New to flying, would a Mooney fit my mission?

[kevinw]

Well I certainly cannot afford an Ovation at this point in time. A J seems like a good starting point but I need to learn a lot more about these planes before I purchase one. Time for a new thread to address those questions.

 

Reading the article that "ChrisK" mentioned really makes a "K" look appealing but really makes a 252 sound even better but that's shopping at a store I should not be stepping into. As mentioned above by N252ND I am amazed at the fuel burn being so low. Makes the 252 sound even more attractive, just wish they were 50K less $

 

Kevin, you mention a $40K engine rebuild when others made it sound like it would be a lot less. Others wishful thinking or legitimate reason? I really think aircraft engines, for what they are, are far over priced and they seem to be the elephant in the room as to why flying is so expensive.

 

The question becomes do I need a turbo in order to get over the mountains when flying into the IE Basin. KCCB would be ideal destination.

I think the reason the engine prices are so different is an overhaul versus a factory remanufactured (or even more expensive, new). I paid about $32000 for the engine alone but it's a zero time IO360-A3B6 engine. An overhaul is less expensive but the engine time doesn't reset to zero. As you probably suspect, the purchase price of the airplane was much lower had the engine not needed to be replaced. As far as a turbo is concerned, I flew a K and really liked it - especially how well it climbed. In the end I live in Iowa and didn't want the added maintenance expense and also liked the J airframe I bought better (paint, equipment, TKS, etc). The K really pays off at higher altitudes (12K and up). At lower altitudes the speed will be the same but the fuel burn in the K will be about 2 gallons per hour higher. I know some don't like turbos but if the right one would've came along I would've had no problem buying it! 

[DonMuncy]

Any Mooney will get you over the mountains. But without a turbocharger, you will have to pick your route more carefully, you will have to watch the weather more carefully, and if anything goes wrong, you will have less margin of error. But if you only need to go over the mountains infrequently, it may well be worth it to you to go non turbo.

[Rik]

I don't know the elevation required to get in the Inland Empire basin. I know that SWA flies East of the mountains over the Victorvile area but that might be just to avoid LAX class B space.. They depart over them so?

 

Where does one look to find the routes to get somewhere?

[jetdriven]

Yes, there seems to be some confusion about rated speeds.  First, most of us think and talk in nautical miles per hour.  To get to a speed in miles per hour, you multiply nm/hr times 1.15.  So an aircraft like my 231 that has a cruise speed (which depends alot on altitude), but lets just say 170 to make it simple, that aircraft actually cruises at 195 mph.  The "201" and "231" numbers that were used to market Mooneys were not cruise speed numbers however, they were balls to the wall 100% HP numbers, that's number one.  And as someone mentioned, you don't want to run an engine like that you will be buying a new engine pretty quickly.  Second, they were max altitude numbers.  An aircraft goes faster as it goes up in the air column just because there is less air and less friction.  However, here is where normally aspirated vs. turbocharged comes into play.  The normally aspirated engine will start to lose the ability to achieve max horsepower the minute it leave the ground, and loses more as it goes up in the air column.  So to get to the 201 number they took the J up to an altitude where it was still making decent horsepower and was decently fast.  I don't remember the numbers, but there are some good articles on the MAPA website that talk about the development of each aircraft, you can look them up if you are really interested.  The turbocharged engines, on the other hand, can make 100% HP up to quite a high altitude (it varies with the model and the particular engine set up), so basically the same model aircraft, if turbocharged, can go higher and will have a higher cruise and maximum airspeed at the higher altitude. 

 

There are several tricks to all this though.  To get the max rated horsepowers, or the highest cruise speed, you need to go up.  In the turbocharged aircraft you will go high enough you will need oxygen, a built in system is best. 

 

 

The 201 MPH number in the POH is 100% horsepower and sea level density altitude.  I have also verified this in a few air races, the airplane is faster the lower the density altitude at full throttle 2700 RPM, and 80 ROP. It also happily guzzles down 16 GPH like this but it seems happy to do it 3 hours at a time. 

 

Cruise is a little different,  cruise seems fastest around 7000' DA. I suppose because full throttle and 2500 RPM is a very efficient power setting with the throttle full, its right around 75% power and the air density is lower than sea level. There's an extra 3-5 knots on the same cruise FF than at sea level. Above 10K, the speed starts to fall again, you are horsepower limited.

 

Anyways, figure 150 knot LOP (8-9 GPH) and 155 knots ROP (10-11 GPH) for a nicely rigged 201or M20E and that covers most of them.  Some F models can approach this too but usually with the 201 windshield and a few other drag mods.

[ArtVandelay]

I don't know the elevation required to get in the Inland Empire basin. I know that SWA flies East of the mountains over the Victorvile area but that might be just to avoid LAX class B space.. They depart over them so?

Where does one look to find the routes to get somewhere?

Go to skyvector.com, select low IFR charts

[Jerry 5TJ]

I don't know the elevation required to get in the Inland Empire basin. I know that SWA flies East of the mountains over the Victorvile area but that might be just to avoid LAX class B space.. They depart over them so?

 

Where does one look to find the routes to get somewhere?

The MEA on V459 is 9000 near Gorman. That's the high spot on your route from Smith Ranch to Cable. So 10,000 (northbound) is as high as you "have" to go on an IFR plan.

[Lood]

RIK, there isn't really any reason why you can't go from a C172 to a Mooney, or from a 110kt airplane to a 180kt airplane - as long as nothing goes wrong or deviate even just slightly from the normal routine.

If you're not used to 180kts and something out of the ordinary rears its head, the airplane will be ahead of you in the blink of an eye and really bad things might happen, fast.

These do not need to be major things, but even simple events like an unexpected amount of traffic converging at your destination, something on the runway which calls for a go-around, a hold-up at cruise altitude by ATC to accomodate other traffic, which leaves you with too much height to loose in way too little time. It's the small things that cathces one out in a fast airplane and many such events results in the pilot becoming a passenger in his own airplane.

It would be a good exercise if you could get someone with a 180kt airplane to give you control from the right seat and fly it into a busy, controlled airport. Things can happen extremely quickly and in a fast airplane, the luxury of time can become non-existent.

Good luck!

[Z W]

Lood makes a good point, but it's only half the story.  Things can sometimes get ahead of you in any plane, even a 110-knot 172.  It just happens faster in a faster plane.

 

In any plane, you have to have the discipline to Aviate - Navigate - Communicate, in that order.  It just becomes more critical that you stick to that in a fast plane.

 

First, control your airplane.  Need some time?  Slow down.  Not sure where you are?  Level off, stabilize, and then figure it out.  ATC confusing you?  Ask for clarification, a vector heading, or just say "Unable."

 

More than once while learning the faster plane I had to do a spiral descent to lose speed and altitude to make the airport.  It's not that big a deal, as long as you commit to never getting rushed, coming in high, or coming in fast.  It works great if ATC keeps you high for too long, outside controlled airspace anyways.

 

I still sometimes end up high, fast, or both, and have to fly a larger pattern than normal to give me extra time to lose the speed and altitude.  Happened to me yesterday, for the first time in a long time.  

[bonal]

Being in the San Rafael area as you pointed out SFO bravo can get rather busy at times. You also have LAX to consider for your Ontario 2 places that can make it real easy for mistakes to happen at higher speeds. Also if you factor in normal Bay Area fog it's not unusual for below IFR minimums. Quite a lot to consider as a new pilot. Take your time gain experience while having fun then start to apply your flying as a means of transportation when getting somewhere becomes more vital. You sound like you have lots of passion and that's great. It's a great adventure this thing called flight.

[M20F]

In terms of bang for your buck an F/E is going to be your best option. You can made immaculate versions of either in the 60-75k range whereas a J with same engine time and radios is going to be 30-50K more. Fundamentally there isn't much difference between the three models.

I agree we don't fly for financial reasons but finances sure play a big role in it. I could have easily afforded a 252 including operating it. At the end of the day I take 3-4 long trips a year. The extra speed isn't going to save me that much but I would rather take all that money I saved and do something else with it. I got a RayJay in mine so when I need to go high for weather, mountains, etc. I can and when I come west to east I can do 220+knots at times smoking any J. I beat my friends 320 on trips all the time because while he has more speed, I have more range as another example.

I have nothing against newer Mooney's but owning an Acclaim S as example would just be a waste for me, I don't fly that type of mission profile and it would be a big waste of money that I could be doing something else with. I see all kinds of people at the airport with planes that are just more than what they need. These are always the ones who eventually stop flying because the cost or complexity just becomes to much. Often times I think if they would have bought with their head instead of their heart they would still be flying.

Mission and finances should be the only two choices in an aircraft purchase IMHO.

[Andy95W]

So the bottom line appears to be that the Mooney is the right airplane for you, but you may not quite be ready for the mission- yet.

So, IMHO, buy the Mooney you like that fits your mission and get your instrument rating in that airplane. Don't chicken out and get your instrument rating in a 172 because it will be easier. You'll be grateful for the training in the long run.

Don't attempt the mission VFR until you have your instrument rating. Don't attempt the mission IFR until you have considerable experience.

But you will get there, and you'll enjoy the process along the way.

[BigTex]

So the bottom line appears to be that the Mooney is the right airplane for you, but you may not quite be ready for the mission- yet.

So, IMHO, buy the Mooney you like that fits your mission and get your instrument rating in that airplane. Don't chicken out and get your instrument rating in a 172 because it will be easier. You'll be grateful for the training in the long run.

Don't attempt the mission VFR until you have your instrument rating. Don't attempt the mission IFR until you have considerable experience.

But you will get there, and you'll enjoy the process along the way.

 

I go back and forth on which path would be the best knowing that the end result is a capable Mooney Instrument rated pilot.  Do you go the easier route and obtain your IFR rating in a 172, then transition to a complex aircraft like the Mooney.  Or go through the additional struggles of  of a complex plane and learning to fly under instruments.  At the end of the day I wounder which route would be the fewest hours yielding the same result?

[Andy95W]

Back in 1999/2000 when I was actively instructing, I had a student who got his PPL in a 172 and wanted to get an A36 Bonanza for himself and his family. He wanted me to "check him out" in it for insurance purposes. I agreed under the condition that he get his instrument rating in his new airplane.

IIRC, we flew together probably 50-60 hours, to include his long instrument cross country flight (with his family) from Williamsburg, VA to Cabo San Lucas, Mexico. We both learned a lot that trip.

Yes, it took longer in the A36 than just 40 hours in a 172 and a quick 5 hour checkout for insurance.

A few years later when he bought a B58 Baron and got his Multi/instrument in that airplane, his instructor complimented him on his handling of the airplane and instrument procedures.

My former student credited me for that, and called me to thank me for insisting he train in his A36.

EDIT: Sorry, I didn't mean to come off as arrogant. He was the probably the best student I ever taught, but I still feel like he learned more and gained invaluable experience by training in the more complex airplane.

[BigTex]

I once had a Physics professor that said that the only way to truly lean how to solve a problem is to agonize over it for an extended period of time.  So I definitely see merits for going that route.

[DonMuncy]

I think one would probably be better off doing the instrument training in their own airplane. It might take a little more time, but it would probably be easily offset by not paying rental on another plane, but more importantly, for the learning your own plane.

[ArtVandelay]

In the long run, your yearly fuel, hangar, maintenance expenses will dwarf the net purchase price of the plane. Get the best plane you can afford and one that you won't outgrow.

[Robert C.]

I think one would probably be better off doing the instrument training in their own airplane. It might take a little more time, but it would probably be easily offset by not paying rental on another plane, but more importantly, for the learning your own plane.

Agree fully, with a positive addendum.

Ymmv, but my experience and most everything I read suggests that getting the rating in your own plane will be quicker and more cost efficient.

I had about 155 hrs in Archers befor I bought my Ovation. I then did the combined IFR/transition training/complex endorsement all through an accelerated IFR program. Instructor met me where I picked up the plane. We flew back to my home base and 41 hrs and 11 days later I did my check ride.

Needless to say I highly recommend the approach to transitioning

[chrisk]

Going back to plane talk, and which one to buy.  I have a 231.  I love it, but some days I would really enjoy a Rocket.  Don't over look a rocket.  They are probably the best value for a fast plane.  But of course with speed, you pay for fuel....  And they are one of the more complex versions of a Mooney, so if you are concerned with a learning curve, it will be steeper here.  Not having flown one, I am under the impression they have different take off and landing gross weights, and a minimum continuous power setting (making decent planning more of a challenge).  With my plane, I plan my descents far enough out that I can leave my power at economy cruise, and push the nose over to the yellow line.  Of course, this doesn't always work out.  Some times ATC wants a slam dunk and I have to power back and use the speed breaks. --This is where I suspect the Rocket is a hand full, as the minimum power setting is still pretty fast.

 

P.S.  Note I said power back, not power off.  I still keep my engine plenty warm!  And it still drives the prop.

[Rik]

I fully understand not "outgrowing" the airplane and this is why I was looking at a Mooney. Everyone says to spend X years in Y plane then move up to Z plane for X years then so on and so on. Problem is not everyone is 18 yrs old and has 60 yrs to reach the level they want to be at to satisfy everyone. Flip side is  a lot of people just put the work in and learn what they want/need to do in order to safely handle the situation. 

 

Have to get the PPL and then get the IFR but as many have pointed out the plane they own doesn't have to excluded from this mission for both. I don't want to be one of these people who purchases a plane before they finish the PPL as I think that what one wants going into this and what one needs once they are in it can be totally two different things and I also think it's wise to get a PPL and then see if I really like it. While I don't think I will, I just might not like it as much as I thought I would and I would be stuck with a plane and the associated cost and be sitting here thinking, what was I thinking.. 

 

So once I get my PPL, it's never a bad investment to invest in one's self, I can then say more accurately that a Mooney is for me. 

[Rik]

M20F, you have a Ray Jay Turbo on an "F"?