was -36*. On descent into YYJ, the OAT was 2*. I was vectored into some pretty puffy, thick cumulus clouds around 6000’. Within 60 seconds, I had about 3/8” of clear ice on the leading edge, and it ran back past the fuel gauges, damn near to the first row of rivets. You better believe I stuffed that nose over to about 170 knots and asked for an immediate descent. There was zero icing forecast in the GFA that day. I think what happened was my wings and fuel were so cold from being up at altitude for 3 hours, that the liquid water just froze instantly on contact with the airplane. When I got out of the plane on the ramp, the ice had melted, except for under the wing where the fuel tanks are. There were icicles about 1/2” thick streaking back almost to the gear wells. I should have taken a photo. I’ve got one of the top side of the wing. 
 

Point being, icing conditions are difficult to forecast and very dependant on a number of factors. 

Edited yesterday at 02:12 AM by Slick Nick

[201Steve]

12 hours ago, Jetter2 said:

Can any Mooney really compete with this efficiency? 

Did we just ask this question comparing a Mooney with a Cessna product?! First time for everything I guess. 

[Shiroyuki]

16 minutes ago, 201Steve said:

Did we just ask this question comparing a Mooney with a Cessna product?! First time for everything I guess. 

Found an offended mooney owner for someone comparing Mooney to Cessna /s

[Shiroyuki]

41 minutes ago, Slick Nick said:

The reason TKS was so effective on the Caravan compared to the boots, is because the Caravan boots barely extended up to the top of the leading edge. One of the reasons caravans were so dangerous in the ice was because even with the boots knocking ice off regularly, it would still build up behind them on the upper surface of the wing. Since the TKS fluid flows back over the wing, this problem was alleviated on the 208. 
 

Last month, I did a trip from Calgary to Victoria in my J. Up at 16,000 the OAT was -36*. On descent into YYJ, the OAT was 2*. I was vectored into some pretty puffy, thick cumulus clouds around 6000’. Within 60 seconds, I had about 3/8” of clear ice on the leading edge, and it ran back past the fuel gauges, damn near to the first row of rivets. You better believe I stuffed that nose over to about 170 knots and asked for an immediate descent. There was zero icing forecast in the GFA that day. I think what happened was my wings and fuel were so cold from being up at altitude for 3 hours, that the liquid water just froze instantly on contact with the airplane. When I got out of the plane on the ramp, the ice had melted, except for under the wing where the fuel tanks are. There were icicles about 1/2” thick streaking back almost to the gear wells. I should have taken a photo. I’ve got one of the top side of the wing. 
 

Point being, icing conditions are difficult to forecast and very dependant on a number of factors. 

Yikes.. But clear ice like that doesn't affect performance as bad as some fluffy rime ice i suppose.

And ATR originally had the same issue, boot protection only cover a small portion of leading edge, and ice are forming ridges behind protected surfaces..

[ArtVandelay]

I'm mid 60s and still have no issues, we've had 100 year old Mooney pilots (but rare obviously) so I think the question isn't age but fitness and flexibility.  Personally I find it much easier getting into and out of my Moonday then into a Cessna high wing as I keep hitting my head on something with the Cessna, says something about me I guess.

I think those without a step will find it more difficult when they get older.

[M20F]

I rarely fly my G650 because honestly the ease of entry, exit, and overall space of a Mooney is just better.

I like my F but reading some of these posts, wow….

[geoffb]

I’m skeptical that a TN Cardinal is 20% more efficient than my 262 conversion at 17.5.  Yes, the TN, angle valve IO-360 should be more efficient due to the difference in compression ratios.  Also, the TKS panels and prop boots cost some.  But 10 gpm vs 12.2?  I run 65% on the power chart, between 60 and 80 degrees rich on my leanest cylinder, depending on temps (my -MB is not a smooth LOP machine).  This gives me a pretty consistent 12.2 gph and at 17.5 it’ll give me 170 it’s, maybe a hair more.

i know i have the slowest K model in the fleet, but less efficient than a Cessna?

[ArtVandelay]

I’m skeptical that a TN Cardinal is 20% more efficient than my 262 conversion at 17.5.  Yes, the TN, angle valve IO-360 should be more efficient due to the difference in compression ratios.  Also, the TKS panels and prop boots cost some.  But 10 gpm vs 12.2?  I run 65% on the power chart, between 60 and 80 degrees rich on my leanest cylinder, depending on temps (my -MB is not a smooth LOP machine).  This gives me a pretty consistent 12.2 gph and at 17.5 it’ll give me 170 it’s, maybe a hair more.
i know i have the slowest K model in the fleet, but less efficient than a Cessna?

I’m more than just skeptical.

The airframe drag coefficient for a Mooney is .0173, the Cardinal is .0258. So unless the Mooneys engine/prop is unbelievably worse in efficiency than the Cardinal, the numbers are BS.

[201Steve]

9 hours ago, Shiroyuki said:

Found an offended mooney owner for someone comparing Mooney to Cessna /s

 

3 hours ago, ArtVandelay said:

The airframe drag coefficient for a Mooney is .0173, the Cardinal is .0258.

Nah. I’m not offended. Figured I’d just have some team pride. 
 

the cardinal has the same engine as the J model. You want airframe apples to apples, just fly those around and compare. Even in its RG form, the cardinal is a slower airframe than a Mooney. Case closed.  
 

I recently had a (non rg) cardinal chase me down to drop off my airplane about 250 miles away. He departed as I was opening my hangar door. I took off prob 20 mins later.  I caught him halfway along the trip and landed 15 mins prior. Same horsepower and engine