Crossroads

[Hank]

Good Lord! My C has a useful of 669 with full fuel. Never been there except once when loaded with 4 guys and 34 gallons . . .

[RJBrown]

Kids grow up. Your current plane will be perfect in a few years. If you really want to carry more check usefull on some "6" seaters they are not really 6 seaters after all.

A Missile or a Rocket will have close to 1100 usefull and 4 seats. I used to throw 3 kids in the back and go 1000 miles in the Rocket when they were small enough. (1,8 &11) (as long as the 2 littlest weigh less than 170 total it is legal) Now we only have one left at home to worry about. By the time the little one was too big the oldest no longer lived with us. Once they learn to drive they are no longer interested in flying anyway. My youngest is 13 and he still goes but the almost 20 year old stayed home last weekend. She is home for Christmas break and would rather spend it with freinds than visit Grandma and Granpa. The oldest 4 are on their own and #5 is in college.  With a wife, 6 kids, 3 son in laws and 6 grandkids I can no longer afford a family plane. Soon enough it will be just you and your wife. Thats Life.

Here is a real usefull bunch of airplane specs in one place: http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraft/specifications.html

[fantom]

Interesting analysis.  Have you ever owned a Bravo?  Ever maintained one?

 

In eight years of ownership, I have not cancelled a flight once.  Never had an issue finding a part.  I have a detailed record of every maintenance repair and every part replaced for preventive maintenance.  In fifteen minutes, my head book keeper can print out every $ paid for fuel, oil, maintenance, insurance, etc.  I can tell to the penny the expense of owning the Bravo and it is completely in line with other high performance, turbocharged aircraft.

 

So, having actual experience and knowledge of the airplane, i am very curious what would classify it as "fringe"?

 

Jgreen 

 

I said could, not would. More than a subtle difference as someone with your legal and writing background should appreciate.

 

I've never owned a Bravo (nor have I ever stuck a sharp stick in my eye  ) but I've flown in them enough to appreciate their speed, climb ability, and cost of maintenance. I'm happy that your experience has been so positive, even as you now consider selling it. Different planes for different missions.

 

Just as you call the planes below "fringe", which I'm guessing you haven't owned and maintained, I consider a TLS with a Bravo mod "fringe" also, based on the same types of bad (expensive) experiences, friends have told me about.

 

As you posted:

 

"I have had acquaintances who purchased fringe market aircraft before, a Siai Marchetti, a Socata, and a Meyers 200 coming immediately to mind. Their experiences were extraordinarily bad."

 

I trust that answers your question.

[fantom]

 Very interesting, but without 4 or 5 GPS's how will you ever find your way?

But a hundred grand will get you this, and it has a 100 hour engine in it.  Now you got me thinking about them...

[jetdriven]

Yeah, I know. I got an ipad, aera, and KLN-89B.   Going direct to somehwere required 13 button pushes.

[RJBrown]

Here's the stat's on the Saratoga:   Piper PA-32R-301T Turbo Saratoga SP (3-blade prop) - Performance Data Horsepower: 300 Gross Weight: 3600 lbs Top Speed: 295 kts Empty Weight: 2078 lbs Cruise Speed: 177 kts Fuel Capacity: 102 gal Stall Speed (dirty): 57 kts Range: 784 nm [img=http://www.risingup.com/images/blank.gif]   Takeoff Landing Ground Roll: 960 ft Ground Roll 732 ft Over 50 ft obstacle: 1420 ft Over 50 ft obstacle: 1725 ft [img=http://www.risingup.com/images/blank.gif]   Rate Of Climb: 1120 fpm   Ceiling: 20000 ft   Pretty close to the A36...

This has to be a typo "295knots" a saraslowgo could not hit 295 in a vertical dive.

[Alan Fox]

This has to be a typo "295knots" a saraslowgo could not hit 295 in a vertical dive.

Thats Slugatoga!!!

[BigTex]

Now now... Let not start hating on our slower friends.

[jetdriven]

I'll take the turbo A36.   200 knots.  Like a Rocket with 6 seats and better interior fit and finish.

[RJBrown]

I'll take the turbo A36. 200 knots. Like a Rocket with 6 seats and better interior fit and finish.

A little overstated. To get a A36 to 200 is pushing it like a Rocket at 238. An A 36 is a nice plane and fills a popular niche. But it will never keep up with a Rocket. Apples to Apples the Bonanza is also one of our slower friends.

[mjc]

Agreed, we should look at apples-to-apples numbers as best we can. The stats for the Saratoga that were given are for the turbo version. I'm willing to believe that at 25k feet, a turbo Saratoga will cruise at 177 kts true. However, you can't compare that airplane to the normally-aspirated A36 (or any other normally-aspirated airplane). Compare the turbo Saratoga to the TN A36, and to the Mooney Bravo, and it'll be something like:

Bravo, 208 kts. on 21.3 gph (source: http://www.mooneypilots.com/mapalog/M20M%20Evaluation/m20m_eval.html)

TN A36, 195 kts. on 16.5 gph (source from above)

T-Saratoga, 177 kts. on who cares because it is so slow

 

Interestingly, the Bravo may be fastest, but it is nowhere near the most efficient when run at max cruise. I would think that if a Bravo owner was willing to travel at A36 TN speed, and run LOP, the Bravo would probably beat or tie the TN A36.

 

(Since I am still an efficiency fanatic, speed is only relevant when a fuel burn number is also provided.)

 

If we want to copmare NA airplanes, compare the Ovation, A36, and non-turbo Saratoga. In this case, I believe the Ovation will win the speed AND efficiency contests. Unless you are taking five passengers, in which case the A36 is more efficient since it has to make only one trip.

Ovation, 180 kts. on 16 gph

A36, 165 kts. on 16 gph

Saratoga, 150 kts. on again, who cares, it's slow

 

Edit... it isn't that I think the Saratoga is a bad plane. But if I'm going to burn that much gas, I want to go faster than the Saratoga will allow. And with a family of just four, there is not much point to me to having a Saratoga instead of an A36.

[fantom]

I'll take the turbo A36.   200 knots.  Like a Rocket with 6 seats and better interior fit and finish.

 

You, and I, would be better served by a Tornado Alley TN A-36, with tip tanks of course.

[RJBrown]

At 20,000' a 193 knot a36tc at 79% burns 17.4 at the same alt and fuel burn the Rocket is about 20 knots faster and with additional power will go even faster. A Rocket at 20k and 75% burns 20 gph and goes about 30 knots faster. I dont know where you get your stats but at just about any identical alt and fuel flow the Rocket is 20 knots faster than the Bonanza. The Rocket has a higher critical altitude of 24k so it can maintain power higher where it is even faster. If run at 20 gph instead of 17.5 the speed advantage goes up to 30 knots.

I would flight plan the Rocket at 200 knots and 20 gal per hour to be conservative (101 usable). Going above 12 I would always do better. That is 1000 knots of range. Further if you want to slow down and stretch the fuel. Slowed down to 200kts@20k,000' and 15gph the range steps out to 1200 kts.

Pick your apples to apples comparison the Rocket is 20 knots or more faster. Top speed without considering fuel flow the rocket is 40 knots faster at 24k.

Apples to apples same alt same fuel flow the slower you go the bigger the speed advantage gets.

Don't call a Bonanza a 6 seat Rocket cause it just ain't so.

[Alan Fox]

At 20,000' a 193 knot a36tc at 79% burns 17.4 at the same alt and fuel burn the Rocket is about 20 knots faster and with additional power will go even faster. A Rocket at 20k and 75% burns 20 gph and goes about 30 knots faster. I dont know where you get your stats but at just about any identical alt and fuel flow the Rocket is 20 knots faster than the Bonanza. The Rocket has a higher critical altitude of 24k so it can maintain power higher where it is even faster. If run at 20 gph instead of 17.5 the speed advantage goes up to 30 knots.

I would flight plan the Rocket at 200 knots and 20 gal per hour to be conservative (101 usable). Going above 12 I would always do better. That is 1000 knots of range. Further if you want to slow down and stretch the fuel. Slowed down to 200kts@20k,000' and 15gph the range steps out to 1200 kts.

Pick your apples to apples comparison the Rocket is 20 knots or more faster. Top speed without considering fuel flow the rocket is 40 knots faster at 24k.

Apples to apples same alt same fuel flow the slower you go the bigger the speed advantage gets.

Don't call a Bonanza a 6 seat Rocket cause it just ain't so.

No such thing as a 6 seat rocket......Never saw tiptanks on a rocket either...... They are not apples to apples.......there is more to a mission than simply speed , unless it is a race....

[BigTex]

Here's an interesting article in Plane & Pilot magazine that discusses moving to a 6-seater.

 

http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraft/best-buys/choosing-a-six-seat-single.html

 

MJC - You through out the Turbo Saratoga.  Are you not looking at turbo's or is it that you have a beef with Piper aircraft?

[RJBrown]

"No such thing as a 6 seat rocket"......

My point exactly, calling a A36tc a Rocket is an overstatement. The closest thing to a 6 seat Rocket is the Piper Matrix though at $900,000 it still can't keep up..

 

"Never saw tiptanks on a rocket either."

Why would you want tip tanks on a Rocket internal fuel gives over 1000 mile range.

 

"there is more to a mission than simply speed , unless it is a race...."

WRONG!!!

Speed is the name of the game for transportation always has been always will be. That line reeks of sour grapes.

 Time/speed/distance/payload is why we fly. There are price points for every level of speed clear up to the 60 Million Dollar Gulfstreams. 

 

The Mooney is the ultimate 4 seat piston airplane ever made. Too bad they were better at engineering than marketing. Plastic crap sells while Mooney dies, sad state of affairs.

 

PS what IS happening at Beech right now?
 

[jetdriven]

"No such thing as a 6 seat rocket"......

My point exactly, calling a A36tc a Rocket is an overstatement. The closest thing to a 6 seat Rocket is the Piper Matrix though at $900,000 it still can't keep up..

 

"Never saw tiptanks on a rocket either."

Why would you want tip tanks on a Rocket internal fuel gives over 1000 mile range.

 

"there is more to a mission than simply speed , unless it is a race...."

WRONG!!!

Speed is the name of the game for transportation always has been always will be. That line reeks of sour grapes.

 Time/speed/distance/payload is why we fly. There are price points for every level of speed clear up to the 60 Million Dollar Gulfstreams. 

 

The Mooney is the ultimate 4 seat piston airplane ever made. Too bad they were better at engineering than marketing. Plastic crap sells while Mooney dies, sad state of affairs.

 

PS what IS happening at Beech right now?

 

 

 

I said it is "Like a Rocket with 6 seats".  I admit a Rocket will handily whip an A36 turbo, but, like the Rocket, it is a standalone at the top of its class.

 

  You can't fold down the table, play cards and drink whiskey in the back of a Rocket.  Also, I meant the Tornado Alley Turbo TN A36.  It whips the A and B36TC easily, and cheaper to run as well.

[Parker_Woodruff]

Wish I'd seen this topic sooner.

 

I'd wholeheartedly endorse a Cessna 182RG.  I've got some time in one.  It's an honest 150+ knot airplane with plenty of range and useful load.  Gear maintenance will be more than a Mooney.

 

A lot of nice looking planes around $80,000 - $100,000.  The useful load is what you want.  It's wide and easy to get in and out of.

 

But if I was buying a 4 seat, high wing aircraft, it would be a Cessna 180/2/5 on amphibs.

[BigTex]

MJC - Based on all I've read, here's the plane for you... Priced right with decent avionics.

 

http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_731967_1975+A-36+Bonanza.html

 

Also, it will be a heck of a lot easier to sell when you're ready to get back into a Mooney.

[mjc]

I did consider the 182RG, and even the 210. The fellow who parks next to me has a 182RG that he likes a lot and flies regularly. He said (in agreement with what's here) it is a 150 knot airplane and that yes, the gear needs a lot of attention and parts on it get replaced regularly. The reason I cut them from the list is that I couldn't see why I would buy one of those instead of the A36 or Trinidad. Both the A36 and Trinidad are faster and more efficient than the 182RG. While the 182RG will carry more weight, it has less volume (as the wheels are inconveniently stored in the baggage area), and weight isn't my main problem. And maintenance costs are likely to be as high with the 182RG as with the other two planes, since while parts are cheaper, I will need more of them. I guess if the thinking is that Beech and Socata parts are eventually unavailable at any price, maybe Cessna will still make them.

 

Edit... I should note that when I mentioned camping, above, I'm fine with places like Columbia, CA, Manzanita, OR, and maybe Johnson Creek, ID. I don't need to go into the 1500' dirt strip at 5000' elevation. Pretty much any airplane can do that as long as the camping gear and people fit inside it.

[KSMooniac]

I'll cast my vote since we're all spending your money   in the A36 camp.  They are hard to beat for speed and efficiency IF you need the extra seats or the volume.  There are tons of them, they fly great, and will be easy to sell when you want to move up to a Mooney again.  If your budget supports one with a TN conversion....well, there is no better all-around piston single IMO.  Not as fast as a Rocket, but it will carry a lot of butts and bags over a long distance with great speed AND efficiency.  Leave out one row of back seats and you'll have tremendous cargo volume to use for those camping runs too.

 

I like the 182RG but wouldn't want to own one with the carb engine and Cessna gear.  They fly 150 KTAS for a long way and will carry a lot, though.

[Alan Fox]

"No such thing as a 6 seat rocket"......

My point exactly, calling a A36tc a Rocket is an overstatement. The closest thing to a 6 seat Rocket is the Piper Matrix though at $900,000 it still can't keep up..

 

"Never saw tiptanks on a rocket either."

Why would you want tip tanks on a Rocket internal fuel gives over 1000 mile range.

 

"there is more to a mission than simply speed , unless it is a race...."

WRONG!!!

Speed is the name of the game for transportation always has been always will be. That line reeks of sour grapes.

 Time/speed/distance/payload is why we fly. There are price points for every level of speed clear up to the 60 Million Dollar Gulfstreams. 

 

The Mooney is the ultimate 4 seat piston airplane ever made. Too bad they were better at engineering than marketing. Plastic crap sells while Mooney dies, sad state of affairs.

 

PS what IS happening at Beech right now?

 

Actually , an understatement if you need 6 seats....and comfort for your passengers , and a door that you could fit a moose through ,    On a two hour trip to arrive 6 to 8 minutes sooner is frivolous.......  Just say "I like flying the Rocket better than a Beech"   That is what you want to say , and there is nothing wrong with that......  There is a reason that there are Many , Many , Many , Bonanzas out there ..... They fit a more popular mission ......  When I want comfort , I take my Beech , when I want to save gas on a shorter trip , I take my Mooney , Both great aircraft , Different missions.......If you want to know what is happening at Beech right now , They are making Bonanzas , Barons, King Airs , and Jets......

[RJBrown]

According to Flying they are in bankrupcy. No more jets!

"Plans call for a newly restructured company to reemerge under the Beechcraft name sometime next year. The bankruptcy will allow Beechcraft to walk away from more than $2.5 billion in debt. Boisture also confirmed that the company will no longer honor Hawker 4000 and Premier warranties, a policy that will affect about 150 customers, he said."

[RJBrown]

New hoped for King Air.

[KSMooniac]

Apparently their parts business on the existing fleet has been pretty profitable, and I bet they were treading water with the new plane production or perhaps making some money.  The jets really, really drug their ship down and that was largely their own doing.  Bold ideas IMO with the Premier and Horizon (later the 4000) designs, but very poorly executed and obsolete by the time they were certified and delivered and of course after churning through billions of dollars in development.  Hopefully they emerge with a bright future designing and building what they were (are?) good at!