Old Article on Comparisons Mooney vs?

[cliffy]

On a simple 4-cylinder engine, the Mooney squeezes out quite a bang for the buck. The following compares the 201 model comfort, load, performance, efficiency and safety to other aircraft. Enjoy!

Comfort

One common misconception is that the Mooney ain’t the most roomy plane around. People have said that the cabin feels cramped. Despite that claim, the Mooney is still bigger than most four-seater planes.

Check this out:

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″

As you can see, the Mooney has the widest cabin among all of these aircraft. But, it also happens to have the shortest cabin height, which is probably why it has the reputation for being somewhat cramped inside. Nevertheless, it’s a reputation that’s hardly deserved.

Utility

Let’s take a look at the load-hauling capabilities of various airplanes:

Aircraft Useful Load Payload w/Full Fuel
Beechcraft V35 Bonanza 1270 lbs 826 lbs
Mooney 201 1100 lbs 716 lbs
Cessna 182 1219 lbs 691 lbs
Piper Arrow 960 lbs 572 lbs

Ok, the Mooney is obviously not as good of a load hauler as a Bonanza, but you have to look more closely to see that it actually is…the funny thing about the Bonanza is that if you take off with full fuel and four passengers, as you burn off fuel the center of gravity moves aft of the limit! The Bonanza has a very narrow CG range. So, unless your Bonanza is equipped for in-flight refueling, the Mooney ends up being able to haul a bigger load farther in the end. And when the tanks are topped off, the Mooney even beats the Cessna 182 in terms of the crap you can carry. Not too shabby for a “smaller” plane.

Performance and Efficiency

Since we’re talking about topping off tanks, let’s get down to the real heart of the Mooney’s superiority. Regardless of what the factory claims (169 knots), my 1977 Mooney 201 cruises at 160 KTAS at 8000′ at 70% power. This is while sipping a mere 10.5 gallons per hour of 100LL. Let’s take a look at performance figures for various aircraft (all figures represent 75% power, leaned to best economy, VFR reserve; the trip cost is calculated with a fuel price of $2.50 per gallon):

Aircraft HP Climb Rate Usable Fuel Cruise Consumption Endurance Range Mi. per Gallon 500nm Trip
Mooney 201 200 1030 fpm 64 gal 160 kts 10.5 gph 5:35 895 nm 15.2 $82
Piper Arrow 200 831 fpm 72 gal 137 kts 10.5 gph 6:20 870 nm 13.0 $96
Beechcraft V35 Bonanza 260 1150 fpm 74 gal 160 kts 14.0 gph 4:45 765 nm 11.4 $109
Cessna 182 230 924 fpm 88 gal 140 kts 13.5 gph 6:00 842 nm 10.4 $121

As you can see, the Mooney flies circles around its competition in the performance and efficiency category. The Mooney literally covers more distance in less time using less fuel! Why is this so? How does a Mooney manage to squeeze out that kind of performance from just a 200 hp four-banger? It all comes down to design. The Mooney is one of the cleanest planes out there (pre-composite era, of course). The 201 cowl and aerodynamic cleanup was a major accomplishment on the part of Roy LoPresti and Mooney. Here’s a great comparison of various lightplanes and their respective dragginess:

Parasite Drag Coefficients & Flat Plat Area

Aircraft CDP Flat Plate
Area (sq. ft.)
Mooney 201 0.017 2.81
Beech Bonanza 0.019 3.47
Piper Arrow 0.027 4.64
Cessna 182 0.031 5.27
Beech Sierra 0.034 5.02
Piper Warrior 0.034 5.83
Cessna 172 0.036 6.25
Cessna 152 0.038 6.14
Beech Skipper 0.049 6.36
Piper Tomahawk 0.054 6.64

Handling

The Mooney’s handling is, in a word, impeccable. With control rods all around, the plane responds immediately to the slightest input from the pilot. Yet when you trim the plane up, it flies completely hands-off! You really don’t even need an autopilot (although it’s irreplaceable for IFR flight).

Also, despite what people say, Mooneys are not hard to land, and they’re not difficult to slow down. As long as you stay ahead of the aircraft and plan your descents and power changes, it’s trivial. Speed brakes definitely aid pilots in getting Mooneys down more quickly without having to chop power (although there’s still quite a bit of debate over whether or not shock cooling is really a factor) or pick up excessive speed (although the yellow arc and redline in my 201 are very liberal), but I don’t have speed brakes and I don’t feel like I need them. Still, I’m sure any Mooney pilot will tell you that the Mooney really separates the good from the bad, in terms of the pilot at the controls.

Safety

When you address the issue of safety, the Mooney 201 is one of the safest planes in the sky according to the statistics. The Mooney’s steel tube rollbar cabin frame provides exceptional structural integrity. I have read countless articles and have seen photos that provide evidence of this. People have walked away from crashes in Mooneys where the cabin remained intact, saving their lives. In most other aircraft it would not have ended that way…

Also, I’ve heard people talking about the Lancair’s strength, and how the test rig broke before the wing spars did. Yeah, yeah, whatever. Little known fact: the same thing happened at Mooney. Mooney factory engineers broke a static test fixture at 9.3 Gs while trying a destructive test on the J model wing. Anyway, you’re not going to break a Mooney!

So there you have it. That’s just a handful of the reasons why I love owning a Mooney. Sure, there are quirks, like with any other aircraft, but at this point in my life (until I can afford a TBM-700, Meridian, or Pilatus) the Mooney is perfect for me.

[Mooney in Oz]

Thanks Cliff.

I could read that info again and again and never tire from it.

[dlthig]

UL is very optimistic. However, UL on xx nm trip with 45 minute reserve would put a 201 in a positive light.

[ArtVandelay]

UL is very optimistic. However, UL on xx nm trip with 45 minute reserve would put a 201 in a positive light.

I assume that’s for the newer models with MGW of 2900lbs. Best UL I’ve seen on older models was 1050.

[David Lloyd]

Useful load is pretty optimistic for the Bonanza also.  I had a F33A, useful load when bought was 1248.  Gained some weight over 24 years, when sold the useful was 1221.  It was an early model, the later ones had better insulation, more gadgets, etc. and cut into useful load typically by 150 pounds or so.  The V tails of similar age had similar useful load.

[carusoam]

Way to go Cliffy!

Its still early... but, I’m going with Best Post of the Year!

For this one...

Best regards,

-a-

[A64Pilot]

When you play these comparison games, you have to use book numbers for each aircraft, you can’t use book on one and real on another, you get skewed results. So useful load by the book is optimistic, as is cruise speed.

However I can tell you that the actual useful on a V35 isn’t as high as you would suspect especially if you account for CG. Most any aircraft it’s prudent to ensure you stay within CG up to zero fuel weight.

When I was shopping for an aircraft I looked at everything from an RV6 to a V35, although I’d prefer an S truth be told.

What you get with a Bo that you don’t in a Mooney is a back seat that adults can fit into and be comfortable, a Bo can be a real four person airplane with min baggage due to CG, but I don’t see a Mooney as a real four adult airplane, be a great airplane for a couple with small kids though. Mooney back seat and my Maule’s back seat look to be very close to each other.

Money wise a late 60’s Bo is the same as an early model J Mooney

Oh, on edit, a Bo with 285 HP or 300 HP will seriously out climb my J model, climb is of course a way to measure excess HP, and with only 200 to start with there just isn’t a whole lot of excess HP in a J model. We are fast due to low drag, not big motors, J models anyway
 

Last Sunday a bunch of us went out to eat breakfast, the V35 left first followed by a 182 and then me, the V35 and 182 out climbed me, I caught and passed the 182 and kept up with the V35.

But if the mission was to go camping at a rough strip, the 182 would be the choice, you can even put 29’ tires on the mains and an 8.50 on the nose with an STC and go play on the gravel bars with the Super Cubs and Maule’s 

But what made me decide against a V35 was how they ride in any kind of turbulence, and that tail wagging is not just the V tails either, the straight tails are just as bad or worse, there simply just isn’t enough tail back there, my guess is due to CG they can’t put enough tail on one. That and maybe due to age, but the Bonanza’s are beginning to get some serious structural AD’s too, wing spars etc.

‘I came very close to being sick in the backseat of an A36 years ago flying from Arkansas to Georgia

Second edit, I came very close to buying an Aero Commander 200D (Meyers) but the deal fell through, now that airplane has a narrow CG range and with full fuel is really a two person airplane, with two of us and full fuel I would have had to have 100 lbs of ballast in the baggage compt to stay within CG, but they really are quite fast and carry the 4130 roll cage to an extreme

Edited March 9, 2021 by A64Pilot

[PT20J]

@cliffy, you didn't cite the source of the article.

Skip

[carusoam]

Ahhhhh...

Mooneys with all that aero efficiency.... And Excess power when desired....

And Screamin’ UL....

Go Eagle!

Best regards,

-a-

[cliffy]

On 3/8/2021 at 5:20 PM, PT20J said:

@cliffy, you didn't cite the source of the article.

Skip

I had it sitting in a box in my computer for some time and just found it, Don't remember where it came from but I guess I thought it had enough good info to save originally. 

[Shadrach]

On 3/8/2021 at 12:37 PM, ArtVandelay said:

I assume that’s for the newer models with MGW of 2900lbs. Best UL I’ve seen on older models was 1050.

Mine is 1058