Feeling the Need For Speed

[mbremer216]

Hello:

I currently own a 68 cherokee 180. Had it for 8 years. I'm IFR rated with
over 600 hours.

I'm looking for a faster ride for me, the Mrs. and a small dog. I'm not too
interested in a turbo to fly high as the wife and dog are opposed to flying
on O2 (I know that will put a limit on the speed, but thems the breaks!).

I have been looking at Mooney (M20J).

Any pros, cons, alternate suggestions?

Thanks in advance

Mike

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> I have been looking at Mooney (M20J).
>
> Any pros, cons, alternate suggestions?

Well, it's a great time to buy. A buddy of mine just sold his Mooney for
$41K -- and he's damn glad to get *that*.

Five years ago, it would've been worth 50% more, easily.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jun 11, 8:47*pm, "mbremer216" > wrote:
> Hello:
>
> I currently own a 68 cherokee 180. Had it for 8 years. I'm IFR rated with
> over 600 hours.
>
> I'm looking for a faster ride for me, the Mrs. and a small dog. I'm not too
> interested in a turbo to fly high as the wife and dog are opposed to flying
> on O2 (I know that will put a limit on the speed, but thems the breaks!).
>
> I have been looking at Mooney (M20J).

Well the Mooney is the perfect plane for what you want to do. Its also
very, very fuel efficient. The O2 issue really depends on where you
live. I live in California so we have to wear O2 anytime we fly East
just to avoid getting rocks in our teeth.
You may want to consider the M20F as well. Its a little bit slower
than the M20J but quiet a bit less expensive.
Also, all avionics installations costs extra in a Mooney (all shops
add a Mooney sur-charge) so try to find a plane with the radios you
want vs. trying to add them yourself.

-Robert

[Newps]

mbremer216 wrote:
> Hello:
>
> I currently own a 68 cherokee 180. Had it for 8 years. I'm IFR rated with
> over 600 hours.
>
> I'm looking for a faster ride for me, the Mrs. and a small dog. I'm not too
> interested in a turbo to fly high as the wife and dog are opposed to flying
> on O2 (I know that will put a limit on the speed, but thems the breaks!).
>
> I have been looking at Mooney (M20J).
>
> Any pros, cons, alternate suggestions?
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Mike
>
>


Where do you fly and on what type of surfaces do you land? What kind of
room are you looking for on the inside? Bonanza's, Mooney's and 210's
will by far get you your best gas mileage. I made my choice and went
with the Bonanza. At 75% I get 178 kts true at 15 gph at best altitude.
At 10,000 MSL at just a hair under 65%, 19"/2300 rpm I get 159 kts
true burning 11.5 gph. I used to have a 182 and at the top of the green
in cruise I would indicate 135-140 mph, sucking down 12.5-13 gph. In
the Bo at 150-155 MPH indicated, 45%, I burn 8.5 gph So as you can see
I get damn near twice the mpg as the 182 if I want as well as the
capability to go 47 kts faster while still getting better mpg than the 182.
Go get a ride in or at the very least sit in all you are interested
in. Mooney guys have a complex about people saying their planes are
small on the inside. Only you can make that decision. I flew one for a
few hours. Way too small for me. Major design difference too. In the
Mooney you sit on the floor with your legs straight out. In the Bo and
210 you sit on a chair just like in your kitchen, legs bent and with
room to move them around. Baggage door on the top of the fuselage, not
the side. Damn stupid if you ask me. Ever try to load a 48 qt cooler
filled with appropriate beverages from the top? Or get it out again?
Some people like it though. Go figure. No prop or gear door clearance
so nothing rougher than mowed grass. I spend a lot of time landing off
road in the Bo so that would be a deal breaker for me no matter what
else the plane had going for it. Too hard to land with those rubber
donuts. You need to be on speed. I don't want to be on speed landing
in the dirt. I want to be able to not have to even look at the panel
while landing. The 200 HP and lower Mooneys are ground lovers. They
have low horsepower and low drag but need comapartively more runway than
either the Bo or 210. The older ones had manual gear which can't
break, tnat's a good deal. Makes insurance a little lower too.
The 210 and the Bo are about the same speed. I don't like 210's
because Cessna's design philosophy for every plane is to build them as
light as possible. So they usually have a little better useful load
than the Bo but you feel like the whole thing is made out of a beer can.
When I had my 182 I was always having things rattle apart. That was
one of the first things I noticed about the Bo, built like a tank. You
pay for that in weight but things don't break. If you're interested in
a 210 make sure you call you insurance agent first. 210 owners crash
their birds with alarming regularity and as such you'll find insurance
can be 2-3 times higher than a Bo or Mooney. 210's have smaller tires
and therefore is not as good on dirt strips. Bonanza's were designed at
a time when most runways were not paved and they kept that thinking
right into the brand new ones. I have 7.00x6 mains and more prop
clearance than my 182 had with the larger nosewheel. The Mooney is far
and away the worst of the three to have to work on. Somebody here with
a Mooney says it takes something like an hour and a half to decowl the
engine. That's criminal. The 210 is Ok but not great, you'll have a
good 15 minutes getting a cowl off, having to screw with induction air
tunnels. In the Bo...10 seconds with the models with the camlocs. No
seconds with the models with the single handle. The Mooney has this god
awful belly pan with a zillion screws. The 210 and Bo have the standard
inspection panels. Stuff you wouldn't think of until you have to work
on it.
I wouldn't even consider aircraft like Arrows, 172RG's, Commanders.
They're too slow for the additional cash it costs to insure. Jay's
right, this is about the best time ever to buy. The longer you wait the
better it'll get for you. I have a 64 S35 and I lowered my hull value
for my insurance that comes due in August. The hardest part for you
will be getting an owner to sell his plane for what it's actually worth,
not what he thinks it's worth.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jun 12, 7:27*pm, Newps > wrote:

> * *Go get a ride in or at the very least sit in all you are interested
> in. *Mooney guys have a complex about people saying their planes are
> small on the inside. *Only you can make that decision. *I flew one for a
> few hours. *Way too small for me. *Major design difference too. *In the
> Mooney you sit on the floor with your legs straight out. *In the Bo and
> 210 you sit on a chair just like in your kitchen, legs bent and with
> room to move them around. *Baggage door on the top of the fuselage, not
> the side. *Damn stupid if you ask me. *Ever try to load a 48 qt cooler
> filled with appropriate beverages from the top? *Or get it out again?
> Some people like it though. *Go figure.

Funny, I can't figure out why anyone would want the door on the bottom
like my old Bo. In the Bo we loaded the first bags though the door but
you can only access the bottom of the baggage area with the door and
the rest must be loaded over the back seat. In the Mooney I've never
had to load bags over the back seat. Most of our trips are with bags
to the ceiling. I've never seen a car where you load the trunk through
a little door on the side so I can't imagine why anyone would do that
with a plane.

-Robert, M20F

[Newps]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Jun 12, 7:27 pm, Newps > wrote:
>
>> Go get a ride in or at the very least sit in all you are interested
>> in. Mooney guys have a complex about people saying their planes are
>> small on the inside. Only you can make that decision. I flew one for a
>> few hours. Way too small for me. Major design difference too. In the
>> Mooney you sit on the floor with your legs straight out. In the Bo and
>> 210 you sit on a chair just like in your kitchen, legs bent and with
>> room to move them around. Baggage door on the top of the fuselage, not
>> the side. Damn stupid if you ask me. Ever try to load a 48 qt cooler
>> filled with appropriate beverages from the top? Or get it out again?
>> Some people like it though. Go figure.
>
> Funny, I can't figure out why anyone would want the door on the bottom
> like my old Bo. In the Bo we loaded the first bags though the door but
> you can only access the bottom of the baggage area with the door and
> the rest must be loaded over the back seat. In the Mooney I've never
> had to load bags over the back seat. Most of our trips are with bags
> to the ceiling. I've never seen a car where you load the trunk through
> a little door on the side so I can't imagine why anyone would do that
> with a plane.
>
> -Robert, M20F

Like I said, a few people like the door on the top. I wish I had a
larger door but never do I think I need a door on the top.

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-06-14, John Smith > wrote:
> Some Bo's have a GIGANTIC door on the side.
> They have a flush mount D-handle that you rotate out 90-degrees and
> twist. Anyone know which model Bo I am thinking of?

I can't speak to the 4-place Bonanzas, but my boss's A36 has one of those.
You can get in and out of that door very easily.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (got it!)

[Edward A. Falk]

In article >,
Newps > wrote:
>mbremer216 wrote:
>> Hello:
>
>Where do you fly and on what type of surfaces do you land? What kind of
>room are you looking for on the inside? Bonanza's, Mooney's and 210's
>will by far get you your best gas mileage. I made my choice and went
>with the Bonanza. At 75% I get 178 kts true at 15 gph at best altitude.
> At 10,000 MSL at just a hair under 65%, 19"/2300 rpm I get 159 kts
>true burning 11.5 gph. I used to have a 182 and at the top of the green
>in cruise I would indicate 135-140 mph, sucking down 12.5-13 gph. In
>the Bo at 150-155 MPH indicated, 45%, I burn 8.5 gph So as you can see
>I get damn near twice the mpg as the 182 if I want as well as the
>capability to go 47 kts faster while still getting better mpg than the 182.

What model Bo? I'm dreaming of something bigger & faster than my old
M20C.

Any other Bonanza owners here? Do you really get 11.5 gph at 159 kts?

--
-Ed Falk,
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

[Frank Stutzman[_2_]]

Edward A. Falk > wrote:

> Any other Bonanza owners here? Do you really get 11.5 gph at 159 kts?

No, I don't.


I get 135 knots at about 9 gph. However, if I remember correctly my
Bonanza has something like 60 less HP and is 30 years older than Scotts.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Boise, ID

[Newps]

Edward A. Falk wrote:
> In article >,
> Newps > wrote:
>> mbremer216 wrote:
>>> Hello:
>> Where do you fly and on what type of surfaces do you land? What kind of
>> room are you looking for on the inside? Bonanza's, Mooney's and 210's
>> will by far get you your best gas mileage. I made my choice and went
>> with the Bonanza. At 75% I get 178 kts true at 15 gph at best altitude.
>> At 10,000 MSL at just a hair under 65%, 19"/2300 rpm I get 159 kts
>> true burning 11.5 gph. I used to have a 182 and at the top of the green
>> in cruise I would indicate 135-140 mph, sucking down 12.5-13 gph. In
>> the Bo at 150-155 MPH indicated, 45%, I burn 8.5 gph So as you can see
>> I get damn near twice the mpg as the 182 if I want as well as the
>> capability to go 47 kts faster while still getting better mpg than the 182.
>
> What model Bo? I'm dreaming of something bigger & faster than my old
> M20C.
>
> Any other Bonanza owners here? Do you really get 11.5 gph at 159 kts?
>

I have the S35, first year of the big engine, the IO-520. For a number
of reasons I wouldn't buy one older than that. Do the math yourself, at
10K I indicate 155 MPH and I was at 19"/2300 rpm burning 11.5. I was
about 30 degrees lean of peak so I could have gone slightly faster,
maybe another 5 mph, if I wanted to go about 75 rich. I bought this
particular model because it is the first year of the six seaters. I
insure it for four. It's the year they removed the bulkhead and really
opened up the cabin, easily three times the baggage area of the 67 182 I
used to have. Plus the rear seats slide out individually, makes it
really easy to set up the interior any way you want.

[Newps]

John Smith wrote:
> In article >,
> Newps > wrote:
>
>> Like I said, a few people like the door on the top. I wish I had a
>> larger door but never do I think I need a door on the top.
>
> Some Bo's have a GIGANTIC door on the side.
> They have a flush mount D-handle that you rotate out 90-degrees and
> twist. Anyone know which model Bo I am thinking of?


That was an option, not sure what year they started offering that. It's
the door that's standard on the Barons. I could have that installed but
it's pretty expensive.

[Newps]

Frank Stutzman wrote:
> Edward A. Falk > wrote:
>
>> Any other Bonanza owners here? Do you really get 11.5 gph at 159 kts?
>
> No, I don't.
>
>
> I get 135 knots at about 9 gph. However, if I remember correctly my
> Bonanza has something like 60 less HP and is 30 years older than Scotts.
>
The earliest Bo's got 175 MPH out of 185 HP. I have 285 HP.

[M[_1_]]

I am also planning on upgrading to a Bo in a year or two from my
Grumman AA5, for speed and longer range.

However I at this point won't ever consider buying a plane that can't
burn mogas (regular or premium). Therefore my best options seem to
be IO-470K powered E33 Bonanza.


On Jun 12, 7:27 pm, Newps > wrote:

> I wouldn't even consider aircraft like Arrows, 172RG's, Commanders.
> They're too slow for the additional cash it costs to insure. Jay's
> right, this is about the best time ever to buy. The longer you wait the
> better it'll get for you. I have a 64 S35 and I lowered my hull value
> for my insurance that comes due in August. The hardest part for you
> will be getting an owner to sell his plane for what it's actually worth,
> not what he thinks it's worth.

[[email protected]]

Mike,
As an alterantive, have you considered any of the
experimentals? Depending on your needs, that may be worth looking in
to. I have 1520 hours in my Tango 2 and love it. In round numbers, I
get better than 200 mph at 8 gph, or 25 mpg. I can load two 200 pound
plus adults, forty gallons of gas, 100 pounds of baggage, takeoff
comfortably on a 2,000 foot grass strip, climb to 12,500, and land 750
nm later with a vfr reserve. Last summer I flew a 1,744 nm cross
country from north Florida to California against some headwind and
around some weather in 11.3 flying hours while burning 83.6 gallons of
gas. I made two fuel stops. I have flown a few times in solid ifr,
single seat without an autopilot, but a wing leveler would be nice
sometimes. Passing Bonanzas is fun, too.
I am biased because I am part owner of the company, but I doubt
if you can find many other cross country airplanes that can beat our
performance numbers in our price range.

Denny Funnemark
www.teamtango.com
>
> I have been looking at Mooney (M20J).
>
> Any pros, cons, alternate suggestions?
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Mike

[Frank Stutzman[_2_]]

Newps > wrote:
> Frank Stutzman wrote:
>> Edward A. Falk > wrote:
>>
>>> Any other Bonanza owners here? Do you really get 11.5 gph at 159 kts?
>>
>> No, I don't.
>>
>>
>> I get 135 knots at about 9 gph. However, if I remember correctly my
>> Bonanza has something like 60 less HP and is 30 years older than Scotts.
>>
> The earliest Bo's got 175 MPH out of 185 HP. I have 285 HP.


The Girl is an '49 A35, s/n D-1514. While I upgraded her to an E-225
(225 HP), I think she still qualfies as one of the earliest. While she
will fairly easily do 154 knots (175 mph), the fuel consumption goes up
pretty significantly to get the those extra 19 knots. How much? Don't
remember, I don't fly there very often. It costs more than its worth
and I don't like flying a nearly 60 year old plane 15 mph inside the
yellow arc.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Boise, ID

[Newps]

Frank Stutzman wrote:
> Newps > wrote:
>> Frank Stutzman wrote:
>>> Edward A. Falk > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Any other Bonanza owners here? Do you really get 11.5 gph at 159 kts?
>>> No, I don't.
>>>
>>>
>>> I get 135 knots at about 9 gph. However, if I remember correctly my
>>> Bonanza has something like 60 less HP and is 30 years older than Scotts.
>>>
>> The earliest Bo's got 175 MPH out of 185 HP. I have 285 HP.
>
>
> The Girl is an '49 A35, s/n D-1514. While I upgraded her to an E-225
> (225 HP), I think she still qualfies as one of the earliest. While she
> will fairly easily do 154 knots (175 mph), the fuel consumption goes up
> pretty significantly to get the those extra 19 knots. How much? Don't
> remember, I don't fly there very often. It costs more than its worth
> and I don't like flying a nearly 60 year old plane 15 mph inside the
> yellow arc.

Really, your yellow arc is that low? Mine is 190 MPH and in the winter
at 4500 MSL that's right where the airspeed settles at 75%.

[Newps]

There's a lot of fast planes that can be built. No way, no how am I a
builder however, so I would never consider doing that.





wrote:
> Mike,
> As an alterantive, have you considered any of the
> experimentals? Depending on your needs, that may be worth looking in
> to. I have 1520 hours in my Tango 2 and love it. In round numbers, I
> get better than 200 mph at 8 gph, or 25 mpg. I can load two 200 pound
> plus adults, forty gallons of gas, 100 pounds of baggage, takeoff
> comfortably on a 2,000 foot grass strip, climb to 12,500, and land 750
> nm later with a vfr reserve. Last summer I flew a 1,744 nm cross
> country from north Florida to California against some headwind and
> around some weather in 11.3 flying hours while burning 83.6 gallons of
> gas. I made two fuel stops. I have flown a few times in solid ifr,
> single seat without an autopilot, but a wing leveler would be nice
> sometimes. Passing Bonanzas is fun, too.
> I am biased because I am part owner of the company, but I doubt
> if you can find many other cross country airplanes that can beat our
> performance numbers in our price range.
>
> Denny Funnemark
> www.teamtango.com
>> I have been looking at Mooney (M20J).
>>
>> Any pros, cons, alternate suggestions?
>>
>> Thanks in advance
>>
>> Mike
>

[mbremer216]

I agree. There are a lot of speedy experimentals out there, buy there is no
way my other half will go along.

I can build a pretty good bookcase, but I wouldn't want to ride in it at 200
mph!

Mike
"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
> There's a lot of fast planes that can be built. No way, no how am I a
> builder however, so I would never consider doing that.
>
>
>
>
>
> wrote:
>> Mike,
>> As an alterantive, have you considered any of the
>> experimentals? Depending on your needs, that may be worth looking in
>> to. I have 1520 hours in my Tango 2 and love it. In round numbers, I
>> get better than 200 mph at 8 gph, or 25 mpg. I can load two 200 pound
>> plus adults, forty gallons of gas, 100 pounds of baggage, takeoff
>> comfortably on a 2,000 foot grass strip, climb to 12,500, and land 750
>> nm later with a vfr reserve. Last summer I flew a 1,744 nm cross
>> country from north Florida to California against some headwind and
>> around some weather in 11.3 flying hours while burning 83.6 gallons of
>> gas. I made two fuel stops. I have flown a few times in solid ifr,
>> single seat without an autopilot, but a wing leveler would be nice
>> sometimes. Passing Bonanzas is fun, too.
>> I am biased because I am part owner of the company, but I doubt
>> if you can find many other cross country airplanes that can beat our
>> performance numbers in our price range.
>>
>> Denny Funnemark
>> www.teamtango.com
>>> I have been looking at Mooney (M20J).
>>>
>>> Any pros, cons, alternate suggestions?
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance
>>>
>>> Mike
>>

[Blueskies]

"mbremer216" > wrote in message . ..
>I agree. There are a lot of speedy experimentals out there, buy there is no
> way my other half will go along.
>
> I can build a pretty good bookcase, but I wouldn't want to ride in it at 200
> mph!
>
> Mike
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> There's a lot of fast planes that can be built. No way, no how am I a
>> builder however, so I would never consider doing that.
>>
>>
>>


So buy one from someone...

[Frank Stutzman[_2_]]

Newps > wrote:

> Really, your yellow arc is that low? Mine is 190 MPH and in the winter
> at 4500 MSL that's right where the airspeed settles at 75%.

Yes. The green arc on the 35, A35, B35, C35 and D35 models ends at 160 mph.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Boise, ID

[Newps]

Blueskies wrote:
>
> "mbremer216" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> I agree. There are a lot of speedy experimentals out there, buy there
>> is no way my other half will go along.
>>
>> I can build a pretty good bookcase, but I wouldn't want to ride in it
>> at 200 mph!
>>
>> Mike
>> "Newps" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> There's a lot of fast planes that can be built. No way, no how am I
>>> a builder however, so I would never consider doing that.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
> So buy one from someone...

Most experimentals have that unfinished look to me. Especially the
interior. Like the designer got it done enough to fly and then said
screw it.

[Blueskies]

"Newps" > wrote in message . ..
> Blueskies wrote:
>>
>> "mbremer216" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> I agree. There are a lot of speedy experimentals out there, buy there
>>> is no way my other half will go along.
>>>
>>> I can build a pretty good bookcase, but I wouldn't want to ride in it
>>> at 200 mph!
>>>
>>> Mike
>>> "Newps" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>> There's a lot of fast planes that can be built. No way, no how am I
>>>> a builder however, so I would never consider doing that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>> So buy one from someone...
>
> Most experimentals have that unfinished look to me. Especially the
> interior. Like the designer got it done enough to fly and then said
> screw it.


Well, the nice thing about the experimental is if you don't like the way the
interior is finished, you can re-do it yourself...even if you did not build
it originally...

[[email protected]]

Here I thought we were talking about going faster for less money. For
the money you can save on the operating costs you dress up the
interior any way you want.

DF

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Newps" > wrote

> Most experimentals have that unfinished look to me. Especially the
> interior. Like the designer got it done enough to fly and then said screw
> it.

When is the last time you looked at the airplanes on the experimental line
at Oshkosh?

I would say your observation is the exception, rather than the rule.

My observation is that the majority of the homebuilts at OSH make the
factory built planes look 3rd class.

At any rate, there is a Tango II for sale on teamtango that looks very much
finished, and carries a price fit to a very fast very finished airplane.
--
Jim in NC

[Steve Schneider]

Frank Stutzman wrote:
> Edward A. Falk > wrote:
>
>
>>Any other Bonanza owners here? Do you really get 11.5 gph at 159 kts?
>
>
> No, I don't.
>
>
> I get 135 knots at about 9 gph. However, if I remember correctly my
> Bonanza has something like 60 less HP and is 30 years older than Scotts.
>


Hey Frank,

I still remember you showing me the AC system on your bo! I think it was
a rec.aviation/socafi event in Oceano perhaps 10 or 15 years go. Every
plane I've flown on a hot summer day since then without AC has made me
wonder why they didn't use that design more widely.

Glade to hear you still have her.

Steve

[jsbougher]

That is the advantage of the Velocity. I purchased a Velocity built
by someone else, had him fly it to the factory, had a factory
inspection, then had the factory give me transition training. Plane
goes back to Florida each year for the annual - let the experts look
it over. It is a lot of plane for the money. About $80k will get you
1000lb useful load, 4 seats and a nice IFR set up (think standard
steam gages + Garmin 430 + AP). Performing regular maintenance
yourself is a huge advantage. For a fixed gear plane, you can count
on around 150-160 knots. I regularly plan 2-3 hour flights with 2
adults, 2 kids, small dog + light weekend of luggage. Add in the fact
that the plane simply won't stall and you have a combination of low
cost (purchase and on-going), good speed, significant load carrying
and safety that is hard to beat. You do give up grass & dirt strip
capability and (in my opinion) need to plan on at least a 3500 ft
runway at gross on an 85 degree day (regular profile for me in the
summer). I'd strongly suggest you consider it - my dad had an M20J
that I flew regularly and I still prefer my Velocity.
Jeff

On Jun 15, 12:27 am, Newps > wrote:
> There's a lot of fast planes that can be built. No way, no how am I a
> builder however, so I would never consider doing that.
>
> wrote:
> > Mike,
> > As an alterantive, have you considered any of the
> > experimentals? Depending on your needs, that may be worth looking in
> > to. I have 1520 hours in my Tango 2 and love it. In round numbers, I
> > get better than 200 mph at 8 gph, or 25 mpg. I can load two 200 pound
> > plus adults, forty gallons of gas, 100 pounds of baggage, takeoff
> > comfortably on a 2,000 foot grass strip, climb to 12,500, and land 750
> > nm later with a vfr reserve. Last summer I flew a 1,744 nm cross
> > country from north Florida to California against some headwind and
> > around some weather in 11.3 flying hours while burning 83.6 gallons of
> > gas. I made two fuel stops. I have flown a few times in solid ifr,
> > single seat without an autopilot, but a wing leveler would be nice
> > sometimes. Passing Bonanzas is fun, too.
> > I am biased because I am part owner of the company, but I doubt
> > if you can find many other cross country airplanes that can beat our
> > performance numbers in our price range.
>
> > Denny Funnemark
> >www.teamtango.com
> >> I have been looking at Mooney (M20J).
>
> >> Any pros, cons, alternate suggestions?
>
> >> Thanks in advance
>
> >> Mike

[mbremer216]

How does it glide with the engine out?

Mike
"jsbougher" > wrote in message
...
> That is the advantage of the Velocity. I purchased a Velocity built
> by someone else, had him fly it to the factory, had a factory
> inspection, then had the factory give me transition training. Plane
> goes back to Florida each year for the annual - let the experts look
> it over. It is a lot of plane for the money. About $80k will get you
> 1000lb useful load, 4 seats and a nice IFR set up (think standard
> steam gages + Garmin 430 + AP). Performing regular maintenance
> yourself is a huge advantage. For a fixed gear plane, you can count
> on around 150-160 knots. I regularly plan 2-3 hour flights with 2
> adults, 2 kids, small dog + light weekend of luggage. Add in the fact
> that the plane simply won't stall and you have a combination of low
> cost (purchase and on-going), good speed, significant load carrying
> and safety that is hard to beat. You do give up grass & dirt strip
> capability and (in my opinion) need to plan on at least a 3500 ft
> runway at gross on an 85 degree day (regular profile for me in the
> summer). I'd strongly suggest you consider it - my dad had an M20J
> that I flew regularly and I still prefer my Velocity.
> Jeff
>
> On Jun 15, 12:27 am, Newps > wrote:
>> There's a lot of fast planes that can be built. No way, no how am I a
>> builder however, so I would never consider doing that.
>>
>> wrote:
>> > Mike,
>> > As an alterantive, have you considered any of the
>> > experimentals? Depending on your needs, that may be worth looking in
>> > to. I have 1520 hours in my Tango 2 and love it. In round numbers, I
>> > get better than 200 mph at 8 gph, or 25 mpg. I can load two 200 pound
>> > plus adults, forty gallons of gas, 100 pounds of baggage, takeoff
>> > comfortably on a 2,000 foot grass strip, climb to 12,500, and land 750
>> > nm later with a vfr reserve. Last summer I flew a 1,744 nm cross
>> > country from north Florida to California against some headwind and
>> > around some weather in 11.3 flying hours while burning 83.6 gallons of
>> > gas. I made two fuel stops. I have flown a few times in solid ifr,
>> > single seat without an autopilot, but a wing leveler would be nice
>> > sometimes. Passing Bonanzas is fun, too.
>> > I am biased because I am part owner of the company, but I doubt
>> > if you can find many other cross country airplanes that can beat our
>> > performance numbers in our price range.
>>
>> > Denny Funnemark
>> >www.teamtango.com
>> >> I have been looking at Mooney (M20J).
>>
>> >> Any pros, cons, alternate suggestions?
>>
>> >> Thanks in advance
>>
>> >> Mike
>

[jsbougher]

It glides surprisingly well actually. Not sure exact glide ratio, but
well over 12:1 even with fixed pitch prop and no wheel pants (I'd
guess somewhere in the 17:1 range, definitely not 20:1 without the
wheel pants). Lands off field pretty well also, but the speed is up
there. I unfortunately lost an intake gasket as I was practicing slow
flight / stalls and had the opportunity to land her in a wheat field
(I learned that 3000 AGL isn't that high when you are in a deep stall
and the engine packs it in - lesson learned). No damage except some
paint abrasion on the leading edge of the landing gear and a sh*tpot
of wheat in the pitot. Pulled the wings, trailered to a close by
airport, replace the gasket and wings and flew her home. Not
something I'd ever want to repeat, but at least power off is no longer
an unknown. The higher landing speed is really the only disadvantage
to the Velocity relative to speed equivalent counterparts. It is very
manageable and is more than made up by the docile flying
characteristics. I can slow her to a complete stall (pitch buck) then
roll her over 45 degrees and pull the stick to my lap - nothing. Not
something you do regularly, but nice to know that the stall is
absolutely harmless (other than the associated high decent rate).
Jeff

On Jun 26, 10:59 pm, "mbremer216" > wrote:
> How does it glide with the engine out?
>
> Mike"jsbougher" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > That is the advantage of the Velocity. I purchased a Velocity built
> > by someone else, had him fly it to the factory, had a factory
> > inspection, then had the factory give me transition training. Plane
> > goes back to Florida each year for the annual - let the experts look
> > it over. It is a lot of plane for the money. About $80k will get you
> > 1000lb useful load, 4 seats and a nice IFR set up (think standard
> > steam gages + Garmin 430 + AP). Performing regular maintenance
> > yourself is a huge advantage. For a fixed gear plane, you can count
> > on around 150-160 knots. I regularly plan 2-3 hour flights with 2
> > adults, 2 kids, small dog + light weekend of luggage. Add in the fact
> > that the plane simply won't stall and you have a combination of low
> > cost (purchase and on-going), good speed, significant load carrying
> > and safety that is hard to beat. You do give up grass & dirt strip
> > capability and (in my opinion) need to plan on at least a 3500 ft
> > runway at gross on an 85 degree day (regular profile for me in the
> > summer). I'd strongly suggest you consider it - my dad had an M20J
> > that I flew regularly and I still prefer my Velocity.
> > Jeff
>
> > On Jun 15, 12:27 am, Newps > wrote:
> >> There's a lot of fast planes that can be built. No way, no how am I a
> >> builder however, so I would never consider doing that.
>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Mike,
> >> > As an alterantive, have you considered any of the
> >> > experimentals? Depending on your needs, that may be worth looking in
> >> > to. I have 1520 hours in my Tango 2 and love it. In round numbers, I
> >> > get better than 200 mph at 8 gph, or 25 mpg. I can load two 200 pound
> >> > plus adults, forty gallons of gas, 100 pounds of baggage, takeoff
> >> > comfortably on a 2,000 foot grass strip, climb to 12,500, and land 750
> >> > nm later with a vfr reserve. Last summer I flew a 1,744 nm cross
> >> > country from north Florida to California against some headwind and
> >> > around some weather in 11.3 flying hours while burning 83.6 gallons of
> >> > gas. I made two fuel stops. I have flown a few times in solid ifr,
> >> > single seat without an autopilot, but a wing leveler would be nice
> >> > sometimes. Passing Bonanzas is fun, too.
> >> > I am biased because I am part owner of the company, but I doubt
> >> > if you can find many other cross country airplanes that can beat our
> >> > performance numbers in our price range.
>
> >> > Denny Funnemark
> >> >www.teamtango.com
> >> >> I have been looking at Mooney (M20J).
>
> >> >> Any pros, cons, alternate suggestions?
>
> >> >> Thanks in advance
>
> >> >> Mike