Which Mooney for me?

[msw]

 

Seeking advice and commentary...... Trying to decide which model Mooney(s) I should be looking at. My kids are grown, time to part company with the Cherokee Six I have had for 18 years; don't need six seats anymore, just the wife and I now and I really want something faster - 145 kts doesn't cut it for me any longer! So, which model Mooney should I get? I'd like a turbo model and would like to routinely see 200 kts (or more) at altitude, on (obviously) as little fuel burn as possible. I'll likely be routinely making trips out to 800 - 1000 nm, so the faster the better; and long range fuel tanks would be a plus, as would a factory oxygen system. Not sure on the TKS.... I am interested to know what the advantages and disadvantages of TKS are (I have heard that TKS equipped aircraft are slower.... is that true? other disadvantages?) My budget is around $200,000 though I could go a little bit higher if I really had to. I'd love to hear the pros and cons of the various models (and model years) that you knowledgeable folk think would meet my requirements. Thanks.

[Cruiser]

If you want 200kts cruise you are looking at Acclaims. You don't need long range tanks for 800 to 1000 nm trips :>) Or you can get a M20K/Rocket conversion.

 The TLS/Bravo is capable of 200kts but not until you are in the high teens. It is more realistically slower in the 185+ cruise speed range.

TKS ice protection is great for all weather flying. If you must go on some type of regular schedule I say it is a must. If you are flexible in your departures and arrivals and do not intend to fly in NE, Great Lakes or northern states you could get by. 

[LFOD]

If it is just you and the wife, a Rocket would be an outstanding choice. Here is a link to the performance numbers for the Rocket mod....

http://www.rocketengineering.com/rocket/305Rocket.pdf

My dream aircraft for retirement....

[blacknchrome]

Look at Bravo's.  There are several on the market right now starting in the 160range to 260+ for a super nice one.  They will give you 200kts once you get into the teens, are all equipped with onboard oxygen, speed brakes, etc.  1989 was the first year, you won't find many, and for your price range you should be able to find something in the early to mid 90's.  They do like fuel, but nm/gal is probably the same as your Cherokee was, but you are going 60 knots faster, in style.  TKS will cost you $$ and a few knots, but if you need it, get it.  One encounter and I bet you'll think it was worth every penny. 

You may look at M20K's: the 252 or Encore.  They are going to be in that 185 knot range or maybe a little better up high.  But, I am no expert on them.

As for the Rocket - it's fast and cheaper, but I prefer having a factory machine the Bravo is versus dealing with STC's, unknown support, etc and the extra size of the long body.

We just transitioned from a Saratoga to a Bravo, so PM me if you want more info.

Talk to the guys at All American Aircraft Sales, they will treat you well and probably have what you want.

http://www.allamericanaircraft.com/

[roundout]

Sounds like a Bravo mission. The Acclaim is faster but you pay a lot of extra money for only about 20 knots more speed. The G1000 is nice but if that and 20 knots cost $200k extra it's obviously not the best bang for the buck. TKS does cost you about 5 knots or so, maybe 7 if the installers didn't do a superb job. I'd rather have it than not. A/C is nice but TKS can save your life. You will need Monroy tanks if you want to see 1000nm range.

First hour fuel burn on a Bravo is high because they are thirsty while climbing. The Acclaim definitely climbs better, averaging 1000fpm climb to FL250 and uses less fuel doing so. It's also easier to run the Acclaim lean of peak, which can get your fuel burns down in to the 16-17gph range even at high power settings. The TSIO-540 uses more fuel, plain and simple. I understand that lots of Acclaims with TSIO-550 are having cylinders replaced at an rate that's worth taking note of. My suspicion is that the cause is people running the book 50ROP best power setting at high altitude. The book power setting numbers in the high teens and low 20s will result in sustained CHTs over 400F. That is way too hot. You can run 50LOP or 150ROP (about 1600 TIT) and have cylinder head temps below 350F, which is much more reasonable. 

I can assure you that you won't be disappointed with any turbo Mooney which you choose. They are amazing airplanes. 

[RJBrown]

 My budget was lower than your and I bought a MSE a year ago. My previous airplane was a 1980 M20K with the Rocket conversion. The Rocket is a true 200 knot airplane. At or above 12,000' it will do 200KTS+. At 26,000' the climb will still be over 1000 fpm. The TLS\Bravo is about 15 KTS slower at any altitude and wont climb as well. The Acclaim is marginally faster at any altitude. Rockets are mostly 231 airframes and were made from 79 - 85. Few 252s were made into Rockets. 79 231s were plentiful but not as well equipped as the other years. 80-83 had better equipment but 84-85 got the folding rear seat. 231s that had the King auto pilot came with their HSI. The ones with the Century auto pilots came with a DG. TLS were better equipped but had a taller panel that made it hard for shorter pilots to see over. Rockets start at about $120,000 and rarely go for over $175,000. TLS go from $130 to $300. Acclaims seem over your budget at $400+. A properly outfitted Rocket would be my recommendation. With a budget of 200 you could do almost any upgrades your heart desires on a Rocket. If you want a newer airframe and are willing to go slower and spend more there are some nice TLS out there. Personally I prefer the big Continentals to the 540 Lycomings and Mooney chose to make that change with the Acclaim.  

[msw]

Quote: RJBrown

 .........TLS were better equipped but had a taller panel that made it hard for shorter pilots to see over.......

[Buster1]

231s or 252s would be perfect!

[MooneyMitch]

In my opinion, regarding looking over the panel of the Ovation R model [tall] vs. looking over the Super 21 E model panel, height of the panel is not the issue.  It maybe the fact that the cowling on the R is much longer, which does extend your forward ground view farther out, as opposed to having your forward ground view closer with the shorter E/F/J cowling length.  I would think the K models front ground view distance would be somewhere in between the long body and the short body Mooneys. 

As far as a persons height, if you are shorter you will have to take that into consideration in any airplane or any Mooney for that matter.  Possibly that is why articulating front seats were created.  Once again, just my thoughts to share.  Have a happy Mooney flying weekend............great weather here on the Central Coast of California. 

[blacknchrome]

I wouldn't worry about the taller panel.  The seats are vertically adjustable, so just crank up the seat, and you will be fine - then it's just a 'longer, more spacious' panel.

[ScottZ]

New to the forum, and appreciate your insights.  I am a Texan and have always had a soft spot for Mooneys. Currently I drive a G1000 T206, am IFR rated, and have 325 hours (200 in the 206).  My mission is 500 plus miles.

Current consideration is the Ovation with a/c.  I have my eye on a 2002 with 800 hours tt.  My biggest concern is the utility of the Mooney.  I have a family of four (we weigh 550 pounds together, I am the tallest at 5'9", and my wife and two teenage daughters are petite).  What is not petite is how they pack.  I worry that the Mooney will be too small.  

How do you all generally pack?  How many suitcases can you fit in the luggage compartment?  I have done w&b calculations and think that we can do 60 gal and fly pretty fully loaded.  Also have considered the 310hp STC to lower the weight up front and add a little extra power on takeoff.

I am also considering the A36, but would have to buy a 1990-1992 vintage to get a 1999-2002 vintage Mooney.  I really appreciate any insights from those that from time to time will load their Mooneys to gw. 

 

 

[Parker_Woodruff]

If you can settle with 10 knots slower than 200 KTAS, you could get an Ovation and not have to deal with the operating cost of the Bravo.

But if that's not a concern, Bravo all the way.

[scottfromiowa]

Why not the M20L PFM (Porsche-converted)?  Acclaim size, engine and speed with beauty of Porsche integrated interior.  There are a couple on Controller (one with re-paint in Ovation paint scheme) that look absolutely beautiful.

[blacknchrome]

Quote: Parker_Woodruff

If you can settle with 10 knots slower than 200 KTAS, you could get an Ovation and not have to deal with the operating cost of the Bravo.

But if that's not a concern, Bravo all the way.

[ScottZ]

I really like the Bravo, but a/c is a must.  It is simply too hot in central Texas to fly with the family without a/c.  From time to to time I go on business in a dress shirt, and even early in the morning the heat builds in the summer time.  Does anyone have a comment on how well the a/c actually works?  I realize it will not be like the car a/c, but hope it will be functional.  

With the T206 I don't remember ever needing to go above 160 feet to get above weather.  More than that and my inclination would be to divert.  The airplane I am looking at does not have o2.  I my first plane, a DA40, I carried a portable o2 bottle, but that went with the plane.  Is there a decent mounting option for semi-portable o2 in the long bodies?

Thanks,

 

 

[DonMuncy]

I too, live and fly in Texas (Dallas).  I have never flown with a/c, but I have real doubts about how well a/c will help.  Unless one has some way to cool the interior prior to start up, it seems to me you still are going to burn up during pre-flight, loading and the first few minutes of taxi (even in a well air conditioned car, it seems to take a while to become bearable). I have never checked the specific altitude, but it seems to me that by the time you get to 3000 ft, it starts to get reasonable. Just to make up some numbers, if it takes 4 minutes to cool down, and it takes 10 minutes to get to take-off, and 6 minutes to get to 3000, you are looking at 12 minutes of misery per flight. I know, I'm disregarding the landing taxi part, but with a cool plane, I haven't noticed that to be much of a problem.  I have never thought it would be economically feasible to pay for, maintain, and suffer the weight disadvantage of a/c for that 12 minutes. But I am open to being convinced othewise. It would really be interesting if someone has actually flown (for instance) one leg with and one leg without a/c and could tell us their experience.

Don  

[Cruiser]

It sounds like the two daughters and wife need to sit in one and get their opinions. (Don't let them in the A36 though). You could limit them to xxx lbs. each for luggage and see how that works, probably not good.

You could take some of the luggage and UPS it ahead for your 500 mile trips. Really not a bad idea. No messing with loading and unloading at the airports. Each person carries only one personal bag of "necessities".

[docket]

Quote: ScottZ

I really like the Bravo, but a/c is a must.  It is simply too hot in central Texas to fly with the family without a/c.  From time to to time I go on business in a dress shirt, and even early in the morning the heat builds in the summer time.  Does anyone have a comment on how well the a/c actually works?  I realize it will not be like the car a/c, but hope it will be functional.  

With the T206 I don't remember ever needing to go above 160 feet to get above weather.  More than that and my inclination would be to divert.  The airplane I am looking at does not have o2.  I my first plane, a DA40, I carried a portable o2 bottle, but that went with the plane.  Is there a decent mounting option for semi-portable o2 in the long bodies?

Thanks,

i have AC and it works.  It is not quite as good as a car but if the plane does not get left out on the ramp to get superheated you can realistically fly coat and tie in the summer and get to the destination with the starch still in the shirt.  If the plane gets baked (i.e. not covered) the AC won't do much for you on the ground.  In the summer I always throw a cover over the cockpit to cover the windows and keep the sun out.  If you want to see it in action meet me at Coopers for barbeque some Saturday.  56FM

 

[mooneygirl]

I wonder about the Artic Air, they have had a booth at Oshkosh that last few years.  Looks like about the size of an ice chest....  Just some food for thought, or I guess ice-cubes for thought is a better metaphor. 

[docket]

Quote: mooneygirl

I wonder about the Artic Air, they have had a booth at Oshkosh that last few years.  Looks like about the size of an ice chest....  Just some food for thought, or I guess ice-cubes for thought is a better metaphor. 

[ScottZ]

Thanks for input.  I have a t-hangar at KAUS, so the plane would not be heat soaked.  Let me know the next time you will be in Llano, would love to check out your plane and enjoy the BBQ at Coopers.

[roundout]

The A/C works well. Don't let that be a concern. It is a good system. 

[jasonwojo]

Hello,

I have a 1979 M20K "305" Rocket conversion (310 HP) and a 1991 M20M "351" Liquid Rocket conversion (350 HP derated to 335 HP).  I have owned stock Mooneys before and loved them, but the Rockets are even more superb products!  Rocket Engineering is a great company with excellent support.  Fly one and you will be hooked!  They are not advertised, but I have told some other guys I would be willing to sell one of them.  Pictures are on this site in the "photo galleries" section under "jasonwojo".  The K has a new Garmin stack (with 530 and WAAS 430), HSI, and long range fuel.  The M has TKS, EFIS, and a brand new factory engine (100 hrs).  Both have low times and are well equiped.  Oh yeah, and they are FAST!  I am asking $150K and $185K respectively.  Let me know if you have any questions.

Jason

(316) 708-0713 cell 

[ovation0219]

I would guess a Bravo will fit the speed part best, but an ovation will fly on around 15GPH and almost as fast. while the Bravo is at its fuel stop you will overtake its speed gain. Mooney is not a heavy hauler attn will have to be paid to the luggage. AC is a real option if you can hangar your plane it is easily kept cool for the flight.  If not a cabin cover is a great option. You can not find a smoother engine than the TCM io-550. Look at how many of the modern day airplanes use this engine. Its too much money to spend on a recomendation. Call someone like Premier aircraft and get a demo ride or post it and some mooniac will be glad to show you why he loves his mooney sooo much.

Thanks

Ricky

[Rocket_Driver]

Quote: jasonwojo

Hello,

I have a 1979 M20K "305" Rocket conversion (310 HP) and a 1991 M20M "351" Liquid Rocket conversion (350 HP derated to 335 HP).  I have owned stock Mooneys before and loved them, but the Rockets are even more superb products!  Rocket Engineering is a great company with excellent support.  Fly one and you will be hooked!  They are not advertised, but I have told some other guys I would be willing to sell one of them.  Pictures are on this site in the "photo galleries" section under "jasonwojo".  The K has a new Garmin stack (with 530 and WAAS 430), HSI, and long range fuel.  The M has TKS, EFIS, and a brand new factory engine (100 hrs).  Both have low times and are well equiped.  Oh yeah, and they are FAST!  I am asking $150K and $185K respectively.  Let me know if you have any questions.

Jason

(316) 708-0713 cell