Same here, with the exception of long stretches over COLD water I would fly any route in the SR22 I would fly in a Seneca. Across WARM water (mediterranean in the summer, Bahamas) I do not fear flying 3 hours over water, but with SR22 speeds it’s only 1 hour across the sea from Athens to Heraklion (with Milos airport at 1/2 way). 3 hours is the longest I know, from Heraklion to Sicily.
Hello Walter,
there are quite a few Mooneys which are de-iced to some extent or the other.
http://www.planecheck.com?ent=da&id=24198
Just one example: This is a Mooney Bravo TLS with full TKS de-ice (non-fiki) and a pretty good equipment. It would fit your requirement pretty well, but is a bit over the price range.
Some 231’s are also equipped with radar. I remember one which had both.
The Mooneys can be an ideal solution for someone who travels often alone or with 2 people on board. Clearly, a 231 can, if it is not fuelled up, carry 4 over 500 NM or so, but it also can carry 2 over 1000 NM with in between 180 and 200 kts depending on the model. If you are going for a 231, then look out to get one with an “LB” engine rather than the older and more maintenace prone “GB” Model.
For your requirement, I would suggest to look at a de-iced 231/Bravo or 252.
FIKI is something which primarily the newer Mooneys do, the Acclaim or the Ovation primarily. However, the TKS on the non-fiki planes ist pretty similar, simply the rules change a bit. I would not fly either into more than light ice, even though the TKS should be able to handle moderate too.
What is certain is, that you won’t do much wrong with a Mooney. They are fast, economical and have the necessary climb rate to get thorugh the ice fairly fast. They do have the service ceiling which will get you over the nasty stuff, but of course that means oxygen and it means to be very careful with all that comes with high altitude flying.
Hi mooney driver
I guess I became a mooniac myself now. I was going through all planes and actually what you wrote in your entry is the bulls eye for my direction.
The mooney acclaim ultra would be the choice if …. If I would dream a bit a lottery …
Anyway the bravo or 252 is not far away from that and with a nice aspen or garmin glas cockpit together with the TKS it’s the perfect match, as close as it can get in real world.
Since I will increase my budget to 150-200k I will have to play less hard and and work more harder to get there in two or three years. Since the operational costs are quite reasonable I can then fully enjoy the speed and stories of a mooney. By then 2018 past by as well and thus endless Avgas discussion might be a step closer to be done. What ever the FAA and EPA will discuss, there is a financially neutral solution in reach. As long as all turbo charged high performance burners are included in the shift to non lead gas.
I was also going through controller.com and I am quite sure I will get my future mooney from there (unless there is a great plane here obviously) the variation and diversity of planes in the US is just terrific for me in easa continent :-)
Any idea, what will be the benefits of a N-reg plane operated in easa land VS an import? Obviously loads of regulations are different but in practical terms? I mean also in Europe a N reg plane needs ADF if needed for an approach…anyway I mightnjustbgoogle it a bit more. I have some 50-80k€ time to do that :-)))
Meanwhile I will get in touch with some mooney operates and try to get some airborne time to fine tune my final destination (m20j201, m20k231 or TLS or or or ) for sure TKS (regardless if approved or only unintentional icing protection) can’t damage the plane to have TKS, regardless the paper reality
Thx many times to all you guys here. You made a great deal of my choice and helped sharpening my direction. :-)
The list of SE earth-rounders over the last ten years makes a good selection of capable SE types, with Mooneys, 210, Bonanzas much in evidence.
That’s an impressive list, Robert, thanks for sharing. I particularly admire the Polish chaps doing it in an An-2, must have taken eternities!
In fact, the An-2 would make a rather poor answer to the opening question – can it be IFR-certified at all? As an experimental, perhaps 
in certain countries…
Jan_Olieslagers wrote:
I particularly admire the Polish chaps doing it in an An-2, must have taken eternities!
In fact, An-2 would make a rather poor answer to the opening question – can it be IFR-certified at all
Yes, it can, but the factory configuration only includes an ADF and a radio altimeter. It isn’t terribly slow, either – the cruising speed is about 100 knots.
Given that the An-2 was (and maybe still is) a backwoods commuter airliner by design, it’s hard to imagine it couldn’t be flown in IMC by design. I’d also be curious to know whether the USSR distinguished between visual and instrument flight rules.
Silvaire wrote:
I’d also be curious to know whether the USSR distinguished between visual and instrument flight rules.
Yes, USSR had IFR and VFR (including SVFR provisions), but all airspace was controlled (same as in e.g. Israel). The most frequent type of instrument approach used to be 2NDB (collocated with outer and middle markers), and generally, ADF was often the only means of radio navigation available to civilians. Here is a Russian ADF, by the way.
I figured you’d know that Ultranomad, thanks for the info.
Sorry for the thread diversion – I might look at a Comanche 260C personally, as well as the Mooneys but I’m no expert on the subject.
