NickG

Hey @Zippy_Bird - great questions and an enlightening thread. Maybe I missed it but I guess a critical piece of this is "what's your budget"? Hypotheticals are fine but If your budget is comfortable owning an E, and is not comfortable stretching beyond that, you may want to reconsider - perhaps you should keep your E and upgrade incrementally as budget allows. As for a great family hauler, the ones mentioned - lance, Saratoga, Bonanza etc will cost considerably more both in acquisition and maintenance costs. Plus, the prices for the "family haulers" have gone the way of ridiculous of late. I'm seeing some good value these days on Commanche's - but still only a 4 place unless Its a 260B or C model with the third row of seats. If money is not a limiting factor, then a1st generation Saratoga Turbo or Lance Turbo provide good performance with a decent useful load and the Lance Turbo won't break the bank. None of them are a Mooney but then you know that (Commache probably closest) Just my 2c

I think this is a winner lol. https://bumperdumper.com/?srsltid=AfmBOopJ-AZqTi6qEiWagql_-fiEhW4vyu25dNS3qdYu6Ugjx9ln3z3L

My arms arent long enough to reach the oven in the cargo area to turn the pizza.... I'm not Stretch Armstrong!

I have their Pizza oven, and even though it won't fit in the back of my Ovation, it works well in my back yard......

This is technically correct. Although most refer to their STC'd Ovations as "Ovations 3's" but I believe prior to Mooney acquiring the STC, it was a "Standing Ovation". My 1994 Ovation (STC'd) was listed for sale as an "Ovation 3". I had to explain to the broker that Mooney didn't make "Ovations 3's" is 1994.......

While I'm happy to see that FF is continuing its feature upgrades, I have to say, the Dynamic Procedures looks like a hot mess.

Yeah… love to go but…. Have job.

Here's a video with real world tests on an Oxygo5 (Inogen g5) up to 17.500

Could be your speed brakes snapping closed if they are not in the fully stowed position (sometimes they need adjustment). When the master is shut off or the SB breaker pulled, they snap close.

That sucks.

I drape the unit in the carrying case over the pilot seat headrest and rotate it around so it’s basically on the back of the pilots seat. I haven’t bothered with eh step down transformer. I get around 6-7 hours on level 5 which keeps my O2 levels at 95+ at 17k. I have the big battery. I’m thinking of getting another battery so If I needed to use it for longer it would be available. A second battery is cheaper that having someone rig a step down converter and putting in a cigar lighter connection and another breaker (which I dont have)

Yikes! Thats worrying.

Wow, this thread went down a Rabbit hole... here the OP's question: "Okay guys and gals. How did you get an Inogen? I have been trying for years to score one of those but keep running into the same problem. Called the company and they say you need a doctors script. Go to my family doctor and he says that I don’t have breathing issues so he won’t write a script. Called AOPA and they told me to get a bottle. Told them I didn’t want a bottle. So what’s the secret?" LOL

RIP

I’ve been landing here at HND for years as it’s my home base. Just can’t get complacent but that’s true for any landing

The PC12, Piper Meridian and Mooney were all recent landing mishaps at HND. The C172 next to them was an engine out that landed beyond the field. All the others are damage due to the microburst. Winds at HND can be a little unpredictable as it blows in through the ridge in the mountains about 5 miles south of the field. Sometimes we get different wind directions on the north and south end of the runway. There is no precision approach and straight in traffic to the 35’s can often leave you high and fast. There is no xwind runway.

Just saw this on the FB group. Is this the end for Mooney?

Jimmy is a very nice guy.

No fight to pick. And I 100% agree with your take. I'd be VERY careful looking at this bird's maintenance records.

If you've got all of the plumbing still there for the O2 system I would get a new bottle (composite ones are lighter). You'll be losing alot of the functionality of the Ovation if you only fly below 12,500ft. No, the useful load is, I would hope 930# as stated in the ad. I'm assuming this was the load with the bottle installed. It will be slightly better with no bottle. However, if the 930# was UL with the bottle REMOVED, then your useful load will be less by whatever the bottle weighs. Speedbrakes are a must and you should get them repaired. However, not cheap to repair.

A couple of the things about BA to look for (other than maintenance history in logs, damage history etc). 1) Speed brakes inop??? That can be quite expensive. Find out why. 2) Also, check why" Factory O2 plumbing, tank has been removed". Is this something you want to install? Was the useful load with the O2 or without? If without, adding it back will likely drop your useful load into the 870# area....

I would imagine none - Starts at 1 wingspan (36') and most effective 20% of that (7.2')

Heres a comparison based on public data: Other Mooney Models: Available Data Other Mooney models include the M20 series (M20A through M20V, with the M20R Ovation being a later model) and earlier variants like the M20E and M20F. Key sources provide the following insights: AOPA Safety Review (1995): Analyzed M20-series accidents (1982–1991, covering models like M20J, M20K, older M20C/E/F) with 392 accidents across ~6,500 registered Mooneys (~6% per 100 registered aircraft). Fatal accidents were not broken down by model, but the M20 series had a lower accident rate than comparable retractable-gear aircraft (7.7% per 100 registered aircraft). Aviation Safety (2005): Provided specific rates for newer Mooney models: M20R Ovation: 5.7 overall, 1.9 fatal per 100,000 hours (33% of accidents fatal). M20M Bravo: 6.7 overall, 1.8 fatal per 100,000 hours (27% fatal). M20J 201: 6.4 overall, 1.6 fatal per 100,000 hours (25% fatal). Older models (e.g., M20C/E/F) had higher rates, around 7–8 per 100,000 hours overall, with fatal rates of 2–2.5 per 100,000 hours. Air Facts Journal (2014): Noted that newer Mooneys (e.g., M20R, M20M) have better safety records than older models (e.g., M20C, M20E) due to improved avionics and pilot training. Engine failures are more common in Mooneys than in some competitors, often due to maintenance issues. Landing accidents remain a significant issue across all M20 models due to the low-drag airframe requiring precise airspeed control. NTSB Data (General Mooney Trends): For the broader M20 series, landing accidents typically account for 40–50% of incidents, loss of control for 15–25%, and engine failures for 10–15%, with patterns similar to the M20R but varying by model age and equipment. Estimating Flight Hours for Other Mooney Models The Mooney M20 series has produced ~11,000 aircraft since 1955, with newer models (M20J, M20K, M20M, M20R, etc.) comprising ~4,000–5,000 units. Excluding the M20R (~1,200 units), let’s estimate for other models: Fleet Size: ~9,800 total M20 aircraft, with ~3,000–4,000 for newer models (M20J, M20K, M20M) and ~5,000–6,000 for older models (M20C, M20E, M20F). Flight Hours: Assuming 150–200 hours/year per aircraft (similar to M20R), over 40 years for newer models (1985–2025) and 60 years for older models (1965–2025): Newer models: ~3,500 aircraft × 175 hours/year × 40 years ≈ 24,500,000 hours. Older models: ~5,500 aircraft × 175 hours/year × 60 years ≈ 57,750,000 hours. These are rough estimates, as older aircraft may fly less, and exact hours are unavailable. Comparison Overall Accident Rate: M20R Ovation: 1.01 per 100,000 hours (estimated here), 5.7 per 100,000 hours (2005 estimate). Other M20 Models: M20M Bravo: 6.7 per 100,000 hours (2005). M20J 201: 6.4 per 100,000 hours (2005). Older models (M20C/E/F): 7–8 per 100,000 hours (2005). AOPA (1982–1991): ~6% per 100 registered aircraft (~392 accidents for ~6,500 aircraft). Comparison: The M20R’s accident rate is lower than or comparable to other newer Mooney models (M20J, M20M) and significantly lower than older models (M20C/E/F). The AOPA data suggests the M20 series as a whole has a slightly lower accident rate per registered aircraft than comparable GA aircraft, and the M20R, being a newer model, likely benefits from improved design and avionics. Fatal Accident Rate: M20R Ovation: 0.23 per 100,000 hours (estimated here), 1.9 per 100,000 hours (2005 estimate), 22.73% of accidents fatal. Other M20 Models: M20M Bravo: 1.8 per 100,000 hours, 27% fatal (2005). M20J 201: 1.6 per 100,000 hours, 25% fatal (2005). Older models: 2–2.5 per 100,000 hours, ~30–35% fatal (2005 estimates). Comparison: The M20R’s fatal accident rate (per 2005 data) is similar to the M20M and M20J but lower than older models. The percentage of fatal accidents (22.73%) is slightly lower than the M20M (27%) and M20J (25%) and significantly lower than older models (30–35%), reflecting improved safety in newer Mooneys. Landing Accidents: M20R Ovation: 31 out of 66 (46.97%), with 5 botched/improper go-arounds (16.13% of landing accidents, 7.58% of total accidents). Other M20 Models: AOPA and Air Facts Journal indicate landing accidents account for 40–50% of M20-series accidents, consistent across models due to the Mooney’s low-drag airframe and laminar flow wing, which demand precise airspeed control. The M20J and M20M likely have similar landing accident proportions to the M20R, while older models (M20C/E/F) may have slightly higher rates due to less advanced avionics and pilot training. Go-Arounds: No specific data isolates go-around accidents for other M20 models, but the Air Facts Journal notes that Mooneys, including the M20R, are prone to landing issues like floating or stalling during go-arounds if airspeed is mismanaged. The M20R’s 16.13% go-around-related landing accidents is likely representative of newer models (M20J, M20M), while older models may have higher rates due to less forgiving handling characteristics. Comparison: The M20R’s landing accident rate (46.97%) is within the 40–50% range for the M20 series. The go-around issue (16.13% of landing accidents) is likely similar across newer models, as the M20R, M20J, and M20M share similar aerodynamic traits. Older models may have a higher incidence of landing mishaps due to less sophisticated systems. Loss of Control: M20R Ovation: 16.67% of accidents (11 out of 66), 66.67% of fatal accidents (10 out of 15). Other M20 Models: Loss of control accounts for 15–25% of M20-series accidents, with a high proportion of fatal accidents (50–70%), per NTSB and AOPA data. VFR-into-IMC and spatial disorientation are common causes across all M20 models, exacerbated by the Mooney’s high-performance characteristics. Comparison: The M20R’s loss-of-control rate (16.67%) and its dominance in fatal accidents (66.67%) are consistent with other M20 models. Newer models (M20J, M20M) may have slightly lower rates due to better avionics (e.g., glass cockpits), but the pattern remains similar. Engine Failure: M20R Ovation: 9.09% of accidents (6 out of 66), 13.33% of fatal accidents (2 out of 15). Other M20 Models: Engine failures account for 10–15% of M20-series accidents, with maintenance issues (e.g., fuel flow, oil starvation) frequently cited, per Air Facts Journal. Older models (M20C/E/F) have higher engine failure rates due to aging engines and less rigorous maintenance. Comparison: The M20R’s engine failure rate (9.09%) is slightly lower than the M20-series average (10–15%), likely due to its newer engine design (Continental IO-550). Fatal engine failure outcomes are comparable across models. Key Observations Overall Accident Rates: The M20R Ovation’s accident rate (1.01–5.7 per 100,000 hours) is lower than or comparable to newer M20 models (M20J: 6.4, M20M: 6.7) and significantly lower than older models (7–8 per 100,000 hours). This reflects improvements in design, avionics, and pilot training in newer Mooneys. Fatal Accident Rates: The M20R’s fatal rate (0.23–1.9 per 100,000 hours, 22.73% fatal) is similar to the M20J (1.6, 25%) and M20M (1.8, 27%) but lower than older models (2–2.5, 30–35%), indicating better safety in newer models. Landing Accidents: The M20R’s 46.97% landing accident rate aligns with the M20-series range (40–50%). Botched/improper go-arounds (16.13% of landing accidents, 7.58% of total) are likely similar in newer models (M20J, M20M) due to shared aerodynamic challenges (low-drag airframe). Older models may have higher landing accident rates due to less forgiving handling. Loss of Control: The M20R’s loss-of-control rate (16.67%, 66.67% of fatal accidents) is consistent with the M20-series pattern (15–25%, 50–70% fatal), driven by VFR-into-IMC and high-performance characteristics across all models. Engine Failure: The M20R’s engine failure rate (9.09%) is slightly lower than the M20-series average (10–15%), reflecting newer engine reliability, but maintenance remains a concern across all models. Limitations Flight Hour Estimates: The M20R’s estimated hours and other M20 models’ hours are rough, as exact data is unavailable. The 2005 Aviation Safety estimates are more precise but dated. Data Age: AOPA (1982–1991) and Aviation Safety (2005) data may not fully reflect current trends, though newer Mooneys (like the M20R) benefit from modern safety features. Conclusion The Mooney M20R Ovation’s accident profile is similar to other newer Mooney models (M20J, M20M), with a slightly lower overall accident rate (1.01–5.7 vs. 6.4–6.7 per 100,000 hours) and comparable fatal accident rate (0.23–1.9 vs. 1.6–1.8 per 100,000 hours). Its landing accident rate (46.97%) and go-around issues (16.13% of landing accidents) align with the M20-series range (40–50%), driven by the Mooney’s demanding low-drag airframe. Older models (M20C/E/F) have higher accident and fatal rates due to aging systems and less advanced avionics. Loss of control remains a significant fatal risk across all M20 models, particularly in IMC. Enhanced training on go-arounds, airspeed control, and maintenance could further improve the M20R’s safety relative to other Mooney models.

Here's the answer to the "go-around" question Total Botched/Improper Go-Around Accidents: 5 19 Mar 1999 (HB-DID): Pilot lost control during go-around. 7 Jul 2000 (ZS-OEG): Go-around with insufficient runway, ending on wrong side of drag curve. 5 Apr 2006 (N4654M): Failure to maintain airspeed during go-around, resulting in stall/mush. 1 Jul 2007 (N321MD): Failure to attain proper touchdown point, failure to initiate go-around. 29 Jan 2011 (N64FM): Delayed go-around decision, wing striking trees, excessive speed. Note: The 12 May 2007 (OE-KMO) accident (stalled after multiple landing attempts) is included, as multiple landing attempts likely involved botched go-arounds leading to a stall, though not explicitly stated. Step 2: Calculate Percentages Total Accidents: 66 Total Landing Issues Accidents: 31 Botched/Improper Go-Around Accidents: 5 Percentage of Total Accidents: (5 / 66) × 100 = 7.58% Percentage of Landing Issues Accidents: (5 / 31) × 100 = 16.13% Step 3: Summarize Results Table: Botched/Improper Go-Around Accidents Category Number of Accidents Percentage of Landing Issues Percentage of All Accidents Botched/Improper Go-Arounds 5 16.13% 7.58% Other Landing Issues 26 83.87% 39.39% Total Landing Issues 31 100.00% 46.97% Summary Number of Botched/Improper Go-Around Accidents: 5 out of 31 Landing Issues accidents. Percentage of Landing Issues Accidents: 16.13% (5 out of 31). Percentage of Total Accidents: 7.58% (5 out of 66). Key Observations: Improper go-arounds are a notable but not dominant subset of landing accidents, often involving delayed decisions, airspeed mismanagement, or loss of control during the go-around maneuver. The majority of Landing Issues accidents (83.87%) involve other causes, such as improper flares, bounced landings, or mechanical failures.

Just to be clear, this analysis is ONLY M20R models and does not state that Ovations are any more or less susceptible to accidents than any other Mooney model. Any yes, I fed the data into AI and then edited/clarified as necessary.