Mooney Test Drive

[Supercop0184]

Hey everyone, I have been a member for a bit, but right after I joined I bought a Cherokee 180 and so I have been mainly on that forum learning about my plane.

Wife and I have decided to start Mooney shopping. I have heard pros and cons compared to the Cherokee. Most of the planes I have liked have had the 180hp engine. I have a friend that says the 200hp is the only way to go. He said the 180hp was more sluggish and even claimed that my Cherokee 180 would out perform it.

I have never flown or even ridden in a Mooney, and would love to have the opportunity to do so in both a 180hp and 200hp model.

This post really poses a couple of questions.

1. Can anyone compare the Cherokee 180 to the Mooney 180, and give me pros and cons to doing the swich
2. Can anyone compare the mooney with the 180hp to the mooney with the 200hp, and also give me pros and cons.
3. is there anyone in the area (im in Fort Worth so anyone in the Central Texas, Southern Oklahoma, Western Louisiana areas) that would mind me coming to you and taking a flight with you. I would of course help with costs anyway I can.

Thank you all for your help in advance. I am looking forward to learning about a new plane.
Im also very excited to get a Mooney, I have always loved the way they looked, was just nervous about having one as a first time airplane.

 

THANKS YALL!

[smwash02]

I have a friend with an Archer, which I believe is the pre-rename version of a Cherokee 180, and I have a '66 M20C ("Mooney 180").

I imagine you've been looking at C and G models. Both are 180HP, but the C is a short body and the G a mid. The mid will have similar interior space to the Cherokee, but will be slower than a C. There's not a log of leg room in the back of a C, but sufficient baggage area.

My C is a good 20-30kts faster than my friend's Archer. I have no dog in the war, but some say the O360 is a more reliable engine than than IO360s (200HP). I would expect the G to also be several knots faster than the Cherokee, but slower than the C.

Edit - I'm based at 50R and would be happy to give you a ride. It's a lot of plane for a first, but nothing unmanageable with communities like Mooneyspace, MAPA, etc.

Edited February 8, 2016 by smwash02

[Marauder]

Back in my renting days, I rented a number of Cherokees, Warriors and Archers. The main difference moving to a Mooney (specifically the earlier models) is adjusting to the speed, landings and understanding slightly more complex systems (retractable landing gear, constant speed prop). Planning for descents requires a little more foresight since our flap and gear speeds are lower in the older Mooneys.

I have been an F owner since 1991 but anyone I ever knew who owned a carburetor version has been happy. It isn't until you get to the turbos that you experience a significant performance gap.

I would look for someone to give you a ride in the models you are interested in and see if they are what you are looking for. Unfortunately, I did that and couldn't get Mooney out of my head! Good luck and keep us posted on your findings.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[M20F]

http://www.mooneypilots.com/mapalog/M20C%20Evaluation/M20C_Evaluation_Report.html

http://www.mooneypilots.com/mapalog/m20e.html

http://www.mooneypilots.com/mapalog/M20F%20Evaluation/M20F_Evaluation_Report.html

Solid real world numbers

[Mooneymite]

I would suggest you NEVER fly in a Mooney.  You won't be satisfied with your Cherokee afterward.  

People point out that the Pipers can carry more weight, but you'll be able to do two trips in a Mooney and cary twice as much stuff in the time it takes to do the trip once in a Cherokee!

Also, you have to be an awsome pilot to fly a Mooney....and good looking too.  If you have any doubt, just ask any Mooney pilot.

Welcome to the wonderful world of Mooneyspace!  Good luck in your quest.

[neilpilot]

Owned a 64M20E for 23 years, and have had my 65M20C since 2012.  Both aircraft had 3-blade props (let's not get into that discussion), and the C has a few additional minor speed mods (gap seals, 201 windshield, LASAR cowling closure).  I honestly can say that our C is within 3-4 kts of the E.  The 180hp fuel burn is 11 GPH vs the E's 10 GPH at similar performance.

The C certainly is much easier to start, especially when heat soaked.  The reason I have the C; the E was totaled after an off-field landing following a fuel injection failure led to loss of power at cruise.  Look at full narrative report for N1310W.  

I suspect that the fuel injection system in the IO360 is more complex and less prone to failure.

New cylinders for the IO360 are maybe twice the price  of the O360.

Either way, you will have better performance in the Mooney.  I certainly doubt your Cherokee will out-perform my M20C.

[Bob_Belville]

Super Cop,

Archers do seem to be priced pretty high compared to vintage Mooneys. They are easy to fly, simple to maintain by just abour any shop, and there are a lot of them out there. They are relatively roomy.

Other than that you'll find the vintage Mooneys, M20C (180 hp, carburetor), M20E (200 hp fuel injected), M20F (E model with extra 10" of back seat leg room, higher gross weight, bigger fuel tanks, more useful load) all have significant advantages over the fixed gear, fixed pitch prop Pipers. Speed and economy for starts. Most Mooney owners would add handling - push pull rods, not cables/pulleys, ruggedness/safety - steel roll cage, and appearance - looks fast parked on the ramp. We think we fly 4 seat sports cars, not minivans or family sedans.

The performance gap between the C and the E is much smaller than the gap between the Cherokee and any Mooney. You'll want to keep an open mind because it is tougher to find a Mooney to meet your specs than a Cherokee. 

Happy hunting!

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Mooneymite said:

I would suggest you NEVER fly in a Mooney.  You won't be satisfied with your Cherokee afterward.  

People point out that the Pipers can carry more weight, but you'll be able to do two trips in a Mooney and cary twice as much stuff in the time it takes to do the trip once in a Cherokee!

Also, you have to be an awsome pilot to fly a Mooney....and good looking too.  If you have any doubt, just ask any Mooney pilot.

Welcome to the wonderful world of Mooneyspace!  Good luck in your quest.

After you fly the Mooney, never fly in a Piper Comanche, you'll never want to go back to a Mooney!!  Higher, farther, faster, carry more weight in a bigger cabin.

Clarence

[Mooneymite]

20 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

After you fly the Mooney, never fly in a Piper Comanche, you'll never want to go back to a Mooney!!  Higher, farther, faster, carry more weight in a bigger cabin.

Clarence

We have a few pilots who post on Mooneyspace who are not "True believers". 

Comanchies do not have such stringent requirements for "good looking pilots".  

[Supercop0184]

9 minutes ago, Mooneymite said:

We have a few pilots who post on Mooneyspace who are not "True believers". 

Comanchies do not have such stringent requirements for "good looking pilots".  

I now KNOW I lack only ONE requirement to be a Mooney Pilot, and that's the dag gone airplane itself. Im sure my Blonde headed chiseled resemblance to a mix of Tom Cruise and Stone Cold Steve Austin will really fit right in with the rest of yall. Man what a relief I literally LOL'd at both your comments.

 

2 hours ago, smwash02 said:

I have a friend with an Archer, which I believe is the pre-rename version of a Cherokee 180, and I have a '66 M20C ("Mooney 180").

I imagine you've been looking at C and G models. Both are 180HP, but the C is a short body and the G a mid. The mid will have similar interior space to the Cherokee, but will be slower than a C. There's not a log of leg room in the back of a C, but sufficient baggage area.

My C is a good 20-30kts faster than my friend's Archer. I have no dog in the war, but some say the O360 is a more reliable engine than than IO360s (200HP). I would expect the G to also be several knots faster than the Cherokee, but slower than the C.

Edit - I'm based at 50R and would be happy to give you a ride. It's a lot of plane for a first, but nothing unmanageable with communities like Mooneyspace, MAPA, etc.

I currently own my Cherokee and AGREE with you in that, my original fear was that a Mooney would be too much plane for a first timer. Ive had the Cherokee for a couple of years now and really know I am ready for the next step. I will ABSOLUTELY take you up on your offer by the way. THANKS SO MUCH for that. I fly to Austin quite often, PM me your contact info and just as soon as our schedules match up I will be there.

 

I REALLY believe that I want the simplicity and economics of the 180HP versus the 200 HP due to the cylinder maintenance. Ive also heard that the 200hp cylinders nearly NEVER make it to TBO?? I know the o360 I have in my plane is so COST efficient. I LIKE that.

ANYTHING I should ask a potential seller, and Service Bulletins that should be ADs instead of SBs and that I should require  before purchase? Any other issue that pops up after the fact that I could check before ( Within reason obviously). I know the Cherokee had a wing spar corrosion issue behind the wing tanks. PIPER Service Bulletin 1006 involved pulling the tank and visually inspecting the spar. Costly check but it was one that was very important to me as, if the spar is corroded, the wing was most likely shot.

 

THANKS FOR THE responses keep em coming!!!

18 minutes ago, Mooneymite said:

We have a few pilots who post on Mooneyspace who are not "True believers". 

Comanchies do not have such stringent requirements for "good looking pilots".  

Guess I cant get a Comanche then, I require a sexy airplane for all the chicas I intend to attract (IE My wife many times over hahaha)

[Marauder]

20 minutes ago, M20Doc said: After you fly the Mooney, never fly in a Piper Comanche, you'll never want to go back to a Mooney!!  Higher, farther, faster, carry more weight in a bigger cabin.

Clarence

We have a few pilots who post on Mooneyspace who are not "True believers". 

Comanchies do not have such stringent requirements for "good looking pilots".  

I know exactly what you mean!

A Mooney Pilot:

A Comanche Pilot:

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Guest]

Just now, Marauder said:

I know exactly what you mean!

A Mooney Pilot:

A Comanche Pilot:

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Strange, the Mooney pilot looks like he might be gay.  The Comanche pilot less so.

Clarence

[mike28w]

 Before *I bought my '63 M20C , I owned a "64 Cherokee 235  ( 235 horse) for 6 years and had good luck with it......   Without a doubt the 235 would carry more BUT the Mooney was still faster !   It would be hard to go back to a Cherokee, the Mooney handles so much better.   (Like the difference between a Chevy Suburban and a sports car. )

  Nothing really wrong with a Cherokee , it just isn't a Mooney.   mike

 

PS:  My friend had a 180 horse Comanche.  It had a larger cabin and was more quiet....but  when we flew together, I either had to throttle back or literally make a 360* turn  now and then.

 

Edited February 9, 2016 by mike28w

[Marauder]

Just now, Marauder said: I know exactly what you mean!

A Mooney Pilot:

A Comanche Pilot:

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Strange, the Mooney pilot looks like he might be gay.  The Comanche pilot less so.

Clarence

Ok, here is another Mooney pilot:

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Mooneymite]

26 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

Strange, the Mooney pilot looks like he might be gay.  The Comanche pilot less so.

Clarence

Now....that's funny!

Clarence, please go stand in the corner for political uncorrectness.  4 seconds ought to be reparation enough.  

[Hank]

I took a Piper pilot and his two young sons to ride once, as he was shopping and thinking about a Mooney. I fly a C model, 180 hp, short body. On takeoff, I'm mostly ~1000 fpm while climbing at 100 mph. Naturally, climb rate decreases as I go up. Leaving my uncontrolled field at 567 msl, I could easily be established in cruise at 7500 msl, power set, leaned out, trimmed hands-off in less than 15 minutes from engine start.

Anyway, the Piper pilot looked at me really hard as we were coming back to land. We were on short final, maybe 100-150 agl over the trees, and I had the field made so I pulled the throttle to idle, glided over the trees and set down a little past the displaced threshold (because of the trees). He told me if he'd done that in the Cherokee, he'd of been in the trees. "But in your plane, nothing happened" with wide eyes . . .

Useful load in my plane is 969 lbs, of which 312 is fuel. I ballpark it at 300 for fuel with 1/2" expansion space in each tank. That puts me and my favorite 370 lbs of people and stuff in the plane. Traveling with my wife, we generally run out of space before weight. Sometimes with 4 people I leave fuel behind, like on a flight along the Outer Banks past Nags Head to Kitty Hawk with three of my wife's cousins. I carefully filled each tank to 17 gallons, 34 total, good enough for almost 4 hours' flight, or 3 hours plus reserves. We went 1-1/2 each way, and topped back up to 34 gals for the return trip because I'm cautious. Yes, I did the full W&B to make sure we were good, in addition to staying under gross weight.

Oh, yeah--speed. The plane is supposed to be between 161 and 164 mph at 10,000 msl (~140 knots). But I have a 3-blade prop with a reputation for drag on the nose. Here's a panel shot enroute to my wife's family reunion. 144 mph indicated at 9500 msl = 172 mph true. That ain't no Cherokee I ever saw . . . on 9 gal/hour block time. Call it 20"/2500, about 70% power leaned 50° ROP.

Yell if you have questions, but I'm a long ways from Texas . . .

Edited February 9, 2016 by Hank

[Guest]

I think I can relate, I can fill the tanks, put in 700 lbs of people and fly 900 nm non stop.  It's no Cherokee or Mooney.

Clarence

[Hank]

Clarence, with that amount of fuel, I could take my 690 pounds a whole lot further than 900 nm . . . With a couple of stops to add the fuel that wouldn't fit at the start of the trip!    But even the first 900 would take me somewhat longer than you.

[M20F]

12 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

I think I can relate, I can fill the tanks, put in 700 lbs of people and fly 900 nm non stop.  It's no Cherokee or Mooney.

Clarence

But only a Mooney can carry you and a friend coast to coast non-stop.

[Shadrach]

15 hours ago, M20Doc said:

After you fly the Mooney, never fly in a Piper Comanche, you'll never want to go back to a Mooney!!  Higher, farther, faster, carry more weight in a bigger cabin.

Clarence

Um no. I've flown in a 180 and a 260. I'm 15kts or more faster than the 180 and only about 5-8 slower than the 260. If I'm honest, I was wondering what all the fuss was about. I'm sure putting an IO720 on the front makes them exilerating rides, but putting an IO720 on just about any 4 place GA airframe would do the same. Commanches are slower than Arrows for a give HP.  Will the 400 keep up with a Missle? Seems to me it runs about the same as an Ovation.

Edited February 9, 2016 by Shadrach

[Supercop0184]

I gotta say, this board seems much more funny and friendly than the old PIPER forum. HAH THANKS for all the responses. Anyone do any mountain flying in the plane during the summer? Any problems getting off the ground in high DA up in higher elevations? NOT Really my normal mission, but just a thought. 

 

Thank y'all for all the help. Im learning a lot here

[Hank]

For mountain flying, look up "piperpainter" on YouTube. Me flies an M20C, too, but I'd never go some of the places he does . . .

It's really a very capable and versatile plane, much more so than I am a versatile pilot.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

Um no. I've flown in a 180 and a 260. I'm 15kts or more faster than the 180 and only about 5-8 slower than the 260. If I'm honest, I was wondering what all the fuss was about. I'm sure putting an IO720 on the front makes them exilerating rides, but putting an IO720 on just about any 4 place GA airframe would do the same. Commanches are slower than Arrows for a give HP.  Will the 400 keep up with a Missle? Seems to me it runs about the same as an Ovation 3?

Not that Mooney's aren't great airplanes, I'm pretty sure my Comanche will do things that an Ovation can't do.  It has better payload, better climb faster cruise flies off grass etc. Its a case of blondes, brunettes and red heads, the choice is up to the individual.  

I've owned 2 quitenice E models in the past, just picked up a customers J on Friday, after flying it I longed for the exhilarating performance of my Comanche.

As for speed 190 KTAS is not really hard, for a stock 52 year old airplane, mine is closing in on 200.

Clarence

Edited February 9, 2016 by M20Doc

[jetdriven]

Just don't look at the Baron fuel flow.  20 GPH.

Edited February 9, 2016 by jetdriven

[Guest]

2 hours ago, M20F said:

But only a Mooney can carry you and a friend coast to coast non-stop.

You may want to read the Max Conrad story "Into the Wind" It covers his many distance records set in a Comanche.  The cross country Mooney while impressive, is just a warm up for a Comanche.

His aim was to beat two existing records: Bill Odom in 1949, Honolulu to Teterboro (New Jersey), distance 5000 miles; and Pat Boling in 1958, Manila to Pendleton (Oregon), distance 7000 miles. He planned to fly from Casablanca to El Paso (Texas). After long preparations and many modifications to the aircraft, a Piper Comanche PA-24-250, N110LF, he was finally ready. The letters "LF" came from Conrad's motto: "Let's Fly". The agreement with Piper was that he would own the aircraft if the flight was successful. There were a few minor problems on the way to Casablanca, and Conrad had to wait several days for the right winds. Finally, on June 2nd, 1959, he took off from Casablanca heavily overloaded, just clearing the airport fence. Conrad had his own theory regarding the best altitude for long flights, preferring to fly very low, at less than 100 feet, and climbing to 500 feet at night for safety. He believed the engines to be more efficient at low level, saying that too much fuel is wasted in climbing to higher levels. Clifton Tait also favoured flying at very low levels in his many ferry flights. Overhead El Paso, Conrad had been in the air for 44 hours and still had a good quantity of fuel. He decided to continue to Los Angeles where he still had one hour of fuel left. He had been flying for 58 hours and had covered 7 668 miles. This record, in the C1-D Class ( Aircraft from 3858 lbs to less than 6614 lbs), was held for a very long time before being superseded

Clarence