Why a Mooney?

[CMartin]

First off, hello!

I've been looking into purchasing an aircraft for a while and just cant seem to decide which make and model, so many options!! I have gone from looking at Piper Dakota's to keep operating cost's down but keeping the power I need, to A36's for the speed and load capabilities. 

I've have always loved the look of the Mooney's, the panel layout and the speed.  But it seems to lack the comfort or hauling capabilities from what I have seen/heard, correct me if I've been lead astray please. From what I've read, overhauls and maintenance is very expensive on the Moony's (65K OH? ouch).  The make and model I would like to look at is a 90's model, perhaps a Bravo? 

Can you guys give me an overall insight of the Moony aircraft in general? I will use this plane mostly to visit kids/family in an overall range of 150-300nm. The occasional 500nm vacation etc..

Any opinions/experiences with owning would be very helpful!

 

Thanks!

[Raptor05121]

Hi there, Martin. Welcome to the forum. Can you tell us a little about yourself?

I'm curious why you are looking at a Bravo. A range of 150-300 mile trips is easily doable by any plane, even for a 152. A lowly C-model Mooney would be perfectly ideal for that range. A Bravo is turbocharged which is meant to climb high to lower the fuel burn and get the best speed. Your mission is like flying a 777 from Boston to New York. You'd barely spend any time in your ideal cruising altitude before time to come back down. 

How many people do you envision flying with you 80% of the time? How much do you all weigh, how much baggage do you carry?  Where are you based? These planes are akin to fast thoroughbreds who really gallop when you get high. Even for my little 180hp C model, it's a bit more work to fly when going on a 50-mile breakfast run versus taking a Cherokee. You'll find some of the guys about to chime in will have late model Mooneys with 90+ gallons of fuel usually fly halfway across the country regularly. The turbo is really nice to have if you live in the mountains but again, if you're an East Coaster like me, a 150 mile trip with a big-bore turbo sounds like a lot of $$$$ pumping out of the exhaust pipe.

Just my $0.02

[smccray]

Welcome to Mooneyspace!

Mooneys come in a lot of different categories- this could go a number of different directions depending on your goals.  In summary, Mooneys come in three different body lengths with a handful of different engines.  Short Bodies (look at C and E models), Mid Bodies (F, J, and K models) and Long Bodies (Bravo, Ovation, Eagle, Acclaim).  There are a few more out there- keeping it high level for now.

The Bravo is in a special category when it comes to capability- if you need one you probably can't do much better in an all weather traveling machine for the dollars until you get up to Turbine.  It's also a more expensive model to run.

Step 1) which airframe: Mid bodies are great in terms of efficiency and economics.  Long bodies are still very efficient aircraft and have a little more room in the cabin, but they're still very efficient compared to other brands.  Short bodies are older and it sounds like you're looking for a newer airframe.

Step 2) Turbo or non-turbo

Mid Bodies: Turbo is a K, non-turbo is a J, assuming you want to stay with a newer airframe.  If you're looking for an efficient traveling machine with a lower cost of ownership.  The J model is going to be cheaper to run than the K, and speed will be about the same (or so close it doesn't matter) below about 8K ft.  Above 8K the turbo starts making a big difference.

Long Body: Turbo is a Bravo or an Acclaim,- it's a turbo charged traveling machine.  They'll be more expensive to run than an NA engine, but they're a great option if you want to go high.  Non-turbo is an Ovation or an Eagle- same IO-550 as you've looked at on a Bonanza.

 

If you need load carrying ability, you'll want to look at whether or not you have the option to exchange fuel for payload- the Mooney is more efficient that other models which makes the real world load carrying ability more valuable.  Most of the long bodies see useful loads at around 1000 lbs or less with the exception of the Eagle.  The M20S Eagle was originally a stripped down ovation, but many owners have upgraded the engines to 310 HP and improved the airplanes such that there's little difference.  One of the big differences is an autopilot with only an altitude hold instead of a 2 axis autopilot that will fly an approach.  Eagles are fairly rare due to low production numbers, but useful loads are frequently well above 1000 lbs.

It's also not uncommon to see J models with useful loads over 1000 lbs.  You have to look a little harder as the J model loads seem to vary between 900 and 1050 lbs, but you can find them at the upper end.  The J will cruise at 150-155 KTAS on ~9 GPH.  Push a little more fuel and you can get some additional speed.

Sorry- that post was a little all over the place...

 

[KLRDMD]

20 minutes ago, Raptor05121 said:

A Bravo is turbocharged which is meant to climb high to lower the fuel burn and get the best speed.

This is contradictory. Yes, turbocharged airplanes are meant to fly higher and get greater true airspeed doing so but flying higher to lower fuel burn is a property of normally aspirated airplanes, not turbocharged ones. 

[gsengle]

Overhauls are expensive if you have deferred maintenance, this can be true of any type. My 96 Ovation just came out of overhaul. Just over $2000 plus an oil change and six new spark plugs. Insurance rates are pretty good compared to the competition and the maintenance difficulty sure doesn't apply with the newer models, and is a bit overblown on the older. Mooney is an excellent traveling airplane, but it boils down to flying one and seeing if you like it. A Bravo is a sweet machine but overkill for most pilots. Also depends on what you want to spend!

[CMartin]

Okay, I choose the Bravo to look at as a base since it seems to be in the upper limit of my initial budget  150K.  I SURE dont need to spend the upper limit if possible. Most of my flying will be with three, but I sure dont want to be limited or overloaded, Im 6'2" 230lbs.  As most of my trips will be in the 300nm range most of the time it would be nice to get over to Denver or the Gulf as well.  I am based in south west Kansas.

Looking at your replies, they may be lots of options. It does however seem to be a tough task since there are so many Mooney models!!

 

Where would you guys recommend me start looking in terms of models for a plane with a decent speed, load, fuel efficiency, etc..? Based on 300-500nm trips, 100 hours a year, three adults and lower maintenance?

Like I said, its a little overwhelming when there are so many models!!

 

Thanks for taking the time and sharing, it truly is helpful!

[smccray]

300 mile trip in that part of the country- I would start with the J as a baseline.  A good J will run you between $90 and $130+.  The IO-360 engine has a reputation for making TBO and as overhauls go it's reasonable.  The 6 cylinder engines on the K and the long bodies are substantially more expensive to overhaul.  A K model is the same cabin and roughly the same price for the plane on the low end.  An '86 or later K model will be $150 (or at least it will be that much after you take care of the run out engine).  The plane will carry 3 adults just fine, but the guy in the back seat might be a little cramped.  

Long bodies will save 15-20 min on the flight, increase the capital cost and burn more fuel.  If you want air conditioning then you're looking at an Ovation- I would budget $170-180K for the purchase.  It's a $30K bill to add A/C to an Eagle.

[TTaylor]

Welcome to MS.  Most Mooney pilots would say that the "J" is the gold standard to start with.  It is the sweet spot of price, performance and simplicity.    I would start there with your mission and budget and see if it fits. If it doesn't you can move up or down from there.  From what you describe as your mission, a J with close to 1000 pounds useful load would work well (some early 80's models got down to the low 900's useful load).  

Mooney's are about speed and efficiency.  You can have one or both depending on the model.  A 300 nm trip in a J is just over two hours and about 20 gallons of fuel.  You can do it faster in other models at a higher burn rate.

You mentioned lack of comfort?  Not sure where that comes from. Most of us would prefer the comfort of a Mooney to brand B, C or P.  Mooney's are like a Porsche, B is like a Mercedes, C and P are Chevy's and Ford's.  Which fits your style?

[CMartin]

4 minutes ago, smccray said:

300 mile trip in that part of the country- I would start with the J as a baseline.  A good J will run you between $90 and $130+.  The IO-360 engine has a reputation for making TBO and as overhauls go it's reasonable.  The 6 cylinder engines on the K and the long bodies are substantially more expensive to overhaul.  A K model is the same cabin and roughly the same price for the plane on the low end.  An '86 or later K model will be $150 (or at least it will be that much after you take care of the run out engine).  The plane will carry 3 adults just fine, but the guy in the back seat might be a little cramped.  

Long bodies will save 15-20 min on the flight, increase the capital cost and burn more fuel.  If you want air conditioning then you're looking at an Ovation- I would budget $170-180K for the purchase.  It's a $30K bill to add A/C to an Eagle.

I started doing some reading on the eagle and a lot of the comparison was to the J model.  Sounds like the J is a good start, fast and has a decent fuel burn.

 

Believe me, I understand there are so many variables in maintenance, etc.. but what have you guys experienced with average annuals? 3-4k?

[CMartin]

6 minutes ago, TTaylor said:

Welcome to MS.  Most Mooney pilots would say that the "J" is the gold standard to start with.  It is the sweet spot of price, performance and simplicity.    I would start there with your mission and budget and see if it fits. If it doesn't you can move up or down from there.  From what you describe as your mission, a J with close to 1000 pounds useful load would work well (some early 80's models got down to the low 900's useful load).  

Mooney's are about speed and efficiency.  You can have one or both depending on the model.  A 300 nm trip in a J is just over two hours and about 20 gallons of fuel.  You can do it faster in other models at a higher burn rate.

You mentioned lack of comfort?  Not sure where that comes from. Most of us would prefer the comfort of a Mooney to brand B, C or P.  Mooney's are like a Porsche, B is like a Mercedes, C and P are Chevy's and Ford's.  Which fits your style?

Most of my time is in  172/182, have some time in a Bonanza as well.  More worried about the comfort up front between the pilot/co-pilot seats.

[smccray]

1 minute ago, CMartin said:

I started doing some reading on the eagle and a lot of the comparison was to the J model.  Sounds like the J is a good start, fast and has a decent fuel burn.

 

Believe me, I understand there are so many variables in maintenance, etc.. but what have you guys experienced with average annuals? 3-4k?

The eagle was a failed concept- take top of the line airplane (Ovation), deliberately cripple it with smaller gas tanks and de-rate the engine so it doesn't produce as much power.  The idea was to reduce manufacturing cost since the airframe is the same as the ovation... but it doesn't make sense.

Top shops have the inspection portion of the annual at ~$2K.  Defer maintenance all year and the total cost at annual is higher. Take care of things when they break and the total expense at annual is cheaper.  Depending on how much work you want to do yourself your maintenance cost will be less.  The Mooney systems are cheaper to own on average as compared to other retractable aircraft (182, 210, bonanza) because the gear systems are simpler.

[TTaylor]

15 minutes ago, CMartin said:

Most of my time is in  172/182, have some time in a Bonanza as well.  More worried about the comfort up front between the pilot/co-pilot seats.

From: http://www.mooneyland.com/why-mooney/

Mooney's sit lower so cabin height is not a factor in comfort.

Aircraft Cabin Width, Cabin Height
Mooney 201 43.5″, 44.5″
Beechcraft V35 Bonanza 42.0″, 50.0″
Cessna 182 42.0″, 48.0″
Piper Arrow 41.0″, 45.0″

[CMartin]

16 minutes ago, smccray said:

The eagle was a failed concept- take top of the line airplane (Ovation), deliberately cripple it with smaller gas tanks and de-rate the engine so it doesn't produce as much power.  The idea was to reduce manufacturing cost since the airframe is the same as the ovation... but it doesn't make sense.

Top shops have the inspection portion of the annual at ~$2K.  Defer maintenance all year and the total cost at annual is higher. Take care of things when they break and the total expense at annual is cheaper.  Depending on how much work you want to do yourself your maintenance cost will be less.  The Mooney systems are cheaper to own on average as compared to other retractable aircraft (182, 210, bonanza) because the gear systems are simpler.

"The Mooney systems are cheaper to own on average as compared to other retractable aircraft (182, 210, bonanza) because the gear systems are simpler." This is good to know! 

I started reviewing this site's chronological list by year and the J model seems to be their go to model. In your opinion (anyone's) what is the prime year to look at in the J's? And what is the difference between the 201 and 205?

http://www.mooneyevents.com/chrono.htm

Thanks again guys!

Edited July 28, 2017 by CMartin

[smccray]

3 minutes ago, CMartin said:

"The Mooney systems are cheaper to own on average as compared to other retractable aircraft (182, 210, bonanza) because the gear systems are simpler." This is good to know! 

I started reviewing this site's chronological list by year and the J model seems to be their go to model. In your opinion (anyone's) what is the prime year to look at in the J's? And what is the difference between the 201 and 205?

http://www.mooneyevents.com/chrono.htm

Thanks again guys!

All the J models are great with a few differences among them.

The '77 has a throttle quadrant, '78 goes to vernier controls with the 214 prop.  Many people start looking at '78, and you can see at that link the improvements made to the J over time.  It's not uncommon that later model year upgrades have been made on earlier aircraft, so you have to look.  1 piece belly and separate rear seats are upgrades I would look for, but I wouldn't let those upgrades dictate the decision.  A good plane is better than those small differences.

The 205 was only produced for 2 years.  In 1986 Mooney upgraded the K model from a 231 to a 252.  In '87 they took the aerodynamic changes from the 252 and applied them to the J.  28v electrical system, round windows, electric cowl flaps, approach and full flap setting and the most significant was a small structural change.  Early J models have a gross weight of 2740 lbs.  Late J models (90s?) came from the factory with a gross weight of 2900 lbs.  Beginning with the 205 through  1989 or 1990,  the 28v aircraft came from the factory with the lower gross weight but are eligible for a gross weight increase.  Aircraft tend to get heavier over time- early model years tend to have better useful loads than later model years due to upgrades.  The 205 is special because they are early in the run of J models with the higher gross weight increase.  My plane has 1024 lb useful load.

[johncuyle]

1 hour ago, KLRDMD said:

This is contradictory. Yes, turbocharged airplanes are meant to fly higher and get greater true airspeed doing so but flying higher to lower fuel burn is a property of normally aspirated airplanes, not turbocharged ones. 

It isn't contradictory at all. You get higher TAS because less of your fuel is being used to shove dense air out of the way and more is being used to cover ground. A K model burning 10GPH at 3500' is inefficient. A K model burning 10GPH at 17500' is very efficient. Which Mooney is best depends on how long your trips are and how high you want to fly, but the answer to the OP's question "Why a Mooney" is essentially always some form of "goes fast on less gas." If you want to go fast on less gas over a really long distance, a 252 is really hard to beat.

[Rmag]

24 minutes ago, CMartin said:

what is the difference between the 201 and 205?

 

I posted a little write up on the difference in the beginning of this thread.

I bought a 205 and then turned it into as close to new as you can get with a 1987 airframe.  I'm absolutely loving the airplane.  You sit low in it like a sports car.  If you don't have anyone in the back, in cruise you can slide the seat back and dully extend your legs straight like sitting on a beach chair. Very comfortable.

[KLRDMD]

2 hours ago, KLRDMD said:

This is contradictory. Yes, turbocharged airplanes are meant to fly higher and get greater true airspeed doing so but flying higher to lower fuel burn is a property of normally aspirated airplanes, not turbocharged ones. 

 

20 minutes ago, johncuyle said:

It isn't contradictory at all. You get higher TAS because less of your fuel is being used to shove dense air out of the way and more is being used to cover ground. A K model burning 10GPH at 3500' is inefficient. A K model burning 10GPH at 17500' is very efficient. 

You just proved my point. How is 10 GPH at 17,500 ft less fuel burn than 10 GPH at 3,500 ft ???

[Oldguy]

Welcome aboard!

I am the owner of an '84 J. As far as comfort goes, I am 6'5" and about 220 (on a good day). It is not uncommon for me to have four adults in the plane and make a two hour flight. I conservatively plan my flights for 150 kts. cruise and 9.5 gph at 7000/8000'. Currently my engine has ~1600 hours on it and appears to be running well. I plan on it making TBO and will keep flying it beyond if it and the oil analysis tell me I can. All four of my annuals were under $3K with the last replacing an ignition cap and wires.

For me, the J is the sweet spot. I came from a 172 and love the flexibility my Mooney gives me. The wife and I can hop in it and be at the beach in less than an hour and a hlaf or up in Chattanooga in less than an hour. We have family in Texas near Houston and in South and North Carolina. With the exception of carrying four to Texas, all of our flights are easily done non-stop. I am fortunate to live 5 minutes from my airport which also happens to have a Mooney trained mechanic on-site. I do my own oil changes and minor maintenance and fly between 85 and 120 hours a year.

Insurance is not bad. I have an IR and attend the MAPA Safety Foundation PPP training every two years. Keeps the insurance in line and is a blast meeting other Mooney pilots.

Final note: I bought my plane from a guy who was moving up to a Bonanza so he could carry 6 pax. That was his only reason to let it go (grandchildren). I called and got the plane about 5 days before the prior owner called to see if they could buy it back. 

[Hank]

Don't get all caught up in comparing fuel capacity and useful load between models--do a sample Weight and Balance for one of your trips and compare the results. Mooneys don't go out of CG as the fuel burns off, you can use as much of it as you want as long as you've got enough to reach your destination and land; not all planes are like this.  (Cough! Bo-cough-nanza, cough, cough!)  

My C "only" has 52 gallons of fuel, but that's good for taxi, takeoff, Vy climb to 8000-10,000 msl, cruise for 5 hours and still have a 45-minute reserve. Five hours at 145 knots true. I've gone 4:40 twice, and had 11-12 gallons left, which is 1:20 at cruise power.

But the back seat is tight for 2 adults, and they are ready to get out after 1:30.

Short breakfast / lunch runs are great! Climb to 3000, accelerate, pull throttle to 22", pull prop to 2300 and watch throttle rise to 23", then work the red lever. Sit back and wait until 4 minutes out, push the yoke for 500 fpm, work the trim and scream down at 170 mph. Level off, reduce power and try to be below 125 mph to lower flaps by pattern entry, then go land. Easy peasy, and fun to boot!  

[johncuyle]

4 hours ago, KLRDMD said:

 

You just proved my point. How is 10 GPH at 17,500 ft less fuel burn than 10 GPH at 3,500 ft ???

If you're going 600nm, and you're burning 10 GPH at 3500' doing 135 knots, it'll take you 4.4 hours to get there and you'll burn 44 gallons of fuel.  You gain about two knots per thousand feet.  At 17500' you'll be doing 163kt and cover the same 600nm in 3.6 hours, burning 36 gallons of fuel.  36 gallons burned is less than 44 gallons burned.  This is what the turbo does for you.  Go higher, burn less fuel.

[gsxrpilot]

Comparing my NA M20C to my turbo 252.

The M20C basically did the same TAS all the time regardless of altitude, but it would do it on less gas the higher I flew.
The 252 burns the same gallons per hour regardless of the altitude, but it goes faster the higher I fly.

[KLRDMD]

5 hours ago, KLRDMD said:

You just proved my point. How is 10 GPH at 17,500 ft less fuel burn than 10 GPH at 3,500 ft ???

 

49 minutes ago, johncuyle said:

If you're going 600nm, and you're burning 10 GPH at 3500' doing 135 knots, it'll take you 4.4 hours to get there and you'll burn 44 gallons of fuel.  You gain about two knots per thousand feet.  At 17500' you'll be doing 163kt and cover the same 600nm in 3.6 hours, burning 36 gallons of fuel.  36 gallons burned is less than 44 gallons burned.  This is what the turbo does for you.  Go higher, burn less fuel.

Fuel burn is GPH. 10 GPH is still 10 GPH regardless of the altitude. The fuel burn is not less at 17,500 ft than 3,500 ft in a turbo.

You seem to have conveniently forgotten about the 14,000 ft climb differential between 3,500 ft and 17,500 ft. That 14,000 ft takes close to a half hour at 25 GPH so add 10-12 gallons to your 36 gallons burned in cruise at 17,500 ft and you've now burned more fuel than at 3,500 ft.

In a normally aspirated airplane your fuel burn may be 12 GPH at 3,500 ft and 7 GPH at 17,500 ft. Your fuel burn decreases with altitude in a normally aspirated airplane, but your true airspeed also decreases in these airplanes above about 8,000 ft.

There ain't no free lunch.

[KLRDMD]

44 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

The M20C basically did the same TAS all the time regardless of altitude, but it would do it on less gas the higher I flew.
The 252 burns the same gallons per hour regardless of the altitude, but it goes faster the higher I fly.

I think if you check the Owner's Manual you'll find that you do not do the same true airspeed at all altitudes in a "C" model Mooney. Above about 8,000 ft (or pick a similar number), normally aspirated airplanes start to decrease true airspeeds. Fuel burn (GPH) absolutely decreases with increased altitudes in a normally aspirated airplane.

[ArtVandelay]

There is absolute fuel consumption, and then there is mile per gallon. If the mission is to fly high and for 2 hours or more....turbo, otherwise I would get a NA plane, for your mission/price range...definitely the J. If I had the money, I would have a 2nd plane (Acclaim with FIKI). Instead I just cancel/reschedule trips if any icing is forecasted.

[Bob - S50]

CMartin,

We have a '78 J.  There is plenty of room on the back seat for an adult.  Leg room will only be tight back there while the front seaters get in.  Once in their seats and moved forward to the normal position, there is plenty of room in the back.  I'm 5'9" and I have to move the seat almost all the way forward to allow me full rudder travel and brake application at the same time.  When my wife and I go on long trips, she sits in the back because she has more room to maneuver back there and she can see better (she's 5'2" and can't see over the glareshield very well up front).

Figure minimum useful load this way for a J.  Your occasional 500nm trip (non-stop) will burn 33 gallons and it will take about 3+30 block to block.  An hour of reserve means you'll want 42 gallons on board at engine start.  Make it easy on yourself and fill to the 50 gallon tabs and you'll land with almost 2 hours of fuel remaining (assuming you run just barely LOP).  That's about 300 lbs of fuel.  Add the weights of your passengers.  If it comes up to 600 lbs that brings the total up to 900.  Then add some allowance for baggage.  Max allowable in the J is 120 lbs.  That's 1020.  So something less than 1020 required.

Our plane's useful load is 970.  If I limited everybody (in this hypothetical case) to 35 lbs of luggage each, I could still put in 45 gallons of fuel, fly non-stop, land with 1+20 fuel on board, be 5 pounds over gross at start, and a pound under gross at liftoff.

You can do the math using your actual passenger weights, but I'm guessing a useful load over 950 will serve you just fine.