My next aircraft - 150 Knot 4 seater with good range???

750nm at 140 knots feels quite a slog. Especially, as Peter points out, 750nm with weather planning can soon turn into 1,000nm and un scheduled stops.

Suggest you fly your proposed mission in a comfortable rental – there are C182 and 182RG available for hire in the UK. See if this is really your 90% mission profile and you enjoy it.

I found 600nm was about the practical liveable limit in a 170 knot twin, once you threw in delays, weather etc.

If your flying is mainly fair weather then go for ruggedness, spaciousness, passenger comfort, simplicity (read fixed gear) and good useful load: 206, 6-300. These can fly 750nm non stop at around 135 knot, but you better have flying enthusiasts as passengers. Four hours traversing France can get dull pretty quick.

The Bonanza may have CG issues with the proposed load as fuel is burned off, unless it is a BE36.

I have a TR182 (and a POH) and the POH of the TB20. I see it being faster at the same power setting. Of course the TB20 runs out of power at altitude which the turbo normalized 182 does not but with the same BHP, I think it is a few knots faster than both the FG and RG versions of the 182. The TB21 should be faster than any 182 at any altitude. The TB airframe is more streamlined (no miracle) but it is considerably heavier which doesn’t have a major impact on cruise speed but which makes it require a lot of runway.

have a look at this classic Bellanca Turbo Viking available in England. It’s very cheap, but you are looking at an avionics job. I have never flown one, but they have style

Bellancas combine the worst features of prewar and modern aircraft…. Delicate construction materials and techniques combined with modern (complex) systems. But there’s something intriguing in the way they link the ideas and techniques of one of the earliest aircraft designers with good performance & utility. I think they’re just super cool, and would like to have one in the foreseeable future.

The Comanche 250/260 would be my practical choice, but the Bellanca is lovely.

You can not beat Mooneys for speed or range.

Err, yes, but not for this profile! Elderly folks in the rear is not something I’d like to do in my Mooney.

Then: 370 kgs traffic load is a huge number for most 4 seaters, even if you only need 3.5 hours endurance.

I had a quick look in my database and there is not much which will fit that requirement.

The Arrow II has a full fuel payload of around 340 kgs and a 600 NM/5 hour range. It can carry 140 lt/37 USG with your load, which would give it about 3:45 endurance, 2:45 planning range. At 140 kts that means 380-400 NM. It also should not be a problem to operate out of 750 m grass.

Actually, probably the Archer II you have comes pretty close to these figures as well, albeit with less range. I only have a Cherokee 180 in my data, which would be able to carry 370 kgs of traffic load and 90 kgs of fuel. That means 33 USG and with 10 gph consumption around 2.3 hours plus reserve. But that means a range of only around 220-240 NM…

The C182 or 210 is really the prime choice for this kind of mission.

The C182Q I have in my database has a total payload of 500 kgs. With 370 kg traffic load, that leaves 130 kgs of fuel, that is 180 liters/48 USG. With 12 GPH that means 3 hours plus 1 hour reserve to dry tanks. With 135 kts TAS that would give you around 400 NM with that load.

The figures I have for the 210 refer to a T210N with 4100 lb MTOW and 115 USG LR tanks. With an empty weight of 2500 lb, this leaves 1600 lb / 725 kgs payload. So even with full fuel of 313 kgs loaded, the T210N can lift 413 kgs and carry those over 1300 NM. Which simply puts it in another league than the rest.

So from where I am sitting, the Arrow II is probably the cheapest option, followed by the Cessna 182 but both struggle with this load. If you want to carry people and their considerable bags, you can’t really go wrong with the 210. But make sure that if you buy one, it has the SID’s done, otherwise you can end up on a financial airmine.

(For Adam only: Yes Mooney are efficient but they are not really family vans, even if my wife seems to think otherwise.

My M20C (and the 201 has similar payload figures) have a total payload of around 410 kgs. This would leave 55 ltrs for fuel. With best economy of about 33 liters per hour this means you could fly for about 40 minutes (plus 1 hour reserve) which would be around 100 NM.

Most Mooneys from the C model up to the J have full fuel traffic loads between 230 (J) and 270 (C) kgs. That is pretty much in the ballpark with other 4 seaters but nowhere near the requirements posted here. That is why I fly it most of the time with 2 people and lots of baggage. With the two of us it can carry up to 100 kgs of bags with full fuel and 650 NM range. Later Models are even worse.

The current model, the Acclaim S, has a total payload of around 450 kg, which would leave some 110 liters in tanks to MTOW. With a consumption of around 50 liters per hour at a moderate 200 kts, it could fly around 240 NM. With standard 100 USG on board, it can lift a measly 180 kgs but will carry those over 1200 NM at 200 kts or some 900 NM at 237 kts. With long range tanks, full fuel traffic load is 105 kgs, so basically one guy and his bags. However, it can fly over 1600 NM at 200 kts or 1200 at 237 kts.

So not a family van but rather the aviation equivalent of a Lamborghini. )

With a consumption of around 50 liters per hour at a moderate 200 kts

Only at very high oxygen levels – not good for many people. No 4-seater can do 200kt on 50L/hr at low levels – that is the province of tandem 2-seaters.

I have spotted a few TB20s in my range. There is an ‘82 model

A 1982 TB20 is a very very early model, prob99 very thoroughly shagged. Cheap to buy, yes…

I am keeping out of arguments suggesting that a C182 R goes faster than a TB20, for the same thrust (i.e. IAS, altitude, temperature, etc), loading (MTOW), and the same fuel flow and the same ‘540 engine Somebody who thinks that needs to check his fuel totaliser and his ASI. But the difference won’t be great.

The other thing which I find slightly worrying is that – while I know nothing about the OP’s expertise in micro-managing aircraft maintenance – a lot of the types suggested are going to be, shall we say, interesting to keep going, given the dire state of the UK’s aircraft maintenance scene.

There may be a reason for this, but probably close to 100% of the Navion Rangemaster population in Europe seems to be for sale on Planecheck.

Built by the folk that brought you the P-51 with the same NACA wing, STOL retractable (no not an oxymoron), ticks the useful load/range boxes. Never flown one, but has a reputation for charisma, good handling, good build quality, passenger comfort – but still a 1970 vintage of a 1940s design – so would require an enthusiast.