High Performance Single Engine Choices

[O. Sami Saydjari]

Folks, I am a first-time aircraft buyer. I have a general idea of the
type of aircraft I want, but am having trouble narrowing the list down.
Here is my general list of wants/needs:

1. Fast: >160 kts
2. Price range: $75K-$120K
3. Four Seater
4. Range: >800nm
5. Useful Payload (with full fuel); > 650lbs
6. Retains its value well over time
7. Reliable: Engine TBO of 2000 hrs, good saftey record
8. Insurable for a pilot with only 350 hrs PIC experience (no HP/complex
time)


I have been thinking about a Piper Comanche 260 and a Piper Turbo Arrow
III/IV. I was considering a Mooney M20J, but they feel a little cramped
in the cabin to me. What I am looking for is the best dollars/kts
airplane (what we call price/performance in the computer biz) that meets
the above requirements. I would really appreciate suggestions and advice.

-Sami

[Guy Byars]

Give up the 160kt requirement for a few hundred hours and go with a good
Cessna 182 Skylane. You can count on 130kts with it and it meets all your
other requirements. After more experience, then go with something with
higher performance.

GB


"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
...
> Folks, I am a first-time aircraft buyer. I have a general idea of the
> type of aircraft I want, but am having trouble narrowing the list down.
> Here is my general list of wants/needs:
>
> 1. Fast: >160 kts
> 2. Price range: $75K-$120K
> 3. Four Seater
> 4. Range: >800nm
> 5. Useful Payload (with full fuel); > 650lbs
> 6. Retains its value well over time
> 7. Reliable: Engine TBO of 2000 hrs, good saftey record
> 8. Insurable for a pilot with only 350 hrs PIC experience (no HP/complex
> time)
>
>
> I have been thinking about a Piper Comanche 260 and a Piper Turbo Arrow
> III/IV. I was considering a Mooney M20J, but they feel a little cramped
> in the cabin to me. What I am looking for is the best dollars/kts
> airplane (what we call price/performance in the computer biz) that meets
> the above requirements. I would really appreciate suggestions and advice.
>
> -Sami
>

[EDR]

In article >, O. Sami Saydjari
> wrote:

> I have been thinking about a Piper Comanche 260 and a Piper Turbo Arrow
> III/IV.

The Arrow is a three adult/two adult-two child airplane.

Look at a Bonanza.

[Jay Honeck]

Well, Sami, I've got ya covered on everything except the 160 knots. Our
Cherokee 235 Pathfinder has:

> 1. Fast: >160 kts

We'll do 140 knots all day long, with fixed gear. (Read: Cheaper annual
inspections.)

> 2. Price range: $75K-$120K

We bought ours for $74K, and put in a new engine. With the new interior,
new engine, and a raft of other stuff, it's in the $100K range now. (But
it's not for sale... ;-)

> 3. Four Seater

Yep. Four REAL, 200+ pound, 6 foot tall people.

> 4. Range: >800nm

Try 1100+ nm. Farther, if you throttle back, and your bladder can stand
it.

> 5. Useful Payload (with full fuel); > 650lbs

1460 pounds total. 956 pounds useful, with 84 gallons of fuel on board.

> 6. Retains its value well over time

Late model Cherokee 235s sell themselves.

> 7. Reliable: Engine TBO of 2000 hrs, good saftey record

Low compression Lycoming O-540, carbureted. Burns car gas. Almost
bulletproof.

> 8. Insurable for a pilot with only 350 hrs PIC experience (no HP/complex
> time)

Yep.

I'd say if you can bend your mission parameters on the speed required, you
won't find a better aircraft than the post-1972 Cherokee 235 (known
variously as the "Charger", "Pathfinder", and "Dakota", depending on the
year.) That's the year they stretched the fuselage 5 inches, making all
that horsepower usable.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
O. Sami Saydjari > wrote:
>8. Insurable for a pilot with only 350 hrs PIC experience (no HP/complex
>time)

You can get insurance with no HP/complex time, but you'll have to fly
more dual before you can solo.

>I have been thinking about a Piper Comanche 260 and a Piper Turbo Arrow
>III/IV. I was considering a Mooney M20J, but they feel a little cramped

Where are you located? Have you flown the Comanche or the Arrow?

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[O. Sami Saydjari]

Ben Jackson wrote:

> In article >,
> O. Sami Saydjari > wrote:
>
>>8. Insurable for a pilot with only 350 hrs PIC experience (no HP/complex
>>time)
>>
>
> You can get insurance with no HP/complex time, but you'll have to fly
> more dual before you can solo.


Yes, I have quotes on both a Mooney 201 and a Comanche 260. It is just
that they prefer that low-time pilots not go right to a very high
performance aircraft, like a Mooney TLS.


>
>
>>I have been thinking about a Piper Comanche 260 and a Piper Turbo Arrow
>>III/IV. I was considering a Mooney M20J, but they feel a little cramped
>>
>
> Where are you located? Have you flown the Comanche or the Arrow?


Wisconsin. I have flown a Comanche 260 and a Mooney 201. I like them
both in terms of how they fly. I have not yet had a chance to fly an Arrow.


>
>

[O. Sami Saydjari]

Just out of curiosity, what is the fastest single-engine aircraft
available and how fast does it go? -Sami

O. Sami Saydjari wrote:

> Folks, I am a first-time aircraft buyer. I have a general idea of the
> type of aircraft I want, but am having trouble narrowing the list down.
> Here is my general list of wants/needs:
>
> 1. Fast: >160 kts
> 2. Price range: $75K-$120K
> 3. Four Seater
> 4. Range: >800nm
> 5. Useful Payload (with full fuel); > 650lbs
> 6. Retains its value well over time
> 7. Reliable: Engine TBO of 2000 hrs, good saftey record
> 8. Insurable for a pilot with only 350 hrs PIC experience (no HP/complex
> time)
>
>
> I have been thinking about a Piper Comanche 260 and a Piper Turbo Arrow
> III/IV. I was considering a Mooney M20J, but they feel a little cramped
> in the cabin to me. What I am looking for is the best dollars/kts
> airplane (what we call price/performance in the computer biz) that meets
> the above requirements. I would really appreciate suggestions and advice.
>
> -Sami
>

[Jeff]

A bonanza is not in the price range he is looking at. unles he gets a 1947
one.


EDR wrote:

> In article >, O. Sami Saydjari
> > wrote:
>
> > I have been thinking about a Piper Comanche 260 and a Piper Turbo Arrow
> > III/IV.
>
> The Arrow is a three adult/two adult-two child airplane.
>
> Look at a Bonanza.

[Michael 182]

Piston - maybe a Lancair IVP - 287 knots
Turboprop - maybe a Lancair IVP with a Propjet conversion - 330 knots
Jet - ????


An F-106 Delta Dart flew 1526 mph over an 11 mile course way back in 1959
http://www.f-106deltadart.com/speedrecord.htm


"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
...
> Just out of curiosity, what is the fastest single-engine aircraft
> available and how fast does it go? -Sami

[Jeff]

what I would do is call my insurance company with the types of planes you
want, ask them ya or nay on them and a general price range for insurance on
each of them. Depending on your insurance company, you will see they wont
insure some planes for you, they may also ask you, if you dont have it yet, to
get your instrument rating. Talking to them may help you narrow down what your
wanting really quick :)


"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:

> Folks, I am a first-time aircraft buyer. I have a general idea of the
> type of aircraft I want, but am having trouble narrowing the list down.
> Here is my general list of wants/needs:
>
> 1. Fast: >160 kts
> 2. Price range: $75K-$120K
> 3. Four Seater
> 4. Range: >800nm
> 5. Useful Payload (with full fuel); > 650lbs
> 6. Retains its value well over time
> 7. Reliable: Engine TBO of 2000 hrs, good saftey record
> 8. Insurable for a pilot with only 350 hrs PIC experience (no HP/complex
> time)
>
> I have been thinking about a Piper Comanche 260 and a Piper Turbo Arrow
> III/IV. I was considering a Mooney M20J, but they feel a little cramped
> in the cabin to me. What I am looking for is the best dollars/kts
> airplane (what we call price/performance in the computer biz) that meets
> the above requirements. I would really appreciate suggestions and advice.
>
> -Sami

[Jeff]

your going to get alot of input on this one.
I know the other day when I flew back from carlsbad california, center called
out a mooney to me that was doing 200 kts. Dont know what kind, never saw him
either. I know he was at 11,000 ft is all. But the comanche 400 and some
mooney's push the 200 kt area. Cirrus SR22 is like 185 kts.

I skipped all the war birds like the P-51 ... the fastest single engine plane is
the one who broke the 500 MPH mark at the last air race in Reno, Nv. I think it
was a P-51.

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:

> Just out of curiosity, what is the fastest single-engine aircraft
> available and how fast does it go? -Sami
>
> O. Sami Saydjari wrote:
>
> > Folks, I am a first-time aircraft buyer. I have a general idea of the
> > type of aircraft I want, but am having trouble narrowing the list down.
> > Here is my general list of wants/needs:
> >
> > 1. Fast: >160 kts
> > 2. Price range: $75K-$120K
> > 3. Four Seater
> > 4. Range: >800nm
> > 5. Useful Payload (with full fuel); > 650lbs
> > 6. Retains its value well over time
> > 7. Reliable: Engine TBO of 2000 hrs, good saftey record
> > 8. Insurable for a pilot with only 350 hrs PIC experience (no HP/complex
> > time)
> >
> >
> > I have been thinking about a Piper Comanche 260 and a Piper Turbo Arrow
> > III/IV. I was considering a Mooney M20J, but they feel a little cramped
> > in the cabin to me. What I am looking for is the best dollars/kts
> > airplane (what we call price/performance in the computer biz) that meets
> > the above requirements. I would really appreciate suggestions and advice.
> >
> > -Sami
> >

[Jeff]

Did they say they would not insure those for you or did they price them out of
your range or what your wanting to pay for insurance?

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:olo.

>
> Yes, I have quotes on both a Mooney 201 and a Comanche 260. It is just
> that they prefer that low-time pilots not go right to a very high
> performance aircraft, like a Mooney TLS.

[O. Sami Saydjari]

They said tey would insure them and the price range seem pretty
reasonable to me. -sami

Jeff wrote:

> Did they say they would not insure those for you or did they price them out of
> your range or what your wanting to pay for insurance?
>
> "O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:olo.
>
>
>>Yes, I have quotes on both a Mooney 201 and a Comanche 260. It is just
>>that they prefer that low-time pilots not go right to a very high
>>performance aircraft, like a Mooney TLS.
>>
>

[Ron Natalie]

"Jeff" > wrote in message ...
> A bonanza is not in the price range he is looking at. unles he gets a 1947
> one.
>
And a 225 bo would not go 160+ knots.

[Nathan Young]

"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message >...
> Just out of curiosity, what is the fastest single-engine aircraft
> available and how fast does it go? -Sami

If you will consider experimentals, the Lancair IV-P is the king.
4-seats, 330mph TAS, pressurized. Price tag is $350-500k depending on
options.

Fastest production is probably the Mooney 252 series (now called
TLS/Bravo). These will do 220 KTAS. For new planes, the pricetag is
similar to the Lancair, although an older 252 would be $150k+.

An early 1980 A36 TC or turbonormalized will do 200 kts and will have
the six seats. Price is around $200k.

Keep in mind these are not normal operating speeds, but maximum cruise
speeds. You probably won't make it to 2000hrs after overhaul if you
run the engine at 75% or greater power required to achieve these
speeds.

For the $75-120k pricerange you mentioned, an N thru-V model V35
Bonanza would fit your requirements.

-Nathan

[Jay Honeck]

> If you will consider experimentals, the Lancair IV-P is the king.
> 4-seats, 330mph TAS, pressurized. Price tag is $350-500k depending on
> options.

Don't forget that most experimentals -- especially in this category -- are
completely uninsurable. You might get liability coverage, but nothing more.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Michael]

"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote
> 1. Fast: >160 kts
> 2. Price range: $75K-$120K
> 3. Four Seater
> 4. Range: >800nm
> 5. Useful Payload (with full fuel); > 650lbs
> 6. Retains its value well over time
> 7. Reliable: Engine TBO of 2000 hrs, good saftey record
> 8. Insurable for a pilot with only 350 hrs PIC experience (no HP/complex
> time)

No airplane in that class really has a good safety record (in the
sense that something like a C-172 does). These airplanes are used for
transportation, not training and going around the patch. Virtually
any certified tri-gear landplane that can be bought for $120K in good
condition is going to be insurable for you, but anything in the
performance class you want will require 10-25 hours dual and a big hit
in the first year (think $3K+).

> I have been thinking about a Piper Comanche 260 and a Piper Turbo Arrow
> III/IV. I was considering a Mooney M20J, but they feel a little cramped
> in the cabin to me. What I am looking for is the best dollars/kts
> airplane (what we call price/performance in the computer biz) that meets
> the above requirements. I would really appreciate suggestions and advice.

First off, never compare top speeds between normally aspirated and
turbo - they are not comparable. The turbo needs to go high to get
its speed, and that means you never go very fast when Westbound.
Pretty quick going East, though. Unless you NEED to go high (meaning
you fly in the mountains) a turbo is rarely cost-effective.

The Comanche 260 is a good choice for what you want - make sure it has
at least 84 gallons of fuel. The Mooney is cramped in the cabin - if
you're going to fly long legs, you won't enjoy it unless you are thin.
Other planes you might consider:

A 1960's era Bonanza. Most Bonanzas of that era don't make book speed
because they were tested clean (without antennas) but they're still
the fastest thing around with a reasonably roomy cabin.

A Viking. Wood wings are an issue (get one from a dry climate and
hangar it) but purchase price is low, and the speed is there. The
14-19 is the tailwheel version - way cool, but insurance will be an
issue.

You may also consider twins. The only ones that really fit your
mission profile while maintianing similar operating costs are the Twin
Comanche and Beech Travel Air. Insurance will be higher ($4K+) if you
are instrument rated, and ridiculous ($6K+) if you are not. Purchase
price will be lower than a comparably performing single.

Michael

[Paul Lee]

On the contrary, MOST experimentals ARE insurable. There were a
few incidents where AVEMCO would not insure a FEW hi performance
experimentals, but then EAA cut its ties with AVEMCO and
the new EAA insurer is now Falcon Insurance.
If you are interested, there are more details at
http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/031126_insurance.html

However, what may be true is that the hull insurance on a few
hi perf. experimentals may be beyond budget for SOME owners.

And if somebody is interested in a particular experimental,
they can contact the KIT Mfg. and ask them.

----------------------------------------------------
Paul Lee, SQ2000 canard project: www.abri.com/sq2000

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:<EN0Bb.269559$Dw6.916917@attbi_s02>...
> > If you will consider experimentals, the Lancair IV-P is the king.
> > 4-seats, 330mph TAS, pressurized. Price tag is $350-500k depending on
> > options.
>
> Don't forget that most experimentals -- especially in this category -- are
> completely uninsurable. You might get liability coverage, but nothing more.

[Roger Halstead]

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 22:19:47 -0800, Jeff > wrote:

>A bonanza is not in the price range he is looking at. unles he gets a 1947
>one.

The Comanche 260 were bringing a premium and ran considerably more
than the 250s. I don't know if they still do, but they were running
about the same as an early F-33. Maybe a bit more than the Debonairs.

I would think you should be able to find Bonanzas and Debonairs from
the same era as the Comanche in about the same price range. As in
anything else condition and prices may vary widely.

As for the number of passengers, most of the "4 passenger" high
performance singles are three adults and you might be able to cary
full tanks. In 74 they raised the useful load in the F-33s from 1000#
to 1400# so if you take 80 gallons at 6# per which makes 480#, that
leaves 920# that you can load in. Unfortunately the 74s are probably
going to run around $150,000. With earlier models you are looking at
1000#, minus 480# of gas, leaving a total of 520# for people and
baggage. Three FAA standard 170# adults just happen to be 510# so
they can take 10# of luggage between them.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Return address modified due to dumb virus checkers
>
>
>EDR wrote:
>
>> In article >, O. Sami Saydjari
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > I have been thinking about a Piper Comanche 260 and a Piper Turbo Arrow
>> > III/IV.
>>
>> The Arrow is a three adult/two adult-two child airplane.
>>
>> Look at a Bonanza.

[Jay Honeck]

> On the contrary, MOST experimentals ARE insurable.

Well, in the same sense that Betty Grable's legs were "insurable".

The only experimental aircraft with affordable insurance that I know of is
the RV line. I've talked to the Glasair and Lancair people (and the Cirrus
people, in the certificated category), and they all just try to change the
subject when you bring up insurance. They ALL try to gloss over the fact
that you will be paying upwards of $15K per YEAR for full coverage.

I'm sorry, but in my world, that's "uninsurable"...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Roger Halstead]

On 8 Dec 2003 06:16:34 -0800, (Nathan
Young) wrote:

>"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message >...
>> Just out of curiosity, what is the fastest single-engine aircraft
>> available and how fast does it go? -Sami
>
>If you will consider experimentals, the Lancair IV-P is the king.
>4-seats, 330mph TAS, pressurized. Price tag is $350-500k depending on
>options.

The turbo charged Glasair III is way up there too, but it's only two
seats and a bit more snug than the IV-P. Then again you can pull 4 to
6 Gs without worry either. That is if they were on purpose.<:-))

>
>Fastest production is probably the Mooney 252 series (now called
>TLS/Bravo). These will do 220 KTAS. For new planes, the pricetag is
>similar to the Lancair, although an older 252 would be $150k+.

Don't forget the new Lancair production models. They have cruise
speeds right up there with the conventional, high performance retracts
Over 200 MPH and fixed gear to boot. Meaning a low time pilot with a
big billfold could get insurance. You are still looking at 300 grand
plus, but they sure are nice inside.

>
>An early 1980 A36 TC or turbonormalized will do 200 kts and will have
>the six seats. Price is around $200k.

You can also easily spend 250 to 300 grand in the same range.
In 84 they changed to the new, conventional separate yokes instead of
using the throw over, or massive cross bar on the dual yokes. From
there on they start getting expensive.

>
>Keep in mind these are not normal operating speeds, but maximum cruise
>speeds. You probably won't make it to 2000hrs after overhaul if you
>run the engine at 75% or greater power required to achieve these

You'll get argument here too.
Some, me included, figure an engine will last the longest when
working. Any certified engine should make TBO if flown regularly
whether at 60% or 75%. If they don't have a limitation, they would
probably do as well at 80%.

I run 75%, except for landing, take off, maneuvering and approaches.
I'm nearing TBO and the engine still uses a pint or less in 25 hours.
Not having an oil filter (just a screen to take out the chunks), I
change every 25 hours.

At 75% I can figure an honest 160 knots true on 13.5 to 14 GPH with a
bit of room to spare. A high percentage of the older Bos, be they
straight tail or "V" have had the Deshannon speed mods done such as
the thick, one piece speed sloped windshields and gap seals.

We ran the old Cherokee 180 at 75% as well and it's gone through two
majors and is ready for a new engine. Every time it went way beyond
TBO, but the guys decided to bite the bullet and spend the money at
300 and 500 hours over.

As far as efficiency it's really difficult to beat the old Comanche
180.
>speeds.
>
>For the $75-120k pricerange you mentioned, an N thru-V model V35
>Bonanza would fit your requirements.

As will the Debonairs with the larger engines and the early F-33s.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Return address modified due to dumb virus checkers
>
>-Nathan

[Jeff]

" paying upwards of $15K per YEAR for full coverage."

this is for single engine airplanes with 4 seats?


Jay Honeck wrote:

> > On the contrary, MOST experimentals ARE insurable.
>
> Well, in the same sense that Betty Grable's legs were "insurable".
>
> The only experimental aircraft with affordable insurance that I know of is
> the RV line. I've talked to the Glasair and Lancair people (and the Cirrus
> people, in the certificated category), and they all just try to change the
> subject when you bring up insurance. They ALL try to gloss over the fact
> that you will be paying upwards of $15K per YEAR for full coverage.
>
> I'm sorry, but in my world, that's "uninsurable"...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[John]

(Michael) wrote in message >...
> "O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote
> > 1. Fast: >160 kts
> > 2. Price range: $75K-$120K
> > 3. Four Seater
> > 4. Range: >800nm
> > 5. Useful Payload (with full fuel); > 650lbs
> > 6. Retains its value well over time
> > 7. Reliable: Engine TBO of 2000 hrs, good saftey record
> > 8. Insurable for a pilot with only 350 hrs PIC experience (no HP/complex
> > time)
>
> No airplane in that class really has a good safety record (in the
> sense that something like a C-172 does). These airplanes are used for
> transportation, not training and going around the patch. Virtually
> any certified tri-gear landplane that can be bought for $120K in good
> condition is going to be insurable for you, but anything in the
> performance class you want will require 10-25 hours dual and a big hit
> in the first year (think $3K+).


Insurance cost or instructional requirement doesn't sound prohibitive
or a 'big hit', based on your figures. If a person is spending $120k
on an aircraft, an extra $1500 for insurance for the first year is not
all that significant (particularly if the insurance cost goes down to
a lower level in year #2.) Likewise, the cost of 25 hours of dual
instruction ($1,000?) also looks like money well spent, and not
significant in the context of a $120k purchase.

I am sure an aircraft such the one the poster is contemplating will
cost him $100-125k. An extra $3k to become comfortable flying it
over the long-term sounds like a good deal.

John

[Kevin]

John wrote:
> (Michael) wrote in message >...
>
>>"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote
>>
>>>1. Fast: >160 kts
>>>2. Price range: $75K-$120K
>>>3. Four Seater
>>>4. Range: >800nm
>>>5. Useful Payload (with full fuel); > 650lbs
>>>6. Retains its value well over time
>>>7. Reliable: Engine TBO of 2000 hrs, good saftey record
>>>8. Insurable for a pilot with only 350 hrs PIC experience (no HP/complex
>>>time)
>>
>>No airplane in that class really has a good safety record (in the
>>sense that something like a C-172 does). These airplanes are used for
>>transportation, not training and going around the patch. Virtually
>>any certified tri-gear landplane that can be bought for $120K in good
>>condition is going to be insurable for you, but anything in the
>>performance class you want will require 10-25 hours dual and a big hit
>>in the first year (think $3K+).
>
>
>
> Insurance cost or instructional requirement doesn't sound prohibitive
> or a 'big hit', based on your figures. If a person is spending $120k
> on an aircraft, an extra $1500 for insurance for the first year is not
> all that significant (particularly if the insurance cost goes down to
> a lower level in year #2.) Likewise, the cost of 25 hours of dual
> instruction ($1,000?) also looks like money well spent, and not
> significant in the context of a $120k purchase.
>
> I am sure an aircraft such the one the poster is contemplating will
> cost him $100-125k. An extra $3k to become comfortable flying it
> over the long-term sounds like a good deal.
>
> John
He was saying the ins. was 15 thousand.

[Jay Honeck]

> " paying upwards of $15K per YEAR for full coverage."
>
> this is for single engine airplanes with 4 seats?

Yes. Go tell your insurance guy that you're thinking about buying a Cirrus
SR-22, or a Lancair IV, and see what he tells you.

In five years of paying insurance premiums, you will have bought a nice
house in the country.

I call that "uninsurable"...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Paul Lee]

Well at least you have qualified your "definition" of uninsurable.
Initially your statement was "..are completely uninsurable.."

Even I have said that some experimentals insurance is beyond
the owners budget.

> I'm sorry, but in my world, that's "uninsurable"...

We all live in the same world and its a good idea to communicate
clearly - without too much bias.

>......$15K per YEAR for full coverage

Thats really not so bad for aircraft category that compare to
$500K certified range. However, the owner budget determines
whether they can afford the coverage - I don't even have
collision on my autos because it saves money over my
lifetime.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:<cN7Bb.469786$Tr4.1294785@attbi_s03>...
> > On the contrary, MOST experimentals ARE insurable.
>
> Well, in the same sense that Betty Grable's legs were "insurable".
>
> The only experimental aircraft with affordable insurance that I know of is
> the RV line. I've talked to the Glasair and Lancair people (and the Cirrus
> people, in the certificated category), and they all just try to change the
> subject when you bring up insurance. They ALL try to gloss over the fact
> that you will be paying upwards of $15K per YEAR for full coverage.
>
> I'm sorry, but in my world, that's "uninsurable"...

[Roger Halstead]

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 03:07:38 GMT, (Ben Jackson) wrote:

>In article >,
>O. Sami Saydjari > wrote:
>>8. Insurable for a pilot with only 350 hrs PIC experience (no HP/complex
>>time)
>
>You can get insurance with no HP/complex time, but you'll have to fly
>more dual before you can solo.

I moved into the Deb which is basically the same as an F-33 with 300
hours and nothing faster than a Cherokee 180. As I recall it was 15
hours dual...It might have been 25, but I think it was 15 before
they'd let me solo( I'd have to find that old logbook), but at that
point I could carry passengers.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Return address modified due to dumb virus checkers
>
>>I have been thinking about a Piper Comanche 260 and a Piper Turbo Arrow
>>III/IV. I was considering a Mooney M20J, but they feel a little cramped
>
>Where are you located? Have you flown the Comanche or the Arrow?

[Roger Halstead]

On 8 Dec 2003 14:07:08 -0800, (Paul Lee) wrote:

>On the contrary, MOST experimentals ARE insurable. There were a
>few incidents where AVEMCO would not insure a FEW hi performance
>experimentals, but then EAA cut its ties with AVEMCO and
>the new EAA insurer is now Falcon Insurance.
>If you are interested, there are more details at
>http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/031126_insurance.html
>
>However, what may be true is that the hull insurance on a few
>hi perf. experimentals may be beyond budget for SOME owners.

I'm not sure what it is now, but the first year on at G-III (Glasair
III) was nearly $6,000 although when you consider a well equipped one
is worth close to $250,000 that ain't all that bad.

They are hot and landing one is more like landing a twin, but other
than that they are like flying most other planes..except things happen
a lot faster and you have to plan farther ahead.

With the Deb at 7,000 I have to start down nearly 40 miles out to make
the approach to 3BS. With the G-III It'd be more like 60 miles out.

>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Return address modified due to dumb virus checkers
>
>And if somebody is interested in a particular experimental,
>they can contact the KIT Mfg. and ask them.
>
>----------------------------------------------------
>Paul Lee, SQ2000 canard project: www.abri.com/sq2000
>
>"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:<EN0Bb.269559$Dw6.916917@attbi_s02>...
>> > If you will consider experimentals, the Lancair IV-P is the king.
>> > 4-seats, 330mph TAS, pressurized. Price tag is $350-500k depending on
>> > options.
>>
>> Don't forget that most experimentals -- especially in this category -- are
>> completely uninsurable. You might get liability coverage, but nothing more.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Return address modified due to dumb virus checkers

[Roger Halstead]

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 23:27:04 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> On the contrary, MOST experimentals ARE insurable.
>
>Well, in the same sense that Betty Grable's legs were "insurable".
>
>The only experimental aircraft with affordable insurance that I know of is
>the RV line. I've talked to the Glasair and Lancair people (and the Cirrus
>people, in the certificated category), and they all just try to change the
>subject when you bring up insurance. They ALL try to gloss over the fact
>that you will be paying upwards of $15K per YEAR for full coverage.

I was quoted less than $6,000 for the G-III about a year ago although
it may be higher now.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Return address modified due to dumb virus checkers
>
>I'm sorry, but in my world, that's "uninsurable"...

[Roger Halstead]

On 8 Dec 2003 11:36:25 -0800, (Michael) wrote:

>"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote
>> 1. Fast: >160 kts
>> 2. Price range: $75K-$120K
>> 3. Four Seater
>> 4. Range: >800nm
>> 5. Useful Payload (with full fuel); > 650lbs
>> 6. Retains its value well over time
>> 7. Reliable: Engine TBO of 2000 hrs, good saftey record
>> 8. Insurable for a pilot with only 350 hrs PIC experience (no HP/complex
>> time)
>
>No airplane in that class really has a good safety record (in the
>sense that something like a C-172 does). These airplanes are used for
>transportation, not training and going around the patch. Virtually
>any certified tri-gear landplane that can be bought for $120K in good
>condition is going to be insurable for you, but anything in the
>performance class you want will require 10-25 hours dual and a big hit
>in the first year (think $3K+).

True with the dual, but ...
I don't pay near that with 80,000 full hull coverage and never did.
Max was around $1500 per year.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Return address modified due to dumb virus checkers
>
>> I have been thinking about a Piper Comanche 260 and a Piper Turbo Arrow
>> III/IV. I was considering a Mooney M20J, but they feel a little cramped
>> in the cabin to me. What I am looking for is the best dollars/kts
>> airplane (what we call price/performance in the computer biz) that meets
>> the above requirements. I would really appreciate suggestions and advice.
>
>First off, never compare top speeds between normally aspirated and
>turbo - they are not comparable. The turbo needs to go high to get
>its speed, and that means you never go very fast when Westbound.
>Pretty quick going East, though. Unless you NEED to go high (meaning
>you fly in the mountains) a turbo is rarely cost-effective.
>
>The Comanche 260 is a good choice for what you want - make sure it has
>at least 84 gallons of fuel. The Mooney is cramped in the cabin - if
>you're going to fly long legs, you won't enjoy it unless you are thin.
> Other planes you might consider:
>
>A 1960's era Bonanza. Most Bonanzas of that era don't make book speed
>because they were tested clean (without antennas) but they're still
>the fastest thing around with a reasonably roomy cabin.
>
>A Viking. Wood wings are an issue (get one from a dry climate and
>hangar it) but purchase price is low, and the speed is there. The
>14-19 is the tailwheel version - way cool, but insurance will be an
>issue.
>
>You may also consider twins. The only ones that really fit your
>mission profile while maintianing similar operating costs are the Twin
>Comanche and Beech Travel Air. Insurance will be higher ($4K+) if you
>are instrument rated, and ridiculous ($6K+) if you are not. Purchase
>price will be lower than a comparably performing single.
>
>Michael

[Jeff]

Last week, while flying into Carlsbad, california, they gave me 20 miles to descend and make the
airport. I was on an IFR flight plan at 14,000 ft, at 19 miles out I intercepted the ILS. I am glad the
weather was VFR because I didn't make it. I had to cancel and ask for a 360 about 3 miles from the
airport.
Man my ears hurt after that...first times they have ever hurt like that.

If I had dropped my gear and slowed down when I was at 19 miles out I am sure I could have made it, but
with a GS of 175-180 kts it wasn't happening.

Roger Halstead wrote:

> On 8 Dec 2003 14:07:08 -0800, (Paul Lee) wrote:
>
> >On the contrary, MOST experimentals ARE insurable. There were a
> >few incidents where AVEMCO would not insure a FEW hi performance
> >experimentals, but then EAA cut its ties with AVEMCO and
> >the new EAA insurer is now Falcon Insurance.
> >If you are interested, there are more details at
> >http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/031126_insurance.html
> >
> >However, what may be true is that the hull insurance on a few
> >hi perf. experimentals may be beyond budget for SOME owners.
>
> I'm not sure what it is now, but the first year on at G-III (Glasair
> III) was nearly $6,000 although when you consider a well equipped one
> is worth close to $250,000 that ain't all that bad.
>
> They are hot and landing one is more like landing a twin, but other
> than that they are like flying most other planes..except things happen
> a lot faster and you have to plan farther ahead.
>
> With the Deb at 7,000 I have to start down nearly 40 miles out to make
> the approach to 3BS. With the G-III It'd be more like 60 miles out.
>
> >
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
> www.rogerhalstead.com
> Return address modified due to dumb virus checkers
> >
> >And if somebody is interested in a particular experimental,
> >they can contact the KIT Mfg. and ask them.
> >
> >----------------------------------------------------
> >Paul Lee, SQ2000 canard project: www.abri.com/sq2000
> >
> >"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:<EN0Bb.269559$Dw6.916917@attbi_s02>...
> >> > If you will consider experimentals, the Lancair IV-P is the king.
> >> > 4-seats, 330mph TAS, pressurized. Price tag is $350-500k depending on
> >> > options.
> >>
> >> Don't forget that most experimentals -- especially in this category -- are
> >> completely uninsurable. You might get liability coverage, but nothing more.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
> www.rogerhalstead.com
> Return address modified due to dumb virus checkers

[Roger Halstead]

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 02:01:25 -0800, Jeff > wrote:

>Last week, while flying into Carlsbad, california, they gave me 20 miles to descend and make the
>airport. I was on an IFR flight plan at 14,000 ft, at 19 miles out I intercepted the ILS. I am glad the
>weather was VFR because I didn't make it. I had to cancel and ask for a 360 about 3 miles from the
>airport.
>Man my ears hurt after that...first times they have ever hurt like that.

If I know the terrain will permit it, I let ATC know when I need to
start down, or I will require vectors to get down. Unless there is an
over riding reason they'd much rather have me start down earlier
rather than having to vector me around to lose altitude.

Of course the other possible option is to slow down to get a steeper
descent profile.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Return address modified due to dumb virus checkers
<snip>

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On 8 Dec 2003 06:16:34 -0800, (Nathan Young)
wrote:

>Fastest production is probably the Mooney 252 series (now called
>TLS/Bravo). These will do 220 KTAS. For new planes, the pricetag is
>similar to the Lancair, although an older 252 would be $150k+.

Just a small nit. The Mooney 252 and the TLS/Bravo are different
airplanes, although both are turbocharged.

They have different airframes, type certificates, model numbers, etc.

If memory serves, the TLS/Bravo is an M20M, and the 252 is an M20K.

(The M20 series includes, I believe, just about every airplane that Mooney
produced except, perhaps, for the Mooney Mite).


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Jay Honeck]

> I was quoted less than $6,000 for the G-III about a year ago although
> it may be higher now.

Our friends who bought our Warrior inquired about purchasing a Lancair kit
at OSH '03. When the salesman found out they were 500-hour, VFR pilots, he
didn't want to even discuss insurance.

We have a friend who is finally (after 10 years!) finishing his GlasAir.
It's retractable, with a 300 HP O-540, with a $60K panel -- and completely
uninsurable. Even with his university payscale, he admits there is no way
in the world he could afford to fully insure it.

I've got a $100K plane, and pay less than $1300 per year for full coverage
on two pilots. To me, it just doesn't make any sense to buy a $250 K
airplane, (as in the case of a Cirrus) and then pay $15K per year to insure
it. You're getting just 2.5 times more value (less, really, considering
depreciation), and paying more then TEN times more annually to insure it?

That's nuts.

Worse, it eliminates many people who, like my friends, could afford the
$1000-per-month payments on a Cirrus (spread over 20 years), but could not
swing the extra $1250 per month to insure it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 23:27:04 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> > wrote:
>
> >> On the contrary, MOST experimentals ARE insurable.
> >
> >Well, in the same sense that Betty Grable's legs were "insurable".
> >
> >The only experimental aircraft with affordable insurance that I know of
is
> >the RV line. I've talked to the Glasair and Lancair people (and the
Cirrus
> >people, in the certificated category), and they all just try to change
the
> >subject when you bring up insurance. They ALL try to gloss over the fact
> >that you will be paying upwards of $15K per YEAR for full coverage.
>
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
> www.rogerhalstead.com
> Return address modified due to dumb virus checkers
> >
> >I'm sorry, but in my world, that's "uninsurable"...
>

[Mike Rapoport]

When you consider that the Glasair is a *retractible* and if it is worth
$250K then $7000 doesn't seem too far out of line.

Mike
MU-2


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:V5lBb.481595$Tr4.1326775@attbi_s03...
> > I was quoted less than $6,000 for the G-III about a year ago although
> > it may be higher now.
>
> Our friends who bought our Warrior inquired about purchasing a Lancair kit
> at OSH '03. When the salesman found out they were 500-hour, VFR pilots,
he
> didn't want to even discuss insurance.
>
> We have a friend who is finally (after 10 years!) finishing his GlasAir.
> It's retractable, with a 300 HP O-540, with a $60K panel -- and completely
> uninsurable. Even with his university payscale, he admits there is no way
> in the world he could afford to fully insure it.
>
> I've got a $100K plane, and pay less than $1300 per year for full coverage
> on two pilots. To me, it just doesn't make any sense to buy a $250 K
> airplane, (as in the case of a Cirrus) and then pay $15K per year to
insure
> it. You're getting just 2.5 times more value (less, really, considering
> depreciation), and paying more then TEN times more annually to insure it?
>
> That's nuts.
>
> Worse, it eliminates many people who, like my friends, could afford the
> $1000-per-month payments on a Cirrus (spread over 20 years), but could not
> swing the extra $1250 per month to insure it.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
> "Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 23:27:04 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >> On the contrary, MOST experimentals ARE insurable.
> > >
> > >Well, in the same sense that Betty Grable's legs were "insurable".
> > >
> > >The only experimental aircraft with affordable insurance that I know of
> is
> > >the RV line. I've talked to the Glasair and Lancair people (and the
> Cirrus
> > >people, in the certificated category), and they all just try to change
> the
> > >subject when you bring up insurance. They ALL try to gloss over the
fact
> > >that you will be paying upwards of $15K per YEAR for full coverage.
> >
> >
> > Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> > (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
> > www.rogerhalstead.com
> > Return address modified due to dumb virus checkers
> > >
> > >I'm sorry, but in my world, that's "uninsurable"...
> >
>
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> They ALL try to gloss over the fact
> that you will be paying upwards of $15K per YEAR for full coverage.

I spoke to my insurance broker about insurance on a Velocity. He gave a figure
of "about $2,000".

George Patterson
Some people think they hear a call to the priesthood when what they really
hear is a tiny voice whispering "It's indoor work with no heavy lifting".

[Jay Honeck]

> I spoke to my insurance broker about insurance on a Velocity. He gave a
figure
> of "about $2,000".

For full coverage? No way.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Doug]

Suggest you request ATC "a descent in the hold because we are above
our descent profile".

Jeff > wrote in message >...
> Last week, while flying into Carlsbad, california, they gave me 20 miles to descend and make the
> airport. I was on an IFR flight plan at 14,000 ft, at 19 miles out I intercepted the ILS. I am glad the
> weather was VFR because I didn't make it. I had to cancel and ask for a 360 about 3 miles from the
> airport.
> Man my ears hurt after that...first times they have ever hurt like that.
>
> If I had dropped my gear and slowed down when I was at 19 miles out I am sure I could have made it, but
> with a GS of 175-180 kts it wasn't happening.
>
> Roger Halstead wrote:
>
> > On 8 Dec 2003 14:07:08 -0800, (Paul Lee) wrote:
> >
> > >On the contrary, MOST experimentals ARE insurable. There were a
> > >few incidents where AVEMCO would not insure a FEW hi performance
> > >experimentals, but then EAA cut its ties with AVEMCO and
> > >the new EAA insurer is now Falcon Insurance.
> > >If you are interested, there are more details at
> > >http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/031126_insurance.html
> > >
> > >However, what may be true is that the hull insurance on a few
> > >hi perf. experimentals may be beyond budget for SOME owners.
> >
> > I'm not sure what it is now, but the first year on at G-III (Glasair
> > III) was nearly $6,000 although when you consider a well equipped one
> > is worth close to $250,000 that ain't all that bad.
> >
> > They are hot and landing one is more like landing a twin, but other
> > than that they are like flying most other planes..except things happen
> > a lot faster and you have to plan farther ahead.
> >
> > With the Deb at 7,000 I have to start down nearly 40 miles out to make
> > the approach to 3BS. With the G-III It'd be more like 60 miles out.
> >
> > >
> > Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> > (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
> > www.rogerhalstead.com
> > Return address modified due to dumb virus checkers
> > >
> > >And if somebody is interested in a particular experimental,
> > >they can contact the KIT Mfg. and ask them.
> > >
> > >----------------------------------------------------
> > >Paul Lee, SQ2000 canard project: www.abri.com/sq2000
> > >
> > >"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:<EN0Bb.269559$Dw6.916917@attbi_s02>...
> > >> > If you will consider experimentals, the Lancair IV-P is the king.
> > >> > 4-seats, 330mph TAS, pressurized. Price tag is $350-500k depending on
> > >> > options.
> > >>
> > >> Don't forget that most experimentals -- especially in this category -- are
> > >> completely uninsurable. You might get liability coverage, but nothing more.
> >
> > Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> > (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
> > www.rogerhalstead.com
> > Return address modified due to dumb virus checkers

[ISLIP]

I was always under the impression that hull insurance ran about 1 1/2 - 2% of
a/c value. My SR20 is insured for $250K at about $4100. The liability portion
is roughly another $600.
I think the $15K you refer to is for the SR22 w/ a hull value of >$350K with
low time, non instrument rated pilots/students. The rate drops sharply with the
rating and time in type. That is based on numerous posts on the public & member
forums of www.cirruspilots.org

John
SR20

[Roger Halstead]

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:04:12 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:

>When you consider that the Glasair is a *retractible* and if it is worth
>$250K then $7000 doesn't seem too far out of line.

Not at all.

As a quick check, the G-III kit is basically $61,000 with the fast
build options. The engine, at a discount, is about $46,000, the prop
is going to run maybe $10,000 (give or take a tad) for $117,000 and
all we have are a pile of parts with an engine and prop. Figure at
least another $40,000 for a full IFR panel and that is being frugal.
I'd figure at least $60,000 in the panel for a total of $177,000 and
you still have a pile of parts and probably 4000 hours of effort to
make an airplane out of them.

Sure the frugally minded can find the engine, prop, and panel parts
used for a lot less and figure their time as nothing, but the
insurance company doesn't see it that way.

>
>Mike
>MU-2
>
>
>"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>news:V5lBb.481595$Tr4.1326775@attbi_s03...
>> > I was quoted less than $6,000 for the G-III about a year ago although
>> > it may be higher now.
>>
>> Our friends who bought our Warrior inquired about purchasing a Lancair kit
>> at OSH '03. When the salesman found out they were 500-hour, VFR pilots,

What would he have done had they been talking about an A36 Bonanza, or
a Baron?
My first insurance break came at 600 hours, then for the hours flown
in make and model, then per year, and finally a paltry 5% discount for
the instrument rating.

In the one case you have two low time pilots with no high performance
or retract time, looking at flying something that has the equivalent
to the flying characteristics of a P-51 and some complex systems
(assuming you are talking about the IV-P). I've seen IV-Ps listed at
half a million. I have no idea if they sold at that, but as it'd be
difficult to complete a well equipped one for under $250,000 they
probably did.

The 320, 360 and Legacy are different birds, but still a really big
transition for a pilot who has 300 to 500 hours flying fixed gear, non
complex aircraft. The Legacy is a bit larger with a lot more HP, but
"in my opinion" better behaved than the 320 and 360.

In the case of the friend building the G-III, it depends on his
experience.

>he
>> didn't want to even discuss insurance.
>>
>> We have a friend who is finally (after 10 years!) finishing his GlasAir.
>> It's retractable, with a 300 HP O-540, with a $60K panel -- and completely
>> uninsurable. Even with his university payscale, he admits there is no way
>> in the world he could afford to fully insure it.

I was under the impression that universities didn't pay all that well
compared to industry.

If he has less than a 1000 hours with plenty of high
performance/complex/retract time he should be able to find comparable
insurance for a quarter million dollar airplane.

>>
>> I've got a $100K plane, and pay less than $1300 per year for full coverage
>> on two pilots. To me, it just doesn't make any sense to buy a $250 K
>> airplane, (as in the case of a Cirrus) and then pay $15K per year to
>insure

That's over twice what I was quoted a year ago for the G-III, but I'm
not low time with no high performance/complex/retract time. OTOH I
don't figure 1300 hours is high time either...nor did they when I
looked at insuring a TBM-700. The rates weren't bad for a plane of
that price range (I won't use the "M" word.) at $25,000 per year, but
I would have had to put in the equivalent of 200 hours dual. IE, the
first 200 hours required a CFII copilot and specific make and model
training for both of us(believe it was twice the first year and yearly
there after)

>> it. You're getting just 2.5 times more value (less, really, considering
>> depreciation), and paying more then TEN times more annually to insure it?

Much of that cost depends on how much *faster* you will be flying. It
also depends in the case of the Cirrus of some very costly repairs and
new complex systems (glass cockpit). If you pop that chute it will be
extremely expensive. It gets very, very expensive to be safer. Plus
the plane is of a new type construction and is only developing a
history and that makes it an unknown. With unknowns the industry is
going to err on the safe side (for them). If many of those chutes get
popped the rates will most likely go up even more.


>>
>> That's nuts.
>>
>> Worse, it eliminates many people who, like my friends, could afford the
>> $1000-per-month payments on a Cirrus (spread over 20 years), but could not
>> swing the extra $1250 per month to insure it.

The plane has the potential for some very expensive repairs.
How about the new Lancair production aircraft? How do the rates run on
those? They are fast, glass, and a new technology, but with fixed
gear and no chute to tear them apart.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Return address modified due to dumb virus checkers

>> --
>> Jay Honeck
>> Iowa City, IA
>> Pathfinder N56993
>> www.AlexisParkInn.com
>> "Your Aviation Destination"
>>
>> "Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 23:27:04 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> > >> On the contrary, MOST experimentals ARE insurable.
>> > >
>> > >Well, in the same sense that Betty Grable's legs were "insurable".
>> > >
>> > >The only experimental aircraft with affordable insurance that I know of
>> is
>> > >the RV line. I've talked to the Glasair and Lancair people (and the
>> Cirrus
>> > >people, in the certificated category), and they all just try to change
>> the
>> > >subject when you bring up insurance. They ALL try to gloss over the
>fact
>> > >that you will be paying upwards of $15K per YEAR for full coverage.
>> >
>> >
>> > Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>> > (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
>> > www.rogerhalstead.com
>> > Return address modified due to dumb virus checkers
>> > >
>> > >I'm sorry, but in my world, that's "uninsurable"...
>> >
>>
>>
>

[Jay Honeck]

> I think the $15K you refer to is for the SR22 w/ a hull value of >$350K
with
> low time, non instrument rated pilots/students.

Well, I don't know if 500 hours is considered "low-time". But if what you
say is true, tripling the insurance rates simply for lack of an IR seems
ridiculous, given the fact that the couple in question is on their third
plane -- all accident/incident-free. Many years of perfectly safe VFR
flight, in three different planes, should count for something.

Insurance people drive me nuts.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

On 9-Dec-2003, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> Well, I don't know if 500 hours is considered "low-time". But if what you
> say is true, tripling the insurance rates simply for lack of an IR seems
> ridiculous, given the fact that the couple in question is on their third
> plane -- all accident/incident-free. Many years of perfectly safe VFR
> flight, in three different planes, should count for something.


My guess -- and that's all it is; I don't know a great deal about the
insurance biz -- is that the underwriters look at expensive, high
performance airplanes, with lots of expensive, high performance IFR
avionics, and assume that VFR pilots will be tempted to fly them in at least
marginal VFR conditions, with deadly results. Unfortunately, VFR flight in
IFR conditions continues to be a top cause of accidents. If your friends
want to own and fly a high performance airplane they might be well served to
get an IFR rating just on the basis of reduced cost for insurance. That
their investment would then have much greater utility would of course be a
bonus.

In my case, when my partners got their IFR tickets the insurance premiums on
our Arrow went down significantly. I imagine that the difference for
something like an SR-22 would be dramatic.

--
-Elliott Drucker

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> and then pay $15K per year to insure
> it.
>

where do you get this number? I haven't heard of anyone paying that
much for a Cirrus.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> tripling the insurance rates simply for lack of an IR seems
> ridiculous, given the fact that the couple in question is on their third
> plane -- all accident/incident-free.
>

Well, not really. VFR into IMC leads the accident statistics. And I don't
understand the couple in question: doing the IR is a no-brainer costwise,
with that kind of differential.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jay Honeck]

> > and then pay $15K per year to insure
> > it.

That's the number quoted to my 500 hour, VFR, incident/accident-free friend
by AOPA.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Michael]

wrote
> My guess -- and that's all it is; I don't know a great deal about the
> insurance biz -- is that the underwriters look at expensive, high
> performance airplanes, with lots of expensive, high performance IFR
> avionics, and assume that VFR pilots will be tempted to fly them in at least
> marginal VFR conditions, with deadly results.

I think what you say is true, but incomplete. There are basically
three ways of dealing with reduced ceilings/visibilities - just say
no, go IFR, or scud run. Someone flying an expensive and fast
airplane clearly bought it to go places - he's not going to be too
interested in just saying no. Lacking an instrument rating, he won't
be able to file IFR. Scud running works OK in airplanes that
COMFORTABLY fly at low speed and can, in a pinch, land off airport and
take off again without damage, but those kinds of airplanes are NOT
fast. It's nothing special about the Cirrus - getting insurance in
ANY fast airplane (Bonanza, Comanche, Viking, Mooney) is signifcantly
more expensive without an instrument rating. And no - hundreds of
hours of accident-free VFR flying don't make any difference if they're
in a C-172 or Cherokee, because the things you can get away with in a
C-172 or Cherokee are going to kill you in a Bonanza or a Cirrus.

> Unfortunately, VFR flight in
> IFR conditions continues to be a top cause of accidents.

Not really. Check out the Nall report - all weather related accidents
(including VFR into IMC) are barely a quarter of the accident picture.
And instrument rated private pilots (less than 20% of the private
pilot population) don't seem to have a better record on VFR-into-IMC
accidents than those who are not rated.

Michael

[Guy Byars]

> > Unfortunately, VFR flight in
> > IFR conditions continues to be a top cause of accidents.
>
> Not really. Check out the Nall report - all weather related accidents
> (including VFR into IMC) are barely a quarter of the accident picture.

If you look only at *FATAL* accidents, I think you will find the percentage
of weather related accidents (VFR into IMC) will be much higher.

[Dashi]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:5UFBb.491370$HS4.3767341@attbi_s01...
> > > and then pay $15K per year to insure
> > > it.
>
> That's the number quoted to my 500 hour, VFR, incident/accident-free
friend
> by AOPA.

Man for those prices you could make a good down payment on a 100 acres and
build your own airstrip.

Dashi

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> That's the number quoted to my 500 hour, VFR, incident/accident-free friend
> by AOPA.

AOPA is not the best choice for many of these planes. The last person I spoke
to at AOPA about insurance was honest enough to state that their company could
not give me a competitive rate on my Maule. Your friend should call a real
insurance broker.

George Patterson
Some people think they hear a call to the priesthood when what they really
hear is a tiny voice whispering "It's indoor work with no heavy lifting".

[Joe Maj]

(ISLIP) wrote in message >...
> I was always under the impression that hull insurance ran about 1 1/2 - 2% of
> a/c value. My SR20 is insured for $250K at about $4100. The liability portion
> is roughly another $600.
> I think the $15K you refer to is for the SR22 w/ a hull value of >$350K with
> low time, non instrument rated pilots/students. The rate drops sharply with the
> rating and time in type. That is based on numerous posts on the public & member
> forums of www.cirruspilots.org
>
> John
> SR20

Mooney insurance for IFR pilots with 100 hours of retract is about 500
for liability and 1% of hull value. A 250K Mooney would cost about
$3K to insure.

[[email protected]]

On 10-Dec-2003, (Michael) wrote:

> I think what you say is true, but incomplete. There are basically
> three ways of dealing with reduced ceilings/visibilities - just say
> no, go IFR, or scud run. Someone flying an expensive and fast
> airplane clearly bought it to go places - he's not going to be too
> interested in just saying no. Lacking an instrument rating, he won't
> be able to file IFR. Scud running works OK in airplanes that
> COMFORTABLY fly at low speed and can, in a pinch, land off airport and
> take off again without damage, but those kinds of airplanes are NOT
> fast. It's nothing special about the Cirrus - getting insurance in
> ANY fast airplane (Bonanza, Comanche, Viking, Mooney) is signifcantly
> more expensive without an instrument rating. And no - hundreds of
> hours of accident-free VFR flying don't make any difference if they're
> in a C-172 or Cherokee, because the things you can get away with in a
> C-172 or Cherokee are going to kill you in a Bonanza or a Cirrus.


You've pretty much nailed it, I think. Unless his/her flying is restricted
to a region like the Southwest desert where IFR conditions are rare, a
non-IR pilot/owner of a high performance airplane just HAS to be viewed as
an elevated risk.

--
-Elliott Drucker

[Thomas Borchert]

Michael,

> Lacking an instrument rating, he won't
> be able to file IFR.
>

How so?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Dashi,

> Man for those prices you could make a good down payment on a 100 acres and
> build your own airstrip.
>

For those prices, you could easily get an IR ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Michael]

Thomas Borchert > wrote
> > Lacking an instrument rating, he won't
> > be able to file IFR.

Well, it is against regs. Sure, the controllers don't know, but...

See, there are a lot of people out there who file IFR without an
instrument rating. These people have the skill and knowledge to get
the rating (in fact, I would say on average they are better instrument
pilots than the average instrument rated private pilot) but they don't
get a rating for financial rasons. Don't want to pay to rent a plane
or upgrade, etc.

When you're looking at someone who can afforda Cirrus, that just
doesn't wash.

Michael

[ET]

(Michael) wrote in news:449a3d6e.0312110721.7a0d258
@posting.google.com:

> Thomas Borchert > wrote
>> > Lacking an instrument rating, he won't
>> > be able to file IFR.
>
> Well, it is against regs. Sure, the controllers don't know, but...
>
> See, there are a lot of people out there who file IFR without an
> instrument rating. These people have the skill and knowledge to get
> the rating (in fact, I would say on average they are better instrument
> pilots than the average instrument rated private pilot) but they don't
> get a rating for financial rasons. Don't want to pay to rent a plane
> or upgrade, etc.
>
> When you're looking at someone who can afforda Cirrus, that just
> doesn't wash.
>
> Michael
>

Hrm, I know nothing about what kind of records are kept, but wouldn't
that have the potential to come back and bite you? with perhaps serious
reprocussions?

--
ET >:)

(Future student pilot and future Zenith or Sonex builder)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Michael]

ET > wrote
> > See, there are a lot of people out there who file IFR without an
> > instrument rating.
> Hrm, I know nothing about what kind of records are kept, but wouldn't
> that have the potential to come back and bite you? with perhaps serious
> reprocussions?

Not unless there's an accident. Records are not kept. The
controllers don't know if you are rated or not, and really they don't
care either. As long as you comply with your clearance and don't
sound worse than average on the radio, the chances of getting caught
are nil. If you're not operating out of a towered field, you might
even use a fake name and tail number.

I know a lot of people who have filed IFR without benefit of rating.
I don't know any who were caught, but I do know at least one who went
on to become a captain for a major airline.

Michael

[Jay Honeck]

> I know a lot of people who have filed IFR without benefit of rating.
> I don't know any who were caught, but I do know at least one who went
> on to become a captain for a major airline.

I've never filed IFR illegally, but I know I can fly a very precise
instrument approach by sole reference to my yoke-mounted AvMap. Throw in a
few side references to my VORs, altimeter, and my count-down timer, and I
can practically taxi to my hangar without looking out the window.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Russell Kent]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> I've never filed IFR illegally, but I know I can fly a very precise
> instrument approach by sole reference to my yoke-mounted AvMap. Throw in a
> few side references to my VORs, altimeter, and my count-down timer, and I
> can practically taxi to my hangar without looking out the window.

Heck, any monkey can fly a plane in the soup if the AI, AH, and DG never fail or
drift. I get the impression (I'm VFR) that much of the IFR training involves
dealing with "non-ideal" situations.

If you were flying in IMC and that AvMap went TU, would you be in trouble? :-)

Russell Kent

[Dave Butler]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> I've never filed IFR illegally, but I know I can fly a very precise
> instrument approach by sole reference to my yoke-mounted AvMap. Throw in a
> few side references to my VORs, altimeter, and my count-down timer, and I
> can practically taxi to my hangar without looking out the window.

So, when did you say you were getting the rating? :-) It's time. We need you
over on rec.aviation.ifr.

Remove SHIRT to reply directly.
Dave
--
Dave Butler, software engineer 919-392-4367

[Michael]

"Guy Byars" > wrote
> If you look only at *FATAL* accidents, I think you will find the percentage
> of weather related accidents (VFR into IMC) will be much higher.

Your airplane insurance won't cover medical payments (beyond some
trivial amount) or your life, so an accident that totals the plane
costs them the same whether you walk away or die. Of course there's
passenger liability, but that tends to be a small portion of the
insurance payment.

Also, weather related accident does not equal VFR into IMC. In fact,
IFR in IMC accidents account for more fatalities than VFR into IMC.

Michael

[Ron Natalie]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> Of course there's
> passenger liability, but that tends to be a small portion of the
> insurance payment.

Passenger liability is a BIG portion of it. This is why the cost goes up
with the number of seats and the "per seat limits" are a lot cheaper than
smooth coverage.

[Tom]

"Michael" > wrote in message
m...
> ET > wrote
> > > See, there are a lot of people out there who file IFR without an
> > > instrument rating.
> > Hrm, I know nothing about what kind of records are kept, but wouldn't
> > that have the potential to come back and bite you? with perhaps serious
> > reprocussions?
>
> Not unless there's an accident. Records are not kept. The
> controllers don't know if you are rated or not, and really they don't
> care either. As long as you comply with your clearance and don't
> sound worse than average on the radio, the chances of getting caught
> are nil. If you're not operating out of a towered field, you might
> even use a fake name and tail number.
>
> I know a lot of people who have filed IFR without benefit of rating.
> I don't know any who were caught, but I do know at least one who went
> on to become a captain for a major airline.

Are they any reports in the NTSB database of a pilot that crashed while on
an instrument clearance who was later found not qualified? I've never heard
of one.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
DeBeers Advertisements:
"A Diamond is Forever!"
then...
"Diamonds - This year, take Her Breath Away!"
then still...
"Diamonds- Render Her Speechless!"
Why don't they just come out and say it: "Diamonds - That'll shut her up!"

[Ben Jackson]

In article >, Tom > wrote:
>
>Are they any reports in the NTSB database of a pilot that crashed while on
>an instrument clearance who was later found not qualified? I've never heard
>of one.

That's because your last words before crashing should be 'cancel IFR'.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Tom]

"Ben Jackson" > wrote in message
news:ih9Cb.504692$HS4.3910655@attbi_s01...
> In article >, Tom >
wrote:
> >
> >Are they any reports in the NTSB database of a pilot that crashed while
on
> >an instrument clearance who was later found not qualified? I've never
heard
> >of one.
>
> That's because your last words before crashing should be 'cancel IFR'.
>

Wouldn't change the NTSB report, but he would beat the paramedics to the
crash site by half an hour.

[Thomas Borchert]

Michael,

> I know a lot of people who have filed IFR without benefit of rating.
> I don't know any who were caught, but I do know at least one who went
> on to become a captain for a major airline.
>

Well, seems that one was caught here in Germany a few weeks ago in the
ultimate way: He crashed and died. Official accident report is still
not done, though.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Dennis O'Connor]

I have met a number of pilots who were not instrument rated but claimed they
had the right stuff... There have been a couple of times when I was forced
to shoot an approach to minimums with the airplane bucking and shaking...
It would have been nice to have one of those right stuff pilots to take over
for me at that point...
Denny
"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Michael,
>
> > I know a lot of people who have filed IFR without benefit of rating.
> > I don't know any who were caught, but I do know at least one who went
> > on to become a captain for a major airline.
> >
>
> Well, seems that one was caught here in Germany a few weeks ago in the
> ultimate way: He crashed and died. Official accident report is still
> not done, though.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

[Roger Halstead]

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:49:23 +0100, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>Dashi,
>
>> Man for those prices you could make a good down payment on a 100 acres and
>> build your own airstrip.
>>
>
>For those prices, you could easily get an IR ;-)

AND the equipent for the airplane to go with it.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Return address modified due to dumb virus checkers

[O. Sami Saydjari]

Does anyone have, or know where I can find, an ordered list of high
performance single-engine (HPSE) aircraft according to their crusing speed?

It would even be cooler to have (average) retail prices in the list.
If not, I will work on a project to put such a list together if others
are interested. What I would really like to see is which aircraft has
the best purchase-price-to-speed ratio. Someone has to have created
such a list somewhere?!

-Sami

O. Sami Saydjari wrote:
> Folks, I am a first-time aircraft buyer. I have a general idea of the
> type of aircraft I want, but am having trouble narrowing the list down.
> Here is my general list of wants/needs:
>
> 1. Fast: >160 kts
> 2. Price range: $75K-$120K
> 3. Four Seater
> 4. Range: >800nm
> 5. Useful Payload (with full fuel); > 650lbs
> 6. Retains its value well over time
> 7. Reliable: Engine TBO of 2000 hrs, good saftey record
> 8. Insurable for a pilot with only 350 hrs PIC experience (no HP/complex
> time)
>
>
> I have been thinking about a Piper Comanche 260 and a Piper Turbo Arrow
> III/IV. I was considering a Mooney M20J, but they feel a little cramped
> in the cabin to me. What I am looking for is the best dollars/kts
> airplane (what we call price/performance in the computer biz) that meets
> the above requirements. I would really appreciate suggestions and advice.
>
> -Sami
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:
>
> What I would really like to see is which aircraft has
> the best purchase-price-to-speed ratio. Someone has to have created
> such a list somewhere?!

A few minutes after such a list is published in any widely-read forum, it will
be out of date. The prices on the "best" aircraft will jump about 30% shortly
thereafter.

At least, this is what happens every time a magazine like "Flying" publishes
their "Ten Best Deals" list. Stinsons recently got a boost from an AOPA article.
Good luck finding one at anything near the price AOPA quoted.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[David Megginson]

O. Sami Saydjari wrote:

> What I would really like to see is which aircraft has
> the best purchase-price-to-speed ratio. Someone has to have created
> such a list somewhere?!

Let's see:

Mooney 201: 90,000/170 = USD 529/kt
Cessna 172: 50,000/120 = USD 416/kt
Cherokee 140: 30,000/105 = USD 285/kt
Cessna 150: 20,000/90 = USD 222/kt

Looks like the 150 is the way to go.


All the best,


David

[Mike Rapoport]

What does it matter? You need to decide what is important to you, speed,
range, payload or price. You are not going to get all of them. Your price
range is so wide that I assume that you haven't really figured out how much
you can spend and your performance requirements are so high that you will
never find anything approaching your budget and your performance.

If I were you, I would buy a the Used Aircraft Guide and start reading and
think about what you are really looking for.

Mike
MU-2


"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
...
> Does anyone have, or know where I can find, an ordered list of high
> performance single-engine (HPSE) aircraft according to their crusing
speed?
>
> It would even be cooler to have (average) retail prices in the list.
> If not, I will work on a project to put such a list together if others
> are interested. What I would really like to see is which aircraft has
> the best purchase-price-to-speed ratio. Someone has to have created
> such a list somewhere?!
>
> -Sami
>
> O. Sami Saydjari wrote:
> > Folks, I am a first-time aircraft buyer. I have a general idea of the
> > type of aircraft I want, but am having trouble narrowing the list down.
> > Here is my general list of wants/needs:
> >
> > 1. Fast: >160 kts
> > 2. Price range: $75K-$120K
> > 3. Four Seater
> > 4. Range: >800nm
> > 5. Useful Payload (with full fuel); > 650lbs
> > 6. Retains its value well over time
> > 7. Reliable: Engine TBO of 2000 hrs, good saftey record
> > 8. Insurable for a pilot with only 350 hrs PIC experience (no HP/complex
> > time)
> >
> >
> > I have been thinking about a Piper Comanche 260 and a Piper Turbo Arrow
> > III/IV. I was considering a Mooney M20J, but they feel a little cramped
> > in the cabin to me. What I am looking for is the best dollars/kts
> > airplane (what we call price/performance in the computer biz) that meets
> > the above requirements. I would really appreciate suggestions and
advice.
> >
> > -Sami
> >
>

[O. Sami Saydjari]

Mike, I am going through a used aircraft guide and, unfortunately, they
do not ordr their lists in a convenient way. While I agree that I have
to consider they trade-offs carefully and make some hard choices, it
seems to me that those choices begin with information about each factor
(like speed) considered seperately. So...that is why it matters.

-Sami

Mike Rapoport wrote:
> What does it matter? You need to decide what is important to you, speed,
> range, payload or price. You are not going to get all of them. Your price
> range is so wide that I assume that you haven't really figured out how much
> you can spend and your performance requirements are so high that you will
> never find anything approaching your budget and your performance.
>
> If I were you, I would buy a the Used Aircraft Guide and start reading and
> think about what you are really looking for.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
> "O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Does anyone have, or know where I can find, an ordered list of high
>>performance single-engine (HPSE) aircraft according to their crusing
>
> speed?
>
>>It would even be cooler to have (average) retail prices in the list.
>>If not, I will work on a project to put such a list together if others
>>are interested. What I would really like to see is which aircraft has
>>the best purchase-price-to-speed ratio. Someone has to have created
>>such a list somewhere?!
>>
>>-Sami
>>
>>O. Sami Saydjari wrote:
>>
>>>Folks, I am a first-time aircraft buyer. I have a general idea of the
>>>type of aircraft I want, but am having trouble narrowing the list down.
>>> Here is my general list of wants/needs:
>>>
>>>1. Fast: >160 kts
>>>2. Price range: $75K-$120K
>>>3. Four Seater
>>>4. Range: >800nm
>>>5. Useful Payload (with full fuel); > 650lbs
>>>6. Retains its value well over time
>>>7. Reliable: Engine TBO of 2000 hrs, good saftey record
>>>8. Insurable for a pilot with only 350 hrs PIC experience (no HP/complex
>>>time)
>>>
>>>
>>>I have been thinking about a Piper Comanche 260 and a Piper Turbo Arrow
>>>III/IV. I was considering a Mooney M20J, but they feel a little cramped
>>>in the cabin to me. What I am looking for is the best dollars/kts
>>>airplane (what we call price/performance in the computer biz) that meets
>>>the above requirements. I would really appreciate suggestions and
>>
> advice.
>
>>>-Sami
>>>
>>
>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

If you are going to really make 800nm flights then there will only be a
handful of candidates (if any) that meet your other requirements and none of
them will be close to your budget. In fact, I'm pretty sure that there
isn't a single airplane that can meet your stated requirements at any price.

If you are really going to make 800nm flights then range is the only thing
that matters. It doesn't matter if one airplane is 30kts faster, if it has
to refuel it well get there second. Keep in mind that to fly 800nm legs you
will need over a 1000nm still air range. You might want to reconsider the
payload with full fuel requirement. It doesn't really matter what the full
fuel payload is. It matters what the payload is with enough fuel to make
the flight. It is unlikely that you will ever fly four people 800nm in a
single since it would be difficult to find three others who are willing to
spend 5hrs in a little airplane. Engine TBO is a just one part of operating
cost, it is silly to insist on some arbitrary number like 2000hrs. The real
issue is how much per hour the engine will cost over its lifetime.

I would look at what airplanes are within your budget.. Not just the
aquisition budget but the flying budget too. Can you spend $20k/yr on
flying? $30K? The worst airplane to own is one that is too expensive for
you to fly regardless of its other virtues. Budget issues will narrow down
the choices considerably. Then consider insurance if you feel you need
insurance. Then how many people will realistically be in the airplane and
how large are they. THEN you can consder the perfornace tradeoffs.

Mike
MU-2



"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
...
> Mike, I am going through a used aircraft guide and, unfortunately, they
> do not ordr their lists in a convenient way. While I agree that I have
> to consider they trade-offs carefully and make some hard choices, it
> seems to me that those choices begin with information about each factor
> (like speed) considered seperately. So...that is why it matters.
>
> -Sami
>
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > What does it matter? You need to decide what is important to you,
speed,
> > range, payload or price. You are not going to get all of them. Your
price
> > range is so wide that I assume that you haven't really figured out how
much
> > you can spend and your performance requirements are so high that you
will
> > never find anything approaching your budget and your performance.
> >
> > If I were you, I would buy a the Used Aircraft Guide and start reading
and
> > think about what you are really looking for.
> >
> > Mike
> > MU-2
> >
> >
> > "O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Does anyone have, or know where I can find, an ordered list of high
> >>performance single-engine (HPSE) aircraft according to their crusing
> >
> > speed?
> >
> >>It would even be cooler to have (average) retail prices in the list.
> >>If not, I will work on a project to put such a list together if others
> >>are interested. What I would really like to see is which aircraft has
> >>the best purchase-price-to-speed ratio. Someone has to have created
> >>such a list somewhere?!
> >>
> >>-Sami
> >>
> >>O. Sami Saydjari wrote:
> >>
> >>>Folks, I am a first-time aircraft buyer. I have a general idea of the
> >>>type of aircraft I want, but am having trouble narrowing the list down.
> >>> Here is my general list of wants/needs:
> >>>
> >>>1. Fast: >160 kts
> >>>2. Price range: $75K-$120K
> >>>3. Four Seater
> >>>4. Range: >800nm
> >>>5. Useful Payload (with full fuel); > 650lbs
> >>>6. Retains its value well over time
> >>>7. Reliable: Engine TBO of 2000 hrs, good saftey record
> >>>8. Insurable for a pilot with only 350 hrs PIC experience (no
HP/complex
> >>>time)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I have been thinking about a Piper Comanche 260 and a Piper Turbo Arrow
> >>>III/IV. I was considering a Mooney M20J, but they feel a little
cramped
> >>>in the cabin to me. What I am looking for is the best dollars/kts
> >>>airplane (what we call price/performance in the computer biz) that
meets
> >>>the above requirements. I would really appreciate suggestions and
> >>
> > advice.
> >
> >>>-Sami
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>

[O. Sami Saydjari]

Mike,

Actually, my typical flight will be about 660nm...so I need that
distance (plus 45 mins of reserve).

Still, it would be good to have a sorted list of complex planes based on
range. You are right...that is the key factor to consider first.
What I would like to know is that once I factor this in, which aircraft
make the short list. My used aircraft book does not list range in the
spec sheet. it lists fuel capacity, but it does not list cruise burn
rates, so it is hard to figure these out. I am just trying to tap into
the expereince of this forum to either make some suggestions, or point
me at sources that has the information I seek.

-sami

Mike Rapoport wrote:
> If you are going to really make 800nm flights then there will only be a
> handful of candidates (if any) that meet your other requirements and none of
> them will be close to your budget. In fact, I'm pretty sure that there
> isn't a single airplane that can meet your stated requirements at any price.
>
> If you are really going to make 800nm flights then range is the only thing
> that matters. It doesn't matter if one airplane is 30kts faster, if it has
> to refuel it well get there second. Keep in mind that to fly 800nm legs you
> will need over a 1000nm still air range. You might want to reconsider the
> payload with full fuel requirement. It doesn't really matter what the full
> fuel payload is. It matters what the payload is with enough fuel to make
> the flight. It is unlikely that you will ever fly four people 800nm in a
> single since it would be difficult to find three others who are willing to
> spend 5hrs in a little airplane. Engine TBO is a just one part of operating
> cost, it is silly to insist on some arbitrary number like 2000hrs. The real
> issue is how much per hour the engine will cost over its lifetime.
>
> I would look at what airplanes are within your budget.. Not just the
> aquisition budget but the flying budget too. Can you spend $20k/yr on
> flying? $30K? The worst airplane to own is one that is too expensive for
> you to fly regardless of its other virtues. Budget issues will narrow down
> the choices considerably. Then consider insurance if you feel you need
> insurance. Then how many people will realistically be in the airplane and
> how large are they. THEN you can consder the perfornace tradeoffs.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
>
> "O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Mike, I am going through a used aircraft guide and, unfortunately, they
>>do not ordr their lists in a convenient way. While I agree that I have
>>to consider they trade-offs carefully and make some hard choices, it
>>seems to me that those choices begin with information about each factor
>>(like speed) considered seperately. So...that is why it matters.
>>
>>-Sami
>>
>>Mike Rapoport wrote:
>>
>>>What does it matter? You need to decide what is important to you,
>>
> speed,
>
>>>range, payload or price. You are not going to get all of them. Your
>>
> price
>
>>>range is so wide that I assume that you haven't really figured out how
>>
> much
>
>>>you can spend and your performance requirements are so high that you
>>
> will
>
>>>never find anything approaching your budget and your performance.
>>>
>>>If I were you, I would buy a the Used Aircraft Guide and start reading
>>
> and
>
>>>think about what you are really looking for.
>>>
>>>Mike
>>>MU-2
>>>
>>>
>>>"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Does anyone have, or know where I can find, an ordered list of high
>>>>performance single-engine (HPSE) aircraft according to their crusing
>>>
>>>speed?
>>>
>>>
>>>>It would even be cooler to have (average) retail prices in the list.
>>>>If not, I will work on a project to put such a list together if others
>>>>are interested. What I would really like to see is which aircraft has
>>>>the best purchase-price-to-speed ratio. Someone has to have created
>>>>such a list somewhere?!
>>>>
>>>>-Sami
>>>>
>>>>O. Sami Saydjari wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Folks, I am a first-time aircraft buyer. I have a general idea of the
>>>>>type of aircraft I want, but am having trouble narrowing the list down.
>>>>>Here is my general list of wants/needs:
>>>>>
>>>>>1. Fast: >160 kts
>>>>>2. Price range: $75K-$120K
>>>>>3. Four Seater
>>>>>4. Range: >800nm
>>>>>5. Useful Payload (with full fuel); > 650lbs
>>>>>6. Retains its value well over time
>>>>>7. Reliable: Engine TBO of 2000 hrs, good saftey record
>>>>>8. Insurable for a pilot with only 350 hrs PIC experience (no
>>>>
> HP/complex
>
>>>>>time)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I have been thinking about a Piper Comanche 260 and a Piper Turbo Arrow
>>>>>III/IV. I was considering a Mooney M20J, but they feel a little
>>>>
> cramped
>
>>>>>in the cabin to me. What I am looking for is the best dollars/kts
>>>>>airplane (what we call price/performance in the computer biz) that
>>>>
> meets
>
>>>>>the above requirements. I would really appreciate suggestions and
>>>>
>>>advice.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>-Sami
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

Try: http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/

I don't know what "range" figure they are using (range with IFR reserves,
VFR reserves or dry tanks) but it is a place to start.

Mike
MU-2


"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
...
> Mike,
>
> Actually, my typical flight will be about 660nm...so I need that
> distance (plus 45 mins of reserve).
>
> Still, it would be good to have a sorted list of complex planes based on
> range. You are right...that is the key factor to consider first.
> What I would like to know is that once I factor this in, which aircraft
> make the short list. My used aircraft book does not list range in the
> spec sheet. it lists fuel capacity, but it does not list cruise burn
> rates, so it is hard to figure these out. I am just trying to tap into
> the expereince of this forum to either make some suggestions, or point
> me at sources that has the information I seek.
>
> -sami
>
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > If you are going to really make 800nm flights then there will only be a
> > handful of candidates (if any) that meet your other requirements and
none of
> > them will be close to your budget. In fact, I'm pretty sure that there
> > isn't a single airplane that can meet your stated requirements at any
price.
> >
> > If you are really going to make 800nm flights then range is the only
thing
> > that matters. It doesn't matter if one airplane is 30kts faster, if it
has
> > to refuel it well get there second. Keep in mind that to fly 800nm legs
you
> > will need over a 1000nm still air range. You might want to reconsider
the
> > payload with full fuel requirement. It doesn't really matter what the
full
> > fuel payload is. It matters what the payload is with enough fuel to
make
> > the flight. It is unlikely that you will ever fly four people 800nm in
a
> > single since it would be difficult to find three others who are willing
to
> > spend 5hrs in a little airplane. Engine TBO is a just one part of
operating
> > cost, it is silly to insist on some arbitrary number like 2000hrs. The
real
> > issue is how much per hour the engine will cost over its lifetime.
> >
> > I would look at what airplanes are within your budget.. Not just the
> > aquisition budget but the flying budget too. Can you spend $20k/yr on
> > flying? $30K? The worst airplane to own is one that is too expensive
for
> > you to fly regardless of its other virtues. Budget issues will narrow
down
> > the choices considerably. Then consider insurance if you feel you need
> > insurance. Then how many people will realistically be in the airplane
and
> > how large are they. THEN you can consder the perfornace tradeoffs.
> >
> > Mike
> > MU-2
> >
> >
> >
> > "O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Mike, I am going through a used aircraft guide and, unfortunately, they
> >>do not ordr their lists in a convenient way. While I agree that I have
> >>to consider they trade-offs carefully and make some hard choices, it
> >>seems to me that those choices begin with information about each factor
> >>(like speed) considered seperately. So...that is why it matters.
> >>
> >>-Sami
> >>
> >>Mike Rapoport wrote:
> >>
> >>>What does it matter? You need to decide what is important to you,
> >>
> > speed,
> >
> >>>range, payload or price. You are not going to get all of them. Your
> >>
> > price
> >
> >>>range is so wide that I assume that you haven't really figured out how
> >>
> > much
> >
> >>>you can spend and your performance requirements are so high that you
> >>
> > will
> >
> >>>never find anything approaching your budget and your performance.
> >>>
> >>>If I were you, I would buy a the Used Aircraft Guide and start reading
> >>
> > and
> >
> >>>think about what you are really looking for.
> >>>
> >>>Mike
> >>>MU-2
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Does anyone have, or know where I can find, an ordered list of high
> >>>>performance single-engine (HPSE) aircraft according to their crusing
> >>>
> >>>speed?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>It would even be cooler to have (average) retail prices in the list.
> >>>>If not, I will work on a project to put such a list together if others
> >>>>are interested. What I would really like to see is which aircraft has
> >>>>the best purchase-price-to-speed ratio. Someone has to have created
> >>>>such a list somewhere?!
> >>>>
> >>>>-Sami
> >>>>
> >>>>O. Sami Saydjari wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Folks, I am a first-time aircraft buyer. I have a general idea of
the
> >>>>>type of aircraft I want, but am having trouble narrowing the list
down.
> >>>>>Here is my general list of wants/needs:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>1. Fast: >160 kts
> >>>>>2. Price range: $75K-$120K
> >>>>>3. Four Seater
> >>>>>4. Range: >800nm
> >>>>>5. Useful Payload (with full fuel); > 650lbs
> >>>>>6. Retains its value well over time
> >>>>>7. Reliable: Engine TBO of 2000 hrs, good saftey record
> >>>>>8. Insurable for a pilot with only 350 hrs PIC experience (no
> >>>>
> > HP/complex
> >
> >>>>>time)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I have been thinking about a Piper Comanche 260 and a Piper Turbo
Arrow
> >>>>>III/IV. I was considering a Mooney M20J, but they feel a little
> >>>>
> > cramped
> >
> >>>>>in the cabin to me. What I am looking for is the best dollars/kts
> >>>>>airplane (what we call price/performance in the computer biz) that
> >>>>
> > meets
> >
> >>>>>the above requirements. I would really appreciate suggestions and
> >>>>
> >>>advice.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>-Sami
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >
> >
>

[Thomas Borchert]

O.,

> Still, it would be good to have a sorted list of complex planes based on
> range.
>

At what load? That's key to figure in. Do you need the full range of 800 nm
with four people? Do you need it with just yourself onboard?

FWIW, Aviation Consumer tends to have the info you need in their used
aircraft reviews.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Roger Halstead]

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 04:44:21 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:

>Try: http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/
>
>I don't know what "range" figure they are using (range with IFR reserves,
>VFR reserves or dry tanks) but it is a place to start.

I think Mike did a great job of listing the qualifications.

They have, at least for the Beech Deb and F33 only "basic" fuel and
much of that is incorrect. OTOH there were so many combinations
listed, but not used it does get confusing. They listed 50 gallons
as the capacity, but very few ever left the factory configured that
way. The early ones had two 25 mains and two 10 aux tanks. Early on
they went to 80 gallons. (You only know when you check out the
individual airplane)

Mine, from the factory has the 4 tank arrangement for 70 gallons @ 14
per hour or 5.0 hours with no reserve of 800 miles.

I carry an extra 15 in each tip for a bit over two more hours which
is roughly 1130 miles. Whack an hour off for reserve plus change and
it's basically an 800 mile plane with a useful load of 580# with full
gas. Either some one stays home or you leave some gas behind.
4 FAA standard 170# adults = 680#

With Joyce and I, it works out just fine and we can take along almost
everything except the kitchen sink. We even get two full size
bicycles in back.

No matter how you look at it the only way a Bo would go the distance
is with tip tanks and the budget doesn't go that high. And don't
forget to go with "useable fuel" and not how much the plane will
carry.

I think he needs to add about 30 to 40 thousand (if not 60,000) to the
price and figure about $20,000 a year.

But ... I can't think of a single plane that would fit the bill.
Going to 6 seats would, except the insurance companies might get fussy
plus the price would be even higher.

What about an older 210? Course the price for maintaining an older
retract can get kinda steep too.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Return address modified due to dumb virus checkers

>
>Mike
>MU-2
>
>
>"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
...
>> Mike,
>>
>> Actually, my typical flight will be about 660nm...so I need that
>> distance (plus 45 mins of reserve).
>>
>> Still, it would be good to have a sorted list of complex planes based on
>> range. You are right...that is the key factor to consider first.
>> What I would like to know is that once I factor this in, which aircraft
>> make the short list. My used aircraft book does not list range in the
>> spec sheet. it lists fuel capacity, but it does not list cruise burn
>> rates, so it is hard to figure these out. I am just trying to tap into
>> the expereince of this forum to either make some suggestions, or point
>> me at sources that has the information I seek.
>>
>> -sami
>>
>> Mike Rapoport wrote:
>> > If you are going to really make 800nm flights then there will only be a
>> > handful of candidates (if any) that meet your other requirements and
>none of
>> > them will be close to your budget. In fact, I'm pretty sure that there
>> > isn't a single airplane that can meet your stated requirements at any
>price.
>> >
>> > If you are really going to make 800nm flights then range is the only
>thing
>> > that matters. It doesn't matter if one airplane is 30kts faster, if it
>has
>> > to refuel it well get there second. Keep in mind that to fly 800nm legs
>you
>> > will need over a 1000nm still air range. You might want to reconsider
>the
>> > payload with full fuel requirement. It doesn't really matter what the
>full
>> > fuel payload is. It matters what the payload is with enough fuel to
>make
>> > the flight. It is unlikely that you will ever fly four people 800nm in
>a
>> > single since it would be difficult to find three others who are willing
>to
>> > spend 5hrs in a little airplane. Engine TBO is a just one part of
>operating
>> > cost, it is silly to insist on some arbitrary number like 2000hrs. The
>real
>> > issue is how much per hour the engine will cost over its lifetime.
>> >
>> > I would look at what airplanes are within your budget.. Not just the
>> > aquisition budget but the flying budget too. Can you spend $20k/yr on
>> > flying? $30K? The worst airplane to own is one that is too expensive
>for
>> > you to fly regardless of its other virtues. Budget issues will narrow
>down
>> > the choices considerably. Then consider insurance if you feel you need
>> > insurance. Then how many people will realistically be in the airplane
>and
>> > how large are they. THEN you can consder the perfornace tradeoffs.
>> >
>> > Mike
>> > MU-2
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >
>> >>Mike, I am going through a used aircraft guide and, unfortunately, they
>> >>do not ordr their lists in a convenient way. While I agree that I have
>> >>to consider they trade-offs carefully and make some hard choices, it
>> >>seems to me that those choices begin with information about each factor
>> >>(like speed) considered seperately. So...that is why it matters.
>> >>
>> >>-Sami
>> >>
>> >>Mike Rapoport wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>What does it matter? You need to decide what is important to you,
>> >>
>> > speed,
>> >
>> >>>range, payload or price. You are not going to get all of them. Your
>> >>
>> > price
>> >
>> >>>range is so wide that I assume that you haven't really figured out how
>> >>
>> > much
>> >
>> >>>you can spend and your performance requirements are so high that you
>> >>
>> > will
>> >
>> >>>never find anything approaching your budget and your performance.
>> >>>
>> >>>If I were you, I would buy a the Used Aircraft Guide and start reading
>> >>
>> > and
>> >
>> >>>think about what you are really looking for.
>> >>>
>> >>>Mike
>> >>>MU-2
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>Does anyone have, or know where I can find, an ordered list of high
>> >>>>performance single-engine (HPSE) aircraft according to their crusing
>> >>>
>> >>>speed?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>It would even be cooler to have (average) retail prices in the list.
>> >>>>If not, I will work on a project to put such a list together if others
>> >>>>are interested. What I would really like to see is which aircraft has
>> >>>>the best purchase-price-to-speed ratio. Someone has to have created
>> >>>>such a list somewhere?!
>> >>>>
>> >>>>-Sami
>> >>>>
>> >>>>O. Sami Saydjari wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>Folks, I am a first-time aircraft buyer. I have a general idea of
>the
>> >>>>>type of aircraft I want, but am having trouble narrowing the list
>down.
>> >>>>>Here is my general list of wants/needs:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>1. Fast: >160 kts
>> >>>>>2. Price range: $75K-$120K
>> >>>>>3. Four Seater
>> >>>>>4. Range: >800nm
>> >>>>>5. Useful Payload (with full fuel); > 650lbs
>> >>>>>6. Retains its value well over time
>> >>>>>7. Reliable: Engine TBO of 2000 hrs, good saftey record
>> >>>>>8. Insurable for a pilot with only 350 hrs PIC experience (no
>> >>>>
>> > HP/complex
>> >
>> >>>>>time)
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>I have been thinking about a Piper Comanche 260 and a Piper Turbo
>Arrow
>> >>>>>III/IV. I was considering a Mooney M20J, but they feel a little
>> >>>>
>> > cramped
>> >
>> >>>>>in the cabin to me. What I am looking for is the best dollars/kts
>> >>>>>airplane (what we call price/performance in the computer biz) that
>> >>>>
>> > meets
>> >
>> >>>>>the above requirements. I would really appreciate suggestions and
>> >>>>
>> >>>advice.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>>-Sami
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >
>> >
>>
>

[Aaron Coolidge]

O. Sami Saydjari > wrote:

: make the short list. My used aircraft book does not list range in the
: spec sheet. it lists fuel capacity, but it does not list cruise burn
: rates, so it is hard to figure these out. I am just trying to tap into

You can estimate cruise fuel burn for a piston engine airplane by using
Fuel Burn (G.P.H.) = Engine HP / 18

This will get you an answer for 75% power, leaned to ROP operations, within
1 GPH or so.

Ovation2 = 280 HP, becomes 15.5 GPH (actual is about 15 GPH)
Piper Archer = 180 HP, becomes 10 GPH (actual is about 9.5 GPH)
Piper Navajo = 620 HP, becomes 34.5 GPH (actual is about 36 GPH)
Cessna 150 = 100 HP, becomes 5.5 GPH (actual is about 5 GPH)
Mooney 231 = 210 HP, becomes 11.6 GPH (actual is about 11 GPH)

Hope this helps,
--
Aaron Coolidge (N9376J)

[O. Sami Saydjari]

I expect to make my typical trip solo, so load will be light. Thanks
for the tip toward Consumer Aviation. -Sami

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> O.,
>
>
>>Still, it would be good to have a sorted list of complex planes based on
>>range.
>>
>
>
> At what load? That's key to figure in. Do you need the full range of 800 nm
> with four people? Do you need it with just yourself onboard?
>
> FWIW, Aviation Consumer tends to have the info you need in their used
> aircraft reviews.
>

[O. Sami Saydjari]

The Turbo Arrow III (PA-28R-201T) has a Turboplus intercooler. the
following quote has been passed along to me as being in the TurboPlus
owners manual:

"The results of the FAA Certification
flight, flown by FAA pilots on September 12, 1983 are as follows:
Take off wt. Max. gross weight
Climb speed 97 kts. IAS (best rate)
OAT 25 degrees above standard
Power during climb
to 16,000 feet 200 H.P
Rate of climb 900 FPM (avg.)
Fuel flow Full rich
Highest oil temp 201 F (240 F max)
Highest CHT 417 F (460 F max)
TAS 180 kts. (30" @ 2500 RPM)"

(a) This seems pretty extraordinary. Does anyone here have a Turbo
Arrow III configured with a Turboplus intercooler? Do they actually
experience these sorts of numbers?

(b) Are the results of "FAA Certification flights" publically accessible
somewhere so I can independently confirm this?

-Sami

Roger Halstead wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 04:44:21 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Try: http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/
>>
>>I don't know what "range" figure they are using (range with IFR reserves,
>>VFR reserves or dry tanks) but it is a place to start.
>
>
> I think Mike did a great job of listing the qualifications.
>
> They have, at least for the Beech Deb and F33 only "basic" fuel and
> much of that is incorrect. OTOH there were so many combinations
> listed, but not used it does get confusing. They listed 50 gallons
> as the capacity, but very few ever left the factory configured that
> way. The early ones had two 25 mains and two 10 aux tanks. Early on
> they went to 80 gallons. (You only know when you check out the
> individual airplane)
>
> Mine, from the factory has the 4 tank arrangement for 70 gallons @ 14
> per hour or 5.0 hours with no reserve of 800 miles.
>
> I carry an extra 15 in each tip for a bit over two more hours which
> is roughly 1130 miles. Whack an hour off for reserve plus change and
> it's basically an 800 mile plane with a useful load of 580# with full
> gas. Either some one stays home or you leave some gas behind.
> 4 FAA standard 170# adults = 680#
>
> With Joyce and I, it works out just fine and we can take along almost
> everything except the kitchen sink. We even get two full size
> bicycles in back.
>
> No matter how you look at it the only way a Bo would go the distance
> is with tip tanks and the budget doesn't go that high. And don't
> forget to go with "useable fuel" and not how much the plane will
> carry.
>
> I think he needs to add about 30 to 40 thousand (if not 60,000) to the
> price and figure about $20,000 a year.
>
> But ... I can't think of a single plane that would fit the bill.
> Going to 6 seats would, except the insurance companies might get fussy
> plus the price would be even higher.
>
> What about an older 210? Course the price for maintaining an older
> retract can get kinda steep too.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
> www.rogerhalstead.com
> Return address modified due to dumb virus checkers
>
>
>>Mike
>>MU-2
>>
>>
>>"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Mike,
>>>
>>>Actually, my typical flight will be about 660nm...so I need that
>>>distance (plus 45 mins of reserve).
>>>
>>>Still, it would be good to have a sorted list of complex planes based on
>>>range. You are right...that is the key factor to consider first.
>>>What I would like to know is that once I factor this in, which aircraft
>>>make the short list. My used aircraft book does not list range in the
>>>spec sheet. it lists fuel capacity, but it does not list cruise burn
>>>rates, so it is hard to figure these out. I am just trying to tap into
>>>the expereince of this forum to either make some suggestions, or point
>>>me at sources that has the information I seek.
>>>
>>>-sami
>>>
>>>Mike Rapoport wrote:
>>>
>>>>If you are going to really make 800nm flights then there will only be a
>>>>handful of candidates (if any) that meet your other requirements and
>>>
>>none of
>>
>>>>them will be close to your budget. In fact, I'm pretty sure that there
>>>>isn't a single airplane that can meet your stated requirements at any
>>>
>>price.
>>
>>>>If you are really going to make 800nm flights then range is the only
>>>
>>thing
>>
>>>>that matters. It doesn't matter if one airplane is 30kts faster, if it
>>>
>>has
>>
>>>>to refuel it well get there second. Keep in mind that to fly 800nm legs
>>>
>>you
>>
>>>>will need over a 1000nm still air range. You might want to reconsider
>>>
>>the
>>
>>>>payload with full fuel requirement. It doesn't really matter what the
>>>
>>full
>>
>>>>fuel payload is. It matters what the payload is with enough fuel to
>>>
>>make
>>
>>>>the flight. It is unlikely that you will ever fly four people 800nm in
>>>
>>a
>>
>>>>single since it would be difficult to find three others who are willing
>>>
>>to
>>
>>>>spend 5hrs in a little airplane. Engine TBO is a just one part of
>>>
>>operating
>>
>>>>cost, it is silly to insist on some arbitrary number like 2000hrs. The
>>>
>>real
>>
>>>>issue is how much per hour the engine will cost over its lifetime.
>>>>
>>>>I would look at what airplanes are within your budget.. Not just the
>>>>aquisition budget but the flying budget too. Can you spend $20k/yr on
>>>>flying? $30K? The worst airplane to own is one that is too expensive
>>>
>>for
>>
>>>>you to fly regardless of its other virtues. Budget issues will narrow
>>>
>>down
>>
>>>>the choices considerably. Then consider insurance if you feel you need
>>>>insurance. Then how many people will realistically be in the airplane
>>>
>>and
>>
>>>>how large are they. THEN you can consder the perfornace tradeoffs.
>>>>
>>>>Mike
>>>>MU-2
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Mike, I am going through a used aircraft guide and, unfortunately, they
>>>>>do not ordr their lists in a convenient way. While I agree that I have
>>>>>to consider they trade-offs carefully and make some hard choices, it
>>>>>seems to me that those choices begin with information about each factor
>>>>>(like speed) considered seperately. So...that is why it matters.
>>>>>
>>>>>-Sami
>>>>>
>>>>>Mike Rapoport wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>What does it matter? You need to decide what is important to you,
>>>>>
>>>>speed,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>range, payload or price. You are not going to get all of them. Your
>>>>>
>>>>price
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>range is so wide that I assume that you haven't really figured out how
>>>>>
>>>>much
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>you can spend and your performance requirements are so high that you
>>>>>
>>>>will
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>never find anything approaching your budget and your performance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If I were you, I would buy a the Used Aircraft Guide and start reading
>>>>>
>>>>and
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>think about what you are really looking for.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Mike
>>>>>>MU-2
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Does anyone have, or know where I can find, an ordered list of high
>>>>>>>performance single-engine (HPSE) aircraft according to their crusing
>>>>>>
>>>>>>speed?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It would even be cooler to have (average) retail prices in the list.
>>>>>>>If not, I will work on a project to put such a list together if others
>>>>>>>are interested. What I would really like to see is which aircraft has
>>>>>>>the best purchase-price-to-speed ratio. Someone has to have created
>>>>>>>such a list somewhere?!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>-Sami
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>O. Sami Saydjari wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Folks, I am a first-time aircraft buyer. I have a general idea of
>>>>>>>
>>the
>>
>>>>>>>>type of aircraft I want, but am having trouble narrowing the list
>>>>>>>
>>down.
>>
>>>>>>>>Here is my general list of wants/needs:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>1. Fast: >160 kts
>>>>>>>>2. Price range: $75K-$120K
>>>>>>>>3. Four Seater
>>>>>>>>4. Range: >800nm
>>>>>>>>5. Useful Payload (with full fuel); > 650lbs
>>>>>>>>6. Retains its value well over time
>>>>>>>>7. Reliable: Engine TBO of 2000 hrs, good saftey record
>>>>>>>>8. Insurable for a pilot with only 350 hrs PIC experience (no
>>>>>>>
>>>>HP/complex
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>time)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I have been thinking about a Piper Comanche 260 and a Piper Turbo
>>>>>>>
>>Arrow
>>
>>>>>>>>III/IV. I was considering a Mooney M20J, but they feel a little
>>>>>>>
>>>>cramped
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>in the cabin to me. What I am looking for is the best dollars/kts
>>>>>>>>airplane (what we call price/performance in the computer biz) that
>>>>>>>
>>>>meets
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>the above requirements. I would really appreciate suggestions and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>advice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>-Sami
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>

[Ray Andraka]

Cherokee Six-260 = 260 HP, becomes 14.4 GPH, actual is about 14.0
Six-300 = 300 HP, becomes 16.6 GPH, actual is about 17.0

A Six-260 will get you close on everything except the speed. My 260 gets
125-130 kts, price is in the ball park. I have about a 1550 lb useful load,
which with full tanks (84 gal), leaves me a few pounds over 1000 lbs for my
wife, 4 (soon to be 5) kids, bags and the dog with full tanks. Range is about
600 nm at 75% with reserves. If you go by the 84 gal capacity, that is 6 hrs,
which at 125 kts is 750nm. Fact is, most linemen won't get the full 84 gals in
there, and climb eats gas at about 23 GPH. The later models have I think a 102
gallon capacity, but they are also a couple hundred pounds heavier with no
increase in max gross.

A lance will get you close on speed, but may be expensive to insure and you
have quite a bit more weight in the folding gear. The 17 GPH burn n the 300 HP
shortens the range considerably for a relatively small speed increase.

Aaron Coolidge wrote:

>

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[Mike Rapoport]

I find the stated performance completely believable particularly since the
stock airplane can reach 177kts. Don't get hung up on the 180kts though it
does not represent cruise speed. It was achieved at a power setting that is
unlikely to result in a long life for the engine. My first airplane was a
Turbo Lance with the Turboplus intercooler and all availible speed mods.
Top speed was in the low 190s. Cruise was about 170kts at 75% in the mid
teens.

Mike
MU-2


"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
...
> The Turbo Arrow III (PA-28R-201T) has a Turboplus intercooler. the
> following quote has been passed along to me as being in the TurboPlus
> owners manual:
>
> "The results of the FAA Certification
> flight, flown by FAA pilots on September 12, 1983 are as follows:
> Take off wt. Max. gross weight
> Climb speed 97 kts. IAS (best rate)
> OAT 25 degrees above standard
> Power during climb
> to 16,000 feet 200 H.P
> Rate of climb 900 FPM (avg.)
> Fuel flow Full rich
> Highest oil temp 201 F (240 F max)
> Highest CHT 417 F (460 F max)
> TAS 180 kts. (30" @ 2500 RPM)"
>
> (a) This seems pretty extraordinary. Does anyone here have a Turbo
> Arrow III configured with a Turboplus intercooler? Do they actually
> experience these sorts of numbers?
>
> (b) Are the results of "FAA Certification flights" publically accessible
> somewhere so I can independently confirm this?
>
> -Sami
>
> Roger Halstead wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 04:44:21 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Try: http://www.risingup.com/planespecs/
> >>
> >>I don't know what "range" figure they are using (range with IFR
reserves,
> >>VFR reserves or dry tanks) but it is a place to start.
> >
> >
> > I think Mike did a great job of listing the qualifications.
> >
> > They have, at least for the Beech Deb and F33 only "basic" fuel and
> > much of that is incorrect. OTOH there were so many combinations
> > listed, but not used it does get confusing. They listed 50 gallons
> > as the capacity, but very few ever left the factory configured that
> > way. The early ones had two 25 mains and two 10 aux tanks. Early on
> > they went to 80 gallons. (You only know when you check out the
> > individual airplane)
> >
> > Mine, from the factory has the 4 tank arrangement for 70 gallons @ 14
> > per hour or 5.0 hours with no reserve of 800 miles.
> >
> > I carry an extra 15 in each tip for a bit over two more hours which
> > is roughly 1130 miles. Whack an hour off for reserve plus change and
> > it's basically an 800 mile plane with a useful load of 580# with full
> > gas. Either some one stays home or you leave some gas behind.
> > 4 FAA standard 170# adults = 680#
> >
> > With Joyce and I, it works out just fine and we can take along almost
> > everything except the kitchen sink. We even get two full size
> > bicycles in back.
> >
> > No matter how you look at it the only way a Bo would go the distance
> > is with tip tanks and the budget doesn't go that high. And don't
> > forget to go with "useable fuel" and not how much the plane will
> > carry.
> >
> > I think he needs to add about 30 to 40 thousand (if not 60,000) to the
> > price and figure about $20,000 a year.
> >
> > But ... I can't think of a single plane that would fit the bill.
> > Going to 6 seats would, except the insurance companies might get fussy
> > plus the price would be even higher.
> >
> > What about an older 210? Course the price for maintaining an older
> > retract can get kinda steep too.
> >
> > Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> > (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
> > www.rogerhalstead.com
> > Return address modified due to dumb virus checkers
> >
> >
> >>Mike
> >>MU-2
> >>
> >>
> >>"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>>Mike,
> >>>
> >>>Actually, my typical flight will be about 660nm...so I need that
> >>>distance (plus 45 mins of reserve).
> >>>
> >>>Still, it would be good to have a sorted list of complex planes based
on
> >>>range. You are right...that is the key factor to consider first.
> >>>What I would like to know is that once I factor this in, which aircraft
> >>>make the short list. My used aircraft book does not list range in the
> >>>spec sheet. it lists fuel capacity, but it does not list cruise burn
> >>>rates, so it is hard to figure these out. I am just trying to tap into
> >>>the expereince of this forum to either make some suggestions, or point
> >>>me at sources that has the information I seek.
> >>>
> >>>-sami
> >>>
> >>>Mike Rapoport wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>If you are going to really make 800nm flights then there will only be
a
> >>>>handful of candidates (if any) that meet your other requirements and
> >>>
> >>none of
> >>
> >>>>them will be close to your budget. In fact, I'm pretty sure that
there
> >>>>isn't a single airplane that can meet your stated requirements at any
> >>>
> >>price.
> >>
> >>>>If you are really going to make 800nm flights then range is the only
> >>>
> >>thing
> >>
> >>>>that matters. It doesn't matter if one airplane is 30kts faster, if
it
> >>>
> >>has
> >>
> >>>>to refuel it well get there second. Keep in mind that to fly 800nm
legs
> >>>
> >>you
> >>
> >>>>will need over a 1000nm still air range. You might want to reconsider
> >>>
> >>the
> >>
> >>>>payload with full fuel requirement. It doesn't really matter what the
> >>>
> >>full
> >>
> >>>>fuel payload is. It matters what the payload is with enough fuel to
> >>>
> >>make
> >>
> >>>>the flight. It is unlikely that you will ever fly four people 800nm
in
> >>>
> >>a
> >>
> >>>>single since it would be difficult to find three others who are
willing
> >>>
> >>to
> >>
> >>>>spend 5hrs in a little airplane. Engine TBO is a just one part of
> >>>
> >>operating
> >>
> >>>>cost, it is silly to insist on some arbitrary number like 2000hrs.
The
> >>>
> >>real
> >>
> >>>>issue is how much per hour the engine will cost over its lifetime.
> >>>>
> >>>>I would look at what airplanes are within your budget.. Not just the
> >>>>aquisition budget but the flying budget too. Can you spend $20k/yr on
> >>>>flying? $30K? The worst airplane to own is one that is too expensive
> >>>
> >>for
> >>
> >>>>you to fly regardless of its other virtues. Budget issues will narrow
> >>>
> >>down
> >>
> >>>>the choices considerably. Then consider insurance if you feel you
need
> >>>>insurance. Then how many people will realistically be in the airplane
> >>>
> >>and
> >>
> >>>>how large are they. THEN you can consder the perfornace tradeoffs.
> >>>>
> >>>>Mike
> >>>>MU-2
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Mike, I am going through a used aircraft guide and, unfortunately,
they
> >>>>>do not ordr their lists in a convenient way. While I agree that I
have
> >>>>>to consider they trade-offs carefully and make some hard choices, it
> >>>>>seems to me that those choices begin with information about each
factor
> >>>>>(like speed) considered seperately. So...that is why it matters.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>-Sami
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Mike Rapoport wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>What does it matter? You need to decide what is important to you,
> >>>>>
> >>>>speed,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>range, payload or price. You are not going to get all of them.
Your
> >>>>>
> >>>>price
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>range is so wide that I assume that you haven't really figured out
how
> >>>>>
> >>>>much
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>you can spend and your performance requirements are so high that you
> >>>>>
> >>>>will
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>never find anything approaching your budget and your performance.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>If I were you, I would buy a the Used Aircraft Guide and start
reading
> >>>>>
> >>>>and
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>think about what you are really looking for.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Mike
> >>>>>>MU-2
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Does anyone have, or know where I can find, an ordered list of high
> >>>>>>>performance single-engine (HPSE) aircraft according to their
crusing
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>speed?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>It would even be cooler to have (average) retail prices in the
list.
> >>>>>>>If not, I will work on a project to put such a list together if
others
> >>>>>>>are interested. What I would really like to see is which aircraft
has
> >>>>>>>the best purchase-price-to-speed ratio. Someone has to have
created
> >>>>>>>such a list somewhere?!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>-Sami
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>O. Sami Saydjari wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Folks, I am a first-time aircraft buyer. I have a general idea
of
> >>>>>>>
> >>the
> >>
> >>>>>>>>type of aircraft I want, but am having trouble narrowing the list
> >>>>>>>
> >>down.
> >>
> >>>>>>>>Here is my general list of wants/needs:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>1. Fast: >160 kts
> >>>>>>>>2. Price range: $75K-$120K
> >>>>>>>>3. Four Seater
> >>>>>>>>4. Range: >800nm
> >>>>>>>>5. Useful Payload (with full fuel); > 650lbs
> >>>>>>>>6. Retains its value well over time
> >>>>>>>>7. Reliable: Engine TBO of 2000 hrs, good saftey record
> >>>>>>>>8. Insurable for a pilot with only 350 hrs PIC experience (no
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>HP/complex
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>time)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>I have been thinking about a Piper Comanche 260 and a Piper Turbo
> >>>>>>>
> >>Arrow
> >>
> >>>>>>>>III/IV. I was considering a Mooney M20J, but they feel a little
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>cramped
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>in the cabin to me. What I am looking for is the best dollars/kts
> >>>>>>>>airplane (what we call price/performance in the computer biz) that
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>meets
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>the above requirements. I would really appreciate suggestions and
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>advice.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>-Sami
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >
>

[Paul Sengupta]

Well, best purchase price to speed...my guess would be a Hawker Hunter.
You can pick up a single seat variant for about £45k, and it goes mach 0.92.

Not sure what prices Gnats go for these days, but they do mach 0.98.

Both are trans-sonic in a dive.

Paul