Looking for fast single piston aircraft

Depends. General maintenance is a lot like a 308. If you are mechanically inclined and have an A&P/IA that allows you to do a lot of your own maintenance then annual costs for normal operations is not much. Assuming no major items I spend less than $1k per yr on my Mooney. That is less than if I were to have a shop just do an annual inspection. But there are fixed costs for storage that can be very steep, depending on location. A Bo burning 14-20gal/hr results in $80-140/hr fuel cost alone. The old $100 hamburger is now over $200.

 

Just like Ferrari's, or any other mechanical beast, the cost is proportional to staying on top of things. A properly maintained Bo will not cost more than any other comparable aircraft (C182RG, C210, M20).

 

One benefit with certain Beechcraft models (i.e., the Debonair/Bonanza and Baron series) is that the airframe didn't change much over the many years of production, so quite a few airframe parts are still in production. Upgrade modifications are relatively easy too since newer model 'stuff' is often backwards compatible with older airframes. For example, you'll find many a 1960s vintage Debonair that have been retrofitted with a 1980s vintage F33A instrument panel.

 

I have an older Bo. You can get what you need from the J35 right on up to the V35TC. Generally speaking in GA, speed means turbo to get up to the mid-teens or higher. Getting 160kts below 12k' uses a fair amount of gas.

I don't find the Mooney's or the Bellanca's comfortable. The Bellanca is darn noisy, and somewhat cramped. The Mooney has leg room, but the midriff up feels claustrophobic. Both of them have models that will do +160 in your price range. Many of the Bonanza's will do that in your price range. The fuselage was stretched in the P35 and later giving another 9 inches in the cabin which makes a fair amount of difference in comfort. There is the T210 from Cessna of course, and some of those will be in your price range. They will do the speed, and are pretty comfy as well. Hauls more than the Bonanza, but uses more fuel to make speed. I know nothing about Cessnas, so I won't go there.

Another plane not mentioned is the Commander 114TC, which won't make the speed you want but they are pretty big inside and somewhat more comfy. The Piper Comanche 260 will come close also but not quite that quick and they are also pretty comfy.

Many mfg tasked their designers to build the next "Bonanza killer". They were all taking aim at the best plane designed back in the 40s. If you want a straight tail, you'll need to go to the later models of the Bonanza which are the E33, F33 types, and they are pretty costly, but may be able to find one around $100k.

I would shift focus to the TC models in your price range. You have to suck O2 up in the teens but it's worth it to get the speed with lower fuel burn you want. My NA old Bonanza typically flies in the 13-15k altitude, and I can push it up to 160Kts for long flights, but I like to throttle back to 145Kts for economy.

Now, on to maint. The Bonanza is built hell-for-stout. I know, because I was in one that crashed and I walked away. Most of the non-engine related services on a Bonanza are straight-forward and present nothing strange that any good A&P can't solve. They use off the shelf components in many areas, and where they are strongest is where planes need to be strong in the gear and the spar. There is a repeat AD on greasing the uplock rollers on the Bo gear. It takes 5 minutes and is done each annual during the retract test. The gear on the Bo is basically the same as the one on the Baron twin. Outside of the US, the Bonanza is known as a fast bush plane, and handles dirt strips just fine. If you can find one with 8" wheels, even better.

The spar has been the subject of some serious investigation in the past decade. Spar web cracks have been found in the fleet at a small but important rate so that the FAA and Amer Bonanza Society are watching spar cracks carefully. The good news is that there is a mitigation plan in place which can be performed either proactively, or if a crack is found. The mitigation isn't cheap, but once applied it solves the problem usually forever. The ruddervators must be inspected carefully each year, and balance is critical. These are specific items to the Bonanza, and beyond that - it's tough as nails.

The Bonanza also has a few features which make it somewhat more family friendly. The single door on the right recesses into the roof a fair amount which helps getting in and out. Not as good as a 210, but still pretty good. The right side pedals fold flat to the floor so you can have your SO without rudders in the way. The throw-over yoke also is family friendly so the pax doesn't have a yoke in the way. It was certified to utility standards at full gross from the factory. The downside of the Bonanza is that it's harder to load, the loading graph is rather narrow up near gross, and also in turbulence the tail will waggle some. I keep my foot on the rudders in turbulence, but it's still there - rear seat pax will notice it, front seat not as much.

In order I would say:
V35A/B-TC
P/S35 (non-turbo)
T210M/N/R depending on price

Visit bonanza.org for classifieds and much more info on the marque. There is a website for the C210, but I don't know it offhand.

 

let's include a C-210, since the Bonanza has been brought into the mix of choices, while any Beachcraft product has demanded a premium over other brands, ( which is a good reason to consider a Beach product.).. the C-210 holds a price advantage over the Beach product, it also has similar performance perhaps even better The quest was for a 4 seat plane, the additional seats / space that a 210 or a Bonanza ( can offer ) is well worth the consideration... the utility of a C-210 is much better which includes access without climbing on the wing since it is a high wing plane. In the speed department they are a 170+ in NA configuration with turbo and pressurization available. They both use the Continental 520. There was mention that the Bo might have a higher maintain
cost, than what ? Both are high performance aircraft with similar systems, the basic costs are close to other similar planes... to the basic pilot the costs appear to be higher than a puddle jumper he's used to... it's the additional systems that basic planes don't have... a well equipped Bo or C-210 can rival many twins in available systems. C-210 is a good platform, that may be available at a better price point than a Bonanza

 

Bonanza...quality aircraft.

 

I like the Beechcraft Bonanza V35-TC and Cessna T210. But for a first plane I see great deals on older Beechcraft models like the M35 and older Debonair for 30-60K for aircraft with runout engines and outdated avionics.

 

BARNSTORMERS.COM

Hard to go wrong at this price. Didn't know this would be a first plane. This one has the speed slope windscreen and M style wing tips with a nice GPS. These things are blistering fast for the price.

 

There is a reason for that large spread. Be careful. Don't even look at anything thats been parked on a ramp in the southeast (e.g. Florida).

One thing to consider with older Bo's w/outdated avionics, they have a horrible instrument panel layout as far as the radio stack. Very, VERY, easy to drop 30-50k on avionics upgrade. Then consider a complete engine overhaul will be min $20k. Don't like that ratty old interior, add another 5-10K. That bargain, that can be easily fixed up, can get expensive quickly.

 

Watch out! Those aren't necessarily great deals, they are most likely neglected old airplanes that will eat your lunch.

A couple of things maybe not mentioned so far to look out for on Bonanzas: Filiform corrosion on the magnesium control surfaces. It shows up looking like worms under that paint and will cost thousands to correct, especially when found on the ruddervators. The ruddervators will set you back ~$2500-$3000 per side. The flaps were aluminum, but some models had magnesium ailerons, which are interchangeable with the aluminum parts. Next up is the mile long list of Airworthiness Directives on these airframes, engines, and props. Make sure all have been complied with and that the airplane has complete and thorough logbooks from day one, 337s, and STCs to prove it.

I just sold my Bonanza in April after a dozen years and I bought a Mooney. They are very different airplanes, and flying each should help you decide which one you like beyond their stats on paper. Good luck!

 

Curious, how do you like the handling of the Mooney vs the Bonanza?

 

Those are great.



A Piper Lance will do 150 or so and have a great roomy cabin. Plus some have AC. Big cargo door and great ventilation.

 

Hi, sure... The Bonanza is generally better than the Mooney in my opinion. The Bonanza has a light control feel and feels faster along the longitudinal axis (roll) than the Mooney. The Mooney controls are heavy by comparison, and at first I found the airplane a little tricky to trim at speed, though after 32hrs behind the yoke I am getting better with the trim. I had a thousand hours plus in the Bo, so I need to give the Mooney a chance. Having said that...

I love the Mooney wing at altitude and in the bumps. It's awesome. The Mooney climbs better with less power. Period. My Mooney has speed brakes, which I found to be extremely useful recently when descending into the Palm Springs area from 11,000ft 10nm from the airport! I got down fast, which is something the Bonanza was not good at. I had to be careful not to exceed gear extension speed in the Bo - easy to do in that bird.

The Bonanza landed itself. 50kt headwinds and 30kt cross-winds be damed. The Mooney requires precision and strict attention to speed - 70kts over the numbers or you'll float.

Hope that helps!

 

Mixxolot - Another great airplane you should look at is the Myers D200. It's a low wing, 4-place Continental IO-520 powered airplane that will do every bit of 160kts at gross and more. The airframe doesn't have a single AD issued on it. Not one. And it's a tough airplane with stout landing gear. All that for under a $100K.

A friend of mine owns one and he loves it. I have been in it many times and have flown it from the right seat so I can say it handles very nicely. Picture attached.

There aren't many of these, but you do find them for sale from time to time...

Meyers D200
Meyers 200D & 400

Specs
Meyers 200D Specifications
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Looks like a Navion...

A lot...

 

I've been meaning to ask, what's the ventilation like on small aircraft? Total noob question I know, but I always imagined the canopy was like a greenhouse in direct sunlight.

 

On the ground, pre 1989 aircraft without ac pretty much suck. At altitude it's no issue, you have to ask yourself is the cost in dollars and weight worth the first 20 min of flying, I say YES but I live in Texas.

Mark

 

YUP!

 

It does! A strong but superficial resemblance...

 

Just found this online:

"Most younger aviators today aren’t familiar with the rare Meyers 200 that was built in the 1950s through the late 1960s but they should. Many confuse the Meyers 200 with the much larger and slower Ryan Navion but there’s absolutely no relation to its design or construction. The 200 was designed by Al Meyers to be the fastest and yet safest high performance, complex airplane available. Most of them will honestly cruise between 175 and 185 knots on 75% power and with a very high redline, yellow arc and gear extension speed they’re also very forgiving and relatively easy to fly."

Interesting resemblance.

 

The original Meyers 200 was a tail dragger and much cleaner and better looking. Good performer, too. never flew one but there were a couple of them in the Seattle area in the 70's. Talked to one guy who was scared to death of it. Okay, back to the Tri Pacer.

 

Forget the 200 hp singles (M201 and Piper Arrow), they are really three place airplanes. You can't fill the tanks and the seats in any of them, and if you do can't carry any baggage. Also they are a lot more cramped inside even though most say they have a 48 inch wide interior, the curved in roof makes them feel a lot more cramped.

The 182 RG is a load hauler, it has a lot of wing and if you can shut the doors it'll fly. Useful load is over 1300 pounds and with that it has a climb rate pretty close to 1000 ft per min. Feels more roomy inside because there is a lot more headroom. High wing airplanes are cooler, less heat in the shade of the wing, but less visibility in turns.

I much prefer the Lycoming engine over the Conti, the Conti generally won't make TBO with out a top end overhaul the cylinders just don't last. Spend some time on the Bonanza board and you'll hear a litany of woe regarding cylinder life.. The RG version of the 182 has the Lyc and they tend routinely to go 2k hrs between overhauls.

A normally aspirated C182 RG can make more than 160 knots if you do the strut cuff mods, gap seals and a bit of cleaning up. Cessna rated the airplane at 155kts but I got over 160 out of mine when it was new, right out of the box. Of all the manufacturers, Cessna is more conservative in their ratings. After doing come cleanup, the strut cuffs, gaps seals, flap seals and a few other things I cruised at 172 kts at 6500 ft and 75% power. Generally got about 162kts at 12k ft burning 11 gph.

The disadvantage of the normally aspirated RG is that it is loud until you get it up high. If you cruise in the 10 - 12k range it isn't as loud, but it isn't a quiet airplane by any stretch. The Bonanza's are a lot more quiet as are the RG turbos.

The turbo RG is a bit faster above 6500 feet, but unless you cruise high all the time or live in the mountains it's hard to justify the extra cost of engine maintenance and shorter overhaul time for 10 kts at altitudes where you don't need oxygen. All the turbo airplanes need to get higher up to really pay off, and then you are on oxygen. While they sound a lot faster than the NA planes unless you go on the bottle they aren't worth it. Better to buy some go faster mods and do some cleanup work that will save you fuel and go faster than dump the extra power into a turbo.

Of course you could go ahead and do the same mods to an RG tubo and have a 180-190 kt airplane at altitude, which would be a pretty good ride.

The Meyers is a great airplane, but you have to remember that parts for any orphan airplane are going to be an issue, with a Cessna or a Bo, you can pretty much always get parts.

 

Thanks guys, I'm also curious if anyone here has experience with the lesser known Socata TB20/21 Trinidad and Commander 114 single piston aircraft. The Cirrus SR22 is nice but out of my budget.

 

I've flown both of those, although it's been a long time.

I liked them both. Personally, I think the 114 is one of the best looking piston singles ever built. It's roomy and comfortable. I'm not sure if it will do 160kts, but it's going to be close. I think a 114 would be my choice, of the airplanes discussed so far.

The Trinidad was okay, as I recall. The doors are cool, and the interior had a nice, modern feel in comparison with the Cessnas or Bonanzas mentioned here.

I'd look seriously at a 114, as long as the speed is acceptable. I've never flown one of the newer ones, but I imagine that would be the way to go, if it fits your price range.

 

Ah, thanks. Why the 1989 cutoff?