What is the best airplane faster than 300 mph and under $500k?

Question

I've racked my brain searching the net and multiple trade-a-planes, and so far I like the Mitsubishi Mu-2's and the Cessna 421's the best. I would prefer a high wing, as I fly in Alaska (and beyond). Although, this isn't a must.

I like the idea of low operating costs from a single engine, although the ones capable of +300mph are usually double-over $500K, or they are rather small and don't have the best range. I'm hoping you can tell me I've missed something... The Lancair IV looks wonderful, although rather small for international trips.

Range is most important. Payload is second, because I would be able to increase the range if needed. This is why I would prefer the two mentioned first, before something like a Lancair IV.

Thanks!

Answer 1

I prefer the Cessna's; however, you could get a Lancair IV for that price and, to increase your range (at some payload sacrifice) by installing auxiliary tanks.

Cessna's have been the workhorse of general aviation for a long time and have a very good reputation for dependability while easy to maintain at a reasonable cost.

Whichever you choose, happy flying.

Answer 2

Nope, you've not missed anything that I know of. I've studied this class of aircraft extensively and have flown a few.

The Mitsubishi MU-2 has a very bad accident record, and now the experience requirements for pilots are so high, and insurance coverage so expensive that it would be a very impractical choice. Those still in use have pretty much gone over to freight because of the liability issues. I have not flown Mu-2's but have researched them extensively for the  company I now fly for. They decided against buying one.

The Cessna 421 is not a 300 mph airplane, its closer to 200 (I used to fly one). It's a very good airplane, if you don't mind the slower speed and flying at lower altitudes. You would instead be thinking of the Cessna C-441 "Conquest II" turboprop, which is a 300 mph turboprop that sells in the vacinity if $1.5-2.0 million. These are all older airplanes with some very expensive inspection and maintenance issues, but they're good performers (not the Conqeust I).

The Piper Chyenne is another older twin turboprop that you might find in the $500k range but it will probably have high time engines and older avionics, paint and interior. Worth a look, but I don't know much about them.

An older Malibu Mirage (turbine single) with high time is another plane that more or less fits your criteria, but it can't touch the twins for payload although it is cheaper to operate and maintain. I've flown them a bit and felt so-so about them. Pricey for the size.

The small planes like the Lancair have good performance, but little payload. They have a high accident rate and high insurance for a single too, mostly due to pilots with too much money and not enough skill crashing them (something like 7 this year). Personally, I would not want to fly long trips in a cramped single engine aircraft of that type. A Pilatus maybe, but then they're $5 million bucks.

The Rockwell Commander 690A and 690B come close to 300 mph for a price of about $500k for higher time aircraft with older avionics, etc. I've flown Commanders quite extensively and like them a lot.The better equipped and more capable versions are a lot more expensive, up to about $1.8 million. Anything around $500k is probably going to have high time engines. Plus, all the Commander series now have expensive periodic spar inspections. The plane still gives about the most bang for the buck in comparison to any other twin turboprop on the market when you consider payload, range, speed and fuel consumption versus purchas price.

If you don't mind slowing down a bit, some of the older King Air 90 series are good airplanes available at $500k, but a the Commander beats them in every category except comfort. If you want to go faster, you have to jump to the King Air 100, 200, or 300, which are all much more expensive. I have thousands of hours in King Airs of all descriptions and love them. Can't go wrong.

Bottom line, you probably need more money to fill all your requirements and not get a run-down hangar queen of an airplane, or you're stuck with a light single. I spent 7 years flying professionally in Alaska and its not a good environment for a Lancair, especially in winter. They don't handle ice very well (if at all) and they're ill-suited to anything other than pavement or very smooth unpaves surfaces. If you want to be all-season, all weather, you need anti-ice and de-ice capability and a good ability to carry ice if you encounter a lot of it. If you're a fair weather pilot, that's a different story.

p.s. I'm not picking on him, but Dogzilla obviously doesn't have much if any King Air experience. He's is right in most regards except speed. Those are optimistic figures found in sales literature, not real life averages. Also, the take-off distances he quotes are 2-engine. The prudent pilot always picks fields according to the accel-stop or accel-go figures for single engine operations.

Answer 3

MU-2 all the way.

The other posters are sort of right about it. It has had a bad record in the past, however there have been none in the past 2 years. Compare that to the King Airs and Cessna 400 series. There are new FAA training guidelines for the aircraft for the pilots. The FAA has found nothing wrong with the aircraft on 2 seperate occasions and meet all of the FAA's design and performance cirteria. The aircraft itself is one of the best ever made. No ADs on the Airframe, very reliable, and the 2nd best in customer service behind Pilatus for many years running. I can personally vouch for the great customer support on the MU.The aircraft itself is Very safe, but the pilots that have piloted them perhaps not. It is not for everyone, if you are not a good multi/IFR pilot then look elsewhere. Get good training and expect to have good experience to get insured. Insurance doesnt cost that much.

You will not find any King Air even close to 500k you would want to fly. There are plenty of Mu-2s for sale. I have heard bad things about the 421 regarding maintenance and AD issues. The safety history of the 400 series Cessnas is worse than the MU2. dont expact much better economy out of a large piston twin, plus the safety and reliability of the turbines on the MU would answer the question for me right away.

Regarding flying Alaska the MU-2 was made for short fields. Hence the MU (Mitsubishi Utility -2)

The Lancair 4 is VERY small.

If you want to contact me directly regarding the MU-2 please do.

Answer 4

I have bought and sold General Aviation Aircraft for nearly 20 years.  First I am going to say - Stay away from the Mitsubishi - they have a very unsafe history - insurance companies hate them and if you can find insurance you will spend a fortune for it.

As for a purchase the question real comes down to your experience - you are not going to be able to jump into a twin right away if you are just starting out in your flying career.  

Then to accomplish 300 mph your looking at a expensive machine.  If you can live with going in the low 200 mph range you can look at a few singles the Bonanza, Cessna 210, Meyers 200, Lancair, Cirus, etc.  

If you want the speed and can operate a twin the older Cheyennes' King Air 90's (will be in the mid to upper 200 mph range) and some older Citation will fit your needs.  The 421 is a good bird - but know that the engines are sensative.  

Also consider the cost of flying and maintaing a twin is much higher than a single engine aircraft.  That is why most of the manufacturers are not producing them anymore.

Rising up which I put below can offer you specs on most aircraft.

Answer 5

I would go with a 200 series king air, you can find them in that range, but most are about twice as much. They can break 300 and they can fly over 1700 miles, and they only need 2600ft for a 50ft object, so they are pretty competitive.

You could go down a step to a 90 series, which goes about 260 for 1100, which only need 2200 ft for a 50ft object, and you can pick them up in the low 300's.

Some of the 80 series Queen Air's can maintain 250 and only need 1800ft, but they have a pretty short range of about 700 miles. They do have a nice 3600lb payload to make up for it though. With the wingtip tanks it would be able to reach just about all of Alaska.

Oh, and they all have some pretty tough landing gear, the queen air especially.

Answer 6

the closest your get will probably get is a Cessna 350 or 400 or a Mooney or cirrus or diamond

Answer 7

Get a used L-39.