smccray

My TN A36 runs 180 at 12k ft all day long. I saw 195 TAS at 17.5 on a long flight last summer (4 hrs). Plane runs great and it’s a fantastic setup. I’m not sure the operating recommendations are quite right but that’s okay. I’ve been unable to push that much fuel through my engine without the temps running higher that I’m comfortable. CHTs stay nice and cool at all times I wouldn’t say the Beech is faster on less fuel carrying more. That said, the A36 is a great setup. 1350 lbs of useful load (on paper) including a turbo and air conditioning.

I have a whole King HSI system (all pieces) that came out of a 28v A36. Just sitting on the shelf...working when removed.

Sky Manor is a great airport. Had the pre-buy of my A36 done there. Great restaurant on the field. Heard you say something about using the whole runway- we were really heavy departing at 3:00ish in late May- it was warm. We’re rolling down the runway seeing those trees get bigger and the CFI says, “Oh $hit...” It was no big deal, but the CFI is used to light planes and that definitely wasn’t us. Take off roll was as expected, but the runway is only 2900 ft long and a heavy plane takes a while to get going.

Beginning in 1979 the A36 got an expanded baggage compartment behind the back two seats. The rear baggage is bigger than my old J model. There's also a baggage area between the first two rows of seats. There's plenty of room for a few large duffle bags in this area. Loading is important as the emergency gear extension is in that same area, but there's a lot of room. Nope. The Mooney gets a bad rap for a lack load carrying ability (we both know it does just fine), but you're not going to win an ease of loading comparison against an A36. The A36 doesn't have the same rear CG challenges as the 4 seat bonanzas, and with two back doors its much easier to load anything in the plane. I'm sure we could get creative and come up with a few examples, but I can't think of any loading scenario of people + bags that's not easier to load in an A36. Perhaps if you need to carry ping pong balls without putting them in a bag.... I don't know.. The operating cost is lower in the Mooney (efficiency), and the way baggage is loaded is part of the trade off. That's not a knock on a Mooney- just a trade offs.

They’re both great airplanes .

Random thought (and I know this is out there a bit)- I wonder if Mooney is taking steps to minimize cash outlays now because Pipistrel is close to certifying the Panthera. Radio silence from Pipistrel, but the Panthera will tough competition for the Ovation if the Panthera is ever certified. I'll acknowledge up front that this is unlikely, but it's not outside the realm of possibilities.

+1. Parker's 252 was the first Mooney I ever sat in. Got an intro flight and ended up buying a J after that introduction.

You might try finding a Mooney instructor and get him/her added to the insurance without any transition required. Have that instructor do your transition training. Your agent should be able to help you make that happen.

Agree- if we’re talking about efficiency- but in this case it’s just a matter of speed. The Bravo should be faster not withstanding the difference in efficiency. The Bonanza is heavier, has more drag, and as a result is slower than a Mooney at a given level of horsepower. Fuel flow per NM traveled is a different measure altogether. The TNIO550 is a pretty efficient setup, but at altitude you’re still looking at 11-12 NM per gallon in cruise. No where near as good as a J, but slow down a little and it improves a lot. My bet- the bravo in this flight was pulled back not running as high % horsepower. Slower flight is more efficient... but that doesn’t make much sense in a Bravo...

Agree- I would expect the bravo to be closer to 190 ktas at 13. My A36 will do 180 at that altitude and the bravo should be be faster in every phase of flight. Flight aware reports gps derived ground speed.

My take on it- Garmin doesn't want to facilitate an interface between this lower cost Garmin equipment and third party brands. I believe their goal is to convert aircraft to a closed Garmin platform, not to facilitate integration of their equipment with some type of open standard. If Garmin setup a G5 to run a King autopilot, they sell a G5 and whatever software/hardware needed to drive the equipment. If they don't offer the King interface it pushes the market to the new autopilot. It's a marketplace decision- Price a KI300 and the interface box, and you still have an old King autopilot. It's not that Garmin can't drive a King autopilot, it's that they don't want to. It's not a technical question. I agree Garmin would sell more G5s if it were an option to interface to a King autopilot, but the decision isn't that simple.

The carrying cost of Mooneys (and most high performance piston singles) is very similar. Insurance cost is primarily a function of hull value. Pick your price point not the plane. Differences in plane models will be a factor, but it’s fairly small in the overall cost of owning a plane. Fuel burn per nautical mile is the second biggest factor. Most Mooneys will be in the high teens, some pushing 20 NM/Gal. The faster birds will be very close to the slower planes if you slow down for efficiency. The issue with Mooney aircraft isn’t depreciation, it’s liquidity. The market for Mooneys is thriving, but it’s smaller than other brands. Js appear to be bid up right now, along with all other Mooney aircraft. I don’t know what actual selling prices are, but asking prices are up 20% over the last 5 years. You pay your money and take your chances. If you’re looking at J and older, a well equipped C or E doesn’t appear to be priced at enough of a discount given the relative age of the airframe compared to a J. When early Js get bid up over 120-130k, the same relative value analysis can be run against an early ovation.

J model and newer... I'm a fan of the round window Js that started in '87. With a short holding period liquidity is probably a bigger deal than a particular model. Normal paint, decent panel, good interior. 182 would be a decent option as well, but it will cost as much as a J and burn more fuel. Only benefit is that they're not as unique as Mooneys and they're probably easier to sell.

I sense a professional gas man here... The EDS has settings for a cannula and for a facemask. If I leave the EDS on the cannula settings my SPO2 drops to the 80s unless I consciously breath deeply. I usually set the EDS for the facemask setting and I stay comfortably in the 90s when flying. FYI- wellness stress test due to 40th birthday. Pulmonary function all normal- gas exchange 130% of mean. I'm just sensitive to altitude.

I run an O2D2. I can't speak to the X3, but the MH system works well.

This is interesting to me. Any of the engine whisperers care to weigh in? My assumption is that the higher fuel flow is needed at full throttle to provide adequate detonation margin as compared to the NA io520 (same issue with the TN kit on my A36). I also assume the 8.5:1 compression ratio vs the 7.5:1 in the tsio 360 also plays a part in the difference.

My old 205 had 640 lbs gross weight with full fuel. I had the old king equipment, so a new panel would probably add to that. That’s 2900 gross weight. It doesn’t get much better than that in a J model. The A36 has a couple different baggage weights. All the way aft (behind the seats) it’s only 70 lbs. The rear most seats are easily removed and the floor holds 450 lbs. There’s an additional baggage space right behind the pilot/copilot seats in front of the club seating that I believe is rated for an additional 200 lbs. My ‘85 A36 has 1350 lbs of useful load and a max fuel load of 104 gallons (74 in the main tanks). I agree- there are places where the Mooney will be more efficient than the Beech. The mid body Mooneys compare well in useful load, but for the average plane, the Beech will be a little faster, burn more fuel, and carry more useful load. Compared to long bodies, the Beech will be a little slower (or a lot slower depending on distance), burn a little more fuel, and carry more useful load. As I said when I bought my A36 and sold my J- I’ll always be a Mooniac. It doesn’t get any better in the efficiency department in certified aircraft. Al Mooney designed a hell of an airplane with a crazy good legacy- but it’s not perfect. Every plane has its faults- either useful load, or speed (aka fuel burn). I’d go with a Tarbes Built Mooney, but that has a different fault...$ PS- @Jan Maxwell made a really good suggestion to me. She said if you need more seats/useful load, buy a second Mooney and have your wife get her ticket. I haven’t been brave enough to seriously suggest that.

The Bonanza numbers are more complex due to CG issues. Later V-tails have 80 gallon tanks (74 gal usable). 15 or 20 gallon tip tanks (adding 30-40 gallons total) are common modifications. Plane will run 170 ktas+ at 13 GPH- very similar to an ovation. Useful load is commonly north of 1200 lbs. The challenge with the V-Tails is aft CG. Loading the plane with baggage and rear seat passengers adds a lot of weight to the back of the envelop. As fuel burns, CG moves rearward. It's very easy to load the plane outside of the CG. Some planes have 1400lbs useful load, but practically they're closer to 11-1200 in the real world because of where you put the bags. Adding a turbo normalizer, however, adds 70 lbs to the engine compartment and fixes the CG problem. That changes it to a 200 knot airplane with the higher fuel burn. Acquisition cost of a TN V35 and a rocket will be about the same, although the TN V35 would have a 10 year older airframe. I would bet the rocket is a little faster than the TN V35, but I can't speak from experience. I know rocket still supports the conversion, but the support from Tornado Alley is probably superior to support from Rocket Engineering should the owner have a problem.

Doc- sounds like you need to take a trip to Oklahoma: https://taturbo.com/

Your insurance number will depend more on aircraft value, but I like that budget number. @Parker_Woodruff can tell you more than I can. Annual may be 3-5k but you will have years where the total maintenance cost is north of that number. Inspection will be $2k. Oil changes are $3-400 apiece. Then you have to pay for things that break. You have to be ready for a big expense, but we all cross our fingers it doesn’t happen. If you have time to turn wrenches or do some basic things yourself you can reduce the cost. $25k should be very doable. Jump in- the water is fantastic! PS- budget $5-10k for the buying process. Pre-buys, travel, training... it all adds up. It’s worth it- economics are different in aviation- $1000 in the real world is significant (at least to me). $1000 for something airplane related... that’s a different kind of math.

There's more to break with the bigger engine. The cost to change out all the cylinders will be higher on the Beech as a result compared to a 4 cylinder Lycoming, but likely about the same as a K model Mooney. Other than the engine, the systems are all very similar between the planes. Start adding turbos, oxygen, speed breaks... keep going down the list. It all costs money to maintain. For the base airframe, they're about the same. Small differences in fixed costs. Different gotchas on maintenance. Edited to add: This is part of the challenge when it comes to looking at cost. Hangar cost is the same. Base maintenance is the same, or driven by systems on the plane. Insurance is a function of hull value- say 1% of the difference in the value. So.. you have an NA Bonanza compared to NA Mooney. The primary driver of the cost difference is in the fuel burn, which is primarily a function of speed (driven by horsepower). Want to go faster? burn more fuel. Want to save money on fuel? slow down. So you have a J model Mooney compared to a C33 with an IO470K (225HP engine). The performance is almost the same. The cost is almost the same. Pick your plane. Want to go faster? buy an ovation or a bonanza with an IO520 or an IO550. Carrying cost isn't that different, but fuel burn goes up. With that in mind... that's part of the reason (in my mind) why people with higher budgets choose planes with bigger engines.

I wouldn't expect much of a difference in the annual cost- call a couple shops and check on the fixed cost of the annual. It'll be pretty close. Make sure scope of work is the same- I've seen some shops charge extra for the oil change whereas some include it in the fixed price. The Mooney is a slightly more efficient airframe. Fuel cost per mile is going to be a little less in the Mooney compared to the Beech but it's a rounding error. If you compare a 285HP+ Beech with a 200HP Mooney, the Mooney will look even better, but the a significant portion of that benefit comparison comes from flying a little slower (more efficiently).

V Tail issue only. Aluminum replacements are an option for the BE33 and BE36.

Rule of thumb is you loose 50% of the cost of avionics installs. Your best bet is to find someone who already upgraded the plane and let them eat the depreciation. The bad news is everyone knows that. Based on what I've seen, it seems like nicer planes go a lot faster. Whatever you buy- as your first plane- don't do anything (other than perhaps ADSB) for 6 months. Fly the plane. I was anticipating putting an aspen in my J when I bought it. After I did the instrument rating with the King system I kept it. It worked just fine for me. The odds that you're going to hit it out of the park with your first plane are pretty low. Accept it... you'll be happier. Rules of Thumb- Js will sell all day long between $120-140K. Higher than this number, buyers tend to be looking for faster planes. That's not to say that Js don't sell at big numbers, but as the price goes up buyers are looking for big bore engines. Ks are higher- the 252s you would want to own seem to start at 160+. I believe the market for these planes are more limited given the specific mission. Ovations- If I were buying a Mooney I would focus here. Given what you've stated, I would look for a low engine time Ovation with a 310HP upgrade, less than 500 hrs on the engine, and steam gauges. The panel will keep you at a lower price point, but if you upgrade the plane I think you're in a better spot. The challenge with any 4 place airplane is that older cirrus airplanes are coming down in price. If you're in a 1996 Ovation with steam gauges, by the time you upgrade the plane you have the same capital in the plane as a 10 year newer cirrus that already has a glass panel. Mooneys are fantastic planes, but I believe there will be challenges selling even older highly upgraded Mooneys at a price premium compared to Cirrus aircraft. 4 seat bonanzas have run up big time lately. There is a lot of hand wringing about the status of the magnesium ruddervators. It's easy for me to discount the concerns as I'm not affected, and there are owners with grounded aircraft who can't find replacements. Regardless, I would look at the piper tailed planes (BE33s). The Bonanas sell at a premium to Mooneys for a given year, but I do see limited sales as prices climb north of $175K. My take on the "mission" conversation- do all the analysis and give it a lot of thought. Then... figure out what you want to fly and if you can afford it buy it. If you want a turbo- go for it. If you want XXX- do it. I like Jimmy's 1990 J a lot more than the 205. You'll get more $ out of putting value into the engine, but know that when you sell the plane in a few years it will sell as a run-out engine. at 1600 hrs in a 1990, I would try to buy it as a run out engine too.

I agree with you too. There's a gap in value right now. The lack of clarity in the future is a big problem for anyone who wants to buy a Bravo. However- the plane still has a lot of utility, and over time there will likely be a solution. NXI doesn't have a path using anything other than a GFC700 autopilot. WAAS upgrades were $20-30K. The GFC700 autopilot was offered briefly to early G1000 Mooneys- I want to say it was $25K. Right there you're half way to an early Acclaim. I really hope Mooney opens the door for G1000 NXI upgrades, as well as GFC700 autopilot upgrades (hopefully WAAS as well). It's a lot of incremental revenue for Mooney. Owners would be very smart to take advantage of the opportunity, even though it'll be a big check. The lesson from the past is that upgrade opportunities don't last forever.