Best Mooney for under 100k?

[benpilot]

Hi folks,

 

I think that the rudder pedals would solve my problem. Right now I am shopping for my first plane. It comes down to either an older Bonanza or Mooney. I like both aircraft and cross shopping to find one in great condition at my price point local to my area. I don't want to fly cross country unless a killer deal exists. I know one guy who is flying to Florida to buy his plane. Anyways, so far the best deals on both are:

 

Mooney 201J

Mooney 231

 

Beechcraft Debonair

Beechraft Bonanza N35/S35

 

My goal is a fun plane that is fairly economical and can get me into places like Vegas, Idaho, Mountain, Lake Tahoe safely. 

 

If I had 150-200k, then I'd get a 252/Rocket or Bravo but for a first plane, I really don't need this much power as a new pilot and want to safely learn. I can always trade up later if I need more speed or stuff like TKS, etc. Ideally, I'd like to avoid a loan and pay cash. Insurance rates are lower on Mooney than Bonanza which surprised me quite a bit. I'd also like to know if a Mooney can be safely flown on grass soft strips or not. 

[BigTex]

Tell us about yourself?  Hours/Ratings? Mission? Need for a turbo? number of passengers?

[Hank]

Ben,

 

any Mooney in good shape will do you well. I land my C on grass without issue. On mid-bodies, watch out for the lower gear door. Ask the long body crowd about those . . . I would also avoid grass in anything with a larger, heavier STC'ed engine due to weight on the nose wheel

[benpilot]

Sure, sorry forgot that part. I have a little over 200 hours total time, pax is me plus 1-2 people and some luggage.

If I can fly over mountains safely to get to Tahoe, Vegas, Colorado and Idaho for high density altitude airports that would be fine.

 

I have my private pilot rating and plan to continue on for instrument and commercial ratings. I checked and see some good deals even on 252 Mooney but the maintenance and overhaul engine costs are way more than for a 201J.

[BigTex]

You might want to look at All American AIrcraft website to get a good handle what quality Mooney's cost.  You can find 231's in your budget but they may not be the best choice. 

 

For some reason, it looks like the 201 market might be down.  Right now you can pick up some really nice 201's for not much more than an F model.  Here's a link to a very nicely equiped 201 that's within your budget with some additional funds to cover the first year.  Remember to set aside at least 10% of the actual cost for first year deferred maintanence items.

 

http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/MOONEY-M20J-201/1982-MOONEY-M20J-201/1301931.htm?dlr=1&pcid=17527

[jetdriven]

Gary, that one seems a little high in the J market for a 1500 hour engine.

[KSMooniac]

The 201 will without a doubt be the most economical of your 4 choices to own and operate.  It is the simplest and most efficient.  It will deliver the most miles per dollar when considering your fuel consumption, insurance, maintenance requirements, etc.  While I've flown mine to 17,500' and to several airports in the CO Rockies, I lust for a turbo.  The price delta between a 201 and 231 today is just about zero, whereas in the past it seemed to be at least 10k for similarly equipped planes in my observation.  A 252 will cost a bit more, but mainly because those are newer airframes than many of the 201s on the market.  

 

If you think you're going to go into the higher elevation airports frequently, I would go for the turbo.  You give up a little bit of efficiency due to the low compression pistons, but you gain a lot of capability.  It will cost a little more to operate, but not dramatically.  You'll have a few thousand extra at overhaul time, but that isn't a deal-breaker IMO relative to the capability.  (extra hoses, turbo overhaul, etc.)  An overhaul of a 231 or 252 engine probably won't cost dramatically more than a Bonanza engine b/c they're both 6-cyl Continentals.  The 201 engine only has 4 cylinders, but those cylinders are only made by Lycoming and cost more than twice as much as a new CMI cylinder for reference.  (which is one reason why I'm overhauling my cylinders right now)

 

There is a long-time Mooney owner on the email lists in SoCal that I believe is selling his 231 that was converted to the 252 spec firewall-forward.  He posted about it a long time ago, but I don't recall reading that he has sold it or not.  That might be a great plane to consider...he is the original owner as well.

 

Bonanzas are better suited to grass, but Mooneys can handle GOOD grass strips just fine.  Ask yourself how much you're really going to use grass strips before prioritizing this "need" as a lot of us fantasize about all these backwoods adventures before buying, and then don't go.     Bonanzas are great airplanes, but run W&B checks on any candidate planes and make sure you can fly your trips with 3 people and stay within the envelope.  J & K Mooneys are difficult to load out of CG.  Some have low(er) useful loads so you need to evaluate each plane you consider.  J useful loads can range from 8xx - 1050 lbs.  

[Dave Marten]

Ben,

 

What is your price point? A nice F is a solid first plane with good load capability and decent speed without breaking the bank (IE cheaper than a J/K). 3 adults plus luggage is easier in the mid-body (F/J/K).

 

The Bonazas have more useful load then Mooneys. No way around that, but if 900-1000lbs useful is OK then the Mooney will suit you fine.

 

How often do you anticipate operating in/around mountainous terrain? You mentioned high DA and grass seperately. Are you looking for something to attempt both (a high DA grass strip). I sense a bit of a desire for back country type ops? (Or I'm just reading too much into your wish-list).

 

For the instrument training I'll suggest an IFR GPS equipped bird (non-WAAS OK for training).

 

K- if you anticipate a Majority of your X/C flights taking you up and over the Rockies/Sierras if not then the N/A birds will be just fine. Personally, I've grown fond of the F model lately. 90-95% as good as a 201, but at 75-80% of the cost. A nicely equipped F is a solid performer. 

[Danb]

Ben, a couple of my friends have the B brand and while some may have a higher useful load, they have problems with aft cg as they empty their tanks which is a problem for them at times, also compared to the F or J they may burn 4-5 more per hour which over four hours may be 20 gal. X's 5.9 lb or about another 120 lbs eats into the useful load and may have cg problems depending the way there loaded. Just my .02. I'm a M guy at heart tho

[JasonW]

Ben,

I'm a new m20j owner and not an expert but the plane I bought has 1500 hrs with a grass strip as it's home base. The lower/inner gear doors do have a little wear but not enough to say you should avoid grass with it.

[benpilot]

Thanks folks, I'm leaning toward a 231 as my first plane. I've heard that getting the Merlin inter cooler waste gate is helpful since I've read that the 231 tend to run hot. Yeah back country strips would be cool but I don't plan to fly them for a while. Maybe get the Mooney first then a Bonanza or Cessna 182 with STOL kit later on. Heck the two planes still cost less than a new Cirrus.

[M016576]

I flew a J for about 250 hours all over Oregon, Nevada, Idaho and California. I was based primarily out of IYK and flew mostly north from there. It's a great aircraft for the area. If you load it down at high DA's, though, it can be a little underpowered. Think Mammoth in the summer time.... You'll want to be below 2600lbs for that flight, but it's still doable. Climb rates get a little slow above 10k, but once you're in cruise, in general you see 155kts and fuel flows below 10gph. Very efficient!

[benpilot]

 

Well compared to Piper Archer, even a Mooney M20F would be a speed demon :-)

I'd get the rudder pedals installed by a good shop like LASAR and then should be fine to go in one.

[231Pilot]

If you are going to be flying in the high altitudes of the intermountain area, the turbo will give you an added utility that will prove to be invaluable.  I went from a 201 to a 231 when I moved from the southeast to Utah, and have not regretted it.  Useful load is the only drawback of the 231-252.  If you are going to have 2 passengers, they will need to lightweights or you should not carry full fuel.  Cruise speeds of 175-185 at 12.5 gph running ROP, and >800fpm climbs up to 17000 are hard to beat with any of the B planes.

[orionflt]

Best Mooney for under 100K.......MINE, but i'm a little partial........Oh, your asking what you should buy....then i would have to agree with an older mooney for your first plane. turbo would be nice for the area you are in and there are some out there with turbo for under 100K but just remember when your looking that you will know when you find the plane that is right for you. don't but because you think it is a good deal or some one tells you that's the plane you want, buy it because you know it is the right plane. 

That being said make sure you still do your due diligence and get a thorough pre buy and title search, just because it is the right airplane doesn't mean to make a bad decision. 

[Mooneymite]

We have several C's, 201's and a 205 Mooney based on our grass field.  They all do just fine.  However, saying "grass field" doesn't mean just any grass field since they are not all suitable.  Short grass and fairly smooth is good enough; rough and tall grass....don't even consider it.

[Bartman]

I have been flying my 201 since 2007. We have been as high as 15,000 feet with no issues. Those last 2500 feet were a bit slow in climb, but we still had great airspeed in cruise. We generally see 145-150 Knots on about 8.3 GPH while LOP at around 10,000 ft. I have had the inner gear doors off before and lost about 10 knots best I can remember.

I have considered upgrading from the J to the K, but it doesn't give any significant advantage to me.

[bonal]

Check out the Lake aero site as well They have a 20J with a bullet turbo conversion that is CA based for 80k and a couple others that are in your mission requirement.

[231LV]

 Getting a K model for less than $100k is certainly doable but your avionics wont be the latest and certainly wont be glass( if thats important) and most likely will have a run out engine...the hot engines of the K vintage are the TSIO-360-GB which have almost all been replaced with the cooler running LB variant. A very small serial block of 231's can be upgraded to 252 but the cost ( I ran the analysis) really doesn't justify simply purchasing a 252 out of the gate. I agree with others..if high flying is in your future, spring for the K and don't look back...the NA planes will make altitude...eventually....but there is nothing like cruising to 18k ft at a steady 700 fpm climb....the down side for a turbo (beside being more costly to maintain and engine management) is altitude....it flies best in the high teens where O2 is mandatory. No O2 and you are stuck down low where the 231 loses all it's speed advantage. It is surprisingly difficult to find an FBO that sells O2 AND will give you a full tank for the $50 or so they charge...most simply don't want to wait while the tank fills so they give it 10 or 15 minutes then charge for a full load....frustrating

 

I started with a C model...loved it for economy...moved up to the K....love it for it's mission capabilities....tough to choose but simply consider yourself blessed to be able to even be in this situation!!...owning the left seat trumps all....

[fluffysheap]

At $100K either a J or K would be a good choice.  The J has more useful load - you might need that if you want to carry two passengers regularly.  A typical K has a useful load in the 850-875 pound range, which leaves you with about 450 pounds of payload with full fuel.  The Encore has a gross weight increase, but a price premium, and there are fewer of them out there.  You won't get the full benefits of a K model unless you get an instrument rating.  Maintenance is supposedly more expensive in the K, but I'm not sure how accurate that really is.  I have a K and haven't had any turbocharging-related issues.  I guess if I need a new turbo at some point I might change my mind.  The J's Lycoming and K's Continental both have their own issues, I'm not sure either is exactly better than the other.

 

You should probably be prepared to travel to find the right plane for you.  Unfortunately, there just aren't that many of them out there, and you can't rely on the right one being nearby.  I traveled all over the country looking at planes before finally buying one only 150 miles away!

 

As far as grass fields.  My personal minimums do not include landing on grass.  It's partly because Mooneys are not really the best plane for that mission, but also because I have no real training for it.  The "soft field technique" you learn in PPL training is, IMO, not adequate for actual unpaved field landings.  Most flight schools don't allow actual grass landings - which is usually enforced by their insurance companies.  So for most private pilots and even instructors, soft-field is just something you do to check the box on the private pilot checkride and not something you learn because you intend to ever actually do it.  So, IMO, inexperienced pilot + lack of viable instruction + aircraft marginal for the mission = not something I'd recommend.  But if you get real soft-field instruction and some Mooney experience, then maybe it would be ok on a well-maintained grass strip.

 

If landing on grass is really part of your mission, I think the Bonanza is probably better than the Mooney - it sits up higher, at least - but the Cessna 182 is really a better choice.  It's a great jack-of-all-trades plane.  No matter what the criterion - speed, load, fuel efficiency, rough surface, IFR, whatever - it's not the best, but it's also not too bad.  Worst problem is that Cessnas make you look like a dork.  No way around that.

 

I'm not surprised that insurance is cheaper on the Mooney than the Bonanza.  Both are complex, but Mooney's safety record is better, even excluding the V-tail Bonanzas.

[Parker_Woodruff]

Grass ain't something to be afraid of...and most aviation insurance policies don't have restrictions for operations on grass, unless it's been custom built into the policy for past loss History

Go find a CFI and a Cessna to take onto grass and enjoy. Or even better, go get your tailwheel endorsement on a grass runway.

[chrisk]

When I was trying to decide between a Bonanza and a Mooney there were really three things that made the decision.   The first was insurance.  Roughly $1500 on a M20K with a $75K hull value.   A Bonanza with a similar hull value was over $3000.  And while I would like to think it is because a Mooney is twice as safe, I suspect some of it is what the market will bear.  Maybe the personality type drawn to a Bonanza.  And maybe because because the gear lever and flap lever are next to each other.

 

The second had to do with the number of modifications and ADs on Bonanzas.   There were so many mods and it was not clear to me which were desirable and which were not.  Some were easy, like tip tanks and a larger engine.   Others like Cleavland breaks were unknown.  And some were scary, in particular ADs and kits with spars.

 

And third was the number of aircraft dealers selling Bonanzas.   For me, buying any plane owned by a dealer means 8.25% sales tax.   It also means I don't get to talk to the previous owner, which is important to me.  And it also tends to leave me with a slimy feeling.  But on the other hand, some people really shouldn't sell their own plane.    

[KSMooniac]

I think the insurance differences are directly related to the cost of replacement parts, and well, Beech parts aren't known for being reasonable.  Their gear have oleo struts and nice, beautiful castings that aren't cheap.  Older V-tails had magnesium skins prone to corrosion, and they are very expensive.  Mooney gear pieces are rugged steel and use cheap donuts for suspension instead of oleos.  

 

If you add the Piper Comanche into the mix, you'll find their insurance rates are also noticeably higher due to the parts situation.  There is aftermarket support, but the youngest airframe is now over 40 years old!  And if you really want to feel good about owning a Mooney, go to the AOPA forum and read about one owner's plight with a Turbo Arrow that has needed more than 10 AMU worth of landing gear work just due to actuators wearing out, and there are 3 on that plane apparently.

[chrisk]

I wish I could find better statistics, but these two articles are worth a read. 

 

 

http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/1995/October/1/Mooney-Safety-Review

http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/1994/February/1/Bonanza-Safety-Review.aspx

 

And my favorite Bonanza quote "The gear-up landing accident record on the nonstandard versions, however, is about 40 percent higher than for the comparison aircraft."  Which just begs the question for Mooneys:  Is there a difference in the gear up rate between the Johnson bar and electric gear?  --Not that that would be a choice on a modern Mooney.

[benpilot]

Agree the Mooney put the landing gear switch in the right place easy to find in plane sight. Also for instruments, Mooney is very stable controls.