Love my Mooney, but...

[Guitarmaster]

I have found that my family will be outgrowing my F model in a couple years as I have two growing boys (i've tried not feeding them, but they seem to be bigger anyway).    Since we really enjoy taking the plane for weekend trips, so, I am going to need a bigger plane.

 

So, what I would be looking for is something with around a 1500+lb useful load.  I can so my own research, but I thought I would ask you guys first.  

 

Are there any variants of the Mooney with this kind of useful?  Of course, there are Bonanzas (not bad) and six-place pipers (yawn), but nothing really compares to the Mooney IMHO.  In terms of experimental, the RV-10 is about the only thing out there, and that really doesn't do anything for me.

 

Thanks for your input!

 

 

[carusoam]

Two growing kids is one thing...

Three is a different challenge...

I had the growing kid challenge after a decade in the M20C...

Apparently it is improper to stop feeding them or saw off any offending limbs.

I considered F, J, Missile, then O...

What would have worked was the F. For a few bucks more, a Missile would be great. What I wanted was the Acclaim. So I settled for the O.

The financial disaster around 2009 made the O affordable.

I know two kids bring a huge amount of stuff with them, but another 500lbs?

It's a long way of saying go Long Body, unless the kids are really bringing 500#s of stuff.

Best regards,

-a-

[ChrisH]

Goes slower, burns more gas and is as nimble as a truck but my family has been happy in the back of the Lance I got a year ago when I had the same problem. On the plus side, for passengers it's the difference of coach to business class, and it does ride turbulence better. 

[Seth]

Baron B55? Seneca? Aztec? Non pressurized twin?

 

Aerostar??

[xcrmckenna]

What if your wife got her cert, then you could buy another mooney and you could race on your xcountrys and you guys could have four more kids till you out grow that idea..... This idea provided by a non married child free pilot.....

[Bravoman]

For a useful load like that the only planes that fit the bill or even come close are the PA 32s, particularly the vintage ones, and the big cessnas(206, 207, and 210). All great planes. I have a fixed gear 82 Toga and love it. My wife likes it better than the Mooney because she can sit in back and comfortably work when we are traveling. As I have said before, mooneys, even the long bodies, are two persons and luggage aircraft. Of course, IMO the Mooney is the way to go when it is just you or have one passenger.

[Guitarmaster]

Baron B55? Seneca? Aztec? Non pressurized twin?

 

I have started investigating twins.  I have flown both the Aztec and the Seneca 2.  I just don't know if I am ready for two engine maintenance.  

 

I enjoyed the Aztec.  Very capable hauler.  

 

I don't know much about he B55.

[KSMooniac]

Learn to pack/travel much lighter, or ship a load of stuff ahead of time to your destination... it will a be much cheaper than buying into a 1500+ lb useful load class airplane.

 

The ultimate single engine piston is a mid 70's A36 Bonanza with the Tornado Alley Turbo conversion and tip tanks.  That will get you very efficient travel capability with 1400-1600 lb useful load, and a bit more more to carry 4 + bags.  I'd choose one of those over a twin perhaps 9 times out of 10.  It will cost much more than any twin to buy today, but cost a lot less to run.  

 

I grew up traveling in the back seat of an M20C with my parents and younger brother.  Somehow we carried luggage for 4 for a week+ trip in that thing, and my parents were/are fat.    I've carried 4 non-fat adults on a weekend trip (500 NM) in my J with weekend bags and it was not difficult to do.  (I'll need to lose 25-30 lbs myself now to do it again, though!)

 

You should really check your budget before thinking about such a move... it will be a lot bigger than one with a Mooney.

[Yooper Rocketman]

I am a long time pilot with Northwoods Airlifeline and we currently own a Seneca 2 and a 1986 BE36 Bonanaza.  The Bonanza has the Tornado Alley upgrade, flies 20 knots faster, on 16 GPH (40% less fuel), with the same or more payload.  Annuals are typically half the price on the BE36 too.

 

Neither is close to my Rocket though. 

 

Just my thoughts.

 

 

[Shadrach]

Why don't you tell us what your current mission range and payload is? 1500 useful can mean a lot of things.  If the F does not work, I think you're looking for something other than brand M.  In terms of load and distance with reserves, I'm betting that you're already in the upper end of the Mooney payload/range trade off.  I have a 67F and it can comfortably take 800lbs of payload 500NM with reserves.  I am sure there are Mooney models that do a bit better, but not drastically so.

 

Maybe try on a strutless C210 or a Saratoga and see how they feel.  I like Beech products, but they are not all created equal in terms of load carrying. 

[Guest]

Obviously I would cast my vote for the Piper Comanche 400. Bigger cabin, more useful load, better performance.......

Just flew mine Bartow Fl. KBOW to Kitchener Ontario CYKF in 5:37 with headwinds the entire way.

Clarence

[Marauder]

I went through this period with my 2 kids and an F model. What I found was as the kids got older, there were less and less family vacations by plane. When we did decide to fly for our vacation and the kids were older, I would rent something with more hauling capability. For the rest, the F was fine (day trips to the beach or the Poconos).

Fast forward, my son is a few months away from going to college and the daughter has moved out. The F has become the perfect plane for empty nesters.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[rbridges]

I went through this period with my 2 kids and an F model. What I found was as the kids got older, there were less and less family vacations by plane. When we did decide to fly for our vacation and the kids were older, I would rent something with more hauling capability. For the rest, the F was fine (day trips to the beach or the Poconos).

Fast forward, my son is a few months away from going to college and the daughter has moved out. The F has become the perfect plane for empty nesters.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I'm going through that, too.  By the time they get "adult" sized til the time they leave for college, you're only looking at a handful of years.  Right now, the C is perfect for the wife and me.  I can still take my son, but I have to leave some fuel behind.  

[Bob - S50]

If you consider a Bonanza then WATCH THE AFT CG.  Its easy to go out the aft limit.  Personally, I would not consider them to be a six place airplane because it is highly unlikely you can actually put people in those aft seats.  Even 4 large people in the front two rows may put you at or near the aft CG.  Before I got the Mooney, I considered buying a share of a V35B Bonanza until I did a weight and balance problem with the owner's POH.

 

I would look at a Cessna 210L or 210M.  I've been doing research to see if there is a six place plane I could talk my wife into.  If operating cost was not a factor I would also look at a Cessna 310P/Q or a Cessna 340A.

 

Unless you need to climb to higher altitudes I would get the normally aspired 210.  Both the turbo and the pressurized versions tend to have a lower useful load.  It should be pretty easy to find an NA 210L with a useful load of around 1500# for under $180,000.  It will go about the same speed as the J, but on about 45% more fuel.  A 1500# useful load should let you load up 1200# or people and bags and enough fuel to fly for a bit over 2 hours and 350 NM and still land with an hour of fuel on board.  The 210 does not seem to have an issue with aft CG.  Granted, you'll want to put the smallest two people in the back row for CG and space reasons, but it appears you could actually load 6 people and bags and still be legal.

 

Good luck,

 

Bob

[AndyFromCB]

If you consider a Bonanza then WATCH THE AFT CG.  Its easy to go out the aft limit.  Personally, I would not consider them to be a six place airplane because it is highly unlikely you can actually put people in those aft seats.  Even 4 large people in the front two rows may put you at or near the aft CG.  Before I got the Mooney, I considered buying a share of a V35B Bonanza until I did a weight and balance problem with the owner's POH.

 

I would look at a Cessna 210L or 210M.  I've been doing research to see if there is a six place plane I could talk my wife into.  If operating cost was not a factor I would also look at a Cessna 310P/Q or a Cessna 340A.

 

Unless you need to climb to higher altitudes I would get the normally aspired 210.  Both the turbo and the pressurized versions tend to have a lower useful load.  It should be pretty easy to find an NA 210L with a useful load of around 1500# for under $180,000.  It will go about the same speed as the J, but on about 45% more fuel.  A 1500# useful load should let you load up 1200# or people and bags and enough fuel to fly for a bit over 2 hours and 350 NM and still land with an hour of fuel on board.  The 210 does not seem to have an issue with aft CG.  Granted, you'll want to put the smallest two people in the back row for CG and space reasons, but it appears you could actually load 6 people and bags and still be legal.

 

Good luck,

 

Bob

 

Normally aspirated anything and a 1500lb useful load with a piston engine is a disaster waiting to happen. Fly a normally aspirated 210 at gross even on a warm day and tell me how you like that 500fpm climb. Fly it on a hot day and tell me how much you like the tree tops. Turbo might mean extra 100b empty, but at least what's left is usable. Notice how Turbo 206 outsells the naturally aspirated one about 8 to 1.

 

If you reliably need the useful load, you need turbo.

[furledd]

I might be an outlier, but first thing I thought of after reading this was the Cherokee 235 - many of them around 1400 lbs useful load, many can use Mogas, and have good speed as well with lower cost annuals because of the fixed gear.

 

And with huge fuel tanks (84 gal) you could even get more cabin load by only partly filling them if desired.

 

However, make sure you look at only the longer cabin versions (after 1973) for the extra legroom in the back (i.e. the Pathfinder or Dakota) as the earlier models were pretty tight for anyone bigger than a 10 yr old kid. Sounds like the early Mooneys eh? It is...

 

FYI I looked seriously at a 235 in 2007 before I got the M20F.

[M20F]

If weight and volume are of interest hard to beat a 206

[BigTex]

The delta in price between the F you have and something to carry the 1500lb useful load could be $100K.  Not sure how many flights a year you'd have all the seat full but that's a lot of money if you'd only load up the family a couple of times a year.  I'd personally think about keeping my F and then for the rare occasion you need all four seats full, look at renting something. 

[ryoder]

Skymaster?

[Guitarmaster]

See. This is why I come here first. All great information and I thank all of you!! I think I will be keeping Riley. With all the work I have put in, she is becoming a nice plane! I really didn't want to get rid of her anyway...

It is always important to look at a problem from all angles. You all have really helped out!

Time to start working out and losing weight!! Lol!!

[carusoam]

Some projects, we try to save the plane...

Others, we save the pilot!

Go MooneySpace!

Best regards,

-a-

[Bob - S50]

Normally aspirated anything and a 1500lb useful load with a piston engine is a disaster waiting to happen. Fly a normally aspirated 210 at gross even on a warm day and tell me how you like that 500fpm climb. Fly it on a hot day and tell me how much you like the tree tops. Turbo might mean extra 100b empty, but at least what's left is usable. Notice how Turbo 206 outsells the naturally aspirated one about 8 to 1.

 

If you reliably need the useful load, you need turbo.

 

Horsepower is horsepower.  It doesn't make any difference if it is turbo or not.  If both of them make 285 ponies at SL then performance will be the same.  Where turbo makes the difference is above SL.  With turbo you will get a better average rate of climb.  You can also make more horsepower at altitude and thus higher speeds (but also higher fuel flow).  The majority of us here fly non-turbo Mooneys.  If I lived in Colorado, Wyoming, Utah... turbo would be nice for better takeoff performance.  If you live east of the Mississippi I can't see that you really need the turbo.

 

Personally, I would prefer not to suck on a hose so some of the benefit of a turbo would be lost on me.  If I want to fly above 12,500' for more than 30 minutes, I'll find a way to get something that's pressurized.

 

Bob

[mpg]

Horsepower is horsepower.  It doesn't make any difference if it is turbo or not.  If both of them make 285 ponies at SL then performance will be the same.  Where turbo makes the difference is above SL.  With turbo you will get a better average rate of climb.  You can also make more horsepower at altitude and thus higher speeds (but also higher fuel flow).  The majority of us here fly non-turbo Mooneys.  If I lived in Colorado, Wyoming, Utah... turbo would be nice for better takeoff performance.  If you live east of the Mississippi I can't see that you really need the turbo.

 

Personally, I would prefer not to suck on a hose so some of the benefit of a turbo would be lost on me.  If I want to fly above 12,500' for more than 30 minutes, I'll find a way to get something that's pressurized.

 

Bob

 

You may miss the Real point of turbo,,,   it is Not just sea level power we are looking at.

It is Density Altitude!

Warm day are worse than cool ones,,,   HOT days are Even Worserer!

A turbo removes the poorer performance on warm and Hot And,, Hi altitude performance!

 

Of coarse it does cost gas..

[Parker_Woodruff]

You may miss the Real point of turbo,,,   it is Not just sea level power we are looking at.

It is Density Altitude!

Warm day are worse than cool ones,,,   HOT days are Even Worserer!

A turbo removes the poorer performance on warm and Hot And,, Hi altitude performance!

 

Of coarse it does cost gas..

 

Pressure altitude is of primary concern.

 

Prop performance is entirely concerned with density altitude.

[Parker_Woodruff]

I would suggest a Cessna 182RG.

 

You'll get the same speed as your Mooney (150 knots).  You'll burn about 12 gph.  And the useful load will push 1100-1200 lbs.

 

But with a partial fuel load, the capacity in the cabin is quite large.  I think the C182RG is somewhere around 88 gallons fuel capacity.