From a vintage to a Modern mooney

[Mooneyjet]

Hello guys, just curious us to how many of you have made the transition from vintages mooney's to J's, and onwards mooney models. Did you find a big difference with regard of more room overall, did the wife, family enjoy the ride more.

[FoxMike]

I owned two E models early in my flying career.  I now fly a TLS.  I like the extra room, the cabin insulation and the late model radios.  You can update radio gear, of course, in the vintage airplanes but KFC autopilots are really nice.  Down side is money outlay, higher operating cost, etc.  I like the bigger airplane that really is more weather capable (TKS).  If you travel reasonable distances and want a little more comfort moving to a newer model would probably be a good idea.  The new ones go a little faster but not as much as you might think.

[triple8s]

I bought a C in 07 been on a few trips with the Mrs. had no problem with the room or lack of, then last summer I bought an R and sold the C, she hasn't even rode in it. :-S I like the long body for the most part, still have squawks once in awhile, it likes fuel, it's harder to get stopped. All in all I do like it. The biggest reason I traded was I had as much or more in the C than I could sell it for and I had other things that needed to be done, so I figured trade and when I spend on it atleast I won't be upside down financially I also wanted fuel injection and that would have cost a wad too.

[jetdriven]

I took a fellow E owner for a ride in my J and he sold out of his partnership to buy one just a few months later. His comment, "wow they took the E, made it bigger and fixed everything I don't like about the E."

He's a 500 hour pilot and flew it back by himself from the purchase no issues. I flew with him and I didn't really have any suggestions. It's an easy transition.

[Mooneyjet]

I find that I end up canceling a lot of my trips due to weather below freezing temps and low clouds which mean icing either in the climb or the decent into an approach. I got a sweet "c" with stec 30, and 430w, however I would like to have tks and fuel injection. Most of my trips are 400 to 500 nautical miles.

[carusoam]

C to R...

Babies in special seats in the back turn into full sized adults quickly!

The R is just a modern and newer version of the C. ( no turbo or FIKi for me)

The family members like it, like our ten year old cars...(no digital dashes there either).

We were looking for a J, then a Missile, then settled on an O1.

The aerodynamics have been refined. The power is increased. Speed and climb rates are nicer.

Transition training is a blast! IFR flight matches what they teach in school. I highly recomend both.

Economics are different, but not terribly out of line for what you get.

Do it before the class III medical becomes a personal issue. That's my take on it...

Best regards,

-a-

[Cris]

As Anthony says "Do it before the class III medical becomes a personal issue. That's my take on it..." A few years ago my family questioned why I wanted to own another Mooney and I told them I did'nt want to wait till I was 70 to enjoy it without medical concerns. How true that turned out to be. Took me more than three months to get my current 3 rd class medical. Life is short. enjoy it now.

I've owned 8 Mooney's E,J,K,S and had exclusive access to an R. Moving from short body to mid body is easy. Moving from mid body to long body is a higher learning curve especially if you have long term muscle memory from what you are currently flying. The later models offer better ergonomics and typically better avionics. Like a Porsche buy the latest model you can afford. It will pay dividends long term,

[Hank]

So, Cris, what gotchas do you see moving to long bodies? Besides going faster and using more runway, don't slip and be careful to not hit the tail? I don't have much mid-body time, the biggest difference I saw was remembering the cowl flaps, slower to find peak and landing with full flaps was much better. But then, that F only had three flap positions, unlike my C whose flaps can be set at any point from Up to Landing.

[PMcClure]

I went from a F to a R (O2) with a short stop with a bonanza in-between. The R is a vastly superior plane. We sold the F after I lost the generator at night and diverted and landed (safely) with my wife holding the flashlight on the panel. After that, my wife said she would never fly with me in that death trap again. Of course it was safe, but flying in a 40 year old plane with lots of small issues and old equipment didn't sit well with her.  I call the ovation my $200k spare battery mod. It works for her, so it works for me.

 

The Ovation is a joy; fast, efficient, roomy and still room and range to carry my family. Most importantly, my family trusts it and will fly with me any time. The only downside is the cost. It is much more to acquire and new avionics cost more to maintain. I don't regret the decision at all and love the Ovation. 

 

Transition training took about 2-3 hours to get landings proficient and then  I wasn't comfortable in hard IFR for about 20 hours. Now, I trust the aircraft in all sorts of conditions. 

[SkyPilot]

I thinking of moving up to a Bravo or Ovation. It is tough selling an F especially these overpriced Canadian ones. I'm at the stage where I'm planning speed brakes, windshield mod, panel mod, and a Garmin 530 upgrade. I'm thinking just take a loss and trade up. I sure like this old beast and it gets me around at about 155 to 160 mph on about 10 GPH. I'll see what the finance man says and start shopping...

 

Hopefully my wife doesn't kill me

[aviatoreb]

 

Hopefully my wife doesn't kill me

 

:-)  That's the scary part.  Turns out my wife was a saint and very supportive of moving up to a faster beasty airplane.  Good luck!!

[FlyDave]

I moved from a J to a Bravo 1 month ago. I found a big difference between the 2 planes.

• Flying a turbocharged plane is amazing! I climbed at 140 KIAS 500 FPM at 17,500' effortlessly. Climbs are not a concern. I don't want to own a normally aspirated plane again.
• The extra room in the long bodies is very nice - a lot more storage in the baggage area and a bit more leg room in the back.
• The taller instrument panel is very nice. I have all the avionics I wanted and it all fits very nicely.
• This plane likes altitude so o2 is really a necessity if you want to take full advantage of the speed this plane will make. This is a traveling airplane!
• Fuel burn: Well, that's another story. Going from 10.5 GPH at 155 KTAS at 8,500'  to 18.5-19 GPH (29"/2,400) at ~200 KTAS at 17,500' is a BIG bite to swallow. I'm flying it at 15.5 GPH (27"/2,200) at ~190 KTAS at 17,500' and that is a happier FF but still a lot more than that J burned. The temps are a lot better at the lower power setting so I think the engine is healthier at the reduced power setting. It is fairly well known that the Bravo engine will not run LOP.

The increased FF is the only down side to this airplane (so far). I am extremely happy with my trade-up and would do it again in a heartbeat.

Let me know if you have any questions about the Bravo - I'll try to answer them.

 

Dave

[Marauder]

I moved from a J to a Bravo 1 month ago. I found a big difference between the 2 planes.

• Flying a turbocharged plane is amazing! I climbed at 140 KIAS 500 FPM at 17,500' effortlessly. Climbs are not a concern. I don't want to own a normally aspirated plane again.
• The extra room in the long bodies is very nice - a lot more storage in the baggage area and a bit more leg room in the back.
• The taller instrument panel is very nice. I have all the avionics I wanted and it all fits very nicely.
• This plane likes altitude so o2 is really a necessity if you want to take full advantage of the speed this plane will make. This is a traveling airplane!
• Fuel burn: Well, that's another story. Going from 10.5 GPH at 155 KTAS at 8,500'  to 18.5-19 GPH (29"/2,400) at ~200 KTAS at 17,500' is a BIG bite to swallow. I'm flying it at 15.5 GPH (27"/2,200) at ~190 KTAS at 17,500' and that is a happier FF but still a lot more than that J burned. The temps are a lot better at the lower power setting so I think the engine is healthier at the reduced power setting. It is fairly well known that the Bravo engine will not run LOP.

The increased FF is the only down side to this airplane (so far). I am extremely happy with my trade-up and would do it again in a heartbeat.

Let me know if you have any questions about the Bravo - I'll try to answer them.

 

Dave

 

Dave -- if the normal maintenance costs are in alignment with the J you owned, I guess you could argue the main differences are the fuel burn and the potential higher costs associated overhauling a more expensive engine at TBO. Have you determined what the overhaul cost delta is between the IO-360 and the IO-550?

 

From a fuel perspective, for a 1,000 mile linear, no wind, trip the difference looks to be $489 (1,000/190=5.26 hours*15.5GPH*$6/gal)  versus $406 (1,000/155=6.45 hours*10.5GPH*$6/gal). The savings of 1.2 hours would be noteworthy.

 

On an annual basis the Bravo would cost $9,300 in fuel for 100 hours or $18,600 for 200 hours. The J would be $6,300 for 100 hours or $12,600 for 200 hours. Time savings would be the greatest benefit not counting the increased capabilities and benefits you mentioned.

[FlyDave]

There will definitely be more maintenance (Gulp) but I don't have a read on it yet. Fuel will be what it will be.

My writeup after purchasing this plane went through my trip to/from Jackson Hole, WY. That brief icing encounter would be a non-issue in this plane.

Time savings, additional capability, having that kind of power at my fingertips and the way that plane feels when you hit the throttle - I love this airplane.

[Hank]

The Bravo will make the trip in 18% less time per Marauder's numbers, so you should compare 100 J hours at $6300 versus 82 Bravo hours at (82 x 15.5 x $6 = $7626, or 200 J hours at $12,600 vs 164 Bravo hours at $15,252, which takes the greater Bravo speed into consideration.

[Shadrach]

I thinking of moving up to a Bravo or Ovation. It is tough selling an F especially these overpriced Canadian ones. I'm at the stage where I'm planning speed brakes, windshield mod, panel mod, and a Garmin 530 upgrade. I'm thinking just take a loss and trade up. I sure like this old beast and it gets me around at about 155 to 160 mph on about 10 GPH. I'll see what the finance man says and start shopping...

 

Hopefully my wife doesn't kill me

If I were in your situation and just wanted to find a faster Mooney, I would try to trade it to a dealer. The numbers your quoting are slow for that make and model but what appears to be a significant amount on paper (if not block times). My stock F is ~ 15mph faster than what you're quoting. I get about the same numbers or slightly better than what is  listed in the MAPA evaluation. A savvy buyer will know that a good stock  F is a 150kt bird and will likely pass on a bird that is listed as running 138-140kts in cruise (I know I probably would) as those numbers are more in line with the 180hp G model. I think the time and expense involved in making your bird as fast as a typical 2 bladed F might be a losing proposition if what you really want is a 175kt machine.Take the hit on a trade rather than spending money to try make it faster; it will be less costly in the end...

[FlyDave]

Dave -- if the normal maintenance costs are in alignment with the J you owned, I guess you could argue the main differences are the fuel burn and the potential higher costs associated overhauling a more expensive engine at TBO. Have you determined what the overhaul cost delta is between the IO-360 and the IO-550?

 

From a fuel perspective, for a 1,000 mile linear, no wind, trip the difference looks to be $489 (1,000/190=5.26 hours*15.5GPH*$6/gal)  versus $406 (1,000/155=6.45 hours*10.5GPH*$6/gal). The savings of 1.2 hours would be noteworthy.

 

On an annual basis the Bravo would cost $9,300 in fuel for 100 hours or $18,600 for 200 hours. The J would be $6,300 for 100 hours or $12,600 for 200 hours. Time savings would be the greatest benefit not counting the increased capabilities and benefits you mentioned.

 

 

The Bravo will make the trip in 18% less time per Marauder's numbers, so you should compare 100 J hours at $6300 versus 82 Bravo hours at (82 x 15.5 x $6 = $7626, or 200 J hours at $12,600 vs 164 Bravo hours at $15,252, which takes the greater Bravo speed into consideration.

Honestly, I didn't factor in the additional speed when I first did calcs on fuel burn and haven't looked that close at fuel burn/performance since I got the plane. I just figured it will be what it will be.

But you guys are making me feel so good with your FF comparison from the Bravo to the J that I think I'll go burn up some dinosaurs today....Thanks!

[Seth]

I loved my 67 F, but I too figured if I wanted to put in an AP, in panel GPS, engine monitor, repaint, mod the cowl or windshield, and a few more things here and there, I was still looking at a 1967 M20F.  So, I sold the airplane and put the extra money into my next plane, the Missile.

 

The Missile is heavier - any six cylinder model is.  The fuel flow is more, but now I've got LOP ops working, it's not bad at all.  Give it gas and go real fast, or LOP and still go pretty fast.  I also loved my Johnson bar in the F, but the electric gear in the Missile is pretty nice.

 

When I go to sell this Missile in 30, 40, or 50 years, it won't matter.  If I have to sell it in the next few years due to some unforeseen issue, I'd at least get back almost everything I have in it at this point - that would not have been the case for the F.

 

I didn't realize the difference in avionics would be so great.  An AP is amazing - a moving map GPS is amazing in the panel - a coupled approach system is amazing.  An engine monitor is amazing.  Also, I had decided not to upgrade from the F to J.  5-10 knots for 30k didn't sound right.  However, I did not take into consideration the more modern avionics as much as I should have.  Newer avionics really do make a difference.  Fuel tanks make a difference to.  That extra hour on longer trips can be a big speed so you don't have to make a fuel stop.

 

My now fiancé, loved my old F, but she is amazed at the power of the Missile and how "wants to fly."  She's impressed with the extra 100 HP. 

 

I admit, I miss the days of a two hour flight, coming back, and topping of the tanks with maybe 13 or 15 gallsons - NOT the case in the Missile, but boy do you get there fast.

 

If I was going to jump from an F to J, I'd consider it more now because of the avionics more than the speed - but it would have to be a fast J.

 

The transition took only a few flights.  I felt similar to my first trip in a Mooney - the plane was ahead of me.  But I quickly caught up and then got ahead.  Landing is where you really feel the weight of the bigger engine and you just have to flare even more carefully to get that squeaker - I'm always amazed how a stabilized approach makes all the difference in the world.  Make sure to fly the numbers and not get too fast landing in a slippery heavy bird.

 

-Seth

[carusoam]

Take-off distances... Under same conditions, SL, MGTW and 60dF.

M20C....815’. (POH '74 chart)

M20R(O3)..... 650' (STC 2013 graph)

I'm not sure that it uses more runway....?

Best regards,

-a-

[Marauder]

I think the question of whether or not to upgrade should really be based on need and want. When Dave & I spoke, it is clear he has some big hills he needs to fly over and the Bravo fits that mission. The other half of this is want. Heck, if you can afford it, go for it!   Since my work schedule is demanding, the odds of me doing a 201er type of trip are remote at this point. I can't justify the extra acquistion and operating costs as a flatlander. When I retire though, things will change and I hopefully will be able to spend more time flying and health providing, be able to take longer trips where a more capable plane will fit my mission.

[Hank]

Take-off distances... Under same conditions, SL, MGTW and 60dF.

M20C....815’. (POH '74 chart)

M20R(O3)..... 650' (STC 2013 graph)

I'm not sure that it uses more runway....?

Best regards,

-a-

From files downloaded here, Ovation 2: 17C, 1000' DA, 3250 lbs (gross = 3268), ground roll = 1600 ft; to clear 50' obstacle, 2500 feet.

From my own Owners Manual, also downloaded here, 1970 C: sea level, 59F, at gross, ground roll = 815 ft; to clear 50' obstacle, 1395 feet. HALF of the Ovation 2 distances, with 180 hp sucking down 18.2 gph at WOT and Full Prop.

Comparing to an Ovation 3 with factory-added performance-enhancing STCs purchased from outside isn't quite a fair comparison! 310 hp, higher RPM, different prop . . . My C beats book,too, with my 3-blade. My home field is 3001' long, with tall trees at both ends. Can't keep an O2 there, no room for error getting in and out.

[carusoam]

Hank

Back from detail checking...

These are ground roll numbers only, not clearing any height. Departing @SL.

MGTOW

C 2575#

R 3368#

M, S, O1, O2 &O3 use different power sources and props. The O3 with TopProp is what I have captured here.

Everyone check your numbers for accuracy, I'm doing the best I can...

The comparison is fair because somebody asked about available upgrade experiences. I wrote about my experience.

I went from C to R. I pulled data directly from my POH collection.

The challenging part is to derive any precise data from the graphs... (somebody please write an app for that?)

Best regards,

-a-

[Cris]

Duplicate

[Cris]

So, Cris, what gotchas do you see moving to long bodies? Besides going faster and using more runway, don't slip and be careful to not hit the tail? I don't have much mid-body time, the biggest difference I saw was remembering the cowl flaps, slower to find peak and landing with full flaps was much better. But then, that F only had three flap positions, unlike my C whose flaps can be set at any point from Up to Landing.

Well Hank you mentioned a few things such as speed which makes decisions happen faster, slips that should be avoided, and then their is the higher level of complexity of the avionics suite which typically takes 20-25 hr. To become reasonably comfortable. However in my experience the real issue is in the landing phase. The long body like the Ovation or Eagle sits on the ramp with a 4 1/2 degree pitch attitude. It is greater than the short/mid body. As a result the sight picture and pitch attitude on landing is much different than the 5 degrees typical for most A/C to keep the nose wheel off the ground. Add to this the fact that the instrument panel is higher than on the other Mooney's and you have a recipe for a difficult transition. When landing especially with two on board the CG moves forward and a good landing is about 8 degrees nose up required to keep the nose wheel off the ground and/or to prevent three point landings as opposed to the more typical 5 degrees on the other Mooney's. It often means full up trim so that one must be comfortable with a full flap full trim go around and many pilots just don't practice this very often. It is easily managed but is a bit of a surprise if one is not proficient with their go around technique. Typically you will find new long body pilots wheel barrowing their landings or bouncing three point landings both of which lead quickly to prop strikes. My own plane suffered from just such a landing with just 45 hrs on it. It required an overhaul and new prop.