Jump to content

Seriously considering leaving Mooney behind....


Recommended Posts

At this point, it's not really even about the speed or money.  I mean, money always matters, but if I can't get the family in the plane, it has no utility at all.  We all fit in the C, but it's 10lbs of s*it in a 5 lb bag

Well, then, if it’s not about the $, get a Duke! Club seating, pressurization, speed, and smartest looking non-jet on the ramp. Good owners group, too. Beware, if you let your family sit in one, they won’t settle for anything else.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forgot to mention engine case cracking on IO-470/IO-520 Continentals forund in C310's and Barons as one more reason not to buy anything with an older Continental engine. Add this to starter adapters and cylinder short life issues, and you will want to stay with a Lycoming engine. 

But there is the C310 Riley Rocket, and C310 Riley Turbostream conversions. They compete with the Beech Baron 56TC which has the Duke's Lycoming TIO-541 engines. Almost offsets the marginal landing gear, corrosion issues, and other airframe items that the Piper line does not suffer from.

Edited by philiplane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thee are Cessna 310/320s with the Navajo engine package in them Quite a good airplane/engine combination. 

Still, I think the Navajo 310 is a real good airplane for the money. If you can find a good one that hasn't been beat to death as a cargo hauler. John Wayne actually bought one of the very first ones way back when. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ragedracer1977 said:

It looks like a Q will.  This is to scale.

Not a lot of room to spare, but it fits

 

Untitled-1.jpg

Talk to Tom next time you're down by Dustin's hangar.   My understanding was that they don't actually make it, but he should know for certain as that was what he was looking at.

Have your family crawl around in/out of one a few times first.   We have one in our hangar at school and while it's a pretty neat airplane, I'd fine it a pita to load/unload.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Davidv said:

It's interesting because I saw the same thing on that performance chart and I can't reconcile it to an older Paul Bertorelli article (or what my friend says he expects).  He's basically building a 550 with all new accessories including the latest TAT system.  I'm not a Bonanza expert by any stretch so feel free to correct me if I'm not looking at apples to apples but take a look at the article below:

https://www.aviationconsumer.com/accessories/tornado-alley-turbos/

"Here are some specifics: We flew a 1980 TAT-converted A36 Bonanza. The airframe had some Smith speed mods so it wasnt typical, however. On takeoff from Ada on a 38-degree day, we easily achieved 1400 FPM in initial climb rate, settling to about 1200 FPM above 5000 feet.

Leveling off at 14,000 feet, we recorded 207 knots TAS at 17 to 18 GPH, with cylinder head temps in the 250 to 280-degree range. As per George Bralys recommendation, the engine was operated with wide open throttle, and lean of peak by leaning to a target fuel flow, not an EGT/TIT value. Climbing higher, we saw 214 knots TAS at 17,500, on about 18 GPH."

I've never seen a company claim so much less performance than the real life test so I'm a little puzzled.  The article says to deduct about 5 knots for no speed mods.  

If this is not accurate, my jealously level will go way down.  It hurts to have another plane carry so much more, go faster, and burn less fuel than my Mooney.


 

 

 

I talked to a guy on BT that is selling his 1987 A36TN with typical cruise around 175 burning 15 kts. Only advantage I see is the 6 seats which comes with a higher UL but it’s a TN not a turbo like the Bravo.  He’s asking 335k..I’ll keep my 200k Bravo as the 135k isn’t worth the 2 seats and moderate UL gain with the same cruise or higher in the Mooney. 
 

Edited by daytonabch04
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it looks like I'm in the market for a 310.  We found the the airplanes we were interested in at the field.  A Seneca, a Baron, and a 310.  My wife likes the 310. 

The Baron is nice, but very narrow in the cabin.  You can see in first pic just how narrow compared to the 310 or the Seneca. 

She didn't like the Seneca. It looks big in pictures, but when you get up close and look, the backseat passengers with club seating would be playing footsie the whole flight.  From my perspective, the nacelles are MASSIVE and look very disproportionate and I can see there being some serious visibility problems.  

She's actually been in a 310 before and liked sitting in the middle row.  We'd likely pull the back seats anyway and just have 4.  Leaving oodles of room for just about anything.  

Her final decision was 310.  And if the worst thing in my day is that my wife wants to buy me an airplane, well, things aren't too bad.  

Pic 1 - Baron

Pic 2 - Seneca

Pic 3 - 310

44231.jpeg

44233.jpeg

44235.jpeg

Edited by ragedracer1977
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, philip_g said:

insurance wanted me to have 100 hours in type for a p337

Over here I think there is a separate "center line thrust ME" rating for those that don't want to do a full ME but want to fly those things...  I'd have thought insurance would be easier than for a PA30...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, philip_g said:

Did some internet searching on your 231, like the paint. Is it hard to maintain a us registered airplane in poland?

Thank you.

Apologies for thread hijacking, but it would be rude not to answer, right? ;)

The paint in the photos looks better than it really is - especially the silver one did not weather well. And it isn't too old, so I suspect some corners were cut. I hope to spice it up some with the various wash, polish and wax I have lined up, and if it works out, I'll splurge for the ceramic coating people have been raving about. No immediate plans for a paint job though.

As far as maintenance goes - no, it is not hard, it is more of a logistics puzzle than anything, and, as most things in Europe, parts and consumables are expensive (I posted gripes in various threads - things like $110 for a 12-pack of XC15W50). The travel restrictions due to COVID have become a challenge, but I treat them as temporary. My A&P/IA is based out of the Czech Republic, 1h30m away by Mooney, 5h by car. For planned stuff that needs a signoff I fly to him. For unplanned, should I run into any, knock on wood, his motto is "have tools, will travel". For the little stuff I have local EASA licensed mechanics that look over my work (and by "little" I mean the ongoing oil change and things like that), a FAA-licensed A&P (without IA, but with a CFII - his main job is flying planes) 20 Mooney minutes away, and there is a Polish A&P/IA that lives in the US but comes over every once in a while and is available by prior arrangement.

The plane was N-reg in Germany, where I bought it from, so I kept it N-reg, and don't regret it. Had it been on an EASA reg, I'd keep it EASA - the times when there was a significant advantage to N-reg are gone, and EASA regs have some potential advantages.  As does N-reg, so I call it a wash.

Most of the above is also true for a FAA license, although with the TSA requirements the pain threshold for me has been crossed, and I chose to go for an EASA IR (which basically means I have to do 13 or 15 theoretical exams for an airline license) and just take a foreign pilot exam in the US and have it added to my FAA "piggyback" (14CFR 61.75) license. Mike Elliot and a few other MS-ers have been super helpful with the "paperwork" aspect of licensing, I don't expect it to ever be a problem. The FAA requirements are really sensible and the "can do" attitude typical of people in the US makes things work.

Whew, that is a long post.  Hope I didn't just jinx myself by saying there are no insurmountable issues... ;)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ragedracer1977 said:
3 hours ago, tmo said:

Over here I think there is a separate "center line thrust ME" rating for those that don't want to do a full ME but want to fly those things...  I'd have thought insurance would be easier than for a PA30...

A center line trust rating is still possible but I recommend you get a conventional multi rating to not limit yourself in the future. Insurance on a pressurized airplane will also cost more than unpressurized. Between an unpressurized 337 and PA30, insurance will be based on the normal factors, the 337 will not be less as the accident rate is not less. There are just different ways to injure or kill yourself in a 337.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should try on an Aztec for size too. The cabin is taller, including the rear seats, where you don't sit on the floor like the 310. Plus you have two large baggage compartments. 

In the short nose 310, you don't have a nose baggage, which means you have to keep the three 5 gallon buckets in the aft baggage, which is nearly impossible, or leave out the rear seats to accommodate them.

The three 5 gallon buckets? One for the left engine, one for the right engine, and the third for the airframe. You fill them with money, of at least $10 bills, or higher denominations, and try to keep them balanced as the plane empties them. You can't borrow from one bucket to fill the others, since any of them can be emptied without notice. You have to keep refilling them as you go.

The Aztec only requires one 2 gallon bucket to cover everything, so you still have all that baggage space for, well, baggage.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, philip_g said:

that was the only thing I could think of, but finding a CFI with p337 time would have been a challenge, and it wouldn't have been $50. I don't know many $50 CFI's anymore

I guess I'm lucky.  My cfi owns a P337 and he charges $40/hr for training.  He's actually wanting to sell it so he can get a tail dragger to instruct in

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/23/2020 at 3:40 PM, ragedracer1977 said:

My C has been a great plane, but as my family grows and as we travel more (and probably even more in a personal aircraft as travel requirements become increasingly draconian) we're ready for something bigger.  

I fly an average of 250 hours a year.  Doing rough napkin math, that's 40,000 miles I've flown in the past 12 months.  I USE my plane.  I don't do $100 hamburger runs.  I've been to California, Utah, New Mexico, and Texas twice in the last month.  I've flown to Oregon, Louisiana, Florida, and Wisconsin in the past year.  

Looking at everything available on the market right now, I can't find anything on paper that beats an A36TC Bonanza in my price range.  

I even looked at twins, but the maintenance and operating costs for what amounts to similar range and payload don't make a lot of financial sense.  

I wish Mooney made a six place airplane with the ability to fill the seats and still bring luggage...

So, talk me into or out of a Bonanza.  I feel like I know Mooney's really well as far as maintenance and ADs and what not go, but I don't know much about Bonanzas....

 

I understand.  I have two growing kids young kids, now a dog, and we've had two miscarriages in the last 7 months.  So . . . the Mooney may be not enough cabin for me at some point.  That said, maybe I'll just get a piece of something larger and keep the Mooney for when it's me or when I don't need 6 seats.  Fun flying, shorter flights, etc.  I keep eyeing Aerostar's and Chyenne II's.  I'm also looking at PA-46 and PA-46T.  My wife said pressurized if we buy a bigger airplane.  I've always been amazed at the space in a PA-32 Cherokee 6 after flying one.  A later Saratgo, or even a Lance may check the boxes as well.  The Bonanza is a great airplane as well.  If I didn't own a Mooney, I'd likey have a Bonanza.

Another plug for a faster Mooney:  Jump up 40 knots like I did from my F model to my Missile.  It makes longer trips so much shorter.  You actually log less time because you get somewhere faster.  But, you get there sooner, without a fuel stop - it makes a difference block time wise especially.  The 180 knot plus Mooneys, they are quite a step up from the C/E/F (I know as I did it).  I was borrowing a 158 knot J while mine was in annual 4 years ago, and on a trip to North Carolina and back, and on my trip home, I felt something was wrong.  I looked down at my watch and saw I had just clicked 2 hours and I was still 30 minutes from landing.  Then I yelled at myself for noting "I'd already be there by now" when flying a really nice borrowed free of charge M20J truing at 158 knots.  The big engined Mooney's if set up right can really deliver some speeds that change the game.  As noted, if your kids move on when they are older, it'll be just you two flying again.  

A share of a larger aircraft while enjoying your personal Mooney is not a bad play either.  The Bonanza TC is a good choice as you mentioned.  It does have seats, you don't just do the $100 hamburger run ($200 in that airplane), and it gives you the speed you want.  All I can say is also consider a PA-46 for pressurization.  That may be what I do if I don't go Aerostar or Cheyenne II as an airplane either alone or with one or two partners.  That may allow me to keep my Mooney.  Or, get a big plane, sell the Mooney, and get a RV-8 for the fun flying.

-Seth

Edited by Seth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

You might just need a bigger hangar :D

There are three of these at KBJC where I own one of the three. The one next to me has a Beech 18 in it and the other one has a PA-42 Cheyenne in it. The Mooney looks pretty small in mine. 

IMG_4074.thumb.jpeg.f190e0e32fa83af453868c299b00d82e.jpeg

I'm soooo jealous of this space!!!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, philip_g said:

are they really more than other twins? I wouldn't think the early 470's would be too bad?

Anything with a Continental engine will be more costly and less reliable than a Lycoming. (Other than the Lycoming TIO-541 used in the Duke and Baron 56TC, but there are fixes for their cam problems.) Add in the weak landing gear on a 310, and you have the recipe for high maintenance bills. Going cheap will cost you with a gear collapse. A 310's gear should be fully rigged and repaired EVERY year. It's hard to find a 310 or 320 that hasn't had any problems with the nose gear, or a main gear, collapsing after landing. Corrosion is a huge problem on older Cessnas since they did little to no corrosion proofing at the factory. Piper Aztecs are the opposite, each piece of metal is treated and primed before assembly. There is no bare metal anywhere inside an Aztec, and they have virtually no corrosion issues dating back to the first ones built in 1960.

Older 310's also have propeller issues, that usually end up as needing a new pair for $30K. 

The 30 minutes you save on the 800 mile trip by the 310 being faster, will be eaten up by the repair shop fixing your failed starter adapter ($2-3K), gear drive alternator ($1700), alternator drive coupling ($1100). These are the common failure items that Continentals have, that Lycomings don't have. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I owned an Aztec for about 9 years. It’s a nice, honest airplane that’s good to fly. Not great, good.

It’s great at hauling stuff, purchase price, and maintenance (compared to other twins).  Pull the power back to give 155-160 knots, it burns the same fuel as a Baron at that speed.  If you take out 2 of the back seats (out of 4) there’s almost enough room for your kids to play a game of Twister back there. Biggest negative- no back door (but neither does the 310). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, ZuluZulu said:

He can't have an R they won't fit in the hangar. Probably won't fit in gsxrpilot's hangar. It is the distance from the back of the tip tanks to the door that is the problem.

It looks like gsxrpilots hangar is a port-a-port executive II. it is just over 20 feet deep. It should fit.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

He can't have an R they won't fit in the hangar. Probably won't fit in gsxrpilot's hangar. It is the distance from the back of the tip tanks to the door that is the problem.

It looks like gsxrpilots hangar is a port-a-port executive II. it is just over 20 feet deep. It should fit.

My hangar is a Port-a-port Exec 3. It opens 60' across the front and 46' deep. It's really pretty obscene. But it was the only hangar of any size I could find.

  • 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.