Finding and owning a Mooney

[carusoam]

Bonal, just wait till you get the bigger / faster version!

Best regards,

-a-

[Guitarmaster]

Overall, I figure ~$100/hr.  

I made a spreadsheet comparing speed/overall cost.  The results were somewhat surprising.  I run about 70% to achieve the above number.  Flying slower actually INCREASED the cost/hr.  

Anyway, I have found this to be a pretty good number for me flying about 100 hours/yr.

[ArtVandelay]

Overall, I figure ~$100/hr.  

I made a spreadsheet comparing speed/overall cost.  The results were somewhat surprising.  I run about 70% to achieve the above number.  Flying slower actually INCREASED the cost/hr.  

Anyway, I have found this to be a pretty good number for me flying about 100 hours/yr.

Flying slower means less fuel per hour, so less $...where did the extra costs come from?

[ryoder]

Looking forward to having a friend of mine as a partner.  That will dramatically reduce my cost per hour due to less overhead.

Monthly I will save 140 for hangar 50 for insurance and at least 100 for maintenance.

[Hank]

Ryan, congratulations on finding a good person to share your plane with! This should help keep her flying more often, and that will be nothing but good.

But don't plan to save anything on insurance. Your partner will have to get his own policy. It's not like adding another driver to your car.

 

[RLCarter]

But don't plan to save anything on insurance. Your partner will have to get his own policy. It's not like adding another driver to your car.

You can add a pilot to a policy, there might be restriction as far as training and hrs. go but adding someone to a policy takes only a phone call. 

My policy has an open pilot clause, 500hrs total time and 50hrs in type, if they meet that they are covered even if they are not named on the policy

 

[Hank]

You can add a pilot to a policy, there might be restriction as far as training and hrs. go but adding someone to a policy takes only a phone call. 

My policy has an open pilot clause, 500hrs total time and 50hrs in type, if they meet that they are covered even if they are not named on the policy

 

that's how we did it when I bought half of my Mooney. Nelson's rates didn't go down, they just added me to the policy and jacked up the total; I paid the difference.

[irishpilot]

I'm jumping in this thread late. I'm also a new to Mooney ownership. It is definitely expensive. My price cap was $50k and I was able to stay under that with a M20E with WAAS. My question is, can you afford paying cash for a $5k annual? It would hurt, but if the answer is no, you need to really weigh getting in at $30k. For Mooneys that price limits your options. Also, these planes are designed as XC planes. As such, I would not consider buying a VFR panel. If you only have funds for buying a plane or getting an IFR rating, I would choose the rating. If you have funds for both, get an IFR capable plane and start your IFR training. Good luck in your search and keep asking questions! Drop me a PM if you want to chat more about options.

Sent from my Galaxy S5 via Tapatalk

[Jerry 5TJ]

Overall, I figure ~$100/hr.  

You're doing great.

My first Mooney was a 64E that I bought 25 years ago. I kept good records and found it cost me about $100 per hour to fly. 

In 1991. 

 

[urbanti]

I am intimately familiar with the ownership and operating costs of 172s, Mooney M20s, and Beech Bonanzas.

IMO vintage Mooney's are a super inexpensive way to get 150'ish knots KTAS and complex hours in your logbook.

In addition to the lower purchase cost than Cirruses, Bonanzas and many Commanches, the vintage Mooneys are going to have lower fuel consumption, and the engines will be significantly cheaper to overhaul/replace.

good luck!

Tim

[Guitarmaster]

Flying slower means less fuel per hour, so less $...where did the extra costs come from?

Hey TJ,

The extra dollars came from the "$/maint/hr."  That's my made-up term!  LOL!

When I say flying slower, I mean "carson speed" slower.  Essentially L/D max or slightly faster.  

You are right, the fuel cost goes up by flying faster, but there comes a point where you break even fast or slow.  Even flying fast, the difference in OVERALL was very minimal.  

As an example:
For a 500NM flight, using Mooney book performance at 5000ft, 75% yields 143KTAS at ~10.8GPH.  Assuming no head/tailwind, in 209 minutes with a total burn of 32.5g.  
Fly @ 60% and you get 229 minutes with 34.7g.  
I assume a $25/hr maint override, yours may be different.  At $25, and assuming 5.50/gal fuel, a total difference in OVERALL cost is $8.65.  
If we go to 45% power, roughly L/D max, we end up with a negative return.  $-1.83.  So over a 500nm flight you actually lose money by flying slower.  In addition, it's going to take you 74 minutes longer.  At that point, you might as well buy a 172.

Change the head/tailwind factor and, of course, the numbers change again.

I usually fly at 70% wherever I go, unless I am sightseeing.  To me, saving $8.65 is not worth getting there 20 minutes later with the wife and kids complaining about their butts hurting.  Your mileage may vary!  

I made the spreadsheet in "Numbers" on my iPad so I don't know how well it will transfer to excel, but here are the files.

 

Range compare.xlsx

Range compare.numbers

Edited October 19, 2015 by Guitarmaster

[Bob - S50]

Hey TJ,

The extra dollars came from the "$/maint/hr."  That's my made-up term!  LOL!

When I say flying slower, I mean "carson speed" slower.  Essentially L/D max or slightly faster.  

You are right, the fuel cost goes up by flying faster, but there comes a point where you break even fast or slow.  Even flying fast, the difference in OVERALL was very minimal.  

As an example:
For a 500NM flight, using Mooney book performance at 5000ft, 75% yields 143KTAS at ~10.8GPH.  Assuming no head/tailwind, in 209 minutes with a total burn of 32.5g.  
Fly @ 60% and you get 229 minutes with 34.7g.  
I assume a $25/hr maint override, yours may be different.  At $25, and assuming 5.50/gal fuel, a total difference in OVERALL cost is $8.65.  
If we go to 45% power, roughly L/D max, we end up with a negative return.  $-1.83.  So over a 500nm flight you actually lose money by flying slower.  In addition, it's going to take you 74 minutes longer.  At that point, you might as well buy a 172.

 

First, Carson speed is about 1.3 x L/D max, or about 115 KIAS in a J.

Second, I think you made a math error.  Flying at 60% should not burn 2.2 gallons MORE fuel than flying at 75%.

Third, since I don't have your F model POH, using my J model POH numbers (economy cruise mixture) and comparing 75% vs 60% vs 47% I get:

75% = 10.5 GPH @ 6000' & 2600 RPM = 164KTAS = 3+03 hours = 32 gallons = $176 fuel + $76.22 Mx = $252.22 Total

60% = 8.3 GPH @ 6000' & 2200 RPM = 148KTAS = 3+22 hours = 28 gallons = $154 fuel + $84.46 Mx = $238.46 Total

47% = 6.7 GPH @ 6000' & 2000 RPM = 130KTAS = 3+51 hours = 25.8 gallons = $141.90 + $96.15 Mx = $238.05 Total

Using 75% vs 60% you get a savings of $13.76 but 19 minutes or just over 10% longer.  Although I must admit I'm a bit surprised at how little extra savings there is by slowing to 130KTAS.  Of course your (these calculations) maintenance costs are based on Hobbs times.  If they were based on tachometer times like ours are, the lower RPM settings for the lower power settings will make the Mx costs lower too.

Another way to look at it when comparing your 60% vs 75% power is that it costs you $0.72 for every minute you save by going faster, or $43.45 for every hour you save.

Since we use Tach time, I generally figure it costs my about $1 for every minute I save by pushing the power up over my normal 65%.  It all depends on whether I'm in a hurry or don't mind spending a few extra minutes enjoying the view that day.

[Guitarmaster]

First, Carson speed is about 1.3 x L/D max, or about 115 KIAS in a J.

Second, I think you made a math error.  Flying at 60% should not burn 2.2 gallons MORE fuel than flying at 75%.

Third, since I don't have your F model POH, using my J model POH numbers (economy cruise mixture) and comparing 75% vs 60% vs 47% I get:

75% = 10.5 GPH @ 6000' & 2600 RPM = 164KTAS = 3+03 hours = 32 gallons = $176 fuel + $76.22 Mx = $252.22 Total

60% = 8.3 GPH @ 6000' & 2200 RPM = 148KTAS = 3+22 hours = 28 gallons = $154 fuel + $84.46 Mx = $238.46 Total

47% = 6.7 GPH @ 6000' & 2000 RPM = 130KTAS = 3+51 hours = 25.8 gallons = $141.90 + $96.15 Mx = $238.05 Total

Using 75% vs 60% you get a savings of $13.76 but 19 minutes or just over 10% longer.  Although I must admit I'm a bit surprised at how little extra savings there is by slowing to 130KTAS.  Of course your (these calculations) maintenance costs are based on Hobbs times.  If they were based on tachometer times like ours are, the lower RPM settings for the lower power settings will make the Mx costs lower too.

Another way to look at it when comparing your 60% vs 75% power is that it costs you $0.72 for every minute you save by going faster, or $43.45 for every hour you save.

Since we use Tach time, I generally figure it costs my about $1 for every minute I save by pushing the power up over my normal 65%.  It all depends on whether I'm in a hurry or don't mind spending a few extra minutes enjoying the view that day.

The J IS considerably faster than the F.  I wish I was going 165KTAS!!  I am using tach time.  There could be a math error.  Obviously if running 60% you should not be burning more fuel... unless there is a strong headwind.  Did you change the headwind calc in the spreadsheet?

The whole point though is; as efficient as these airplanes are, there really is not much savings to be had by flying slow on a cross country flight.  The actual numbers surprised me too!

 

[Guitarmaster]

At moderate cruising altitudes, between 8 and 8.7 GPH LOP, or 60 to 65 percent power, is the sweet spot for our IO-360-powered birds. 

Jim

 

I need to get an engine monitor so I can do LOP safely.  

These calculations are based on the 1975 F manual.  My plane seems to run right at book speed... now that the rigging is in tune.  

[ArtVandelay]

It really depends on how you think the maint/hr rate is: for example if it's a $1000/hr, obviously going faster will override any extra fuel savings, if it's a $1/hr, the opposite is true.

I'm still a novice at this, but it appears to me that most maintenance is because stuff rusts or otherwise corrodes. You will still make the same number of landings, engine starts, spend same amount of time sitting idle no matter how fast you fly.

So far my most expensive items have been: gear donuts $1600, muffler $1200, oil,fuel hoses $1700...hr related stuff: clean, regap plugs $80, service magnetos $200, oil changes $160. The there is annual, hanger overhead as well.

IMHO you maintenance cost per hour will be low, so fly the plane how ever you want

[Hank]

TJ, a lot of the Maintenance "Expense" is a prorated charge for the overhaul at 2000 hours Tach time. So a $30,000 overhaul every 2000 hours costs $15/hr. Oil change every 50 hours runs ~$100 for oil and filter, another $2/hr. Then there is "Assumed Breakage" which is a WAG anyway you look at it.

I figure my hourly expenses by what it actually costs--fuel and oil. Battery and tire life vary significantly, just look at the threads here!

Having seen the numbers calculated above, I need to sit down with my Owners Manual and do the same. The difference is surprising! But I don't know how Bob figured $45/hour differential for 75% vs. 60% when the proposed 3 hour flight used $22 more fuel to go fast . . . How does each hour cost double the entire fuel difference??? Something is not clear here.

[gsxrpilot]

I can't follow this thread. If I calculated my flight time to plus/minus $10, I'd quit flying. I'm very thankful that I can afford to fly my C as fast and as often as I can. I keep the tanks full (trying to prevent drying, cracking, leaking... might be an old wives tale) and therefore it's always ready to go whenever I think about flying. A turbo normalized long body might have the ability to send me to the poor house, but my C can't do that, so I just fly the sh*t out of her.

[Bob - S50]

The J IS considerably faster than the F.  I wish I was going 165KTAS!!  I am using tach time.  There could be a math error.  Obviously if running 60% you should not be burning more fuel... unless there is a strong headwind.  Did you change the headwind calc in the spreadsheet?
The whole point though is; as efficient as these airplanes are, there really is not much savings to be had by flying slow on a cross country flight.  The actual numbers surprised me too!

 

Spreadsheet?  I'm an old guy.  I used a calculator.

That does explain the problem though, probably an incorrect formula in one of the cells.

I did not do calculations for headwinds.  I have looked at that in the past and determined that you do not save any fuel by speeding up until the headwinds get up to about 50 knots.  I did not, however, take MX costs into consideration when I did that.

When I was in the Air Force, I came up with a theory that the guys in the squadron liked and I suspect you will too:

1.  When you flight plan, you always have to take winds into consideration to make sure you have enough gas to get there.

2.  The winds are never what they are forecast.  Either the speed is different or the direction is different.

3.  For most airplanes, if you have more headwind than planned, in order to get maximum range you need to go faster so push it up. (In reality this is only true if you are flying at L/D max in calm air.  Hey, but why quibble the details with a bunch of fighter pilots?)

4.  If you get airborne and there is less headwind or more tailwind, you have extra gas so push it up.

5.  Therefore, the answer is always push it up!

[Guitarmaster]

Spreadsheet?  I'm an old guy.  I used a calculator.

That does explain the problem though, probably an incorrect formula in one of the cells.

I did not do calculations for headwinds.  I have looked at that in the past and determined that you do not save any fuel by speeding up until the headwinds get up to about 50 knots.  I did not, however, take MX costs into consideration when I did that.

When I was in the Air Force, I came up with a theory that the guys in the squadron liked and I suspect you will too:

1.  When you flight plan, you always have to take winds into consideration to make sure you have enough gas to get there.

2.  The winds are never what they are forecast.  Either the speed is different or the direction is different.

3.  For most airplanes, if you have more headwind than planned, in order to get maximum range you need to go faster so push it up. (In reality this is only true if you are flying at L/D max in calm air.  Hey, but why quibble the details with a bunch of fighter pilots?)

4.  If you get airborne and there is less headwind or more tailwind, you have extra gas so push it up.

5.  Therefore, the answer is always push it up!

Ha-ha!! Love it! I have always been a fan of "go big or go home!"

[Marauder]

Spreadsheet?  I'm an old guy.  I used a calculator.

That does explain the problem though, probably an incorrect formula in one of the cells.

I did not do calculations for headwinds.  I have looked at that in the past and determined that you do not save any fuel by speeding up until the headwinds get up to about 50 knots.  I did not, however, take MX costs into consideration when I did that.

When I was in the Air Force, I came up with a theory that the guys in the squadron liked and I suspect you will too:

1.  When you flight plan, you always have to take winds into consideration to make sure you have enough gas to get there.

2.  The winds are never what they are forecast.  Either the speed is different or the direction is different.

3.  For most airplanes, if you have more headwind than planned, in order to get maximum range you need to go faster so push it up. (In reality this is only true if you are flying at L/D max in calm air.  Hey, but why quibble the details with a bunch of fighter pilots?)

4.  If you get airborne and there is less headwind or more tailwind, you have extra gas so push it up.

5.  Therefore, the answer is always push it up!

Maybe I'm the exception, but I bought my Mooney to get me from point A to point B in the fastest way. Unfortunately, there are economics involved. Otherwise, I would own something that uses Jet A.

If I didn't care about the time element, I would be probably tooling around in something that is a lot slower and burns less fuel.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Hank]

Many things that fly slower than our Mooneys also burn more fuel for any given trip. It's the price we pay for being efficient.

[bonal]

I never think in terms of cost per hour I just write the checks some are easy some not so easy when things need to be serviced. Looking at the ones for sale seems the C is really a low cost purchase compared to others then there is a big jump for the E and on up and based on all the posts I've read they might be the cheapest model to maintain assuming a good pre buy and a sound starting point. The reason I fly and own an airplane defies reason it's about something much deeper 

[gsxrpilot]

 The reason I fly and own an airplane defies reason it's about something much deeper 

Quote of the year!

[steingar]

I added up costs of airplane ownership once.  I looked over my calculations and solemnly swore never to do so again.

[Sabremech]

I'm jumping in late on the conversation, but if I wasn't an A&P/IA, I wouldn't own a certified airplane. The only way I can justify it is that I don't charge myself for the labor and I can find or make the parts I need. If you're finances are stretched too tight, look at the experimental world where if you're not the builder you can at least save a ton of money on parts. Look at the Van's RV family of airplanes for Mooney type performance.

David