What M20 is right for me?

[WeldWade]

1 hour ago, EricJ said:

There are lots of Mooneys all over AZ, including the northern parts and NE part of the state.   There was a very nice E model for sale in Williams (Clark Memorial, KCMR) a while back, but I suspect it is gone by now.   Thinking about it, all of the Mooneys I know of in the northern part of the state are naturally aspirated without turbos, so it's not a requirement by any means.   I have a J model and fly similar areas to what you mention without too much trouble, so your options are certainly correctly assessed from my perspective.

 

I'm sure I will run into a few and hope I do. I've got some time to make up my mind and I am not in a hurry to do so. I am enjoying the experience! 

[smccray]

1 minute ago, WeldWade said:

What would the price tag be for the TAT WWIII? Just curious.

I believe the upgrade is $50-60k. Add another 15-20 for tip tanks, $10k for onboard oxygen. Cheaper to buy a plane with it already done, but the good ones are rare. Mine never hit the market- I bought it (broker assisted) from a couple upgrading to a TBM. 

[WeldWade]

Just now, Niko182 said:

It is 52 AMU installed. 

Too bad they don't offer a similar kit for the Mooneys! I didn't see anything on their website. 

[WeldWade]

Just now, smccray said:

I believe the upgrade is $50-60k. Add another 15-20 for tip tanks, $10k for onboard oxygen. Cheaper to buy a plane with it already done, but the good ones are rare. Mine never hit the market- I bought it (broker assisted) from a couple upgrading to a TBM. 

Another good reason to take my time in my search and explore different options for finding a great aircraft for me.

[JohnB]

18 hours ago, WeldWade said:

Hello everyone,

I am new to this forum. I am currently working on my PPL and it is going very well. I am 49, kids are grown and I am divorced. I live in NE Arizona at 7300' elevation. I also have a home in Tucson AZ. My business is growing and I would like to be able to fly back and forth as needed, weather permitting. I am planning to purchase and airplane within the next 12 months and I am trying to educate myself as to what aircraft would be best for me for the next 6 to 10 years. 

This is what brings me to looking for a Mooney M20(?). I live at high elevation in the west and all of my flying will be in the mountainous west.

From your described mission profile, you should seriously think about an M20M (Bravo). You will have density altitude restrictions on buying a non turbo airplane flying into and out of high elevation airports. On a long distance flight, you can fly as high as 25,000 feet with oxygen to take advantage of tailwinds and exceed 250 knot ground speeds. This would get you the speed for time to do business travel, and flexibility to get above obstacles and sometimes weather without issues. The tradeoff cost is fuel. A Bravo is not very fuel efficient burning about 17-18 gph in cruise, whereas a J is the most fuel efficient Mooney out there. 

 

An acclaim will do the same thing and a few knots faster than a Bravo, but the cost is much more than a typical M, as you can get a great M for under $200k, whereas a similar Acclaim would be $450k and up.

Proficiency would be a big determining factor though. Would highly recommend getting a Mooney Specific flight instructor to do your transition training which is crucial if you want to fly any of these models. 

 

Good luck!

 

[WeldWade]

2 hours ago, JohnB said:

From your described mission profile, you should seriously think about an M20M (Bravo). You will have density altitude restrictions on buying a non turbo airplane flying into and out of high elevation airports. On a long distance flight, you can fly as high as 25,000 feet with oxygen to take advantage of tailwinds and exceed 250 knot ground speeds. This would get you the speed for time to do business travel, and flexibility to get above obstacles and sometimes weather without issues. The tradeoff cost is fuel. A Bravo is not very fuel efficient burning about 17-18 gph in cruise, whereas a J is the most fuel efficient Mooney out there. 

 

An acclaim will do the same thing and a few knots faster than a Bravo, but the cost is much more than a typical M, as you can get a great M for under $200k, whereas a similar Acclaim would be $450k and up.

Proficiency would be a big determining factor though. Would highly recommend getting a Mooney Specific flight instructor to do your transition training which is crucial if you want to fly any of these models. 

 

Good luck!

 

I agree the Bravo is my best option. It is within a budget that I can afford and I will not grow out of it anytime soon. 17-18 in a Mooney at those speeds is far under a twin. Fuel cost and usage in any Mooney is not a huge concern for me at all. I'm feeding each of my Peterbilts 500+ dollars a day in diesel/DEF and fuel prices continue to rise... so I am no stranger to fuel costs, high cost of equipment, and maintenance costs. The later models are outside of my budget at this point I believe. 

Transition training with the best Mooney specific flight instructor will be a top priority. Whatever it takes is what will happen. 

[JohnB]

2 minutes ago, WeldWade said:

I agree the Bravo is my best option. It is within a budget that I can afford and I will not grow out of it anytime soon. 17-18 in a Mooney at those speeds is far under a twin. Fuel cost and usage in any Mooney is not a huge concern for me at all. I'm feeding each of my Peterbilts 500+ dollars a day in diesel/DEF and fuel prices continue to rise... so I am no stranger to fuel costs, high cost of equipment, and maintenance costs. The later models are outside of my budget at this point I believe. 

Transition training with the best Mooney specific flight instructor will be a top priority. Whatever it takes is what will happen. 

Great! If you get one you'll love it. When I was transitioning from rental to owning an airplane I thought about buying an arrow or an archer which I had lots of time in, but realized I would outgrow that in around 1 year. I have not outgrown my Bravo yet and I don't think I ever will. (okok. unless they develop a pressurized Bravo one.. maybe  

On a side note, I was once flying at around 18,000 feet at 230+ knots and ATC kept referring to me as King Air 0RA, I corrected him and told him I'm Mooney RA, he replied "You're in a Mooney?" (He said in a tone that sounded like, yeah right you can't go that high or fast in a Mooney, you must be in a twin) I answered yes and chuckled for quite some time.  

[WeldWade]

2 minutes ago, JohnB said:

Great! If you get one you'll love it. When I was transitioning from rental to owning an airplane I thought about buying an arrow or an archer which I had lots of time in, but realized I would outgrow that in around 1 year. I have not outgrown my Bravo yet and I don't think I ever will. (okok. unless they develop a pressurized Bravo one.. maybe  

On a side note, I was once flying at around 18,000 feet at 230+ knots and ATC kept referring to me as King Air 0RA, I corrected him and told him I'm Mooney RA, he replied "You're in a Mooney?" (He said in a tone that sounded like, yeah right you can't go that high or fast in a Mooney, you must be in a twin) I answered yes and chuckled for quite some time.  

 That is funny! 

If I do purchase a Bravo, and I most likely will... At this point I don't see myself getting into a twin in the future without major changes in my life that are unlikely. A pressurized cabin, useful load, and twin safety are the only real benefits I see at this point. That aircraft would be big money! The Bravo will certainly give me Smiles Per Mile! The more I learn about the Bravo, the more I like about it.

Must have equipment for a Bravo? What are everyone's thoughts? IFR, TKS/FIKI, three axis autopilot, smooth belly panel, speed brakes, tank bladders, LED lights, wired for ANR, etc.

 

[JohnB]

Just now, WeldWade said:

 That is funny! 

If I do purchase a Bravo, and I most likely will... At this point I don't see myself getting into a twin in the future without major changes in my life that are unlikely. A pressurized cabin, useful load, and twin safety are the only real benefits I see at this point. That aircraft would be big money! The Bravo will certainly give me Smiles Per Mile! The more I learn about the Bravo, the more I like about it.

Must have equipment for a Bravo? What are everyone's thoughts? IFR, TKS/FIKI, three axis autopilot, smooth belly panel, speed brakes, tank bladders, LED lights, wired for ANR, etc.

 

I wouldn't worry too much about what equipment you must have as a buy/ no buy decision maker,  you're going to put a bunch of things in no doubt. The only thing you should think about pre-buy is FIKI vs Non FIKI. I personally don't have FIKI, I would just prefer to stay grounded in icing conditions as my missions are not that crucial. But if you need to be in that, its easier to buy an airplane already equipped with FIKI and then add other gadgets, than to upgrade a Non FIKI airplane into one that is. 

[RJBrown]

5 hours ago, Niko182 said:

I don't know if I'd agree with that. The TAT WW III is significantly more sophisticated than the comparable turbo systems on the Mooneys, and a light turbod F33 or V35 would be able to keep up with a rocket, and will outrun a bravo.

In your dreams,

The Bonanza wing is too fat it is shorter, thicker and has more area, and the fuselage is to “comfortable” it simply has more drag than a M20-K. 
with the same HP and same loading and power a Mooney will always go further and faster on the same fuel.

No “magic” aftermarket turbo can break the laws of physics. 

[smccray]

56 minutes ago, RJBrown said:

In your dreams,

The Bonanza wing is too fat it is shorter, thicker and has more area, and the fuselage is to “comfortable” it simply has more drag than a M20-K. 
with the same HP and same loading and power a Mooney will always go further and faster on the same fuel.

No “magic” aftermarket turbo can break the laws of physics. 

While agree with your conclusion, the difference between the airframes isnt as great as you would think. 

The drag coefficients are close- see this link:http://mooneyland.com/why-mooney/ (drag coefficients copied at the bottom of this post).

I believe the data in those tables is likely best case scenario for each airframe.  In the real world, the V35s are all at least 40 years old, most of the K models are 30+ years old.  I suspect age and changes to the airframes would make real world differences pretty close with an edge to the M20 airframe.

Part of the lower fuel burn of the M20 is the slower speed.  Slowing down yields greater efficiency.  What I haven’t seen, but I do suspect would be pretty close, is the BSFC of the engine that would yield comparable HP.  I suspect the WWIII is a more efficient power plant than the TSIO 360, but I may be wrong.  The V35 would need a little extra HP to match the true air speed of the M20K, but I doubt the real world difference is very large.

 

 

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

[DCarlton]

1 hour ago, smccray said:

While agree with your conclusion, the difference between the airframes isnt as great as you would think. 

The drag coefficients are close- see this link:http://mooneyland.com/why-mooney/ (drag coefficients copied at the bottom of this post).

I believe the data in those tables is likely best case scenario for each airframe.  In the real world, the V35s are all at least 40 years old, most of the K models are 30+ years old.  I suspect age and changes to the airframes would make real world differences pretty close with an edge to the M20 airframe.

Part of the lower fuel burn of the M20 is the slower speed.  Slowing down yields greater efficiency.  What I haven’t seen, but I do suspect would be pretty close, is the BSFC of the engine that would yield comparable HP.  I suspect the WWIII is a more efficient power plant than the TSIO 360, but I may be wrong.  The V35 would need a little extra HP to match the true air speed of the M20K, but I doubt the real world difference is very large.

 

 

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

172 has higher drag than a 182?  

[carusoam]

8 hours ago, DCarlton said:

172 has higher drag than a 182?  

The C172 is such a drag to fly… very few get the follow-on experience to fly a C182… 

There are probably two reasons to go C182…

• Simple to fly, just like it’s little brother…
• UL…

 

People aren’t buying it for speed or efficiency…

Best regards,

-a-

[carusoam]

Note for WW…

What were you asking about the rip cord gear for the Bravo?

I think you may have seen parts for the back-up system for the Bravo’s electric gear…

The back-up systems get used about once each year at annual…

Otherwise, they are electric with a simple switch… shaped like a wheel…

Pull and reposition….  

Long bodies are great…. See if you can rent some time in a mid body over the next year while you are Bravo hunting…

Best regards,

-a-

[KLRDMD]

21 hours ago, WeldWade said:

17-18 in a Mooney at those speeds is far under a twin.

Actually it is not. The way I flew it, I had to run 19.4 GPH in cruise in my Bravo to see the temperatures I wanted. Mine would not run well LOP. But let's say you'll burn 17-18 GPH in a Bravo. I figured if I was going to burn almost 20 GPH I wanted a second engine. And that was when I bought my first twin.

It was a Seneca III (has the TSIO-360-KB engines versus the TSIO-360-EB in the Seneca II). Seneca II generally will not run well LOP but the III does. The way I flew it, I burned 9.5 GPH per engine in the Seneca, slightly LESS than my Bravo. The Seneca was a bit slower, of course but had many benefits.

My current twin is a 310Q. The way I fly it, I burn 10.0 GPH per engine and for the altitudes I normally fly (7,500-10,500), the 310 isn't noticably slower than a Bravo at those same altitudes. With many, many benefits over the Bravo. You realistically need to take a Bravo over 15,000 ft, using oxygen to see the benefits of the airframe/engine combination. 20,000 ft is better yet. 25,000 ft is better yet. But *I* don't fly those altitudes any longer.

520-600 normally aspirated HP does pretty well compared to 270 turbocharged HP.

[DCarlton]

1 hour ago, carusoam said:

The C172 is such a drag to fly… very few get the follow-on experience to fly a C182… 

There are probably two reasons to go C182…

• Simple to fly, just like it’s little brother…
• UL…

 

People aren’t buying it for speed or efficiency…

Best regards,

-a-

But seriously folks, assuming the posted numbers are correct, for the engineering geeks out there (like me), what did they do to clean up the 182 to make it have less drag than the 172? 

[carusoam]

Just now, DCarlton said:

But seriously folks, assuming the posted numbers are correct, for the engineering geeks out there (like me), what did they do to clean up the 182 to make it have less drag than the 172? 

Somebody would have to explain what all went into those number sets…

When it came to the twins…. Something really stands out…

We are talking flat plate area…

Which flat plate did they include…. The entire plane wingtip to wing tip?

Often they go through the effort to compare just the cabin…

Which would be great for the twin that has two big nacelles to consider… conveniently leave that out of the calculation…. 

I’m guessing they didn’t use a whole lot of engineering detail to go with that….  Or they would have shared the factual details as well…

Since we don’t actually fly behind flat plates….  The two decimals of fake accuracy pretty much keeps most of the Cs on the same line…

Good catch on the C182 not in line with its brothers….  Maybe they used numbers from a Cessna without wing struts…?

 

Probably best to check the reference to see what was or wasn’t included…

If I were selling Mooneys… this flat plate argument would explain why the cabin isn’t huge…. 

Best regards,

-a-

[WeldWade]

2 hours ago, KLRDMD said:

Actually it is not. The way I flew it, I had to run 19.4 GPH in cruise in my Bravo to see the temperatures I wanted. Mine would not run well LOP. But let's say you'll burn 17-18 GPH in a Bravo. I figured if I was going to burn almost 20 GPH I wanted a second engine. And that was when I bought my first twin.

It was a Seneca III (has the TSIO-360-KB engines versus the TSIO-360-EB in the Seneca II). Seneca II generally will not run well LOP but the III does. The way I flew it, I burned 9.5 GPH per engine in the Seneca, slightly LESS than my Bravo. The Seneca was a bit slower, of course but had many benefits.

My current twin is a 310Q. The way I fly it, I burn 10.0 GPH per engine and for the altitudes I normally fly (7,500-10,500), the 310 isn't noticably slower than a Bravo at those same altitudes. With many, many benefits over the Bravo. You realistically need to take a Bravo over 15,000 ft, using oxygen to see the benefits of the airframe/engine combination. 20,000 ft is better yet. 25,000 ft is better yet. But *I* don't fly those altitudes any longer.

520-600 normally aspirated HP does pretty well compared to 270 turbocharged HP.

Fuel burn is not an issue that is most important to me. Less fuel usage is in no way a bad thing either. From my home airfield I depart at 7k+ so climbing to 15k in a Bravo would not be too hard. DA is the challenge here. Peaks south are 11.4 and 10.9 respectively. So FL15, or higher, is perfectly fine with me. Humphreys is 12,637 to the west. O2 will be a must for me. 

The Bravo has enough fuel capacity and useful load for me. I am not ready for a twin and wouldn't consider it at all at this point. A Bravo is a giant step up from the 172 Im training in. 

A properly equipped Bravo would be hard to beat for me. The Bravo checks off every box and then some for me. Safe, fast, and more than capable 

A NA twin at my airfield in the hot summer would have to work to FL15. A pressurized turbo twin would be the only thing I would consider in the future. Apples to oranges anyway. 

[WeldWade]

3 hours ago, carusoam said:

Note for WW…

What were you asking about the rip cord gear for the Bravo?

I think you may have seen parts for the back-up system for the Bravo’s electric gear…

The back-up systems get used about once each year at annual…

Otherwise, they are electric with a simple switch… shaped like a wheel…

Pull and reposition….  

Long bodies are great…. See if you can rent some time in a mid body over the next year while you are Bravo hunting…

Best regards,

-a-

Yes the back up. I watched a couple of videos on YouTube that showed its operation. Looks easy enough.

I will definitely be looking for flights in Mooneys. I have a year or more before I get serious looking for a Bravo.

[N201MKTurbo]

You should talk to Brice @ragedracer1977, he flew a C between Deer Valley and Show Low quite a bit for a couple of years. Now he flys a turbo twin Cessna. He has seen both ends of the spectrum.

I used to have an M20F and for a while was flying it between Phoenix and Springerville twice a week with 4 people aboard without issue.

Most of the flights you are talking about are fairly short, so you aren’t going to be flying up in the flight levels all the time. 
 

The bottom line is any Mooney will get you where you want to go 95% of the time or more. It is VFR most of the time and when it’s not, you probably don’t want to fly no matter what you are flying.

Flying around the Rockies is easier with a turbo, but I did it for years without one. 

 

[WeldWade]

1 hour ago, N201MKTurbo said:

You should talk to Brice @ragedracer1977, he flew a C between Deer Valley and Show Low quite a bit for a couple of years. Now he flys a turbo twin Cessna. He has seen both ends of the spectrum.

I used to have an M20F and for a while was flying it between Phoenix and Springerville twice a week with 4 people aboard without issue.

Most of the flights you are talking about are fairly short, so you aren’t going to be flying up in the flight levels all the time. 
 

The bottom line is any Mooney will get you where you want to go 95% of the time or more. It is VFR most of the time and when it’s not, you probably don’t want to fly no matter what you are flying.

Flying around the Rockies is easier with a turbo, but I did it for years without one. 

 

I will shoot him a message for sure. I have not ruled out buying a C to train in, gain hours, experience and ratings. If I did it right it could be a smart thing to do. Wouldn't be a wash when I would be ready to move to a Bravo but, it is an option that I think needs to be considered. It would sure help with insurance I'm guessing. Springerville needs to build some hangars!

Wind is the issue here most of the time for me. A calm day is a rarity around here.