What is the best production single eng. Cross C. Plane?
phaeton
I'm interested in what everyone thinks is the best overall single
engine production cross country aircraft.
Can we get some discussion going? Many of you that I have read in
different posts know a whole lot more about aircraft than most of us.
Which one is the best? Why?
I like the Bellanca Viking. I know it's wood but that's why it's the
only plane that can fly at, "Warp Speed!"
The Viking is small on the inside and is limited in load due to the
gear. However it's strong, fast, inexpensive,and can true an honest
180 mph all day long.(really only 4 hrs.) then you have to stop for
fuel. It's attractive and easy to fly.
Those are the reasons I like the Viking. I know many have thousands
of reasons why they don't like the Viking but I don't fly with them.
If I did they would soon grow to love the Viking like I do.
With luck Ron Farlee will give us his choice. We will have to wait for
him to come to, as I know he is going to faint when he sees a post from
me that seems to make sense.
How about it Ron, what's your answer to this question? also Ron, what
do you think is the best recreational plane and the best back country
plane. No unkind remarks from me on any plane. Promise
Steven Levin
phaeton (pha...@montana.com) wrote:
: I'm interested in what everyone thinks is the best overall single
: Which one is the best? Why?
: I like the Bellanca Viking. I know it's wood but that's why it's the
: only plane that can fly at, "Warp Speed!"
There's nothing quite like the slickness of a wood wing. But the realities
of needing to hangar a wood-and-fabric airplane are a serious downer in the
Southwest, where a hangar can run $300/month.
To me, "best cross country" means one of two things:
1) a plane where the trip itself is the fun. For that, a Super Decathlon.
Low, slow, enjoy the scenery, roll the plane about here and there, and enjoy
the view.
2) a plane that makes it fun to go long distances and see new places. That
means SPEED.
a) A Mooney TLS Bravo (soon to be just Bravo) This is the only
piston single I can think of that can bust the 200 knot under Class B
airspace rule! Waahooooooooooooooooo!
b) V-Tail Bonanza (for those who want to stay in the 50-75 thousand
dollar range). Not as fast as the above-mentioned Mooney, but still, a darn
fast single with great handling!
Steve
John R. Johnson
On 4 Jun 1997, phaeton wrote:
> I'm interested in what everyone thinks is the best overall single
> engine production cross country aircraft.
>
> Can we get some discussion going? Many of you that I have read in
> different posts know a whole lot more about aircraft than most of us.
>
> Which one is the best? Why?
<snip>
> How about it Ron, what's your answer to this question? also Ron, what
> do you think is the best recreational plane and the best back country
> plane. No unkind remarks from me on any plane. Promise
>
My voice crying in the wilderness ...
Single engine fast cross country aircraft ...
Comanche 180 to 260. Roomy, comfortable, fast, and inexpensive.
Bonanza 35 to V-35 also Debonair series. Roomy, comfortable, fairly
fast, not so inexpensive.
Bellanca 14-13-2, The best Bellyanchor is the triple tail with the
O-470 engine. Fast hotrod with GREAT handling. Not quite as roomy
and not quite as good at carrying junk. This the the GT of airplanes.
Bushplane ...
Definately 150 HP SuperCub. Lousy for everything but bush flying. There
ARE other bushplanes that beat the SuperCub but they cost a LOT more.
Funplane ...
Really tough. Depends a LOT on what you call fun. Examples ...
Pitts Special. If fun is head banging aerobatics.
Extra 300 . If fun is competition aerobatics.
Ford Powered Pietenpol. If fun is cruising along at 60 mph and 500 feet
AGL checking out the sights, sounds, and smells of the countryside.
Van's RV series. If fun is fast responsive flying that still lands at
less than 50 mph and allows you to take a friend along. If you are
a loner, the RV-3 is an absolute blast!
Stinson Reliant. Fun in a different way! Certainly as roomy as airplanes
get! :-)
Ultralight. Fun in yet another way. Not my cup of tea, but favored by
many!
I have even known people who call stoogeing along on the gauges on a dark
and gloomy night talking to absolute strangers on the radio FUN. Fun is
a very personal thing!
Personally, I find almost all kinds of flying fun. It is like girls to a
dirty old man like me! All girls are nice. Some are nicer than others!
All flying is fun. Some kinds of flying are more fun than other kinds!
I no longer get the enjoyment I used to from hanging in my seat belt at
the top of some wierd maneuver trying to figure out what the airplane is
going to do to me next! I tend these days to keep the G's relatively
low and positive!
More fun to you too...
John
Rod Farlee
pha...@montana.com (phaeton) writes:
>With luck Ron Farlee will give us his choice... also Ron, what
>do you think is the best recreational plane and the best back country
>plane.
Geez, my opinions are less interesting (or experienced) than those of
many others around here. But, personally, I like airplanes that don't
have as big a mouth to feed (300 hp) as the Viking, and are easy to
maintain (I'm cheap, I admit it!). I hope we get lots of different
opinions.
Anyway, my votes:
XC: Cardinal for space, Tiger for handling (all are compromises).
Recreational: Champ (funky and fun, does everything but climb!).
Back country: Super Cub (we'll all agree on this one, anyway!)
- Rod Farlee
EMB...@webtv.net
If we were talking "New Lotto Winner" my vote would be the following:
Cost no object:
TBM 700 - 300 kts @ FL260
or in the real world, but still loaded:
Mooney Ovation - 190 kts @ 8,000 ft
I would be happy to fly any of the aircraft previously posted, since I
haven't matched those six numbers yet...
Joe
Jean Richard
John R. Johnson wrote:
> > I'm interested in what everyone thinks is the best overall single
> > engine production cross country aircraft.
> Bushplane ...
>
> Definately 150 HP SuperCub. Lousy for everything but bush flying. There
> ARE other bushplanes that beat the SuperCub but they cost a LOT more.
But if you have a lot of money, go for the DHC-2 Beaver. They are flying
like Super Cub, but with 4 more passengers, you canoes on the floats, and
still a lot of baggages. The big Pratt & Whitney radial engine is a little bit
thirsty...
And nothing can replace a Beaver, except his bigger brother the Otter...
J. Richard
Peter Henry
> XC: Cardinal for space, Tiger for handling (all are compromises).
I looked around a lot before I bought my Cardinal RG. The combo
of interior space & comfort, good range, decent speed and
miserly fuel flow just did it for me. Annuals have been very
reasonable. Then I went and shoved in a ton of money into upgrades
to compensate for what I saved in gas :)
With a turbo, a Cardinal is a total blast for XC, getting near
170 knots at higher altitudes. I got 3 hours San Francisco to
Grand Junction CO on my last trip (tailwind..). That was fun.
P.
Margy Patterson
Jean Richard wrote:
>
> John R. Johnson wrote:
>
> > > I'm interested in what everyone thinks is the best overall single
> > > engine production cross country aircraft.
>
Mine!!!
I think this is in the category of religious questions. The best plane
is the one you have, love etc. I love my Navion! Faster than a 172 but
not as fast as some, roomy (space between the seats and a high canopy)
and by far the best looking aircraft anywhere.
Margy
John Ferebee
For me the best x-county aircraft for the money is a late 70's A-36
Bonanza with the 300hp engene. Fast, big payload, stable IFR
platform, can get into short fields if needed. I have it's little
sister, a 65 Debonair, but the A-36 will leave it behind very quickly.
John Ferebee
jfer...@easystreet.com
comanche driver
phaeton <pha...@montana.com> wrote in article
<5n2nrc$i...@maw.montana.com>...
> I'm interested in what everyone thinks is the best overall single
> engine production cross country aircraft.
>
> Can we get some discussion going? Many of you that I have read in
> different posts know a whole lot more about aircraft than most of us.
>
> Which one is the best? Why?
>
> cost no factor: North American P-51 now thats fast.........
somewhat real life PA24-400 comanche 400 fast, more room than beech or
mooney It also does warp speed.
with the exception of the engine a lot cheaper to maintain than a beech or
mooney and no wood rot like the viking.
real life PA24-260 same reasons above with less fuel burn and a bullet
proof lycoming.
R. Burns PA30 twin comanche N31952