Short vs mid body Mooney differences for a new buyer?

[skyfarer]

Hi everyone, new member here.  I've been lurking, and finding a thread on pretty much all my questions so far. This looks like a warm and welcoming community with tons of collective experience. So here goes my first post, be gentle with me. haha!

I'm looking for my first airplane purchase, and have decided on a Mooney, J or earlier. I've been flying a 1975 182 in my flying club, so what attracts me to Mooney ownership is better economy/speed than the 182. Plus Mooney's just look amazing, right?

I'd like to hear from those of you who have been inside a short body C/E models and the mid body F/J models. Am I correct that the J kept the same length as the F body?  Bonus if you've been in a 182 also and can tell me how it compares in roominess (or crampyness).

Most of my missions will be just my wife and me on weekend trips, with an occasional hop to the Bahamas or Florida Keys with some dive gear. So for most trips I don't think the difference between a 182's space and a Mooney M20C are really going to matter. But it's that occasional longer trip with dive gear, or the Chicago weekend where I bring some of our kids along that I'm curious about. I've never been in a Mooney, in spite of how much I've been enamored with them since becoming a pilot in 1991. I've flown the 152, 172, 182, Piper Archer, Piper Saratoga, Cirrus SR22, and the RV12.  Which of these compares in roominess to a short body and a mid body?

Cheers,

Jeremy (Skyfarer)

 

 

Edited December 4, 2021 by skyfarer
Put long in the title, meant short

[201er]

In the front seats, there is no difference between a short, mid, or long body Mooney. The only difference is what panel you’re looking at, what kind of engine you are sitting behind, and how much space there is to the rear.

For 1-2 people, a short body Mooney is perfectly adequate. The main reason to go midbody (if you don’t need people sitting behind you in any case) is if you want a newer plane with newer panel. And by newer I mean 80s style rather than 60s and with a Garmin 430. Autopilot too.

Before I get yelled at by short body owners on here, yes there are people on here with pristine short bodies with all the latest and greatest. However, you are unlikely to be seeing any of that on the market that you can reasonably buy. So if you care about having a six pack and IFR gps, you may have to go midbody even if a short body would be suitable otherwise.

[kortopates]

What @201er said above, and just about every successive year of production their were improvements to the models including Vspeeds which are more important to instrument pilots. So additionally, get the latest model you can afford for better enhancements. Just one example, short bodys cruise level in the yellow arc if not very high, mid bodies have a higher yellow arc. But that's just one example and perhaps more important differences are flap and gear V speed differences and many other important differences will be panel layout differences between the Vintage short and mid-bodies; especially when comparing to an original "shotgun" panel to a more modern layout.

[MikeOH]

I've got time in the 182 and, at the risk of being excommunicated, there is NO comparison when it comes to room; the 182 wins hands-down.  I will go further and say two large doors is pretty nice, as well.  Finally, if you are going to fly when it's raining, a high wing can be nice.

Beyond that, it is ALL Mooney for the win  Much faster on much less fuel...and looks way better!  If your mission is really only 2 then I think the E is the sweet spot with 200 HP fuel injection.  It's a bit faster than the F (which is what I have).  Honestly, I wanted the extra back seat leg room for passengers but in over four years I've only filled the seats once, and maybe two or three trips with anyone in the back.  Between the baggage area and the back seats you'll have no trouble with scuba gear.

You really need to take your wife with you and enter and exit the cabin a few times and see how it feels inside to know if it's going to work.  It does NOT feel like a 182!  Which is a good thing; like a sports car vs. driving a truck.

[Bolter]

25 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

You really need to take your wife with you and enter and exit the cabin a few times and see how it feels inside to know if it's going to work.  It does NOT feel like a 182!  Which is a good thing; like a sports car vs. driving a truck.

Having the added rear legroom, means the front seats slide further back in my J (or an F) versus an E.  This make entry easier, making the plane an easier purchase case for a spouse who will value comfort more than performance.  

[Niko182]

The interior of the post 82? 84? Is a really nice improvment. The back seats fold down which makes the boot of the plane quite a bit larger. In the long body ive thrown 4 bikes in the bike multiple times. If you want to take gear with you, post 82 model is the way to go.

[skyfarer]

49 minutes ago, 201er said:

In the front seats, there is no difference between a short, mid, or long body Mooney. The only difference is what panel you’re looking at, what kind of engine you are sitting behind, and how much space there is to the rear.

For 1-2 people, a short body Mooney is perfectly adequate. The main reason to go midbody (if you don’t need people sitting behind you in any case) is if you want a newer plane with newer panel. And by newer I mean 80s style rather than 60s and with a Garmin 430. Autopilot too.

Before I get yelled at by short body owners on here, yes there are people on here with pristine short bodies with all the latest and greatest. However, you are unlikely to be seeing any of that on the market that you can reasonably buy. So if you care about having a six pack and IFR gps, you may have to go midbody even if a short body would be suitable otherwise.

Thanks for the reply @201er. I've seen what you mean on the panel/avionics differences between models.  There's dual G5's in all of our club Cessnas, and glass in the RV-12. After doing my IFR training with G5's, I'm really not wanting to go back to a DG or steam HSI.

So what prompted me to ask this question was seeing this M20C with a gorgeous panel on barnstormers:

https://www.barnstormers.com/classified-1705011-mooney.html

It's got all the avionics I would like to have, modern panel and 201 yokes. It looks really nice, but I'm a  wee bit squeamish that it sounds like a shop is both selling and doing the belly landing repair.  I'd like to know more about what they are doing in this repair (like cracking the case open to look at the crank?).  I'd feel better if the belly landing repair was 50 hours ago and the oil analysis looked good.

[skyfarer]

38 minutes ago, kortopates said:

What @201er said above, and just about every successive year of production their were improvements to the models including Vspeeds which are more important to instrument pilots. So additionally, get the latest model you can afford for better enhancements. Just one example, short bodys cruise level in the yellow arc if not very high, mid bodies have a higher yellow arc. But that's just one example and perhaps more important differences are flap and gear V speed differences and many other important differences will be panel layout differences between the Vintage short and mid-bodies; especially when comparing to an original "shotgun" panel to a more modern layout.

Thank you @kortopates, reading through the guides @jgarrison just sent me, he writes about the incremental changes with each model. I can definitely see where buying the latest model I can afford is good advice.  Question though, knowing that economy is what I'm after, should I consider the turbo models? They drink more gas right? They probably go faster too I bet, so it is a wash? Isn't there higher maintenance for a turbo that I'd need to budget for?

[skyfarer]

45 minutes ago, JohnZ said:

Welcome @skyfarer… FWIW I have an F and love it. I only fly solo or with one passenger as well… occasionally with heavy luggage. Very rarely with a 3rd person. The F also has 64 gallon fuel tanks.  Mid body’s are a great value. If you’re unsure if the extra space will be helpful or not, go with the mid body. You certainly won’t regret having the extra room. 

Thank you @JohnZ

[skyfarer]

13 minutes ago, Niko182 said:

The interior of the post 82? 84? Is a really nice improvment. The back seats fold down which makes the boot of the plane quite a bit larger. In the long body ive thrown 4 bikes in the bike multiple times. If you want to take gear with you, post 82 model is the way to go.

Thank you @Niko182, the folding down seats would be real nice.  The 182 does this too, and occasionally I like to pick up a PilotsNPaws mission. Getting a crate into the 182 is pretty easy with those fold down seats, or just plopping the crate in the back seat works. Sounds like this wouldn't be very easy in a pre 82 model.

[skyfarer]

49 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

I've got time in the 182 and, at the risk of being excommunicated, there is NO comparison when it comes to room; the 182 wins hands-down.  I will go further and say two large doors is pretty nice, as well.  Finally, if you are going to fly when it's raining, a high wing can be nice.

Beyond that, it is ALL Mooney for the win  Much faster on much less fuel...and looks way better!  If your mission is really only 2 then I think the E is the sweet spot with 200 HP fuel injection.  It's a bit faster than the F (which is what I have).  Honestly, I wanted the extra back seat leg room for passengers but in over four years I've only filled the seats once, and maybe two or three trips with anyone in the back.  Between the baggage area and the back seats you'll have no trouble with scuba gear.

You really need to take your wife with you and enter and exit the cabin a few times and see how it feels inside to know if it's going to work.  It does NOT feel like a 182!  Which is a good thing; like a sports car vs. driving a truck.

Haha @MikeOH! Having flown the 182, you'll appreciate this then: Sometimes I put a GoPro on the 182 tail tie down for some fun videos. One time I had the GoPro on and rolling just before startup, and I caught a hilarious video of my wife (short legs, flip flops) trying and failing to get into the 182. Once I showed her the proper sequence, where to hold, which foot to put where, she became a seasoned pro at hopping into the 182.

[201er]

43 minutes ago, skyfarer said:

Thanks for the reply @201er. I've seen what you mean on the panel/avionics differences between models.  There's dual G5's in all of our club Cessnas, and glass in the RV-12. After doing my IFR training with G5's, I'm really not wanting to go back to a DG or steam HSI.

So what prompted me to ask this question was seeing this M20C with a gorgeous panel on barnstormers:

https://www.barnstormers.com/classified-1705011-mooney.html

It's got all the avionics I would like to have, modern panel and 201 yokes. It looks really nice, but I'm a  wee bit squeamish that it sounds like a shop is both selling and doing the belly landing repair.  I'd like to know more about what they are doing in this repair (like cracking the case open to look at the crank?).  I'd feel better if the belly landing repair was 50 hours ago and the oil analysis looked good.

Let's put it this way, if you are confident that you won't outgrow the size and performance of that airplane, this could be a great fit.

On the other hand, if you may need the additional space over time or appreciate those higher V speeds, etc... you can buy better panel gizmos for a less equipped newer model but you can't make an old model new (without sell and replace). It's usually a much better money value to buy a plane equipped the way you want it than to have it done. But, you can also self-finance by doing things like interior, paint, engine, and avionics over time.

[skyfarer]

50 minutes ago, Bolter said:

Having the added rear legroom, means the front seats slide further back in my J (or an F) versus an E.  This make entry easier, making the plane an easier purchase case for a spouse who will value comfort more than performance.  

Thanks @Bolter, this really helps in the 182 also, so something I'll definitely consider.

[Hank]

2 hours ago, skyfarer said:

Thank you @Niko182, the folding down seats would be real nice.  The 182 does this too, and occasionally I like to pick up a PilotsNPaws mission. Getting a crate into the 182 is pretty easy with those fold down seats, or just plopping the crate in the back seat works. Sounds like this wouldn't be very easy in a pre 82 model.

My 1970 C left the factory with individual fold down back seats and a standard 6 pack--i can fold down either rear seat for bulky stuff. Also has the higher V speeds (flaps 125 mph, gear 120 mph; yellow line 175 mph, red line 200 mph). If you're careful about packing, it's amazing what you can load in a short body! 

Loaded for Christmas, with cord for engine heater on top.

Unloading at home after a different trip:

[kortopates]

4 hours ago, skyfarer said:

Thank you @kortopates, reading through the guides @jgarrison just sent me, he writes about the incremental changes with each model. I can definitely see where buying the latest model I can afford is good advice.  Question though, knowing that economy is what I'm after, should I consider the turbo models? They drink more gas right? They probably go faster too I bet, so it is a wash? Isn't there higher maintenance for a turbo that I'd need to budget for?

Depends on whether you want to pay a bit extra for the much added capabilities for going faster and higher above the weather. Got to be willing to fly with a cannula or mask. But once a Turbo pilot always a Turbo pilot. At least I would never go back. There have been countless trips I wouldn't have been able to do that the Turbo made it a non-issue by getting above it all. 

[hammdo]

My 66 C - had all the speed mods and the panel ready for my upgrades (dual G5s and GNC355)

 

My avionic upgrades were the PMA 7000M, Dual G5s, GNC 355. I've done other items (SureFly, OH'd Right Mag, and other maintenance items) but she flys great for me and my wife.

My choice would be J/F if you even think you'll carry 3 or more people, If not, E then C.

E is, IMHO, a great bread and butter choice for 2 people (now, I love my C as she gets very close to E speeds due to all the speed mods).

-Don

[skyfarer]

2 hours ago, Hank said:

My 1970 C left the factory with individual fold down back seats and a standard 6 pack--i can fold down either rear seat for bulky stuff. Also has the higher V speeds (flaps 125 mph, gear 120 mph; yellow line 175 mph, red line 200 mph). If you're careful about packing, it's amazing what you can load in a short body! 

Loaded for Christmas, with cord for engine heater on top.

Unloading at home after a different trip:

Amazing @Hank! Thanks for the photos! Yeah I think my wife and me and some dive gear would fit just fine in a ‘70 M20C!

 

[1980Mooney]

19 hours ago, skyfarer said:

Amazing @Hank! Thanks for the photos! Yeah I think my wife and me and some dive gear would fit just fine in a ‘70 M20C!

 

Yes but in your first post you said "But it's that occasional longer trip with dive gear, or the Chicago weekend where I bring some of our kids along that I'm curious about."  "Some of our kids" sounds like 2 or more....  And how old/size? (and of course growing).  A M20C might fit for 2 small kids but seems really tight in that particular mission if they are older. Unlike the above pic the rear seat will be filled with people bringing more crap and there is less space to put it behind the back seat. 

And then there is load and takeoff performance to think about if your cram everyone in depending on everyone's size and weight.  I make it work for a family of 4 in a mid-body but with 300 hp and routinely taking off at 3,200 lbs (and we are neither tall nor big).

Edited December 5, 2021 by 1980Mooney

[Shadrach]

21 hours ago, Hank said:

My 1970 C left the factory with individual fold down back seats and a standard 6 pack--i can fold down either rear seat for bulky stuff. Also has the higher V speeds (flaps 125 mph, gear 120 mph; yellow line 175 mph, red line 200 mph). If you're careful about packing, it's amazing what you can load in a short body! 

Loaded for Christmas, with cord for engine heater on top.

Unloading at home after a different trip:

The auto comparison that’s often made holds up in many ways…

[McMooney]

22 hours ago, Hank said:

My 1970 C left the factory with individual fold down back seats and a standard 6 pack--i can fold down either rear seat for bulky stuff. Also has the higher V speeds (flaps 125 mph, gear 120 mph; yellow line 175 mph, red line 200 mph). If you're careful about packing, it's amazing what you can load in a short body! 

Loaded for Christmas, with cord for engine heater on top.

Unloading at home after a different trip:

My 1974 E is the same way, fold down rear seats, 6pack, Electric Gear (gasp) and flaps.  Now has gns480, pma8000g, surefly, stratus adsb-in/out.  pretty nice.

also with the seats in flying position there is def good room for backseaters, more room than my camaro by far.

I may be mistaken but I think my seats travel further than earlier models, in my plane being 6ft ish, its impossible to even stretch and touch the rudders with the seats all the way back.

 

[jaylw314]

The rear seat in a J is actually quite comfortable, I'm guessing it's a little less in the short-bodies.  I've taken a nap in the back after doing my oil changes.

The front legroom DOES change if you have rear passengers.  Your front passenger may not be comfortable putting their feet near the rudder pedals or there may be issues blocking the yoke if they can't slide the seat back far enough.

Cabin entry/exit can be more of an issue with 3-4 people than a 182.  You do need to load people in the correct order (pilot, rear left, rear right, passenger) or else you end up playing Twister

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, jaylw314 said:

The rear seat in a J is actually quite comfortable, I'm guessing it's a little less in the short-bodies.  I've taken a nap in the back after doing my oil changes.

The front legroom DOES change if you have rear passengers.  Your front passenger may not be comfortable putting their feet near the rudder pedals or there may be issues blocking the yoke if they can't slide the seat back far enough.

Cabin entry/exit can be more of an issue with 3-4 people than a 182.  You do need to load people in the correct order (pilot, rear left, rear right, passenger) or else you end up playing Twister

My inseam is 32” and My seat is either full forward or first detent from full forward. I’ve spent 100s of hours in the back of an F and quite a bit in the back of a 182G and a 182RG. The statement that it’s “no contest” is somewhat kind of silly. The 182 is a little roomier in some areas but it feels airy because of the “fast back” window. Egress and ingress is definitely easier in the Cessna. He individually reclining seats in the F are the most comfortable rear seats I’ve I used in any GA piston that’s not “cabin class”.  F has lots of leg room and a rear seat that goes nearly 45 degrees fully reclined.

[MikeOH]

2 hours ago, Shadrach said:

My inseam is 32” and My seat is either full forward or first detent from full forward. I’ve spent 100s of hours in the back of an F and quite a bit in the back of a 182G and a 182RG. The statement that it’s “no contest” is somewhat kind of silly. The 182 is a little roomier in some areas but it feels airy because of the “fast back” window. Egress and ingress is definitely easier in the Cessna. He individually reclining seats in the F are the most comfortable rear seats I’ve I used in any GA piston that’s not “cabin class”.  F has lots of leg room and a rear seat that goes nearly 45 degrees fully reclined.

And, I think your "a little roomier" comment is eqally silly!  "Feels airy" because of the back window??  LOL!

Prosepective owners need to climb into the back of a Mooney and a 182 and see for themselves.  Of course, the OWNER isn't going to be riding back there anyway, so I guess it really doesn't matter

[skyfarer]

7 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

Yes but in your first post you said "But it's that occasional longer trip with dive gear, or the Chicago weekend where I bring some of our kids along that I'm curious about."  "Some of our kids" sounds like 2 or more....  And how old/size? (and of course growing).  A M20C might fit for 2 small kids but seems really tight in that particular mission if they are older. Unlike the above pic the rear seat will be filled with people bringing more crap and there is less space to put it behind the back seat. 

And then there is load and takeoff performance to think about if your cram everyone in depending on everyone's size and weight.  I make it work for a family of 4 in a mid-body but with 300 hp and routinely taking off at 3,200 lbs (and we are neither tall nor big).

@Hank you definitely picked up on that choice or words there!  Yes, I have 5 in total, 3 of my own and my wife has 2, they range from 10 to 18 years old. Only 1 of mine even likes flying.  My wife's two like flying, (10 and 12).  The rest don't care for it. Honestly I'm not buying a plane for family trips, it's for me and my wife to travel in.  It would be good to know if I can take 2 kids on a day trip If the right M20C came along and I knew the kids might outgrow it, I doubt I'd pass it up. I'm 50, so I'm thinking more of my pending "empty nest" adventures than anything else. :-) 

[skyfarer]

On 12/4/2021 at 7:47 PM, hammdo said:

My 66 C - had all the speed mods and the panel ready for my upgrades (dual G5s and GNC355)

 

My avionic upgrades were the PMA 7000M, Dual G5s, GNC 355. I've done other items (SureFly, OH'd Right Mag, and other maintenance items) but she flys great for me and my wife.

My choice would be J/F if you even think you'll carry 3 or more people, If not, E then C.

E is, IMHO, a great bread and butter choice for 2 people (now, I love my C as she gets very close to E speeds due to all the speed mods).

-Don

This is exactly what I'm looking for. I fly with G5's now and love them. Bonus would be a 2-axis AP.  I like that Insight Engine monitor you have in there too.

Noted on the J/F if I want more room in the back seat for pax.   Thanks for your reply!