Mooney for you, different plane for the family?

[NJMac]

Anyone ever kept their Mooney just as their personal plane and had a share of a larger single or twin plane - maybe cabin class? 

I proposed keeping our E indefinitely to my wife and suggested we could buy into a twin or larger single and use that for family trips.  The E meets 80% of our missions where it's just me and maybe one other in the plane.   The 2nd plane doesn't even need to be at our home field, just within an hour or so flight.  Could go get it via the Mooney and return to home base to load up the family. 

just spitballing ideas.  Do wonder if the 2nd plane would be more dangerous if I'm not routinely flying it.  

[gsxrpilot]

2 minutes ago, NJMac said:

Anyone ever kept their Mooney just as their personal plane and had a share of a larger single or twin plane - maybe cabin class? 

I proposed keeping our E indefinitely to my wife and suggested we could buy into a twin or larger single and use that for family trips.  The E meets 80% of our missions where it's just me and maybe one other in the plane.   The 2nd plane doesn't even need to be at our home field, just within an hour or so flight.  Could go get it via the Mooney and return to home base to load up the family. 

just spitballing ideas.  Do wonder if the 2nd plane would be more dangerous if I'm not routinely flying it.  

I've thought about doing this...

[NJMac]

2 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

I've thought about doing this...

Know anyone who has done it? Curious how it worked out. 

[gsxrpilot]

Just now, NJMac said:

Know anyone who has done it? Curious how it worked out. 

No, I don't.

I was thinking that someone flying a twin, might also like to have access to a single for those solo trips when the redundant engine and associated fuel burn isn't needed. Of course I'm a long way from being rated, much less insurable in a twin. 

I would do this with other airplanes as well. With airplane partnerships being such a common situation, I would think that it wouldn't be all that difficult to have a small group of owners, each with their own airplane, a Mooney, a twin, a taildragger, something aerobatic, etc. And then share airplanes within the group, depending on the mission at the time. Everyone would be listed on everyone's insurance and paying a simple dry rate.

It seems like a good idea, but not one I've managed to pull off yet. But I haven't given up on the idea yet...

[takair]

4 minutes ago, NJMac said:

Know anyone who has done it? Curious how it worked out. 

I know people with arrangements like that.  I’ve thought of doing it myself, in exchange for maintaining the aircraft.  The hard part is maintaining currency for when you want to take the family.  The guys I know who have done it are usually flying twins professionally so the currency is not a big issue.

[Boilermonkey]

I looked at it, but with 100-150 hours a year splitting my time between any two aircraft would make me worried about currency.  If you could convince yourself that you would fly 100hours minimum in each aircraft it might make sense.

[Mufflerbearing]

How about just getting a long body that may fit the other 20% of your missions and sell the E?

[A64Pilot]

Charter,

              I’d bet if you did a calculation of how often the bigger airplane would be needed vs actual costs of owing a part of a second, the charter comes out cheaper.

‘Currency is one thing, competency is another, don’t take the family in anything that you wouldn’t be comfortable in Inadvertent hard IFR, depends on the individual But I’d expect that to take for me two actual trips a month flying IFR

Edited May 7, 2021 by A64Pilot

[Igor_U]

If I hade a twin (or cabin class single) I would certainly have something sporty (no, Mooney is not that), like Extra 300, Pitts or similar...

[KLRDMD]

7 hours ago, NJMac said:

Anyone ever kept their Mooney just as their personal plane and had a share of a larger single or twin plane - maybe cabin class? 

I proposed keeping our E indefinitely to my wife and suggested we could buy into a twin or larger single and use that for family trips.  The E meets 80% of our missions where it's just me and maybe one other in the plane.   The 2nd plane doesn't even need to be at our home field, just within an hour or so flight.  Could go get it via the Mooney and return to home base to load up the family. 

just spitballing ideas.  Do wonder if the 2nd plane would be more dangerous if I'm not routinely flying it.  

For me, others may be different, I don't feel on top of my game in a twin flying it less than 100 hours per year. So my recommendation to you would be that if you're flying the twin at least that much, plus any single engine time, go for it. The only potential exception in a twin would be some variant of a 337. You lose and engine in one of those and it just becomes a heavy 182RG.

[A64Pilot]

210 is a better airplane than a push me, pull you. If it will fit in a 210, it will carry it. four adults, two kids and baggage

[KLRDMD]

Just now, A64Pilot said:

210 is a better airplane than a push me, pull you.

Right up until the time you lose an engine . . . over the mountains . . . at night . . . in IMC. I have a lot of time in both P210s and P337s and prefer to burn a few more GPH and pay a little more in maintenance for the one time it may save my life.

[NJMac]

37 minutes ago, KLRDMD said:

For me, others may be different, I don't feel on top of my game in a twin flying it less than 100 hours per year. So my recommendation to you would be that if you're flying the twin at least that much, plus any single engine time, go for it. The only potential exception in a twin would be some variant of a 337. You lose and engine in one of those and it just becomes a heavy 182RG.

Proficiency was my concern with a twin.

[NJMac]

53 minutes ago, Igor_U said:

If I hade a twin (or cabin class single) I would certainly have something sporty (no, Mooney is not that), like Extra 300, Pitts or similar...

Okay, I think you're onto something! 

[A64Pilot]

3 minutes ago, NJMac said:

Proficiency was my concern with a twin.

It really isn’t much of an issue in a 337, it’s centerline thrust so it’s just a loss of some power, that is it’s one advantage 

Twins have been sold forever based on their safety in the loss of one, but the stats just don’t say that, first your twice as likely to lose one in a twin, and every year more are killed in an engine failure in a twin than a single,the reason is most of the time people walk away from an engine failure in a single, but if there is a loss of control in a twin, it’s unusual to walk away from that.

Edited May 7, 2021 by A64Pilot

[A64Pilot]

This is a decent article for those interested, from I assume a reputable source

https://www.avweb.com/ownership/do-you-really-want-a-twin/

[carusoam]

If you don’t fly for a living...

Or use your plane to get to work often....

Currency and twins... can be hard to maintain...

 

Find a way to get lots of HP on the centerline...

Sharing a twin sounds like a good idea...

If it is an hour away... your proficiency just left.... 

The economics of flying to get the plane, return to base to load the family,   And depart again... would require an MBA to make sense of this... 

Try the LB first...

Then Clarence’s long body next...

Then Ken’s dual engine centerline option....

When that doesn’t work... go turbine!

Best regards,

-a-

[exM20K]

6 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

Charter,

              I’d bet if you did a calculation of how often the bigger airplane would be needed vs actual costs of owing a part of a second, the charter comes out cheaper.

‘Currency is one thing, competency is another, don’t take the family in anything that you wouldn’t be comfortable in Inadvertent hard IFR, depends on the individual But I’d expect that to take for me two actual trips a month flying IFR

This^^^^^^^
while it would be nice to have a plane that could move 3-5 key employees a couple times a year, those trips fall into the “20” bucket of the 80/20 rule for picking a plane.

I will be able to bring everybody down to our quarterly planning meeting next month in a King Air 200 for less than the insurance and annual on a larger plane. Plus training.  Plus hangar. Plus sales tax. Plus the 10-20 AMU’s to get the second plane right.

I kept my 231 when I bought the Diamond Aircraft dealership thinking it would be a good sled for visiting dealers and such.  Nah.  It wound up in the back of the hangar waiting for me to contrive a reason to fly it.

buy the plane that can do your 80 or 90% mission, and then figure out how best to accommodate the 10-20%.

YMMV, but this is where I’ve landed.

-Dan 

Edited May 8, 2021 by exM20K

[aviatoreb]

On 5/7/2021 at 11:22 AM, NJMac said:

Anyone ever kept their Mooney just as their personal plane and had a share of a larger single or twin plane - maybe cabin class? 

I proposed keeping our E indefinitely to my wife and suggested we could buy into a twin or larger single and use that for family trips.  The E meets 80% of our missions where it's just me and maybe one other in the plane.   The 2nd plane doesn't even need to be at our home field, just within an hour or so flight.  Could go get it via the Mooney and return to home base to load up the family. 

just spitballing ideas.  Do wonder if the 2nd plane would be more dangerous if I'm not routinely flying it.  

I had serious thoughts of that.  We have 3 boys.  I’ve had this Mooney for about 11 yrs.  but I took so long deciding what to do... the need passed.  Two of our boys are all grown up off at college or just graduated from college and our third off to college soon we reached the other side.  Mooney is just right size again.

one worry was - I didn’t want to be flying a twin just 15 or 25 hrs a year.  It’s either all fully current in or it’s not safe.  
 

one occasion I made two round trips in the Mooney as the solution to getting all the people and stuff... 1 hr each way vs 6 hrs each way drive.  Convenient for them.  Well more flying for me.  And on a one time basis cheaper than owning something bigger or even renting.

e

[V1VRV2]

Twins scare me for a two reasons...

1. Losing an engine in IMC can be deadly real quick if you step on the wrong rudder. In IMC your visual cues are absent. Stepping on the wrong rudder is a real scenario. That scares me!

2. Light twins don’t have to show a rate of climb one engine inop and many of them struggle to do just that in the optimal VMC configuration. Twins aren’t any safer per the numbers but they can carry a good bit more than singles. I always wanted a C340.

[Will.iam]

1 hour ago, V1VRV2 said:

Twins scare me for a two reasons...

1. Losing an engine in IMC can be deadly real quick if you step on the wrong rudder. In IMC your visual cues are absent. Stepping on the wrong rudder is a real scenario. That scares me!

2. Light twins don’t have to show a rate of climb one engine inop and many of them struggle to do just that in the optimal VMC configuration. Twins aren’t any safer per the numbers but they can carry a good bit more than singles. I always wanted a C340.

When you lose an engine your natural tendency is to correct the roll with aileron and the low side of the yoke is the same side you apply rudder to counter and thus level out the yoke. We used the jingle:

 Step on the low hand. 

[Browncbr1]

If I could afford it, I would have a twin, no doubt..   the fact is, the cost of operating my F is almost nothing compared to a twin and it does 90% of my missions.    The other 10% I borrow a baron or don’t go.

If you’re proficient in multi engine operation and emergency training, and you have deep pockets, they are generally better, except for a few quirky make/models that I would not fly.

Edited May 8, 2021 by Browncbr1

[cbarry]

This discussion reminds me when one time my wife asked: “What’s the next size up second airplane for us that would have a bathroom?”  I quickly responded: “A commercial airliner!”  Then we went on to discuss what each additional feature (toilet, greater useful load, greater speed,...) meant as far as “costs-beyond-the-Mooney” and here’s what we concluded:  If someone cannot sit for at least two hours without needing a potty break, they go commercial.  If we need to haul more than 1000 lbs of fuel and cabin occupants (people, bags...), the excess, if people, can go commercial and the excess stuff can stay at home.  If we need to be someone where more quickly than our Mooney can get us there, it’d better be an international flight because otherwise, I’ve just failed to properly plan or I’m pushing the situation (trying to outrun/avoid weather...or being subject to getthereitis).  In my opinion, the “costs” (money and risks) to have a “greater mission” airplane are exponential.  

Edited May 8, 2021 by cbarry

[NJMac]

47 minutes ago, cbarry said:

  If we need to haul more than 1000 lbs of fuel and cabin occupants (people, bags...), the excess, if people, can go commercial and the excess stuff can stay at home. 

We even discussed shipping our kids' bulky and heavy stuff to the FBO a couple days before we arrive.  Making the Moonship work is definitely possible. 

[firelog1101]

Maybe a Cherokee 6 or a Cessna 210? I would think maintaining proficiency in a larger single engine would be a lot easier than switching between a twin.  Also, the fuel consumption and maintenance costs on twins can be pretty high, something that would discourage me from even using the thing.