Why a Mooney?

[Rookie]

I now know that I'm in good hands with plenty of air time and plane experience among this group!

I will keep you guys informed when I get closer to buying!

 

Thanks,

[carl]

a bellanca will do aerobatics !!!!

that was my dream airplane from childhood . when i went to my first airshow and the sales rep pounded on the fabric wing with a hammer .

bob hoover was the .

fort lauderdale executive . 1960-70's i dont remember when. but i went three days in a row . paying for the first day only

. they just let me in . on my bicycle.

access was great then

[carusoam]

Fastest

Four seat

Factory built

Normally aspirated

All Aluminum

Airplane

310hp, 2,000lbs empty or 3368 MGTW... Approximately 6.5 Lbs/HP empty, 10.9 full up..

Still in production

No fabric

No wood

TN version also available for those who desire max speed at altitude. That's a class of distinction..!

Go Mooney!

[marks]

I bought my Mooney for a different reason than most everyone else.  I flew an "83 Beech Sierra for 15 years and it was a hell of a plane. Same engine, but it"s wing load was 20% greater than a Mooney and was smoother in turbulance. I had the six seat option so the wife and I could fly with three kids.  Never a fuel leak and it had three doors instead of one.  But one day in hard IFR I lost the engine over water and I had to glide back to land.  That Beech glided like a brick.  The Mooney will glide if that single engine ever gives out.  The stall speed is slower so it can fly slower if you must land upwind into woods or poor terrain.  My kids grew up and two moved away and have their own families now.  Why the Mooney?  The plane has to fit the mission.  BTW, we made many flights to a college 334 N.miles away.  We averaged 2 hours 6 minutes in the Mooney and 2 hrs 29 minutes in the Sierra.  I never considered the speed difference a big deal. 

[mike_elliott]

And, let's please quash this Internet rumor that the Comanche folks started relatively recently that Al Mooney designed the Comanche. I have been "in the Mooney family" since 1982, read all of the books, and met or at least corresponded or done business with many of the Mooney legends over the years and I have seen absolutely nothing from "our side" to support it.

There you go again, Jim. Letting a few facts get in the way of a good story.. 

[Shadrach]

And, let's please quash this Internet rumor that the Comanche folks started relatively recently that Al Mooney designed the Comanche. I have been "in the Mooney family" since 1982, read all of the books, and met or at least corresponded or done business with many of the Mooney legends over the years and I have seen absolutely nothing from "our side" to support it.

I had alway heard that Al had a friendly relationship with the Bill Piper and that Bill copied the wing design. but looking at them side by side, I'm hard pressed to see any similarities...  

 

side by side.tiff

[flyingcheesehead]

Rookie, I think a better question is "Which Mooney?"

 

 

There are short (C,E), medium (F,J,K), and long (M,R,S,TN) body Mooneys. The more stuff you have to carry, the more space you'll want. The short body ones have a reputation for having an almost unusable back seat. Of course, all Mooneys have an undeserved reputation for being "small and cramped" (Al Mooney was 6'5", I'm 6'4" and 300# and only the Comanche is even in the same class of comfort for 4-seat singles I've flown.)

 

There are 180hp ©, 200hp (E,F,J,K) and higher powered (M,R,S,TN) Mooneys. More stuff, more speed, more power (and more fuel burn).

 

There are normally aspirated (C,E,F,J,R,S) and turbocharged (K,M,TN) Mooneys. There are two use cases where turbos are good: Operating from higher-altitude airports or flying IFR over terrain, or frequent long trips. Remember that it takes time to get up and down, so an M won't beat an R on a trip of less than about 150nm for example.

 

I fly an M20R Ovation. I have a useful load of about 1020 lb, long body that I can stuff a lot of stuff into, and I plan on 170KTAS on 12gph in cruise, though I can get 175 up around 9000 feet on that fuel burn. My full fuel payload is just under 500 pounds. If I wanted to, I could fly over 1000nm nonstop with that payload, though I don't particularly enjoy legs that long. I like the flexibility of being able to go far by myself or with my wife and bags, or trade fuel for passenger weight and go for a shorter trip.

 

There are times that I've wanted a turbo - Mainly to climb above weather or terrain - But I would only really use it a handful of times a year, while I have frequent shorter trips. I do have built-in oxygen and I've used it on quite a few occasions - I've gone up to FL190 once and I've gone to the mid-teens several times to climb over weather on a long trip or fly over Lake Michigan. Given the performance I get from the normally-aspirated IO-550 and the fact that the turbo would really only give me a benefit every other month or so, it doesn't make sense for me to pay the extra maintenance and fuel costs of the turbo models.

 

BTW, one of my favorite legs in this bird was from New Mexico to Wisconsin. 4:37 in flight, 172 KTAS on 10gph at 13,000 feet, burned a total of 52 gallons including the climb. There are very few certified airplanes capable of those kinds of numbers.

 

Hope this helps, hope you find and enjoy whatever airplane best fits your mission, Mooney or otherwise!

[DrBill]

Last Friday I gave my hangar neighbor a lift from  an airport 78nm away back to home. His 182RG is having a teardown/inspection due to prop accident(4 wheeler ran into prop). He was in back seat (sitting cross wise) as our Mechanic came with me in right seat.  He was amazed we were doing 150kts at 9 gph at 4500 ft.

Bill

[Seth]

Where is George Perry's buying guide link to that he wrote up a few years ago.  It was great.  Can we sticky that to the top of the selling section so people can have the guide?  Someone please find the link.

 

Thanks!

 

-Seth

[Hank]

That's a wonderful idea, Seth! I've recommended several times for people to search for it when they are looking to buy a Mooney.

EDIT: Found it! http://mooneyspace.com/topic/8-prospective-vintage-mooney-buyers/?hl=%2Bbuying+%2Bvintage+%2Bmooney

[flyingcheesehead]

There are normally aspirated (C,E,F,J,R,S) and turbocharged (K,M,TN) Mooneys. There are two use cases where turbos are good: Operating from higher-altitude airports or flying IFR over terrain, or frequent long trips. Remember that it takes time to get up and down, so an M won't beat an R on a trip of less than about 150nm for example.

 

There are times that I've wanted a turbo - Mainly to climb above weather or terrain - But I would only really use it a handful of times a year, while I have frequent shorter trips. I do have built-in oxygen and I've used it on quite a few occasions - I've gone up to FL190 once and I've gone to the mid-teens several times to climb over weather on a long trip or fly over Lake Michigan. Given the performance I get from the normally-aspirated IO-550 and the fact that the turbo would really only give me a benefit every other month or so, it doesn't make sense for me to pay the extra maintenance and fuel costs of the turbo models.

 

To expand on my turbo thoughts, and specifically where I get the 150nm-ish figure from:

 

As I stated, I fly the normally-aspirated M20R Ovation, which has a 280hp Continental IO-550. The Acclaim uses the turbocharged version of the same engine, while the Bravo used a 270hp turbocharged Lycoming TIO-540. Other than that, the three planes are very similar.

 

Even with the normally aspirated bird, I climb to 10,000 feet in under 10 minutes at the book 120 KIAS cruise climb speed, though I'm starting to do my climbs in the 135-140 KIAS "Vz" range these days. At 120 knots, that means that I'm 20nm downrange (actually a little more due to increasing true airspeed) in a zero-wind situation by the time I get to 10,000 feet. I tend to do descents at 500 fpm both to be nice to my passengers' ears and so I can keep power up without building up too much speed (I don't like to use speed brakes unless I have to). I'm doing about 180 KIAS in the descent. So, in the climb I'm doing 2 miles per 1000 feet and in the descent I'm doing 6 miles per 1000 feet. 

 

With 8nm per thousand feet used up in the climb and descent, one could theoretically go up a thousand feet for each 8nm traveled, but in reality it's pretty inefficient to climb until you have to descend to get to your destination! Some rough calculations I've done indicate that it's good to spend at least half of your flight in cruise. Thus, it makes sense to have a cruising altitude close to 1000 feet above field elevations for every 16nm or so traveled.

 

 

The real performance advantages of a turbocharged or turbonormalized airplane come above 10,000 feet. At 11,000 feet a normally aspirated airplane cannot make more than 65% power, so unless there is some other operational reason (terrain, weather, over water, etc) it doesn't make sense to climb higher than that in a normally aspirated airplane. However, a turbocharged airplane can make close to 100% power up to its critical altitude. At FL180, a turbocharged airplane can cruise about 40% faster than it can cruise at sea level. If I had a turbo, I could theoretically be pushing 200 knots at 65% power in the low 20's.

 

Let's look at a 300nm leg, normally aspirated vs. turbo. In the Ovation, I would plan on 10 minutes (and 20nm) to climb to altitude, 20 minutes (and 60nm) to descend. That leaves me 220nm in cruise at about 175 KTAS, or 1 hour and 16 minutes for a total trip time of 1:46.

 

If I had a turbo and climbed to 20,000 feet, I'd plan on 20 min/40nm in the climb, 40 min/120nm to descend, leaving 140nm in cruise at around 210 knots for 40 minutes in cruise and a total trip time of 1:40 - A savings of only six minutes!

 

For a 150nm leg, both planes would be cruising around 10,000 feet and there would be NO speed advantage for the turbo unless you used a higher percent power than the normally aspirated plane was capable of producing!

 

For a 500nm leg, I would expect a trip time of 2:54 normally aspirated and 2:31 turbocharged (at 25,000 feet).

For a 1000nm leg, I would expect 5:55 normally aspirated and 4:37 turbocharged.

 

 

 

With legs of less than 150nm, there's no point to a turbo unless there's an operational reason as previously stated. There's a slight advantage between 150nm and 400nm, with the turbo'd airplane flying at ever-increasing altitudes. Greater than 400nm, the turbo will be cruising at or near its maximum altitude (generally 25,000 feet) and it starts to pick up a larger and larger advantage over its normally aspirated brethren.