182 to m20f?

[alaskan9974]

Just wondering if anyone has gone from a early 182 to a m20f or c model, and can tell me what their experience was? I own a 182, typically fly a mix of long cross countries 300+ nm nonstop, or short 100nm hops. The appeal of the same cruise speed at 4gph less appeals to me, two adults and two small children (6&7) is my usual load. 

On paper these models seem to similar useful as my 182, with close to the same cruise speed but much more efficient. I'm not to particular on o360 vs io360, but leaning towards the IO since I haven't owned a carbureted aircraft before. The four cylinders vs six appeals to me, but I haven't had much issues with mine in 250 hours of owning it, save for one cyl I swapped due 50's comp at annual.

I put my 182 on a classifieds post this weekend to see I had any chance to sell after I saw a few nice mooneys under 70k, wish I could just own both. I was surprised to have a few calls already, so it is doable. 

[hypertech]

Check the useful load of the planes you are looking at compared to yours and then consider how big the 6 & 7 year old will get and how much fuel you need to make the flights you want to make.  

I like a Mooney as much as the next guy on here, but if I had a plane with the kinks worked out already that was a known quantity, 4 gph would not convince me to sell it and switch to something else.

Now, if you want to switch because a Mooney is way cooler and more fun than a Cessna - welcome to the club.  You've found the right place.

[Boilermonkey]

If your within 250NM from HFY I'd be happy to take you for a flight.   

I transitioned from a C182 to a M20C.   The sight picture is significantly different, in particular the eye-to-wheel height is less in a Mooney.   It took 10-15 landings to get a good fell for it.

Of course it's retract...so you'll need to get that into your workflow in the pattern, again not a big deal...unless you forget!

In terms of your mission.  The Mooney is a bit tighter, but not uncomfortably so...before we added a fifth member to the family our load was the same (now looking at a Baron).   You only have one door in a Mooney, so you'll need to get use to that and ensure that your front passenger is well briefed for an emergency.

That's about it ... its just another airplane...a fun one.

[Paul_Havelka]

Our resident experts should be here shortly but I'll second what is above.  Should you make the jump, get as much aircraft for your money as possible.  With that budget you should be able to find a really nice E model and a pretty decent F model.  The F will have 5" more length in the passenger area.  I'm currently looking at an E model and had myself and 2 boys, 14 and 17, in it and we fit fairly decently.  There was more room in it than the cherokee that we are currently training in.

 

[jaylw314]

4 minutes ago, hypertech said:

Check the useful load of the planes you are looking at compared to yours and then consider how big the 6 & 7 year old will get and how much fuel you need to make the flights you want to make.  

I like a Mooney as much as the next guy on here, but if I had a plane with the kinks worked out already that was a known quantity, 4 gph would not convince me to sell it and switch to something else.

Now, if you want to switch because a Mooney is way cooler and more fun than a Cessna - welcome to the club.  You've found the right place.

4 gph difference is not just good for bragging rights--it means you'll have a larger reserve and fuel safety margin for any trip.  The endurance of my M20J is about 7 hours at 135-140 knots, or close to 1000 nm.

Of course, the various ranges of people's bladders might not get your anywhere close to that.  It's nice having that knowledge, but probably not worth jumping ship by itself like @hypertech said.

On the other hand, having kids who think the Mooney is a lot cooler than the Cessna is priceless 

[skydvrboy]

Not sure about the specs for your 182, or any 182 for that matter, but here are the real world specs for my F.

Cruise = 145 kts TAS @ 8.5 gph - Others are faster.

Useful load = 1067 lbs. (fuel tanks 64 gal.) - That gives me 6.5 hrs with 1 hr reserve or 942 km range.

[alaskan9974]

13 minutes ago, Boilermonkey said:

If your within 250NM from HFY I'd be happy to take you for a flight.   

I transitioned from a C182 to a M20C.   The sight picture is significantly different, in particular the eye-to-wheel height is less in a Mooney.   It took 10-15 landings to get a good fell for it.

Of course it's retract...so you'll need to get that into your workflow in the pattern, again not a big deal...unless you forget!

In terms of your mission.  The Mooney is a bit tighter, but not uncomfortably so...before we added a fifth member to the family our load was the same (now looking at a Baron).   You only have one door in a Mooney, so you'll need to get use to that and ensure that your front passenger is well briefed for an emergency.

That's about it ... its just another airplane...a fun one.

Thanks for the offer, I'm a bit further north then that.

The other consideration I have is my plane is close to 1500 hours on the motor, so I would be stuck with it for awhile if I bought a new motor. I don't want to add up how much I spent so far on miscellaneous items. The only comparable 4 seat planes I have time in is an Arrow and a Cherokee 140. Size of those didn't bother me to much, my only thought at the time was about being stuck in the rain without a wing to duck under. 

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, alaskan9974 said:

Just wondering if anyone has gone from a early 182 to a m20f or c model, and can tell me what their experience was? I own a 182, typically fly a mix of long cross countries 300+ nm nonstop, or short 100nm hops. The appeal of the same cruise speed at 4gph less appeals to me, two adults and two small children (6&7) is my usual load. 

On paper these models seem to similar useful as my 182, with close to the same cruise speed but much more efficient. I'm not to particular on o360 vs io360, but leaning towards the IO since I haven't owned a carbureted aircraft before. The four cylinders vs six appeals to me, but I haven't had much issues with mine in 250 hours of owning it, save for one cyl I swapped due 50's comp at annual.

I put my 182 on a classifieds post this weekend to see I had any chance to sell after I saw a few nice mooneys under 70k, wish I could just own both. I was surprised to have a few calls already, so it is doable. 

Are you flying a 182RG? What do you flight plane for speed?  IAS (internet air speed) varies quite a bit from model to model.  A reasonably well rigged F model is a 150kt airplane for practical purposes. It's also a very reasonable load hauler (mine has a useful of 1060lbs) considering its meager fuel needs. You can fly high and lean and accomplish bladder busting distances approaching 1000NM or load 800lbs in the cabin, go 500NM at 150kts and land with 10 gals on board. Totally different seating position and cockpit feel from C brand products.  I actually prefer the back seat of an F model to many other brands of 4 place singles (C182 included).  Ingress and Egress in a 182 is a breeze compared with stepping in and down into the single doored Mooney.  Handling the aircraft is not going to be a big change for you, it's another tricycle gear single...not a real complex transition.  Mooneys are not forgiving of sloppy speed control.  I acted as safety pilot in a C172 XP a few weeks ago for an instrument student. He has been taught to fly final at 80KIAS which is 1.7 * MGW Vso.   That would work out poorly in an F model unless you have a lot of runway and or a strong headwind. 

 

[MICKEY]

1 hour ago, alaskan9974 said:

Thanks for the offer, I'm a bit further north then that.

The other consideration I have is my plane is close to 1500 hours on the motor, so I would be stuck with it for awhile if I bought a new motor. I don't want to add up how much I spent so far on miscellaneous items. The only comparable 4 seat planes I have time in is an Arrow and a Cherokee 140. Size of those didn't bother me to much, my only thought at the time was about being stuck in the rain without a wing to duck under. 

I'll chime in here.  I was deciding between a C182 an Mooney and decided on the mooney because of efficiency and the age of my family, wife and one toddler.  In retrospect, I would take a 135kt 182 right now because of ease of entrance and Taller cabin, but I love my mooney and its finally squawk free.  

That said, I bought a really nice equipped M20F with a thorough pre-buy.  I still had many squawks and things to learn about Mooney's and my mooney and it cost me a pretty penny.  ~10 AMU to ball park it.  And the Useful load is the same.

There is NO value you can place on a known quantity. IE you know the aircraft you're flying.  Further, if you look into it, you'll pay more for insurance ( Retract), and you definitely will pay something being new to Mooney's on a 300nm trip. Even if there are 35 kt headwinds, you're flight time difference is minimal (3 hr in the 182) and (2.5hr in the M20F).  30 min is the difference in show time to the airplane.    12 gal/hr x3 hr = 36 gal.  10.5 gal/hr  x 2.5 hr= 26.25 gal.  So 10 gal or $55 bucks difference for the same flight.  you'd have to fly trip 180 times to get that money back.  Or even if its a 2 AMU to get the airplane squawk free... its 36 trips to get even (in bad winds).  Otherwise its a 15 min difference and 3 gal /($20) difference in fuel .   All just food for thought.

If this is a transition to your FINAL airplane, game on. If you're buying for a transition to another airplane later on, I'd wait. I love my mooney but I'm a realist.  At this time your engine on the 182 is considered TBO for sale purposes.  So its free flying for the next 500+ hours. 

[alaskan9974]

3 minutes ago, MICKEY said:

I'll chime in here.  I was deciding between a C182 an Mooney and decided on the mooney because of efficiency and the age of my family, wife and one toddler.  In retrospect, I would take a 135kt 182 right now because of ease of entrance and Taller cabin, but I love my mooney and its finally squawk free.  

That said, I bought a really nice equipped M20F with a thorough pre-buy.  I still had many squawks and things to learn about Mooney's and my mooney and it cost me a pretty penny.  ~10 AMU to ball park it.  And the Useful load is the same.

There is NO value you can place on a known quantity. IE you know the aircraft you're flying.  Further, if you look into it, you'll pay more for insurance ( Retract), and you definitely will pay something being new to Mooney's on a 300nm trip. Even if there are 35 kt headwinds, you're flight time difference is minimal (3 hr in the 182) and (2.5hr in the M20F).  30 min is the difference in show time to the airplane.    12 gal/hr x3 hr = 36 gal.  10.5 gal/hr  x 2.5 hr= 26.25 gal.  So 10 gal or $55 bucks difference for the same flight.  you'd have to fly trip 180 times to get that money back.  Or even if its a 2 AMU to get the airplane squawk free... its 36 trips to get even (in bad winds).  Otherwise its a 15 min difference and 3 gal /($20) difference in fuel .   All just food for thought.

If this is a transition to your FINAL airplane, game on. If you're buying for a transition to another airplane later on, I'd wait. I love my mooney but I'm a realist.  At this time your engine on the 182 is considered TBO for sale purposes.  So its free flying for the next 500+ hours. 

Thanks, it is nearly $9 a gallon up here so the math brings it in a little closer, I see what you mean. 

Just for kicks, this is what I am thinking to move from. https://alaskaslist.com/-3/posts/10_Transportation/59_Aircraft/553571_1968_Cessna_182_Skylane_.html

I'll see what happens this summer, still on the fence but a mooney has been calling my name for years. 

 

[carusoam]

If you like speed AND efficiency...

Go Mooney, don’t look back....

 

If you like Useful Load to carry all the extra fuel you need, stay with the C182...

4gph extra, at a fuel price $4 /gal extra... and you don’t include the speed difference in this calculation...

 

Do the math for your situation, you may find that speed and efficiency works really well for Xcountry travel.

 

Selling Brand C is pretty easy... it’s a commodity.

Buying a Mooney requires thinking outside the box...

hmmmm....

• do I like speed?
• do I like efficiency?
• do I like the safety that a Mooney provides?
• How does my family think about flying around in the fastest, factory built, normally aspirated, four seater on the planet? (Four cylinder model comparison) 

Go Mooney!

Best regards,

-a-

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, MICKEY said:

I'll chime in here.  I was deciding between a C182 an Mooney and decided on the mooney because of efficiency and the age of my family, wife and one toddler.  In retrospect, I would take a 135kt 182 right now because of ease of entrance and Taller cabin, but I love my mooney and its finally squawk free.  

That said, I bought a really nice equipped M20F with a thorough pre-buy.  I still had many squawks and things to learn about Mooney's and my mooney and it cost me a pretty penny.  ~10 AMU to ball park it.  And the Useful load is the same.

There is NO value you can place on a known quantity. IE you know the aircraft you're flying.  Further, if you look into it, you'll pay more for insurance ( Retract), and you definitely will pay something being new to Mooney's on a 300nm trip. Even if there are 35 kt headwinds, you're flight time difference is minimal (3 hr in the 182) and (2.5hr in the M20F).  30 min is the difference in show time to the airplane.    12 gal/hr x3 hr = 36 gal.  10.5 gal/hr  x 2.5 hr= 26.25 gal.  So 10 gal or $55 bucks difference for the same flight.  you'd have to fly trip 180 times to get that money back.  Or even if its a 2 AMU to get the airplane squawk free... its 36 trips to get even (in bad winds).  Otherwise its a 15 min difference and 3 gal /($20) difference in fuel .   All just food for thought.

If this is a transition to your FINAL airplane, game on. If you're buying for a transition to another airplane later on, I'd wait. I love my mooney but I'm a realist.  At this time your engine on the 182 is considered TBO for sale purposes.  So its free flying for the next 500+ hours. 

This is good advice. It also a nice display of "internet airspeed".  If you're willing to accept a TAS in the mid to high 140s an F model will be burn well under 10GPH.  On the other hand, While I've seen straight leg 182s that will do 135KTAS and I've also seen straight leg 182s burn 12GPH...I've never seen both of those numbers happen at the same time. I'll conceded it's not egregiously optimistic...just slightly.

Edited April 30, 2019 by Shadrach

[Hank]

Even my C will walk away from a 182 on 2/3 of the fuel flow . . . .

Don't compare useful loads directly. Plan a flight, determine fuel required, add reserves (I like an hour, or 9 gal), then compare how much you can carry for that trip. I think you'll be surprised.

I carried hurricane relief supplies, reaching the distribution point after almost 4 hours in the air (with a long, long arrival). I listed 650 lb lift capacity, by far the highest single engine load I saw among the 40+ planes signed up before me. Needless to say I ran out of space before load. My second trip with full tanks was limited to only 470 lb . . . .

Having the ability to trade fuel for load is nice! Thanks to our fast, efficient Mooneys.  

And I was a Cessna pilot before, a whole 62 hours in my logbook at purchase. Very doable. The big deals are:  1) remember the gear; 2) speed control in the pattern,  especially on final. Mooneys will slow down OR go down, but not both.

[whiskytango]

All of the comments above are good information that will help you in your decision-making process.  I will add this subjective consideration:  I went from a TR182 to a Mooney K model.  The TR182 was a good "transportation" airplane.  The Mooney is a great transportation airplane, is just plain fun to fly, and looks way cool on the ramp! 

[Shadrach]

4 hours ago, carusoam said:

If you like speed AND efficiency...

Go Mooney, don’t look back....

If you like Useful Load to carry all the extra fuel you need, stay with the C182...

4gph extra, at a fuel price $4 /gal extra... and you don’t include the speed difference in this calculation...

Do the math for your situation, you may find that speed and efficiency works really well for Xcountry travel.

My F has a useful of 1060lbs. below are real W&B calculators for actual aircraft all of which ere pulled from the first page of a "C182 Weight and Balance" google search.  I did not download .pdf of .xls files and one link was dead. This is what remained.  I am not cherry picking and  I am sure there are better examples but I just used what turned up in page one search results.  The results speak for themselves.  Don't believe the hype Anthony...

N53KP C182T useful 1018LBS    

N387CS C182T useful 1070lbs    

N759HS C182Q useful 1078lbs

N58807 C182P useful 1142lbs

My F model will take more payload more miles and at a higher speed then all but the last example which only does better for short trips becoming a wash at ~300NM and loses at anything greater than 400NM.  Don't believe the "anything you can put in it" hype. There are C182s with great payload but it's not across the board.  Imagine if all Mooneys were judged by @skydvrboy 1068lb useful and 9-10GPH fuel burn.  They're not.  We have a reputation of having enough UL for fuel, pilot and a newspaper. Not a fair characterization. The early 4cyl birds really are a good mix of speed, efficiency and load hauling. 

 

Edited May 1, 2019 by Shadrach

[Guest]

1 hour ago, alaskan9974 said:

Thanks, it is nearly $9 a gallon up here so the math brings it in a little closer, I see what you mean. 

Just for kicks, this is what I am thinking to move from. https://alaskaslist.com/-3/posts/10_Transportation/59_Aircraft/553571_1968_Cessna_182_Skylane_.html

I'll see what happens this summer, still on the fence but a mooney has been calling my name for years. 

 

Keep the Skylane!

Clarence

[pinerunner]

I grew up around C180's (on floats) and now fly an M20E. Since you're in Alaska I wonder what kind of flying you're planning on.  I love  my Mooney but stay away from rutty airports. I flew it into one of the places in Maine where I had trained and really felt every seam in the runway(stiff suspension).  The Mooney's prop clearance is less than most other airplanes and there have been stories where getting the nosewheel into a rut resulting in a prop strike and a major engine job. 

The Mooney's are very efficient airport planes. You can fly them off well maintained grass strips. I'd stay away from gravel because I'd be concerned about picking up stones and chewing up the prop. I plan on going into a grass strip eventually but will be picky about it and check the place out first. If I were flying a plane that sits up higher just go right in.

I'm probably showing a prejudice against Alaska but I think of it as bush flying territory.  There are places you could take the 182 where a Mooney might suffer an expensive mishap. 

I'd find my mechanic before I buy the plane.

[MIm20c]

Spent 20 hrs flying around Alaska in a long body.  A Mooney would not be my first choice in that part of the world. 20kts is not going to make any difference for most trips. However, limiting the useable airports by 50 percent will. 

[hmasing]

4 hours ago, skydvrboy said:

Not sure about the specs for your 182, or any 182 for that matter, but here are the real world specs for my F.

Cruise = 145 kts TAS @ 8.5 gph - Others are faster.

Useful load = 1067 lbs. (fuel tanks 64 gal.) - That gives me 6.5 hrs with 1 hr reserve or 942 km range.

How... How do you get 145 ktas on 8.5 gph?  What are your power settings?  What year and speed mods?

If I go 100 LOP I get 8.5 gph, but only about 130 ktas. (I will test again with my new engine monitor, but that's a close guess estimate.

[Hank]

25 minutes ago, hmasing said:

How... How do you get 145 ktas on 8.5 gph?  What are your power settings?  What year and speed mods?

If I go 100 LOP I get 8.5 gph, but only about 130 ktas. (I will test again with my new engine monitor, but that's a close guess estimate.

My C runs ~147KTAS on 9 gph block time (no fuel flow installed). This is generally at 7500 msl and above, 2500 and the throttle backed away from Wide Open just enough to shut off the carbhretor enrichment circuit and make the MP needle wiggle. She will run smoothly about 25°LOP, but I won't cruise there without a monitor, and the speed drops off badly.

[alaskan9974]

47 minutes ago, pinerunner said:

I grew up around C180's (on floats) and now fly an M20E. Since you're in Alaska I wonder what kind of flying you're planning on.  I love  my Mooney but stay away from rutty airports. I flew it into one of the places in Maine where I had trained and really felt every seam in the runway(stiff suspension).  The Mooney's prop clearance is less than most other airplanes and there have been stories where getting the nosewheel into a rut resulting in a prop strike and a major engine job. 

The Mooney's are very efficient airport planes. You can fly them off well maintained grass strips. I'd stay away from gravel because I'd be concerned about picking up stones and chewing up the prop. I plan on going into a grass strip eventually but will be picky about it and check the place out first. If I were flying a plane that sits up higher just go right in.

I'm probably showing a prejudice against Alaska but I think of it as bush flying territory.  There are places you could take the 182 where a Mooney might suffer an expensive mishap. 

I'd find my mechanic before I buy the plane.

I compared the prop clearance between the 182 and a mooney a few years ago, and its fairly close. I'd argue the mooney can keep the front just as far off the rocks, with the strut compressed on the 182 it can get pretty close. The rubber coolant hoses people put on the front struts to keep them from collapsing are frowned upon by some inspectors depending on who might run into you, even though the alternative is running the prop into the dirt if you hit a small divot. I don't do any off airport, its either asphalt or state maintained gravel airports, 2.5k ft+ 

[Hank]

1 hour ago, pinerunner said:

I grew up around C180's (on floats) and now fly an M20E. Since you're in Alaska I wonder what kind of flying you're planning on.  I love  my Mooney but stay away from rutty airports. I flew it into one of the places in Maine where I had trained and really felt every seam in the runway(stiff suspension).  The Mooney's prop clearance is less than most other airplanes and there have been stories where getting the nosewheel into a rut resulting in a prop strike and a major engine job. 

The Mooney's are very efficient airport planes. You can fly them off well maintained grass strips. I'd stay away from gravel because I'd be concerned about picking up stones and chewing up the prop. I plan on going into a grass strip eventually but will be picky about it and check the place out first. If I were flying a plane that sits up higher just go right in.

I'm probably showing a prejudice against Alaska but I think of it as bush flying territory.  There are places you could take the 182 where a Mooney might suffer an expensive mishap. 

I'd find my mechanic before I buy the plane.

Someone should have told piperpainter that . . . . Search his videos on youtube. He has a highwing now due to family growth, instead of a C model. And no, I don't fly my Mooney like that, mostly because even if there were fields like those around here, I'm not that good . . . .

Efficient? Yes. Fast? You bet! Flexible? More than most people think.

[MICKEY]

46 minutes ago, Hank said:

My C runs ~147KTAS on 9 gph block time (no fuel flow installed). This is generally at 7500 msl and above, 2500 and the throttle backed away from Wide Open just enough to shut off the carbhretor enrichment circuit and make the MP needle wiggle. She will run smoothly about 25°LOP, but I won't cruise there without a monitor, and the speed drops off badly.

I regularly get 147-150 KTAS 8.8gph 15 deg LOP at 65% power WOT+Ram Air and 2500rpm at 9000 ft.  I can get 155+ at same altitude WOT+ RAm Air 2500rpm and 150deg ROP @ 11gph. These are real numbers.

Edited April 30, 2019 by MICKEY

[KLRDMD]

4 hours ago, Shadrach said:

While I've seen straight leg 182s that will do 135KTAS and I've also seen straight leg 182s burn 12GPH...I've never seen both of those numbers happen at the same time. I'll conceded it's not egregiously optimistic...just slightly.

The early 182s will do that, 135 KTAS on 12 GPH. I had a '59 that would. But those are lighter and narrower than the '64 and later models.

[TTaylor]

2 hours ago, hmasing said:

How... How do you get 145 ktas on 8.5 gph?  What are your power settings?  What year and speed mods?

If I go 100 LOP I get 8.5 gph, but only about 130 ktas. (I will test again with my new engine monitor, but that's a close guess estimate.

Most are exaggerating unless they have major mods.   If you review the Mooney test articles standard is 135 knots for a C, about 139 for the F, 140 for the E and 150 for the J at 50 degrees rich.  I would love to see proof on a claim for a stock F that can go over 150 knots at 9 gph.  Mine is consistent at 139 knots at 9 gph.