Looking for a fast airplane

Barty said:
One of my instructors here at the center showed me a picture of one of those today. I think I had to wipe the drool off of my chin after I saw that. Shame there are only 34 of them in existence.
Click to expand...

I don't know how many are in existence or flying anymore. I believe the total number built was 34.

That isn't out of whack. Howard only built 39 or so airplanes in their original existence - DGA-8's, 9's, 11's and 12's. The airplane most people associate with Howard, the DGA-15P was produced in greater numbers, but only after Benny Howard sold the company. So, out of the original 39 airplanes - I think only 6 or so exist - all DGA-11's. The -11 was a superior airplane to the 15 and speed wise was a contemporary of the Spartan Exec and Staggerwing - faster than the Stag actually.
 
TFaudree_ERAU said:
Can't go wrong with a Mooney...like a mid 90s Ovation.
Click to expand...

The M20R with EFIS was a great airplane and quick. But it wouldn't make a good corp hauler. It is small and handles like a vette. The problem is if you get any kind of turb it rides like a vette a dirt road. You get bounced pretty good due to the high wing loading.

The 310 would be a good plane. You have FIKI plus backup of second engine.
 
FlySooner9 said:
Thanks everyone for the good options and comments. I think all are good options. Im sorta partial to an A-36 myself. Sounds like they're not real big fans of a twin. Now it comes down to finding a good deal.
Click to expand...

For my money, I'd hop in and turn right (well, depends on the plane). Start with a cabin and work out. If they're happy riding in back, then the money will not be so hard for them to spend. If they have to grunt/groan/crunch and aren't amused with getting to their chairs, that would be a much harder check to write.

Of course that's after assessing mission capability.

A plane that can make 90% of the missions and makes them happy to ride in is a much better buy than a plane that makes 100% of the missions and they're uncomfortable (be it sweating, ride, space) IMO

Again, $5 of my $.02
 
Clearly, this is your best candidate for a "fast airplane"; why even waste your time with the other aircraft mentioned in this thread?

http://www.thorntonaircraft.com/body/body.cfm?page_name=mil

T-38A, N538TC
Mfg. Serial No: 5881 USAF Serial No: 65-10462Airframe Time: 2003 TTSN
Wing Time: 2030 TTSN
Engine Times: 5 SOH, 481 SOH
Lowest time T-38 in the world,
now ready for paint and delivery
Click to expand...

pic_22_xl.jpg
 
Bandit_Driver said:
...The problem is if you get any kind of turb it rides like a vette a dirt road. You get bounced pretty good due to the high wing loading....
Click to expand...

I thought that high wing loading would generally result in a smoother ride in turbulence?


Calling fish or tgrayson or seagull or ...! :D
 
SteveC said:
I thought that high wing loading would generally result in a smoother ride in turbulence?


Calling fish or tgrayson or seagull or ...! :D
Click to expand...

I've flown them R model and it sucks in turb, I was told it was due to the high wing loading of 18-20 lbs / sq foot. But I could be wrong about the wing loading.
 
Mooney 252. Nothing will compete with the low fuel burn, 1000+ mi range, 1000+lb useful load. Basically a refined intercooled 231 w/a 28volt elevtrical system and a few aerodynamic improvements to squeeze out speed. Mooney builds one of the strongest and best airframes produced as well. Do research fly one and you will love it. You can also get TKS KNOWN ice for the M20K if that is something that might tickle you.
 
SteveC said:
I thought that high wing loading would generally result in a smoother ride in turbulence?


Calling fish or tgrayson or seagull or ...! :D
Click to expand...

Bandit_Driver said:
I've flown them R model and it sucks in turb, I was told it was due to the high wing loading of 18-20 lbs / sq foot. But I could be wrong about the wing loading.
Click to expand...

SteveC has it right. Generally higher wing loading improves stability in turbulence, but it hurts takeoff distance and turn performance. There may be other factors that cause it to suck in turbulence though.
 
fish314 said:
SteveC has it right. Generally higher wing loading improves stability in turbulence, but it hurts takeoff distance and turn performance. There may be other factors that cause it to suck in turbulence though.
Click to expand...

Good to know. Thanks. Then can someone explain to me why it feels like a corvette driving down a old dirt road in turb?
 
Bandit_Driver said:
Good to know. Thanks. Then can someone explain to me why it feels like a corvette driving down a old dirt road in turb?
Click to expand...
Maybe because the Mooney wing is built like a freakin tank and therefore probably does not flex nearly as much as many other GA plane wings?
 
Roger said:
Maybe because the Mooney wing is built like a freakin tank and therefore probably does not flex nearly as much as many other GA plane wings?
Click to expand...

That could be fixed. Just purchase an M20 or an M20A. Wooden wing absorbs lots of turbulence, from what I've been told.
 
Bandit_Driver said:
Good to know. Thanks. Then can someone explain to me why it feels like a corvette driving down a old dirt road in turb?
Click to expand...

Personally I think it's because, like a 'vette, the mooney is small, fast, and sprung like a brick (i.e. tight airframe).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top