Jump to content

First Time Buyer Living Out West Looking For Advice!


Recommended Posts

Speaking as a C flyer out of NorCal  we have made trips to Boulder city and flights  to Montana over 10k mountains. I can't imagine an E F or J being a problem based on your information. At over 50 years old I can't believe how solid our Mooney feels. No doubt a K would be even better but don't think it's a must for your mission. Am I biased somewhat but only because of how well these Mooneys perform. From all I've read a well set up J will give you 160 knots true and burn under 9 gallons per hour doing it.  I think some people in the flat lands think our western mountains are some magic barrier that demand a turbo when all you need is a smart approach to flight planning your trips.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Mooneymite here.  A good E or F would serve your mission (I am partial to F's).  Pick up an F with a 201 windshield and put on the new cowling mod in a year when it is ready. The difference in flight time would be a few seconds to minutes on a 300NM trip compared to a J.  I also love when those that live on the east coast tell you that you need a turbo to fly out of Las Vegas.  We consider Las Vegas lowlands and my F has been quite happy in most of the west.  If you were flying over the heart of the Rockies often with 14K peaks I would recommend a K, but for 99 percent of the time smart flight planning will allow you to fly at 15K or less. You can get a very well equipped and maintained  F for $80K.  It will be an honest 150 knot plane at 9 gph.   Tim

 

 

We were reacting to Utah. Even SLC is approaching 5k feet with peaks over 10....

 

Besides, his budget supports it. Now if he wants to save money by all means, otherwise buy the best bird you can for the budget you have...

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gsengle said:


We were reacting to Utah. Even SLC is approaching 5k feet with peaks over 14....

Nowhere in Utah would you need a turbo for flying.  My home airport is 4450 msl.  Density altitudes approaches 9,000 feet in summer.  I fly from UT to CA, NV, AZ, CO, WY, and OR without issues.  The high peaks are usually not the issue, It is wide areas that are unlandable where I need altitude.  The heart of the Rockies and the Central Sierra is where you have to be the most careful and want to climb higher.  I try to flight plan so I don't go directly into these areas and keep as many options for forced landings available as possible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nowhere in Utah would you need a turbo for flying.  My home airport is 4450 msl.  Density altitudes approaches 9,000 feet in summer.  I fly from UT to CA, NV, AZ, CO, WY, and OR without issues.  The high peaks are usually not the issue, It is wide areas that are unlandable where I need altitude.  The heart of the Rockies and the Central Sierra is where you have to be the most careful and want to climb higher.  I try to flight plan so I don't go directly into these areas and keep as many options for forced landings available as possible. 


Need, no. Really nice to have? YES


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nowhere in Texas do you need a turbo either. But first of all, Mooneys travel and no matter where you live, a Mooney can get you to places where you're gonna like that turbo. Second, altitude can give you options with weather that you wouldn't otherwise have. And it can be an extra margin of safety over inhospitable terrain. I must say, I don't NEED a turbo, but I sure do like my 252.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, TTaylor said:

Nowhere in Utah would you need a turbo for flying.  My home airport is 4450 msl.  Density altitudes approaches 9,000 feet in summer.  I fly from UT to CA, NV, AZ, CO, WY, and OR without issues.  The high peaks are usually not the issue, It is wide areas that are unlandable where I need altitude.  The heart of the Rockies and the Central Sierra is where you have to be the most careful and want to climb higher.  I try to flight plan so I don't go directly into these areas and keep as many options for forced landings available as possible. 

Need, no. Want? Yes.

Sure you can climb and 300fpm and squeeze through valleys or you can climb at 1k or better and sail over the top. Choice is yours. Depends on what you want.

Have you flown a turbo?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

gsengle, Paul, and ppevee,

I was not trying to say turbo's are not nice, just it was not required for the original posters mission.  If I had a larger budget I would likely get a K or Rocket or do a turbo F with all the mods like John (M20F-1968).  As an engineer that focuses on efficiency, practicality and reliability; I lean towards the simple system that solves the problem.  Adding a turbo does reduce useful load and is one more failure mode for the systems.  The turbo is one of the systems that has the highest rate of needing maintenance or failure on the Mooney's.  That said, it adds great potential and I would love to be able to climb to 18k at 700-1000 fpm and cruise at higher altitudes when the winds are favorable.

There are great solutions and models to all different missions and each of us picks the one that works best for them.  Again, just trying to point out that the OP does not "need" a turbo for the mission he laid out, if he wants one that is great.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was nice seeing this post. You remind me of me about five years ago. I hadn't flown a airplane for 35 years  and the plane back then was a Cessna 150. I always wanted a Mooney back then but they were way out of my budget. Hell, $10/hr wet was more than I could afford at the time. My cousin, a rotary wing owner, fanned that little 35 yr old spark of desire until there was a flame. I really thought I was too old to take up flying again but I did and I bought an E model. It was not easy to get back in the groove and I guess I'm still not there but getting more and more comfortable. I sold the E to a fellow who is now a good friend and I bought a J. I think the transition from a 150 to the E was difficult but not a bad way to go as the E is pretty basic with mechanical gear and hydraulic flaps which all seemed to add to the awareness of the complex plane. I  would think buying a C or E is a pretty good way to go for your first step. If you like the Mooney and need a little more speed or cabin room you could go up to the J. I went to the J only because I could. There really isn't that much difference between them. The E or C is more of a sports car than the J if that makes any difference to you. I would think a turbo is maybe over the top for a low time pilot that hasn't flown in a long time. The C or E is about half the price of a J and would qualify as a great trainer for you and might fill the bill on what you are looking for.

Sorry for the rambling.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, M20Doc said:

How about a nice Comanche 400, twin turbo, Robertson STOL asking 65,000 in Ohio.

Anyone got real life performance charts on the beast?  I have always been curious what one of these would do FL190+ based on reality not people guessing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

K model is the way to go... owned a 231 for two years and cost to own was roughly 170 bucks an hour at the end of my 250 hours owning it. Cannot beat it value wise. Cruised 165TAS easily in low to mid teens LOP on a tad more than 9.5 gph. Regularly saw GS's at 200 plus. Nice 231's go for 115k or less with decent avionics and lower times engines. Would still have it if i had not gone pressurized, cabin class. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, M20F said:

Anyone got real life performance charts on the beast?  I have always been curious what one of these would do FL190+ based on reality not people guessing. 

I've never had a chance to fly one, but having 300-400 horsepower available at 20K would make it quite a performer.

Clarence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TTaylor said:

gsengle, Paul, and ppevee,

I was not trying to say turbo's are not nice, just it was not required for the original posters mission.  If I had a larger budget I would likely get a K or Rocket or do a turbo F with all the mods like John (M20F-1968).  As an engineer that focuses on efficiency, practicality and reliability; I lean towards the simple system that solves the problem.  Adding a turbo does reduce useful load and is one more failure mode for the systems.  The turbo is one of the systems that has the highest rate of needing maintenance or failure on the Mooney's.  That said, it adds great potential and I would love to be able to climb to 18k at 700-1000 fpm and cruise at higher altitudes when the winds are favorable.

There are great solutions and models to all different missions and each of us picks the one that works best for them.  Again, just trying to point out that the OP does not "need" a turbo for the mission he laid out, if he wants one that is great.

You are correct that for the most part he doesn't need a turbo. My J will do just fine for the occasional trip that I need to get to 8k. 

But his initial list was comparing Js and Ks. So while he doesn't need it - if you think about hitting up higher density fields on a more than once in a year and you are looking at J vs K I would lean towards the K.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mooneymite said:

If you look at the enroute time difference between a J and and E (or even a C) on a 150-300 NM trip, you're talking minutes.  90% one, or two people?  Why buy a long(er) body?

Enroute time is only part of the equation. When it is 40+ºC out and bumpy as crap, that extra climb rate of the K to get into cooler, smoother air faster will be worth the extra expense of the turbo. In Las Vegas he'll be at 5,000 ft density altitude in the summer, on the ground. At 3,000 AGL he'll be maximizing the E/J's abilities and out here, you need to get to at least 10,000 ft for any hope of a decent ride, 12k-14k are better yet. While the E/J will do that, the K is far superior for his needs.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, gsengle said:

I would agree, except for the possible higher altitude airports.... besides if I didn't have an Ovation boy I'd really like to have an M20K 252.... something like this....

https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/1430983/1988-mooney-m20k-252tse

Jamie Steele has that one listed and while I like her and wouldn't hesitate to buy an airplane from her again (I bought my Cirrus SR-22 from her), the owner is not responsive. A guy I was helping buy a turbo Mooney (he bought a different 252) tried for weeks to get logs and questions answered from the owner on that airplane and finally gave up in desperation. I guess the owner is in his 80s and doesn't respond to Jamie's request for information. So while that might be a great airplane, it has been on the market and I think will be for some time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

A K might be more than you need but I bet you would never regret "playing up". I love my J here in the East but would probably go turbo if I lived out there. Have you considered a RayJay turbo charged F?  Lots of value there if you can find a good one.

The turbo F is a great airplane, I had one of those too. But mine was mostly original. Original windshield, original cowl. The aerodynamic cleanup between the F and the K was pretty significant so you'll burn just as much fuel (within measurable error) in a turbo F as a 231 but will climb and cruise slower in the turbo F. I LOVED the manual gear, though and the manual turbo is pretty neat too. I knew a few other turbo F owners at the time and no one got anywhere near advertised service ceiling on the turbo. But still, it is an airplane with considering as long as you go into it with all that knowledge. There's one for sale now, old radios and overpriced in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TTaylor said:

A good E or F would serve your mission (I am partial to F's).  Pick up an F with a 201 windshield and put on the new cowling mod in a year when it is ready. The difference in flight time would be a few seconds to minutes on a 300NM trip compared to a J.  I also love when those that live on the east coast tell you that you need a turbo to fly out of Las Vegas.  We consider Las Vegas lowlands and my F has been quite happy in most of the west.  If you were flying over the heart of the Rockies often with 14K peaks I would recommend a K, but for 99 percent of the time smart flight planning will allow you to fly at 15K or less. You can get a very well equipped and maintained  F for $80K.  It will be an honest 150 knot plane at 9 gph.  

You're forgetting density altitude in Las Vegas in the summer is similar to higher mountains and the improved climb rate of the turbo. Normally aspirated engines will start falling off in power not much above pattern altitude in the summer in Las Vegas. The density altitude getting over some of the mountains near Las Vegas is close to 14,000 ft in the summer. The difference in flight time doesn't tell the whole story. The K is an honest 160 - 175 knot airplane on 9 GPH too.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Zwaustin said:

Nice 231's go for 115k or less with decent avionics and lower times engines. 

I've helped two people find and buy turbo Mooneys so far this year. One paid under $70k for a nice 231 and the other paid just a hair over $100k for a nice 252.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.