Mooney Myths

[201er]

How come everyone is convinced that a Mooney is terribly confined, low useful load, and expensive to maintain compared to other planes? It's kind of funny cause my 201 is actually wider, longer (more leg room), has a higher useful load, faster, and greater range than the Piper Arrow I used to rent on the same gph and vitrually same maintenance costs. I really can't think of anything I had to sacrifice (besides money and maybe turn radius) by going to the Mooney. It really is better in all regards than an Arrow or 4 seat Bonanza, no sacrifices.

What I'm curious is who is spreading these kinds of myths? What are Mooney myths have you come across? Do you know any that hold true or you agree with? How did these myths affect your decision to get a Mooney if you heard them previously?

[N33GG]

Shhhhhhhhhhhh... don't tell everybody, or we will be paying Bonanza prices.

[pjsny78]

I can only speak on my own personal short lived experience on owning a Mooney. I think the myth of high maintenance costs on a Mooney is confirmed. This is not the most mechanic friendly machine. If I knew how much money I would have paid and continue to pay on maintenance, I would never have bought my Mooney. At the same time it is a love/hate affliction. I do not want to fly anything else as far as single engines go.  I have heard that cirrus’s may be the worst culprits as far as maintenance go.

[KSMooniac]

Perhaps you need to shop around a bit for maintenance, then.  Mooney systems are generally simpler than other similar planes, although it pays to use a Mooney-savvy mechanic IMO.  The only thing that I think it terrible is working behind the panel...which can require a contortionist.  Not that other planes are easy, but I know mine is not.  Working under the cowl isn't too bad, although it is tight between the engine and the firewall.  I do my own oil changes, and have R&R'd my mag, vacuum pump, alternator, all 4 jugs, and some other bits over the years and don't find it to be any more difficult than a 172.  The gear and flap systems are easily accessible under the plane with the belly open.

I'm glad we don't have finicky oleo struts to maintain on the gear, or a convoluted gear system like a Comanche or a Cessna RG.  

Tanks are an issue that many/most owners will have to deal with sooner or later, and there isn't any way around that.  

They aren't impossible to land, they aren't cramped, and some (like mine) can carry 4 reasonably sized adults on a 500 nm weekend trip.  :-)

[David Mazer]

I think people don't really look at the airplane, the specs, and the performance when they come up with their conclusions.  I learned on a "C" airplane, I'm comfortable in a "C" airplane, so a "C" airplane is really the best airplane.  Take your pick - C, P, or B. I chose a Mooney because it did what I wanted best.  There are other missions where another brand is better (say for hauling 6) but people seem to get stuck or just take the guy's opinion from the hangar down the row without really thinking about it.  If that was my mission, I would have picked another plane but that doesn't change the Mooney is best for this mission.  I often recommend other brands to pilots looking for something when it makes sense and I often have to encourage pilots to look at Mooneys when they haven't thought about them.  Regularly, they realize a Mooney is a good choice.

[Parker_Woodruff]

The Mooney is about as simple as it gets for a "complex" aircraft.

Once the plane is up to snuff, it really doesn't take much to keep it going.  Just don't fall behind.

[PTK]

Quote: JimR

I'm with you, Mike. What about the myth that Mooneys are hard to land?  Where did that one come from, or are most GA pilots really that loosely goosey about airspeed control on final?

Jim

[Cris]

Consider that most pilots were trained in the Cessna or maybe a Piper. In both cases the seating is akin to being in an SUV or maybe a sedan. That is what the new pilot is used to & may well continue to fly as they progress with experience. Unless they are sports car owners & like that seating position (like Dockett me & many others) ie relatively low with one's leggs stretched out they will initially feel cramped. It is simply perception vs reality. In addition the Mooney is a numbers airplane & needs to be flown that way. Again the Cessna/Piper pilot can be sloppy on an approach, drop those big boards & make acceptable landings. Those A/C are more tolerant of poor tecnique (which is probably why Mooney never could get a handle on the trainer market) than is a "numbers" plane like our Mooney's. In terms of maintenance I really have only heard that issue with the avionics guys at least since the one piece belly & in that respect they are probably correct. The proof is in the "base rate" for an annual be it a Mooney, Cessna, Piper, or Beech. The labor in most cases is quite similar. Cirrus got it right by taking the automobile paradigm and applying it to an A/C. The seating is high with nothing in front & a lot of glass. It just feels bigger but really isn't. Perception vs reality is the issue. BTW Cirrus just announced their "new" SR22 five place A/C which really just adds an extra seat belt in the back like the Ovation 3 already did but we hear nothing about it.  Just wait till all your friends start talking about the fact that the Cirrus is bigger because it is a five place and the Mooney is only a four place. We'll have a new myth with which to contend. Perception vs reality.  

[1964-M20E]

Before I purchased my Mooney a mechanic suggested I buy a 182 he said it is just as quick and can haul more.  That maybe so but I did not want the added fuel burn to do it.  I’m happy with me E model and as for maintenance costing more I do not have anything to compare it to since this is my first airplane.  Flying the airplane is no harder than flying a C, P or B and I’ve flow a limited number of models of each.  Yes if you are fast on final you will float.

[rbridges]

Quote: pjsny78

I can only speak on my own personal short lived experience on owning a Mooney. I think the myth of high maintenance costs on a Mooney is confirmed. This is not the most mechanic friendly machine. If I knew how much money I would have paid and continue to pay on maintenance, I would never have bought my Mooney.

[PTK]

Can someone more familiar please explain why exactly does someone buy Cirrus? (Besides the parachute.)

[Parker_Woodruff]

Quote: allsmiles

Can someone more familiar please explain why exactly does someone buy Cirrus? (Besides the parachute.)

[drapo]

Quote: KSMooniac

The only thing that I think it terrible is working behind the panel...which can require a contortionist.  Not that other planes are easy, but I know mine is not.  

[eldeano]

Quote: allsmiles

Can someone more familiar please explain why exactly does someone buy Cirrus? (Besides the parachute.)

[fantom]

[201er]

What really amazes me is when people opt to get a brand new (or close to new) Skyhawk when they can have a stupendous Mooney for that kinda money! I totally respect is as a flight school trainer, but can't fathom why anyone would want to own one. You can often get a C model Mooney for the same price as a comparable (age, engine time, avionics, etc) Skyhawk. Useful load, range, space, etc are comparable yet 40 knots faster!

[PTK]

These "reasons" do nothing for me!

Mooney has all the sex appeal. Cirrus...well...a little less...but I'm sure their mother does love them though!!

[fantom]

Quote: allsmiles

These "reasons" do nothing for me!

[PTK]

Just curious.

Isn't the insurance 10x what we pay and same for their annuals?! What they see in a plastic airplane I don't know! And don't anybody talk about a Corvette!

[Shadrach]

Quote: 201er

How come everyone is convinced that a Mooney is terribly confined, low useful load, and expensive to maintain compared to other planes? It's kind of funny cause my 201 is actually wider, longer (more leg room), has a higher useful load, faster, and greater range than the Piper Arrow I used to rent on the same gph and vitrually same maintenance costs. I really can't think of anything I had to sacrifice (besides money and maybe turn radius) by going to the Mooney. It really is better in all regards than an Arrow or 4 seat Bonanza, no sacrifices.

What I'm curious is who is spreading these kinds of myths? What are Mooney myths have you come across? Do you know any that hold true or you agree with? How did these myths affect your decision to get a Mooney if you heard them previously?

[pjsny78]

Quote: rbridges

 Was it a bunch of stuff that the previous owner let slide?  I don't see why a mooney would be so much extra to maintain.  Maybe a few hours extra labor here and there.

My IA complained about how tight it was by the firewall when changing the engine mounts.  He had to remove a few extra things to gain access to them.

[Shadrach]

Quote: fantom

[Parker_Woodruff]

Oh and for the record I would take a Cessna 350 or 400 over a Cirrus.  It's unfortunate that Cessna hasn't gotten the 400 FIKI.

[rbridges]

I was the only mooney at our small airport.  I was told by several people that maintenance was difficult.  I'm sure you've all heard the saying, "I'd rather have my sister work in a whore house than do maintenance on a mooney."  I never heard it until I bought mine.  Anyway, I think it's just a reputation that's developed and stuck with a lot of people.  So when potential buyers hit the market, some may be turned off by it.

[John Pleisse]

I'll always own my Mooney, but I have to tell you.... 2000-2004 SR20's with steam guages are now going in the low $100k's. What do you get? A Lexus motor car interior, 4 point harnesses, CAPS, 2 electric busses, in most cases 2 G430W's, electric HSI and at least an Stec 30, some 55X's. Relative to the market, this is an exceptional value. They are not bad planes.