New Member - Talk me out of a Mooney!

[tjs45d]

Hi all, new member here. Currently considering getting back into flying after a 15+ year hiatus. Learned to fly in my C-150 in the 80's, last airplane was a nice '77 Cardinal that was sold back in the mid-2000's. I am currently traveling more for business and I have numerous trips to TX, AZ, NM. I'm located in northeast Indiana. Looking to get back into a decent cross country machine. My trips would be with 1-2 passengers at most, planned around VFR conditions. If I end up with a nice IFR platform, I would like to finish my instrument rating that I had almost finished back in the 80's, until I ran out of funds. Looks like it will be starting from scratch now with all the regulations and technology improvements.

Had some flight time in various aircraft over the years, Pipers, Luscombe, C-140, Decathlon - Aerobatic Training. I have always liked the looks, speed, and economy of the Mooneys, but the practical side of me says just get another C-177 or a boring C-182. I'm not in a hurry to buy, just researching the markets now to see what is available and educate myself on the current state of general aviation. One question I have on different models of Mooneys, is it necessary/ideal to have a turbo version over the naturally aspirated versions when flying in the desert southwest (4500-5000 ft. elevation)? I would imagine the elevations and density altitude conditions would make the turbo version much more user friendly in those environments? But is the additional expense worth it for ~10-12 trips a year? How do the turbo/TSIO-360 engine maintenance costs compare with a naturally aspirated IO-360?

I'm also looking for general advice for a prospective new Mooney owner, like insurance expenses, Airworthiness Directives to watch for, maintenance issues to inspect, etc. Basically anything that someone new to the brand may miss. I'm leaning towards later models, M20J-K and newer. I would rather buy one that is well equipped, that has had excellent, up to date maintenance than a fixer upper that I don't have time for. (If there is anyone close to FWA that has a nice one, I'd be glad to pay for demo ride!)

Thanks for reading! Any and all critiques and advice welcomed!

Thanks, TJS

[Will.iam]

What’s your price range as that will help narrow down the choices and what you are comfortable spending a year on maintenance. I have a M20K and short 150 mile trips would be better served with a non turbo but for the trips that are longer than that climbing up into the teens really helps get the true airspeed up on the same power as i would be at 8k. Or put another way a non turbo your power gets taken away from you as you climb higher than 8k. So the benefits of speed at higher altitudes are offset by degradation of power. Course being on oxygen is not for everyone and passengers often prefer not which limits your turbo benefit when they are onboard if you can’t convince them of the time saved to offset the inconvenience. But even then having a turbo i can climb to 10k faster especially in the summer to get to that cooler less bumpy air than i could in a non turbo. Imo i think turbos are just as reliable if you keep the heat down. I. E. You have more potential to abuse the engine and turbo if you demand more power. Keep it at 65% or less to keep the heat down or full rich when climbing cool with fuel and the engine will most likely make TBO. Push it hard and be prepared to replace cylinders and turbos. As far as price turbos are more expensive to maintain but I’ve heard it’s about 10 to 15% more. I have only had my plane for 2 years and all my maintenance i have had to spend to date has been on non-turbo items so far. My turbo had been overhauled right before i got it and the engine had 1600 hours on it. 

[TNIndy]

I would consider an M20F with a Rajay turbo if you can find one. If not that then an M20K but the F model should be a little less $ to maintain. If not a Mooney then I'd consider experimental. I like the RV-10, Velocity XL or the Sling. 

[Schllc]

You’re on the wrong forum!

go here  
Www.beechtalk.com

You’ll get lots of support there!!!

But seriously, you have your mission defined, budget is the next consideration    
This has been a popular question lately.  
I would buy the newest, nicest Mooney you can afford, they are all great planes.

 

 

[Pinecone]

I got back into flying about 18 months ago after a 20 year hiatus.  I decided to buy and looked at fast fun planes.  I did my PPL in a Tiger many years ago, and always loved to fly them.  But the price versus equipment ratio was poor.  And at the time, not many were for sale.

I had always liked the Mooney  and wanted one.  So I started looking at the various models.

I decided on a turbo for the flexibility and eventual travel in the west.  I wanted a "small engine" for fuel economy.   This was last spring when fuel prices seemed to have no ceiling price.

Once I made those two decisions, the only choice, for me, was the 252.

I am loving flying in the mid-teens (very little traffic, and what is there is normally climbing through or descending through), with a 174 KTAS on 10.3 GPH.   

Works for me.

[toto]

"Talk me out of a Mooney" isn't a big draw on this board

 

A few alternatives you might consider:

Talk me out of a ...

...Bonanza

...Cessna

...Piper (** but we do like the Comanche wing)

...Light twin (** unless it's an MU-2)

...Turboprop (** unless it's a TBM)

[rickseeman]

I like Bonanzas but the length of your trips is where a Mooney shines. Turbo is good but non-turbo is good also. I would try to find something in good condition with the paint & avionics kinda like you want it because it's such a hassle/expense to change. You came to the right place. Enjoy the trip.

[glbtrottr]

I drive an excursion, 2005, big, beefy, lifted a lot, big hummer tires,bad boy bulletproofed brand new diesel engine, nice turbo, 15 mpg and 7 beautiful empty seats. Aren’t I a genius…

Then I get into this light, quick, 350 hp 2 seater Mercedes hardtop convertible- whaaa? No. Drive that thing into the ground….

Perhaps we should talk you into a beautiful bonanza - 5 nice empty beautiful seats, 5-7 more gallons per hour so you can fly like a true baller, a couple thousand dollars more a year in insurance, but when you arrive at the FBO, the line people will surely be impressed like all those kids who like to look at my badass brodozer.

Don’t get a mooney. Your mission doesn’t fit a mooney. You’ll be saving gas, insurance, pay less at purchase time, pay less on maintenance and overhauls, it probably wouldn’t suit you to be a cheapskate like the rest of us.

I own an m20k, have an E model, and probably will sell it to step down into a J model one of these days ….


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[T. Peterson]

18 hours ago, tjs45d said:

Hi all, new member here. Currently considering getting back into flying after a 15+ year hiatus. Learned to fly in my C-150 in the 80's, last airplane was a nice '77 Cardinal that was sold back in the mid-2000's. I am currently traveling more for business and I have numerous trips to TX, AZ, NM. I'm located in northeast Indiana. Looking to get back into a decent cross country machine. My trips would be with 1-2 passengers at most, planned around VFR conditions. If I end up with a nice IFR platform, I would like to finish my instrument rating that I had almost finished back in the 80's, until I ran out of funds. Looks like it will be starting from scratch now with all the regulations and technology improvements.

Had some flight time in various aircraft over the years, Pipers, Luscombe, C-140, Decathlon - Aerobatic Training. I have always liked the looks, speed, and economy of the Mooneys, but the practical side of me says just get another C-177 or a boring C-182. I'm not in a hurry to buy, just researching the markets now to see what is available and educate myself on the current state of general aviation. One question I have on different models of Mooneys, is it necessary/ideal to have a turbo version over the naturally aspirated versions when flying in the desert southwest (4500-5000 ft. elevation)? I would imagine the elevations and density altitude conditions would make the turbo version much more user friendly in those environments? But is the additional expense worth it for ~10-12 trips a year? How do the turbo/TSIO-360 engine maintenance costs compare with a naturally aspirated IO-360?

I'm also looking for general advice for a prospective new Mooney owner, like insurance expenses, Airworthiness Directives to watch for, maintenance issues to inspect, etc. Basically anything that someone new to the brand may miss. I'm leaning towards later models, M20J-K and newer. I would rather buy one that is well equipped, that has had excellent, up to date maintenance than a fixer upper that I don't have time for. (If there is anyone close to FWA that has a nice one, I'd be glad to pay for demo ride!)

Thanks for reading! Any and all critiques and advice welcomed!

Thanks, TJS

Due to the distances you want to cover, I don’t think you will be happy with anything less than a K model. Of course those are turbo charged. If you have the budget and prefer a normally aspirated engine, an IO 550 equipped Ovation would be very nice. If you have a huge budget, the Acclaim is the cat’s whiskers.

 I would not opt for any NA 360.

Whatever you do, get that IFR rating! You won’t fly much if you try to cover that large a swath of the country in severe clear. 

[Skates97]

19 hours ago, tjs45d said:

Hi all, new member here. Currently considering getting back into flying after a 15+ year hiatus. Learned to fly in my C-150 in the 80's, last airplane was a nice '77 Cardinal that was sold back in the mid-2000's. I am currently traveling more for business and I have numerous trips to TX, AZ, NM. I'm located in northeast Indiana. Looking to get back into a decent cross country machine. My trips would be with 1-2 passengers at most, planned around VFR conditions. If I end up with a nice IFR platform, I would like to finish my instrument rating that I had almost finished back in the 80's, until I ran out of funds. Looks like it will be starting from scratch now with all the regulations and technology improvements.

Had some flight time in various aircraft over the years, Pipers, Luscombe, C-140, Decathlon - Aerobatic Training. I have always liked the looks, speed, and economy of the Mooneys, but the practical side of me says just get another C-177 or a boring C-182. I'm not in a hurry to buy, just researching the markets now to see what is available and educate myself on the current state of general aviation. One question I have on different models of Mooneys, is it necessary/ideal to have a turbo version over the naturally aspirated versions when flying in the desert southwest (4500-5000 ft. elevation)? I would imagine the elevations and density altitude conditions would make the turbo version much more user friendly in those environments? But is the additional expense worth it for ~10-12 trips a year? How do the turbo/TSIO-360 engine maintenance costs compare with a naturally aspirated IO-360?

I'm also looking for general advice for a prospective new Mooney owner, like insurance expenses, Airworthiness Directives to watch for, maintenance issues to inspect, etc. Basically anything that someone new to the brand may miss. I'm leaning towards later models, M20J-K and newer. I would rather buy one that is well equipped, that has had excellent, up to date maintenance than a fixer upper that I don't have time for. (If there is anyone close to FWA that has a nice one, I'd be glad to pay for demo ride!)

Thanks for reading! Any and all critiques and advice welcomed!

Thanks, TJS

All my flying (with the exception of OSH and a trip to the east coast) is the desert southwest, CA, AZ, CO, UT, ID. The little O-360 in our D has taken us wherever we have needed to go. If the DA is high we make sure we are taking off light. Our place in CO is right by KPSO with a field elevation of 7,663' and the DA is often over 9-10k but can still be done safely. Most of our cross country trips are at 9,500' or 10,500' because of the surrounding terrain. A turbo would be nice, but is not a requirement.

[tjs45d]

14 hours ago, Will.iam said:

What’s your price range as that will help narrow down the choices and what you are comfortable spending a year on maintenance. I have a M20K and short 150 mile trips would be better served with a non turbo but for the trips that are longer than that climbing up into the teens really helps get the true airspeed up on the same power as i would be at 8k. Or put another way a non turbo your power gets taken away from you as you climb higher than 8k. So the benefits of speed at higher altitudes are offset by degradation of power. Course being on oxygen is not for everyone and passengers often prefer not which limits your turbo benefit when they are onboard if you can’t convince them of the time saved to offset the inconvenience. But even then having a turbo i can climb to 10k faster especially in the summer to get to that cooler less bumpy air than i could in a non turbo. Imo i think turbos are just as reliable if you keep the heat down. I. E. You have more potential to abuse the engine and turbo if you demand more power. Keep it at 65% or less to keep the heat down or full rich when climbing cool with fuel and the engine will most likely make TBO. Push it hard and be prepared to replace cylinders and turbos. As far as price turbos are more expensive to maintain but I’ve heard it’s about 10 to 15% more. I have only had my plane for 2 years and all my maintenance i have had to spend to date has been on non-turbo items so far. My turbo had been overhauled right before i got it and the engine had 1600 hours on it. 

Thanks for the reply, I would probably budget $150K +- depending on the plane and equipment, I have been leaning toward the K models. Thanks also for the detailed description of the turbo advantages, one thing I hadn't thought about was the faster climbs in hot weather, that would definitely be a plus!

[Greg Ellis]

16 minutes ago, tjs45d said:

Thanks for the reply, I would probably budget $150K +- depending on the plane and equipment, I have been leaning toward the K models. Thanks also for the detailed description of the turbo advantages, one thing I hadn't thought about was the faster climbs in hot weather, that would definitely be a plus!

I would suggest you go take a look at controller.com and just see what the list prices are for K models.  Quite a bit more than $150K.  GMaxAmerican Aircraft could help you out.  They have a few K models listed although quite bit more than $150K.  Good luck with the hunt.

[glbtrottr]

Thanks for the reply, I would probably budget $150K +- depending on the plane and equipment, I have been leaning toward the K models. Thanks also for the detailed description of the turbo advantages, one thing I hadn't thought about was the faster climbs in hot weather, that would definitely be a plus!

Trade a plane has two k models for under $100k, run out, one being sold by Jimmy. There’s one at $125k with 777 tsmoh.

The K model market isn’t as hot as say, the 172 market (chuckling, I own both). Never would have thunk it.

I’m sure the prices on those k’s are negotiable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RoundTwo]

29 minutes ago, tjs45d said:

Thanks for the reply, I would probably budget $150K +- depending on the plane and equipment, I have been leaning toward the K models. Thanks also for the detailed description of the turbo advantages, one thing I hadn't thought about was the faster climbs in hot weather, that would definitely be a plus!

One just listed this morning but I can’t seem to get the link insert to work right now

[1980Mooney]

52 minutes ago, tjs45d said:

Thanks for the reply, I would probably budget $150K +- depending on the plane and equipment, I have been leaning toward the K models. Thanks also for the detailed description of the turbo advantages, one thing I hadn't thought about was the faster climbs in hot weather, that would definitely be a plus!

Nothing beats the ease and comfort of entering the 2 doors of that old Cardinal that you used to own.  Also it appears all your experience is with stiff leg planes - so get ready to pay a higher insurance premium for retractable gear as well as higher maintenance costs.

Below 8,000 ft a K is probably less efficient and no faster than a J.  You don't need to fly in the teens when traveling from the mid-west to Texas - in New Mexico a J is fine for 2.  If you are going to take advantage of a K you need to get the Instrument ticket and wear oxygen.  But when flying westbound you may find that you need to fly low due to punishing headwinds up high.

Additionally, although they are the same 360 cu. inch displacement, the maintenance and overhaul cost of the 6 cylinder Continental in the K will be materially more than the 4 cylinder Lycoming in the J.

Mooney Versus Bonanza - Aviation Consumer

Bonanza cruise speed v. Mooney

Used Aircraft Guide: Mooney K-Model - Goes Fast, Sips Gas - Aviation Consumer

Mooney M20K - Aviation Consumer

Mooney 231/252 - Aviation Consumer

Mooney M20K 231/252TSE/Encore - Aviation Consumer

Edited January 4, 2023 by 1980Mooney

[Sue Bon]

Check out N64SZ posted on the trading post. Beautiful aircraft.

[Hank]

Just get @steingar's C model, and use the rest of your budget for insurance, hangar, IFR training and lots of flying! I've been loving my C for the last fifteen or so years, it's taken me everywhere from Cody, WY to Niagara Falls to Ft. Lauderdale.

Quick, easy airplane; simple, strong engine; fast, efficient Mooney design. It's great for traveling with 2 people, since my wife doesn't know how to pack light. I'll take a small duffle and a dop kit for the weekend; she'll have a suitcase, a makeup bag, two canvas bags, a fabric shopping bag of food and snacks in case we get buried in snow for several days, her (large) purse, an umbrella, a coat (in case it gets cold at the beach in July, or inside a restaurant), and a raincoat. Then she has a wrap-around pillow, lap blanket and ipad in the seat with her.

So yeah, 3 guys could travel just fine . . .

I seem to get 145-147 KTAS, and average 9 gph at 7500-10,000 msl, where I like to be if the flight is an hour or longer.

[DCarlton]

20 hours ago, tjs45d said:

I am currently traveling more for business and I have numerous trips to TX, AZ, NM. I'm located in northeast Indiana. Looking to get back into a decent cross country machine. 

I would rather buy one that is well equipped, that has had excellent, up to date maintenance than a fixer upper that I don't have time for. 

 

Regarding the first sentence above...   I think the first step is to consider the mission and how serious you are about making numerous business trips.  I've flown from SOCAL to MS several times in my F (about the same distance as Indiana to NM).  It's a long trip especially in the hot summer.  I've only flown the entire trip west bound one time without stopping overnight.  I took off at sunrise and landed at sunset.  If you can cut out one fuel stop, it helps tremendously; a K might help you do that.  During those flights I wondered how much better off I'd be with a K (but someone has already mentioned headwinds going West).  

Regarding the second sentence above... with a $150K budget that's not a fixer upper, that suggests an early to mid '80s J to me.  A little higher budget, then maybe a K.

Before I retired, I flew over 80 flights for work in my F between CA and AZ (about 1.5 hours).  I only rescheduled two flights due to weather.  I don't think I had any that were rescheduled due to maintenance issues (amazing); although I did need brake work done during one business trip.  

I've thought about K's too but I'm not sure I want the potential for increased maintenance.  Tough call; comes down to mission and how serious you are about frequent long trips.   

[T. Peterson]

23 minutes ago, Hank said:

Just get @steingar's C model, and use the rest of your budget for insurance, hangar, IFR training and lots of flying! I've been loving my C for the last fifteen or so years, it's taken me everywhere from Cody, WY to Niagara Falls to Ft. Lauderdale.

Quick, easy airplane; simple, strong engine; fast, efficient Mooney design. It's great for traveling with 2 people, since my wife doesn't know how to pack light. I'll take a small duffle and a dop kit for the weekend; she'll have a suitcase, a makeup bag, two canvas bags, a fabric shopping bag of food and snacks in case we get buried in snow for several days, her (large) purse, an umbrella, a coat (in case it gets cold at the beach in July, or inside a restaurant), and a raincoat. Then she has a wrap-around pillow, lap blanket and ipad in the seat with her.

So yeah, 3 guys could travel just fine . . .

I seem to get 145-147 KTAS, and average 9 gph at 7500-10,000 msl, where I like to be if the flight is an hour or longer.

Could we be married to the same woman and not know it!!

[RoundTwo]

42 minutes ago, Sue Bon said:

Check out N64SZ posted on the trading post. Beautiful aircraft.

N64SZ has been sold.

[Utah20Gflyer]

A Mooney is an efficient traveling airplane that provides great value for the money spent.   You do not want one, people will think you are a cheap aviator.  You will be much happier with a cabin class Cessna twin, then people will know you are serious about your hobby!
 

Thats about as good as I can do talking you out of the Mooney.

[MikeOH]

You need a Duke; you’ll look much better in it

[Greg Ellis]

1 hour ago, MikeOH said:

You need a Duke; you’ll look much better in it

 

[RoundTwo]

11 minutes ago, Greg Ellis said:

 

Hilarious!

[rickseeman]

I love that one. But one of the Bonanza ones is good too