To a large degree the answer to “speed” will depend on your budget.
For example the owner of a (all used aircraft prices here) £300k SR22 which does 170kt will be happier against a 50kt headwind than the owner of a £150k TB20 which does 140-150kt. And the owner of a Jetprop (say £700k) will be happier still, doing 260kt 
But in the price range of a Turbulent you won’t get any of these figures.
Some homebuilts are pretty fast (e.g. the little Lancairs will do 160-170kt) but they cost the bigger part of £100k if you want a half decent specimen built by somebody who did a good job, and they have all the well-discussed international travelling limitations.
In my TB20 I would very often like more speed and whenever I get back home after sitting for 6hrs against a 50kt headwind I start looking at the Lancair IV adverts That interest lasts until I wake up and face reality, and I am happy to say the decision is not financial. Every plane is a compromise, the compromises are pretty severe, and there is a price to be paid for the extra knots. Picking a plane which does say 90% of the desired mission profile well is the key thing, and the other 10% one can live with.
For stability you want a high wing loading which – in terms of certified aircraft – you get on the faster IFR tourers.
kwlf wrote:
How important is stability if you’re flying long legs VFR?
Quite.
Some time back I did a trip to Bulgaria and back without an Autopilot. The Mooney is stable enough but flying 6-7 hours on a single day by hand on a single day is quite tiring in the end. Heaven knows how Lindberg did his 30 hours but it can’t have been much fun. After I got the AP installed, it frees up a lot of capacity, checking weather enroute, coms, fuel monitoring e.t.c. I would not really want to do any longer trip over an hour or so cruise without it anymore.
With higher cruise speed, you usually get the need for longer runways. So now you can get to the airport faster, but your airport choice may but further from your intended destination.
Peter wrote:
But in the price range of a Turbulent you won’t get any of these figures.
I have to confess I had to look up what a Turbulent actually is… and have no idea what they go for these days. But it doesn’t look to me as a traveller, rather a sport plane for local trips. The only Druine planes I could find were in the 20-35k Euro price range, so I’ll take that as a ballpark.
Travelling seriously requires a range of roughly 1000 NM and a speed of <= 150 kts. Basically, the TB20, Mooney 201 and so on are on the lower edge of that envelope. And true, in the 20-30k price range you won’t get any of those.
However, there are several travel airplanes which fall short of the 1000NM/150kt ballpark but still can do quite nicely and they are in this ballpark.
The Mooney M20C will do roughly 140 kts, fly around 700 NM (1100 NM with Monroy tanks). They cost in the 30 k’s these days. The M20E actually does 150 kts easily but also falls short in range, some of those are also available around that price range. Occasionally there are also F’s around for that price and they will do 750 – 800 NM at 145 kts too.
The Piper Arrow II often can be found in the 20-30k range, matter of fact I got two friends their rides in the 25k range, one a PARO II and one a III. The Arrow 2 will travel at around 135 kts and do some 550 NM, the 3 however has a range of 800 NM at 135-140 kts.
There are others, not that many, but in today’s market decent perfoming travellers can be found at that range.
Upping the budget to about 50k opens up the market of Mooney 201 and the occasional Turbo Arrow, both of which will deliver some 160 kts and ranges in the 900 NM range. I’ve recently come across two rather well equipped Mooney 231 in the 40k range which will do significantly better than that, the 231 is a 1000 NM airplane with about 180 kts of TAS high up.
And not to forget the single engine Commanche. The PA24-260 can be found in this range too and will run at 150-160 kts (non turbo) and have a 1000 NM range (90 USG) and up to 1400 NM with the optional 120 USG long range tanks. Currently there are 4 on plane check which are all at 50k or below.
So in order to get a decent traveller with proper performance, one does not have to go into the 100k’s and higher.
I need to stay away from autopilots! It sounds like one would become indispensable if I got used to it! But for now, I enjoy hand flying for 3-4 hours. And no, you don’t need a 150 knot plane to do serious touring. What you really need is a STOL aircraft that will actually get you where you want to go.
To those wrestling with the idea of ownership: 50K EURO is probably the bare minimum ticket for an entry level IFR flying. Serious VFR touring can be done with a 25K plane. You DON’T need 150 knots to travel. You do need to be able to abandon the plane if the weather gets bad (to get back to work) and come back for it later, which sort of excludes short term rentals. That is really an argument in favor of ownership.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
I’ve recently come across two rather well equipped Mooney 231 in the 40k range which will do significantly better than that, the 231 is a 1000 NM airplane with about 180 kts of TAS high up.
I have owned a 231 and can honestly say that you’ll get nowhere near 180kts TAS unless you’re breathing oxygen through a mask and is turning a blind eye to a spreaming TIT !
It is great plane that will do an honest 165 kts at 12GPH and has really good range.
And no, you don’t need a 150 knot plane to do serious touring. What you really need is a STOL aircraft that will actually get you where you want to go.
WP agree – the Maule/Cessna 180/182/185 fraternity get the best of both worlds.
A clean Warrior 2 will manage 120 KTAS at 70% and FL70 and provide a comfortable ride for three for 300nm with IFR reserves – the savings on the annual will allow you to stay at five star hotels.
A Turbulent won’t go fast because that’s not its purpose, but if you want to go fast, cheap and travel long distances in a homebuilt it can be done, and is done. The Rand KR2 example that was used by the OP is one example, although a fairly extreme one because although they are unbelievably cheap (and fast) you have have to be a real adventurer to fly long distances in a KR. I spent an hour with that pilot at my base, and he is an adventurer, no question. You don’t see a lot of G-registered KRs in the US!
Other planes that are more conventional might be a Thorp T-18 like Don Taylor flew around the world in 1976, the first homebuilt to do so. They are a $40K market value plane for a nice one. The most straightforward would be a Van’s RV-6 bought used for $50-60K USD, which is market value. That’s a circa 160 kt aircraft that is also practical for other kinds of flying.
I remember my dad, now in his late 80s, flying his 150 mph cruise homebuilt at 3.5 gph, and smiling about it
From the production planes available for the job, I might choose one of the last Comanche C 260s, they have great capability as Mooney_Driver explained, lots of range with the right tank option, and lots of room.
@RobertL18C
A Cessna 180 would be nice indeed! It looks like someone recently got a good deal on a Belgium based N-Reg example. My heart bleeds.
Two aircraft that should be added to the potential shopping list are the various Robin DRs and the AA5B. I have toured very effectively in both.
