PMD

Thanks for today's input. I am a long way away from coming to final conclusion. I still like the 4 cyl option, even though the costs of going to extreme loom quite large. As I mentioned: it is immediately attainable with later model airplane, but comes with immediate bill as well. Grandma used to sit through one or two fuel stops in Tiger days, so on rare occasions when truly long legs are called for, she is still up for it. As has been mentioned, just having the capacity does not demand that one fills the tanks - and certainly with some of the larger capacities, the back seats are useless without dramatic reduction in range (but not planned as a frequent need for next plane - thus the 2+2 comment). As has been mentioned: you don't miss a lot of fuel capacity if you have never had it. Years of flying in the bush with very few fuel stops available, and a LONG distance to alternates left me with a real desire to have that option, even if rarely used.

I have been starting to come around to the general reasoning of going big engine and just power back. Monroy tanks would sure be a big plus. HOWEVER: where this all started (and started getting out of hand) is having a relatively CHEAP 2+2 airplane to avoid flying what will be corporate transport when Grandma and Grandpa are going to visit kids or just going someplace warm. Complicated by possibility of using it when I go alone to other locations where we do business. The ultimate version of anything (and a post-2006 Ovation comes REALLY close right out of the box) is WAY OVER BUDGET in the short term (think buy basic and modify over a few years). Thus the J model as possible starting point (and alternative to Tiger in that capacity). That is where the road ahead through developing a J is new territory to me - have not been following the world of Mooney madness. BTW: an Ovation with Monroy tank mod is a single place airplane when fully fueled. One R = 3 Js, but 1J + 1 perfect panel + full aero & power mods happens to cost almost exactly one R. In this case, all about the timing (without getting into a discussion of certified electronic ignition)

201er: You are asking the hard (right) question. Economical, range & speed for 2 place (occasionally 3). Want current panel (so you can guess that the price of the airframe is actually secondary concern). This will likely be my last personal transport airplane, so I don't want to compromise. Trying to retire from daily grind (where I have had to drag literally tons of equipment from project to project - so have not used airplane for personal business much over last few decades), I do the same thing with cars and trucks: I will buy what I want, modify the crap out of it to be EXACTLY what I want, and never sell it off (assuming I get it "right"). The upfitting and/or mods always far exceeds the price of the original machine. J seems to be a good starting point. We may end up with a new facility in the Caribbean, thus the extreme range requirement. Shadrach: I have spent years in another life fixing mickey-mouse aviation turbo installations, and just don't have the desire to waste any time fixing junk. Yes, the automotive gasser guys are FINALLY starting to get their turbocharger act together *after a half century of ineptitude), but the level of engineering is light years beyond what ANY aviation OEM can afford. Then, there is the cultural side: as an engine builder, I am usually making something involved in extremely short competitive events, and the whole thing is over and done by the time a turbocharger can spool up. Also won't work for many class rules. It is also (from my past) admission you can't build an engine properly, so use turbo to try to get the power that is beyond your skill level. While I may live and work in a framework of ultimately logical decisions, my personal transport has a huge emotional content. BTW: Mr. Breda's airplane is absolutely beautiful. I have high regard for people who will put that kind of effort into getting what they want. I just came back from helping (engine work - Walter 601D) one of my close friends who at 72 is building (hours flown off, now final stages of tweeking floats, rigging, etc) his last (of 12 original designs) airplane. He has made the largest amateur design/build project on the continent (and possibly the world), all by his own hand, in a remote cabin in the bush with about as many tools as the average home handyman has kicking around. These guys are my heros, thanks for sharing. n74795: I hear you. My struggle is between buying a later J and modifying it to latest standards vs. just go and buy something new enough to have it all. Comes out to about the same price. The buy and mod thing requires existing STCs, as I just don't have the time to develop what I want myself any more. I am obsessed with efficiency, Mooney is pretty much the sweet spot for "2+2" personal tourer - unless someone finally gets the diesel thing right (and then the Mooney airframes are STILL in my sights). My affection for AA5B is when I owned my last Beech (3NM = D18S) my Tiger was a zero maint hassle airplane in a world of very high maint equip. It always seemed to me the purpose of the Tiger was to bring parts to all of the B/C/P spam cans that I had to fix. Bonal: One of my genav buddies had just pointed me at a 160HP AA1A taildragger who's owner just lost his medical. I have no real use for the airplane, but, as you point out, SUPER COOL RIDE. If I could ever afford a pure toy, it would be on my list (the guy who pointed it out has 10...count em...TEN frigging toy planes!!!! so couldn't understand why I wouldn't just run over there and scoop that one up). I am now coming back to the one personal airplane mode, and airframe age/condition is very much a concern - but easy to deal with. Having been around the homebuilt and factory airplanes for a very long time, I could not buy and fly someone else's work. Even some certified airplanes don't come close to what I would trust with my family on board. The Grumman (actually American) vs. Mooney "refined" thing is another subject. What American Aviation and later Roy LoPresti did with Jim Bede's brilliant design concept for a SIMPLE airplane just reeks of what is my standard for good engineering: add simplicity and lightness with technology and materials use. As you might expect, Colin Chapman is one of my automotive idols. BTW: on the maint side: it is impossible to waste time and money maintaining something that just isn't there - thus the appeal (and reason for the high price) of AA5B and may AG5B. to all: Your discussions are serving very well to get me focused on best solution. IF (and that one is a pretty big IF) I can figure out how to swing the cash, pursuit of "ultimate" might well mean just buying a much newer airplane with a larger engine and pulling back the power (which for me often means head for middle altitudes and start sucking on the nose bag). Otherwise, a J bought "as is" may turn out to be a starting point.

There are indeed 145knot @ 7,000' Tigers, but it costs a bit of cash and needs a lot of attention to detail to get it there. Also helps to be light. Your numbers are spot on for 99% of stockers. I agree that there are few Mooneys with 360s that wouldn't walk away from almost any Tiger, but the trade off for simplicity and extreme low maintenance cost makes it a tough call. Referring to one comment about quality: the Tiger is hardly "cheaply made". It is a full generation of technology ahead of riveted structures (thus why the fantastic numbers for efficiency). Also, extremely strong. I don't know where the Tiger runs out of structure, but the grand-Daddy (AA1 Yankee) will easily see +/-9 Gs with no permanent deformation (IIRC, about the same for Mooneys????). I have personally ridden an AA1 into a forced landing in some pretty good size trees and walked away with a single cut from windshield fragments. Airplane destroyed, but cabin fully in tact. I have a strong aversion to turbochargers anywhere near a spark ignition engine. They belong on diesels, and I will just keep waiting for a decent diesel to be out there to hang a turbo on. The 390 thing is definitely aimed at climb for me - but also a trip through CNC porting and add exhaust to get some decent numbers. NO IO360 ever put out 200HP with OEM exhaust, so there is some cheap(ish) climb in the exhaust. Also, Lyc guarantees the io-390 at 210 HP INSTALLED. I agree with another comment that it is far cheaper to trade up then go into big mods. Problem is with any of this stuff, where does one stop? That is why I was sort of curious bout what the optimum 4 banger would be.

I have been gong back and fourth between buying another Tiger and jumping into a 201. The appeal of the Tiger is incredible simplicity, very cheap and decent payload. There ARE some nice mods available, but reality is they just don't get much faster as you pour money into them. At best a 145 knot airplane (135 stock = which is bloody good for $80k or less!) I know I am preaching to the converted, but the M20J simply goes faster on similar power, with similar payload - and even similar purchase price. Where it stands out (more than the 25 knot speed advantage) is that all of the nice mods for Tigers - and a bunch more - are already STCd for the Mooney. My question is: has anyone done EVERYTHING to a J model that can be done? i.e.: IO390,Lycon, Lopresti cowl, Lasar cleanups, LR fuel? What kind of numbers does such a combination produce? If all of the promised speed increases were added in, it would be fantastic, but in my experience, this just doesn't happen. So, what is reality?

Thanks for the answers. I was being a bit shy as an outsider to flat out ask how well it worked, but really that was what I was wanting to know as well. I have always been bothered with air filter elements that can build up ice and snow forcing the alternate air door to open, and have wondered why the simple paths used in turbines to let ice and rain separate out from the intake airflow are not being used in recip induction tracts. Basically, IF I continue to be stupid enough to want to do an STC from scratch, I want to optimize all of those things that OEMs do so poorly - cowl, exhaust and induction - realizing of course that even fully amortized to a reasonable size installed fleet base - a conversion (from 0-360 to IO-390) is worth far more than a good example of the stock airplane. Need to find someone with PMA approval to supply the bits (exhaust is obvious, intake not so much). How are the IO-390 mods doing in Mooneys? Stock exhausts or Powerflow being used?

Sorry to just barge on in here and ask a lot of dumb questions, but I have to plead relative ignorance on this subject, so where better to find good answers than the home of the faithful?? I am trying to learn as much about the ram air systems on Mooneys as I can find. Particularly, does the IO390 mod retain this system? Who is the manufacturer of the airbox and ductwork, as well as element? I ask this because I am interested in either duplicating or simply using the same hardware in a different airframe IO390 mod with new cowling. Sadly, I have not been inside of a Mooney cowling for about 30 years. Regards - PMD