Jump to content

Seriously considering leaving Mooney behind....


Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, bonal said:

I'm confused isn't the pilot the only one that has to climb over the seats.  If its doors and easy in and out for pax and the need for an SUV that fly's I would be looking at a big Cessna like a 206 or a 210 or maybe even a 177 that thing has doors like a mini van.  I feel so lucky that my D/C happens to be the perfect fit for our mission.  Good luck with what ever you decide I just hope it's not one of those dam SR's

So I would avoid a 206 or a 210 if you you care about efficiency/vs speed at all...  I fly both for work and the fuel burn is terrifying and I’m always glad I don’t pay for the gas.  The T-210 is relatively fast, but at 20 gph, it’s still slower than my 231.  It can carry more though and is pretty comfy but sucks down the gas.  206 (300hp) is a big slow truck. Roomy but so so slow!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, exM20K said:

That’s a really long trip if you’re going to try it in one leg. Especially with kids.  And no potty.

we did fine with two kids in the 231, and your budget allows for an ovation or Bravo. If you haven’t, you owe it to yourself to look at, ponder the baggage space, and look at the real leg times for your 80% mission.  I believe Mooneys are undervalued relative to what they deliver because people are unfamiliar with or steeped in the untutored prejudice of how hard they are to land.
 

so to us, it’s the devil we know, and if you can make the numbers work, you’ll get a much newer, lower time, and likely better equipped bird with a Mooney.

-de

Maybe you missed my first post.  We. Do. It. All. The. Time. 

I've flown a Mooney more in the past 3 years than probably 99% of the people on this board.  I love my Mooney.  But not one of them has 6 seats, barn doors to get in, and don't require the backseat passengers to climb over the front seats to get in.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've been spoiled with a reliable Lycoming engine, low maintenance costs, and a low cost airframe.

A Bonanza has none of those.

The engine is hard to work on. It eats cylinders, starter adapters, and exhaust systems. The turbo version is worse of course.

You would be better served by a Saratoga. It will do the same mission as the Bonanza, plus you get a bigger cabin, more baggage space, a wider CG range, and you will have some money left in your wallet. The Bonanza will sniff out any extra cash you have, eat it, and then ask for a loan. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've run a lot of Continental engines over the last 20+ years and they do fine if you treat them right. My Bonanza annuals and maintenance throughout the year haven't been noticeably more if at all than the Mooneys I've owned.

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, philiplane said:

You've been spoiled with a reliable Lycoming engine, low maintenance costs, and a low cost airframe.

A Bonanza has none of those.

The engine is hard to work on. It eats cylinders, starter adapters, and exhaust systems. The turbo version is worse of course.

You would be better served by a Saratoga. It will do the same mission as the Bonanza, plus you get a bigger cabin, more baggage space, a wider CG range, and you will have some money left in your wallet. The Bonanza will sniff out any extra cash you have, eat it, and then ask for a loan. 

That sounds suspiciously similar to everything I was told about the Mooney I was about to buy.  :P

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The TC 520 would not be my first choice in engines. I think you will be in for a rude awakening with the ownership costs for this type of plane.  The C really is dirt cheap to run compared to other capable planes. 
 

I too have spent a lot of time looking at used 36’s (~3 years). However, after spending a few hours in the back of one trying every seating position, I don’t find them very comfortable.  A pa46 is IMO a different class of comfort for the back 4 seats. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MIm20c said:

The TC 520 would not be my first choice in engines. I think you will be in for a rude awakening with the ownership costs for this type of plane.  The C really is dirt cheap to run compared to other capable planes. 
 

I too have spent a lot of time looking at used 36’s (~3 years). However, after spending a few hours in the back of one trying every seating position, I don’t find them very comfortable.  A pa46 is IMO a different class of comfort for the back 4 seats. 

A Gulfstream G5 is a whole other class of comfort for the passengers, since were comparing apples to filet mignon

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, philiplane said:

You've been spoiled with a reliable Lycoming engine, low maintenance costs, and a low cost airframe.

A Bonanza has none of those.

The engine is hard to work on. It eats cylinders, starter adapters, and exhaust systems. The turbo version is worse of course.

You would be better served by a Saratoga. It will do the same mission as the Bonanza, plus you get a bigger cabin, more baggage space, a wider CG range, and you will have some money left in your wallet. The Bonanza will sniff out any extra cash you have, eat it, and then ask for a loan. 

I never found Beechcraft Bonanza/Baron airframes hard or expensive to maintain. I agree with all of the Continental engine issues regardless of what airframe it is attached to.

Lycoming usually cost more at overhaul but in return they usually make TBO and beyond without major issues along the way. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, philiplane said:

You've been spoiled with a reliable Lycoming engine, low maintenance costs, and a low cost airframe.

A Bonanza has none of those.

The engine is hard to work on. It eats cylinders, starter adapters, and exhaust systems. The turbo version is worse of course.

You would be better served by a Saratoga. It will do the same mission as the Bonanza, plus you get a bigger cabin, more baggage space, a wider CG range, and you will have some money left in your wallet. The Bonanza will sniff out any extra cash you have, eat it, and then ask for a loan. 

I've looked at Saratogas and they're definitely enticing.  

Convince me I should or shouldn't buy this one.

https://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?category_level1=Single+Engine+Piston&make=PIPER&model=SARATOGA+SP&listing_id=2379919&s-type=aircraft

Edited by ragedracer1977
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks like a nice, clean airplane. I'm not a fan of the Altimatic IIIC Autopilot. The next owner should consider repainting the aircraft. There are a few scattered very light hail pecks on the exterior of the aircraft. Trimble TNL-2000 GPS.

If you're looking at Saratogas you may as well look at Senecas too. Seneca II and beyond are all turbocharged and if you manage the engines properly they do well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How important is speed? Crazy question right? Seriously, If your happy with the speed your C gives you then for under $150K a piper Lance has 6 real (7 pretend) seats,  big doors in the rear, two baggage compartments, they usually have a great UL and 94 gallons of gas to go your 800+ trips. Pulled by a Lycoming is a plus for me.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're on the right track with the A36. The Beechtalk community is large, well organized, and very supportive... just like MooneySpace. I've got a good friend here in Denver with a early, but absolutely beautiful A36. It's a great airplane. It's what I'd be looking at if I needed a Suburban. An A36 or a Baron. Mooneys are technically four seaters. So are Porsche 911's. And for me, that's perfect. One of the best things I like about my Mooney is that the back seats stay in the hangar are rarely even in the airplane. It's just the super efficient, quite fast, 2+dog+bags, airplane.

Get the A36. After the kids are grown and gone, and it's just you, the wife, and a dog, the Mooney will be interesting again... except it will likely be an Acclaim.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jrwilson said:

So I would avoid a 206 or a 210 if you you care about efficiency/vs speed at all...  I fly both for work and the fuel burn is terrifying and I’m always glad I don’t pay for the gas.  The T-210 is relatively fast, but at 20 gph, it’s still slower than my 231.  It can carry more though and is pretty comfy but sucks down the gas.  206 (300hp) is a big slow truck. Roomy but so so slow!  

Very true but my F250 sucks gas and is pretty slow but can carry a lot more firewood than my WRX

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ragedracer1977 said:

Maybe you missed my first post.  We. Do. It. All. The. Time. 

I've flown a Mooney more in the past 3 years than probably 99% of the people on this board.  I love my Mooney.  But not one of them has 6 seats, barn doors to get in, and don't require the backseat passengers to climb over the front seats to get in.

It is not obvious in your first post that you do 800 mile legs.  Trips, yes.  Legs, no.  Regardless, the Ovation does that in less time than the Bo.


If a Bonanza is what you want, then by all means buy one.  $200,000 gets you a 1983 14v Bonanza or a 2000 Ovation. The Bonanza is ineligible for FIKI.  The Ovation may be so equipped.  Serious XC flying as you describe is made immeasurably easier with FIKI.  All things being equal, I’d prefer the 17 year younger airframe.

Big back doors are great. When I started flying Diamonds, I thought, gosh, this is so easy to get in and out of, how did I live without such convenience over 3500 hours in the 231?

Then, eight years later, when I needed to buy a plane for the other business, I bought a Mooney because it checked all the boxes for me.  I could have bought a Diamond at dealer cost, but it wasn’t the right fit.  It didn’t check the Boxes I’d identified as important to me.  Getting in and out of the plane is 15 seconds on either end of the flight.  That didn’t even make the needle quiver on my GAF meter.

Given what you describe as your mission, (2 adults and 2 kids,, 800 miles, Lots of trips) I believe that at your budget, the Mooney is a newer, more capable plane than the Bonanza.. 
 

your first post said something like “talk me out of buying a bonanza.”   Ok, here you go.  Same purchase price... Mooney is newer, more capable, and able to do the mission you describe faster than the Bo.  It’s more difficult to get into the back seat.  There aren’t many bad planes out there.  Enjoy your purchase journey and building memories with the family.. I know I have.

dan

 


 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, exM20K said:

your first post said something like “talk me out of buying a bonanza.”   Ok, here you go.  Same purchase price... Mooney is newer, more capable, and able to do the mission you describe faster than the Bo.  It’s more difficult to get into the back seat.  There aren’t many bad planes out there.  Enjoy your purchase journey and building memories with the family.. I know I have.

dan

Fair points, but the Mooney falls short.  Same price, slower in the end, and less capable. 

With full fuel, I could only bring my wife.  With reduced fuel, I'd have to make at least one stop.  Making the Bonanza at least 30 minutes faster on an 800 nm leg.  No matter how little fuel I take, I can never carry 6 passengers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I had your mission and budget, I'd buy the A36 and not look back.  I wouldn't get the TC unless I was 110% sure I needed it.

I've got a bunch of hours in an A36 (100 or so).  Best single engine airplane I've flown.

When your first kid leaves, I'd sell it and buy a 252.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ragedracer1977 said:

I've looked at Saratogas and they're definitely enticing.  

Convince me I should or shouldn't buy this one.

https://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?category_level1=Single+Engine+Piston&make=PIPER&model=SARATOGA+SP&listing_id=2379919&s-type=aircraft

That's a nice airplane!   The panel is going to need a going-through, but that might be a plus to make it the way you want it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Paul_Havelka said:

Have you looked at the pa-46 with the continental?  No need for O2, pretty efficient for what it is and really comfortable for pax

I did, the older airframes are overall more complicated than most, hydraulic flaps, nose gear that turns 90 degrees to lay flat in the bay and a tsio-520-be that is unique and expensive at about $76K for a factory engine on a pallet. Your around $100K labor, hoses, accessories etc.

The newer the better I looked at a 2008 Matrix, if you can handle the expenses there's nothing like it pressurized or not.

I got a quote on the Lycoming in a box for 1988 and newer Mirage/Matrix. That was a deal breaker for me.

That much buys two heavy case factory 550s in a B58 Baron or a not so perfect hot section on a PT6-42 in a piper Meridian. 

Screenshot_20200524-090156_Drive.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I could go back in time I would have started with an A36.  My kids might actually want to fly in the plane then.  The Mooney is too small for all of us. 

Although... that’s a good point about interest rates.  The timing might be just right to get almost free money.

There’s a dentist out at BVU with a beautiful A36 that he outgrew... 6 kids. He starts it up and taxis it around every two weeks. 

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.