Jump to content

Thinking of straying from the fold


salty

Recommended Posts

Been putting lots of hours on the Mooney. Started on my IR, done a few long trips, and an emergency evacuation from Irma. I've really come to respect my C for what it's good for, but I've also started to run into some weaknesses.

It's time to bite the bullet on the engine overhaul, but it might make sense to sell her now while she's still running good if she's not my long term plane.

I love the efficiency, the reliability of the manual gear, pretty much everything. But the size, and the manual gear preventing you from using the space between the seats, it's just a bit too small for my mission. I'm short, so I'm pretty close to the panel, and there's no room for stuff on my lap really. I fit everything we needed into the plane for a weekend trip with the pets, but it took every inch of space to fit it, and it was NOT fun. Was nowhere close to gross weight (was pretty close to aft CG limit), but there's just no space to put stuff and have an enjoyable flight.

Another consideration is my wife has medical issues and getting in and out and sitting in the "sports car" is rough on her. 

I'm looking at other options now. Maybe going too far the other way. C182 or 210, Bo 35, Cherokee 6, bigger mooney, any other suggestions....

Looking for comments (mostly constructive) from the peanut gallery on my thoughts.

And also, anybody with a mid or long body Mooney in the area willing to take me for a spin to see the difference?

Edited by salty
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's always trade offs.  My buddy had a '67 210 and I really liked it.  Higher fuel burn but would fly in the mid 140 knot range.  C182s and cherokee 6s are nice, but I can't go slower.  If you need cargo hauling, these will do a much better job than our C's.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Proof that the short body is, short...

That challenge is easy to fix.  There are two versions that have more volume...

  • Mid Body F, G, J, K... longer on power (except for G), length, speed, volume, and other capabilities...
  • Long Body, Solves the same challenge for people that already have a Mid Body...

Some people have removed the co-pilot seat so the passenger is much more comfortable entering and sitting down on the back bench.  Something to consider..?

Taking the CP seat out of the R to sit in the back, would be like riding in a Limo!

 

As for easy entrance, the Cardinal was designed for that... Low to the ground for easy entrance. Kinda of like getting in a station wagon...

 

Best regards,

-a-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@salty are you going to be at the Mooney Summit in PCB in a couple of weeks?  If not for the whole weekend, the Friday gathering at the airport is open to everyone, it would give you an opportunity to see almost every Mooney Model on one ramp.  Although, getting out of the longer Mooney's is not all that much easier than the short ones.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll second the recommendation for the 177 Cardinal. Hard to think of another airplane that would be easier to get in and out of. You'll have plenty of space and probably the best visibility of any of the high wing airplanes. If you don't need retractable and high cruise speed is not critically important, the 177B should provide lower insurance and maintenance costs.

Make sure that the spar carry through area is carefully inspected for corrosion during pre-buy. That is one potentially major problem area.

Comanches do offer a fully zinc chromated airframe and more cabin space but are probably no easier to get in and out of than your Mooney. 

I guess the other option to consider is a Model 35 Bonanza. My Dad flew the early Bonanzas when they were brand new and told me that if I ever got to fly one, "I would be spoiled for life". The Bonanza offers space, comfort and performance, although it would not improve entry / exit ease. You would also have to deal with an older airframe, reduced support for the original E Series Continental engines and Beechcraft parts prices which have a reputation for being expensive...not that any parts are cheap anymore.

Low acquisition costs related to airframe failures is nothing to ignore. I read an Aviation Consumer report on "the V tail Bonanza, the breaking of a legend". You should read it and decide for yourself. 

Edited by BKlott
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kpaul said:

@salty are you going to be at the Mooney Summit in PCB in a couple of weeks?  If not for the whole weekend, the Friday gathering at the airport is open to everyone, it would give you an opportunity to see almost every Mooney Model on one ramp.  Although, getting out of the longer Mooney's is not all that much easier than the short ones.  

If you don't like that because you're short you are too near the panel and the yoke you won't find any improvement in a longer Mooney. That dimension does not change much if at all. 

FWIW, I'm short, and "husky", and I agree that there's little room for anything mounted on the yoke. OTOH,  I don't want or need anything on the yoke except the clock. That what the panel is for. I favor flying an airplane to operating a computer :rolleyes:  

IMG_20151203_120207362_HDR.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

I subscribe and don't recall reading that article and couldn't find it just now when I searched for it. I'm very interested in reading it. Can you provide a citation?  Thanks. FWIW, I agree with your post. 

Jim

It was in the February 1st, 1980 issue of Aviation Consumer. You can find it easily on line by searching for "The V-tail Bonanza - Breaking of a legend". There is a PDF from the piperforum, of all places. Aviation Consumer also did a later report which I have not located or read. You will want to read this report thoroughly.

If you can't find it, I can EMAIL it to you.

Brian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, BKlott said:

It was in the February 1st, 1980 issue of Aviation Consumer. You can find it easily on line by searching for "The V-tail Bonanza - Breaking of a legend". There is a PDF from the piperforum, of all places. Aviation Consumer also did a later report which I have not located or read. You will want to read this report thoroughly.

If you can't find it, I can EMAIL it to you.

Brian

I guess that was even after the tail was beefed up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Comanche 260 might be a good fit.  Another airplane to consider is Bellanca.  My friend has a Super Viking and I love everything about it.  For the price there's not another airplane out that can touch its performance.  To me the Viking seems roomier compared to the Mooney but many complain it has tight quarters.  It might be worth checking one out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article stated that there were 208 known in flight airframe failures of the model 35 as of 1978. The earliest model 35, referred to as the "straight 35" or pre-A35 Bonanzas most often failed at Wing Station 66, not the center section which is the subject of ADs. Beechcraft did not have any spar web in the original model beyond that point (Wing Station 66). The later models with beefed up Wings most often tend to fail in the tails. The later approved tail cuff is only part of the solution. The ruddervators are prone to flutter with very little margin for safety. Proper balancing is critical. The ruddervator and trim cables need to have proper tension and must be carefully inspected (and replaced when worn). There is a lot more to it than adding the tail cuff, which, by the way, had to be removed from the earliest models.

They background information of the design, flight characteristics, the breakdown of failures by specific model, comments by engineers and investigators involved in studying the problem, comparisons with the straight tail Bonanzas and other airplanes makes for fascinating reading. 

Comparatively, when you look at the Mooney from a structural integrity perspective, you can appreciate it for the good airplane that it is.

Edited by BKlott
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the price of an RV10 you can have 2 Comanche 250's.  You can buy a lot of maintenance for the difference and you would have a reliable parallel valve Lycoming.  

With a Viking you have, wood, steel, fabric and a Continental engine.

Clarence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jerry 5TJ said:

Get her in a Piper Mirage and see how that floats her boat.  

I recently got in to a mirage for the first time. I found it very difficult to move forward and back in and from the pilot seat. Very tight. I don't think I would look forward to making that squeeze all the time.

My other plane is a Fixed gear Saratoga. Have had it for quite a while and love it. Easy and reasonable to maintain and the big back door with fold up cargo panel is great for loading people and stuff.  Basically a Six 300 with tapered wings. The Six as you probably know had the Hershey bar wings.  I have north of a 1400 useful load which allows for full fuel and about 850 lbs of payload. Many of the earlier pa32s had better useful loads than that even. I cruise at 145 true at about 16gph, and for the frequent trip we make between Atlanta and st Augustine the bravo beats it by only 20 or so minutes, which one could argue is a big percentage  difference considering length of the trip. It is on longer trips that the considerable speed delta between the two planes is really noticeable. Speaking for myself, I usually have at least as much fun flying vs whatever I am doing when I get to the destination so a little more time flying never bothers me!:)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, M20Doc said:

For the price of an RV10 you can have 2 Comanche 250's.  You can buy a lot of maintenance for the difference and you would have a reliable parallel valve Lycoming.  

With a Viking you have, wood, steel, fabric and a Continental engine.

Clarence

ISTM that older Comanches, and Mooneys, are really great buys and worthy of upgrading. Of course all Comanches are now "older". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bob_Belville said:

ISTM that older Comanches, and Mooneys, are really great buys and worthy of upgrading. Of course all Comanches are now "older". 

The last of the Comanches were built in 1972 as the 260C. 

Clarence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bravoman said:

I recently got in to a mirage for the first time. I found it very difficult to move forward and back in and from the pilot seat. Very tight. I don't think I would look forward to making that squeeze all the time.

My other plane is a Fixed gear Saratoga. Have had it for quite a while and love it. Easy and reasonable to maintain and the big back door with fold up cargo panel is great for loading people and stuff.  Basically a Six 300 with tapered wings. The Six as you probably know had the Hershey bar wings.  I have north of a 1400 useful load which allows for full fuel and about 850 lbs of payload. Many of the earlier pa32s had better useful loads than that even. I cruise at 145 true at about 16gph, and for the frequent trip we make between Atlanta and st Augustine the bravo beats it by only 20 or so minutes, which one could argue is a big percentage  difference considering length of the trip. It is on longer trips that the considerable speed delta between the two planes is really noticeable. Speaking for myself, I usually have at least as much fun flying vs whatever I am doing when I get to the destination so a little more time flying never bothers me!:)

I had inexpensive access to a 300hp Lance ($100 wet) back in the '80s. It was no where near as much fun to fly as my M20E but it was about the same speed and very comfortable. And of course it was roomy with club seating in the back.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good feedback guys. Thanks. 

I had overlooked the Comanche, I'll put it on the list of candidates.  

This is going to be difficult for me. I'm the sort that walks around the store wearing a new pair of shoes for 20 minutes before I'll buy them, and I don't have a lot of experience in different planes yet, so it's going to be torture making a decision. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bravoman said:

I recently got in to a mirage for the first time. I found it very difficult to move forward and back in and from the pilot seat. Very tight. I don't think I would look forward to making that squeeze all the time.

I tiresomely say the hardest part of flying the PA46 is getting into the pilot's seat. 

But the OP was talking about his wife's discomfort.  

Ask a typical non-pilot wife to compare climbing up onto the wing of the Mooney then plopping down into the seat versus going up the short air stair and settling into one of the rear seats in the Mirage.  

Which will she prefer?   It is a rhetorical question. 

Edited by Jerry 5TJ
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couple of things to consider , The Bonanza is probably the ultimate machine as far as cost verses mission , There are almost NO in flight breakups in the last 30 years as long as the cuffs are installed , In the Pilots seat , there is no conceivable difference as far as space is concerned between short, medium, and long Mooneys ,   I would discount the Commanche series , They are extremely old , and their systems are archaic at best ,    As far as a 182 being nose heavy in the flare , it is no heavier in the flare than a Mooney , Compare it to a 172 , and I agree ...    The Bellanca is a plywood aircraft , with archaic systems , that NEEDS to be kept in a Hangar , It also REQUIRES a mechanic that is well versed in these aircraft , its systems and construction are unique to itself....   When you pick an aircraft , consider mission FIRST  ,   The Cessnas  (182) are the most mission capable aircraft bar none ,  I can get 135 knots INDICATED at 12 GPH and land in the 40s if I have to ...   when somebody touts mission , ask yourself if you have ever seen a Mooney working in Africa , or Alaska.....     The Cardinal is a roomy aircraft , but it is underpowered ,   The Cessna is probably a good fit for you , So is the Bonanza...

  • 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.