brettinlj

Flew into that airport for the first time about a month ago. What a great little airport! There's a nice lunch spot within walking distance that is a 50's diner in a converted train car.

I think I met you the other day after flying the Mooney at Sundance. Keep us updated on your PPL. You may want to consider getting your instrument rating as a next step as the utility and increased skill you get from doing that will be a better return on investment. After those extra hours, the transition to the Mooney would be just that much easier (and cheaper).

Might be a little too general and obvious, but during the run-up before every takeoff I form a plan for what I would do during an engine failure immediately after takeoff and in the initial upwind climb, specific to that airport, runway, and current conditions. This way I have the plan of action in mind before I push in the throttle. For example, if there is no traffic on a freeway next to an airstrip versus a time when it is rush hour, if there is a field I know about, if there is a body of water, etc. Assuming an engine failure is a habit I got into more often after being put through the ringer in simulators when I used to fly commercial; more often than not something would go wrong on takeoff in that box.

Great responses and ideas. I may take the advice of proposing to buy a block of time while we get a feel for each other and I get a feel for the airplane. Here in the bay area hangar costs are well north of $600, often closer to $1000/mo and there are a few time I have wanted to go places like Mammoth and Tahoe but didn't have access to the right aircraft for it in the club that weekend. I do have access to a 252 to rent, so that does factor into my equation if I could justify keeping my club membership while also owning an aircraft. It may be a week or two before I even see the plane for the first time due to my schedule, but I will keep you all posted. Thanks for the input.

It is true that my typical mission does fit better with a 201, though I will still be doing trips with 1 pax and light bags in the 400 - 1000 nm range. Many trips will be short <200nm day trip cross countries with 2 pax and no bags, more often than flying locally and landing at the departure airport. Aside from local flights, the Rocket speed is an advantage, though not necessarily efficient. The total cost of ownership may be only slightly higher though, given the difference between a 3-way partnership and owning outright. I really want to find out everything I can about Rockets and about the partnership itself.

Knowing you can afford the plane on you own is a good way of thinking about it. Realistically, I would be just fine if one partner left and it was a two way partnership for a period of time. If both left, I would be straining myself. I would not go bankrupt but would probably decide to sell and get something more simple as a choice. That is why I would definitely want things in writing and define a head of time how we handle partners deciding to leave.

I've been a long time lurker here and posted a while back about my purchase thoughts: http://mooneyspace.com/topic/5834-thinking-about-a-mooney/#entry75385 I have narrowed it down and keep coming back to the 201 or a Tiger, but most likely a 201 that I would buy myself outside of partnership. Recently though, new opportunity may have presented itself in the form of joining a 3 way partnership (currently it is 2 way) in a Rocket. I have no illusion about increased fuel burn, but the advantage of splitting fixed costs 3 ways mitigates that somewhat, especially given expensive hangar feeds in the Bay Area. I do have experience in a 252. There is some non-practical fun factor involved in something like a Rocket and flying something with that climb capability, so the equation is not 100% cost-benefit as you can imagine. I would love some advice about questions to ask as I get more information about the partnership and the aircraft (the other two pilots are friends of a friend). Here is what I have come up with so far: - How often does it fly (worried about corrosion as I was told "it is great because they hardly ever fly it and so the plane would usually be available") - Modification specifics: Weight and balance, increased 3200lb gross weight?, larger fuel tanks? - Last annual, compressions, known issues, SMOH - How is engine overhaul reserve handled? Set aside per hour, factored into buy-in cost? - Agreements if someone wants to leave the partnership, buy out share, etc I am new to the Rocket and have been reading a lot of threads on here, especially those related to the Rocket versus a 201. I think I have a handle on the variable cost considerations, so right now I'm looking at advantages I might get from a well-maintained, known aircraft that would be highly available even if its high fuel burn will cost be a bit more per flight hour. Also, would appreciate perspective about the downsides of Rockets (ex. how bad is turbulence yaw, etc.) It isn't lost on me that the percentage of Rockets for sale versus other M20K's is disproportionate to the percentage of M20K's that have been modified. Thanks in advance! Brett

I will have to take a look at W&B more on some J moels. The 252 I have flown doesn't have that type of payload but I have yet to fly or ride in any other Mooney.

After years of renting, then going on a hiatus, and getting back into flying I have decided to buy. My purchase process is probably going to be slow as I am not pressed and want to make the right choice (it may even take a year or more). I'm curious about the following: "At the end of the day, though, for owner-flown XC on a reasonable budget, the M20J will stand above them all. You won't find a plane that is cheaper to own and fly that delivers useful speed and load-carrying ability for up to 4 people." One of my hesitations is that it seems like to have any range with a 1-hour reserve (my personal minimum), you're talking 2 people with bags, 3 without. Looking at my last 6 months of flying, I often carry 3, usually 2 (I'm including myself in these numbers), and when going on a longer cross country (>350nm) usually have 2 or 3 total persons. But alas, am not rich so its about choosing the compromise. Here is what I am considering (currently I rent an Archer, 182, 172RG, and occasionally a Mooney 252): Cessna 182 fixed gear (like a 182Q): Pros: Meets all my mission profiles. Simplicity of fixed gear may balance out increased maintenance costs of the bigger engine. Comfortable for my sig other (a big factor in my purchase decision). Most A&P's familiar. Low insurance. Great for Tahoe trips. Compromises: Slower on my cross countries (SFO area to Portland, San Diego, Vegas, Palm Springs or LA). Fuel burn (Avgas currently $6.50 - $7.50 in my area). Grumman Tiger: Pros: Fun to fly. Great visibility. Low maintenance. Simple. Low purchase price. Low fuel burn. Compromises: Shorter range. Slower. Good for half my missions, but for others such as long cross countries would involve an extra fuel stop. Not good for 3 people and any bags on a cross country. Low service ceiling, not good for mountain flying like Tahoe. Mooney M20J: Pros: Speed. Fuel burn. Efficiency. Meets mission profiles of 2 on cross country, 3 on day trips. Compromises: Not good for 3 people and any bags on longer cross country. Possibly higher non-engine related maintenance compared to Skylane and Tiger. Not sure about insurance compared to those. Might feel cramped to sig other (I'll let you know after we fly to PSP in the Mooney 252 next month). Beech Bonanza: Pros: Meets mission profiles. Comfortable, stable. One of the best single engine prop GA planes ever built. Yes please. Compromises: Costs - Initial purchase, maintenance, fuel. May only consider this option in a partnership. Would rather have money left over to actually fly. I do keep going back to the Mooney but my missions actually do involve passengers more than half the time. It may however be worth the compromise. I'm thinking about a partnership with another individual but he is not yet 100% sure. We will hash that out in the coming months. If I don't go into a partnership, the Bonanza option would be off the table unless I get a promotion at work. I have to say that the Tiger is attractive even if it doesn't meet all my missions from a simple cost, simplicity perspective. This is my first owned aircraft after all. Fun to fly is important, but I actually think, unlike some people, that Mooney's are fun to fly, even on short local flights in their own way.