Love my Mooney, but...

[AndyFromCB]

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

 

Bob,

 

You always need a turbo ;-) It's funny how people always complain about sucking on a hose. With cannulas and built in system, you don't even notice. What you do notice is nice, cool, bump free air and how quickly you get there. And tail winds. And not messing with mixture on takeoff and in climb. And not being handed over every 10 minutes over 10,000. And not being routed around Class B. There is a lot more to a turbo than just going high all the time. 11,000 to 12,000 is actually a pretty good altitude to fly at. I get on the hose anytime I fly anyway, if going any distance. Makes me much more alert.

[AndyFromCB]

Pressure altitude is of primary concern.

 

Prop performance is entirely concerned with density altitude.

 

I've spent a lot of time in Denver in my Arrow. It's a day and night difference taking off in the morning vs afternoon and the pressure altitude did not change. I did the calculations. You give up about 10% more horsepower between 30 and 90 degrees at 5000feet. At 30 degrees, you can still pull about 90% on take off, at 90 degrees, best you can do is about 80%. But you are correct, at sea level, the difference is considerably smaller.

 

https://wahiduddin.net/calc/calc_hp_dp.htm

[DaV8or]

I addition to the very standard suggestions to solve the growing family problem of Bonanza, Saratoga, 210 and various twins, I'd like to add the RV-10. This gets you out from under the government squeeze and allows you to have the very latest avionics, do whatever mods you see fit, work on it yourself and save a load of money. If I ever leave the Mooney fold, it will be for an experimental.

[Shadrach]

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.

If his F is like mine he's already got 1000lbs+ useful. Running the numbers for a 500NM trip with 1hr reserve, I can theoretically take 790lbs in the cabin. A 182 with 1100 useful can do 788lbs (at what I consider as optimistic 12gph@150kts). Most RGs are decent load haulers, but they're not the load haulers that many claim them to be. Some of the early 70s stiff legged birds with basic equipment are will do 1200lbs+, but there is a huge range. I used to rent from an outfit that had an RG and useful was less than 1100 on that bird. It would burn 12GPH and it would do 150kts. It would not however, do both at the same time. That's just one anecdotal data point, I'm sure there are better performers out there.

I have nothing against C182s; they're great aircraft. I just don't see them as much of an upgrade unless you're just looking to burn more gas. I know that some of the newer Mooneys are not load haulers. The F model in many cases is pretty reasonable. Many have the capacity to carry 2 average size couples and weekend bags for 500NM with reserves.

[Marauder]

Many have the capacity to carry 2 average size couples and weekend bags for 500NM with reserves.

Just not my girls

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[flyingcheesehead]

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.

 

We have a 182RG in a club that I'm in. 150 knots, yes, but not at 12gph. You'll burn more like 14-15 normally. 

 

We can, however, take full fuel (75 gallons) *and* 770 pounds of "meat" and bags.

[ryoder]

I have never flown in or sat in a RV10 but I also want one. They are just so expensive to purchase.

[Shadrach]

Just not my girls

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Your girls are "above average". C182s are nice, but a C130 would be good for you...fuel burn is probably a little higher!

Make sure they're strapped down!!!

[Shadrach]

I have never flown in or sat in a RV10 but I also want one. They are just so expensive to purchase.

They do look really comfy. Useful of 1070-1180lbs. 260HP on an airplane with a MGTOW of 2700 sounds lively. At gross, the power to weight ratio is slightly higher than a Mooney Rocket.

[Tommy]

Easiest solution, take less fuel and luggage! 

Definitely not 182RG - not much of an upgrade. 

Bonaza, Lance, Saratoga, RV-10, and all twins all too expensive.

The best fit I can think of is Cessna 210N.

But to be honest, if you need full tank to get to your destination, probably easier and cheaper to fly commercial. 

Save your Mooney for short family trip. 

[ryoder]

210A is a cheap buy. People say the gear is expensive to maintain though. Should be manual.

[Guitarmaster]

I love this site and all the guys/gals on here!  I went back a really ran hard numbers.  

 

I realized that I don't need to carry as much fuel as I have been. Now that I have had her for a year, I feel much more comfortable "fueling for the trip" rather than giving a large reserve.

 

Given that, and the fact that I really don't like high-wing airplanes, nothing really looks as cool as a Mooney, and the price premium to move to a "heavy hauler" is pretty steep; it's not worth it.  

 

Maybe trade for a turbo later on though.

[Tommy]

Strictly speaking, 210 is a 5-seater not a 6. And you are staring down the barrel of $10k plsu to be SIDS compliant.

[Browncbr1]

They do look really comfy. Useful of 1070-1180lbs. 260HP on an airplane with a MGTOW of 2700 sounds lively. At gross, the power to weight ratio is slightly higher than a Mooney Rocket.

 

 

The guy I bought my F from built his RV...  either 10 or 12??  4 seater.. lots of room.. he built it very nicely... he said he gets 4000fpm climb performance and very very fast..   of course, those are probably cold MN winter numbers..   it was cool to see a guy put in what he wanted, including a head liner from a chevy Tahoe because he wanted to without government interference..   But, he said he had about $250k and 5 years building time into it..   

[Guest]

They do look really comfy. Useful of 1070-1180lbs. 260HP on an airplane with a MGTOW of 2700 sounds lively. At gross, the power to weight ratio is slightly higher than a Mooney Rocket.

With 60 gallons of fuel they are a bit range challenged, and nicely equipped can top out at 200K.

Clarence

[cujet]

I was always under the impression that the turbo 210 was the natural upgrade for Mooney pilots. Later models are over 190Kts and have plenty of room. 

 

A friend operates his 210N turbo at non oxygen altitudes and pulls the power back to 14GPH and claims 165KTS. Not bad for an airplane that has a 1600 pound useful load. 

[carusoam]

What happens to FF @ 190 kts?

-a-

[Johnnybgoode]

Your girls are "above average". C182s are nice, but a C130 would be good for you...fuel burn is probably a little higher!

Make sure they're strapped down!!!

Now that I can speak to - plan 5,000 pounds per hour and just over 300kts TAS. Good sightseeing in the low 20's and the country goes by in less than a day. Of course the countries I've spent most of my time in take considerably less time to transit...

PB

[Lood]

I'm looking to upgrade to an early model 36 Bonanza, which is quite a bit lighter than it's newer brethren. It's useful load is 1402lbs. If you really have to use a full 1500lbs useful load, I would go for a twin.

Here in SA, some very good twins are now going dirt cheap, but do the maths any way you like, they're substantially more expensive to run, not to mention their maintenance costs.

I've compared an E55 Baron to my F, and covering the same 10 000nm, which I do on average in one year, the E55 will more than double the fuel bill. Regardless of the fact that the actual hours flown will be no more than 75% that of the Mooney.

In fact, the extra fuel cost of the Baron amounts to more than an annual inspection on my Mooney! Add a twins' maintenance bill and you'll find that flying a twin demands very, very deep pockets...

[Bob - S50]

I'm looking to upgrade to an early model 36 Bonanza, which is quite a bit lighter than it's newer brethren. It's useful load is 1402lbs. If you really have to use a full 1500lbs useful load, I would go for a twin.

Here in SA, some very good twins are now going dirt cheap, but do the maths any way you like, they're substantially more expensive to run, not to mention their maintenance costs.

I've compared an E55 Baron to my F, and covering the same 10 000nm, which I do on average in one year, the E55 will more than double the fuel bill. Regardless of the fact that the actual hours flown will be no more than 75% that of the Mooney.

In fact, the extra fuel cost of the Baron amounts to more than an annual inspection on my Mooney! Add a twins' maintenance bill and you'll find that flying a twin demands very, very deep pockets...

Be sure to check out the aft CG on that Bonanza.  Useful load doesn't do much good if it all has to be in the front two rows.

 

Bob

[cujet]

What happens to FF @ 190 kts?

-a-

210 turbo PERFORMANCE

Cruise speed (kts.):  

75% power @ 2000/24,000 ft.: 157/192

65% power @ 2000/24,000 ft.: 150/175

45% power @ 2000/24,000 ft.: 135/154  

 

Range (w/45-min. reserve) (nm):  

75% power @ 2000/24,000 ft.: 1000/1075

65% power @ 2000/24,000 ft.: 1200/1125

45% power @ 2000/24,000 ft.: 1350/1200    

 

Fuel consumption (est. @ .44 lbs./hp/hr. sfc gph):  

75% power: 17

65% power: 15

45% power: 12

[carusoam]

Thanks for that detailed answer CUJ!

Best regards,

-a-

[Urs_Wildermuth]

You need a SEP with a lot of cargo capacity for the young ones?
 
Well...
 
They do exist, but they are a tad thirstier than your average Mooney.
 
This one here will carry your youngsters with 500 lb baggage EACH, plus your wife who will maybe bring 1000?
 
http://www.planecheck.com?ent=da&id=10447
 

Plenty of space for baggage and some folding seats too.
 

And quite a ramp presence as well.
 
can be had for about 20k $ last thing I heard.
 
Or if you want a bit of a more comfortable example: Here is one from Poland:
 


Should please the wife and the kids. Finally travel in a large cabin.
 

And a real pilots plane too.

 

I don't know how the Antonov 2 is usable in the US, there are quite a few in Europe. Mostly for nostalgia flights however, but they carry a lot of cargo too.

 

I used to fly one (in Bulgaria a sister ship of the upper one here) and they are a delight to fly. Only trouble is: About 60 GPH in eco cruise, one fill up is around 300 USG of Avgas. But she'll seat about 6-7 people with room to spare and can take about 5000 lb of luggage.

 

Make it a deal: They can bring that much if they foot the fuel bill

 

Honestly, why can't families be brought up on bike tours? People who do camping holidays by bicycle or trecking on foot do learn to travel light. Because they carry the stuff themselfs.

 

But there are always those who never learn....

 

 

Honestly, when will people learn that the kitchen sink can do pretty well on it's own for a week or two?
 

[DaV8or]

I have no idea if it's true or not, but I have read that piloting the AN-2 is like a work out at the gym. Lots of muscle required on the controls.

[AndyFromCB]

Best part is they will not stall, no matter what you do. They just slowly mush into the ground, forward speed of about 35knots and descent rate not much higher than Cirrus under a parachute...