First Post and Several Questions

[KSMooniac]

Definitely true... it is not hard to imagine that at some point in the not-too-distant future the only NDH planes available are hangar queens, only to be uncovered in an estate sale situation, that haven't flown in years.  Those can be great diamonds in the rough, but will require effort to put them into reliable service.  I'd rather have a turn-key plane with years of frequent use and maintenance, and a gear-up history from 10+ years prior.

My baby was NDH until 2020.  I'm the third owner, always hangared, regularly flown, etc.  Then I got hit in a freak hailstorm while parked outside on a trip.  Excrement happens.  I'm mitigating the damage to eliminate as much as possible, but it now has a history.  If I ever sell, I expect it will not be on the market long, because it is a great plane!

[Guest]

14 hours ago, PrairieFlyer said:

Thanks again for all the responses.
 

Mcarterak, a couple reasons I really like the Mooney. The largest is the speed and efficiency. Haven’t had much luck finding another plane that can cruise at 150kn with a 200 HP engine. I’m very envious of the Mooney when I’m planning for 112 kn cruise burning similar fuel. The next reason would be the stability as a IFR a platform. From the forum, as well as reviews online, people seem to really like them for IFR. Last, the coolness factor. I’ve never been a high wing guy, and there is no denying the looks of the Mooney on the ramp. 

I have looked at Comanches as well. They seem like a great plane. My biggest concern is the age of them. Really want to get into something much newer. I’ve also heard there is issues with parts as the fleet ages. 
 

I have also looked into Arrows and the DA 40 as well. For me, the Arrows don’t offer much more speed the my Cherokee. The DA-40 also doesn’t compare to the Mooney, and comes with an insane asking price. 
 

The Debonair is a plane that I haven’t thought much of, but sounds like a viable alternative. 
 

As for the airstrip, sand blasting is definitely a potential issue. The ground doesn’t get soft, but it can be dry and lacking much grass as the summer goes on. Runway length hasn’t been much of a problem with the Cherokee. Both ends are wide open fields which helps with safety. There is a longer runway (also grass) 15 miles away. If I’m close to MGTW I will tell passengers to meet there. 

Beard, I am a member of COPA. I’ll do some more poking around on the website and look what I can find.

Interesting feedback from everyone. Sounds like a Mooney purchase for me may not be as cut and dry as I hoped! 
 

 

The parts supply for a Mooney is just as bad as for a Comanche, possibly worse.  Is there really much difference between a 50 year old Comanche versus a 40 year old Mooney.  The Comanche won’t corrode like a Mooney as a first simple thing.

[Fly Boomer]

16 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

The parts supply for a Mooney is just as bad as for a Comanche, possibly worse.  Is there really much difference between a 50 year old Comanche versus a 40 year old Mooney.  The Comanche won’t corrode like a Mooney as a first simple thing.

Clarence,
Is that corrosion thing only comparing older Mooneys?  I thought the newer ones were epoxy coated.

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

Clarence,
Is that corrosion thing only comparing older Mooneys?  I thought the newer ones were epoxy coated.

70’s and early 80’s models are known to have corrosion issues as well.

[PrairieFlyer]

Again, thanks everyone for your input. I will wait to discuss with my neighbor that has the Mooney F model about his thoughts on everything. (Maybe he will be willing to sell it, he wasn’t ready last fall). Once the snow finally melts here I will look at his grass strip and see how it compares to mine. 
 

One thing on prop clearance, has anyone went to a 3 blade prop vs the 2 blade for more clearance? 

As someone mentioned, I have heard the gear doors can be more of an issue on grass then prop clearance. 
 

I’ll keep the group updated on any decisions moving forward when I’ve had time for more research. Still haven’t ruled out a Mooney off grass, but will look at other options that may be better suited! 

[carusoam]

8 minutes ago, PrairieFlyer said:

 

One thing on prop clearance, has anyone went to a 3 blade prop vs the 2 blade for more clearance? 

As someone mentioned, I have heard the gear doors can be more of an issue on grass then prop clearance. 
 

I’ll keep the group updated on any decisions moving forward when I’ve had time for more research. Still haven’t ruled out a Mooney off grass, but will look at other options that may be better suited! 

 

1) Prop length is the same for all versions… 2 or 3 blades…

We have about 10” (?) of clearance.  To get much more… tail dragger.

We fly at the speed of an Indy car on the back straight… but we are further off the ground than they are.   

 

2) Tall grass and gear doors… simply take the doors off, and store them in the back for later.   
On the most modern Mooneys the doors are three pieces… the lower most piece is often removed for grass…

The speed penalty is probably a whole half of a knot…
 

What other questions do you have?

Best regards,

-a-

[jlunseth]

Earlier in my Mooney career Minnesota had a program called Fly Minnesota where you got a leather jacket if you landed at 135 of Minnesota’s 138 public use airports. Roughly 25 were grass. Another pilot and I rented a Skyhawk and did a bunch of grass strips one day. That made me pretty comfortable with the idea so I did the rest in my Mooney, and back then would land on grass strips just for the fun of it. What I discovered was that the majority of the grass strips were well maintained and the legendary gopher holes that your aircraft was supposed to drop a wheel into just did not exist. That said, there were one or two exceptions. I never had a problem and did probably 40 takeoffs and landings from grass. But it got to the point where the thrill wore off and I was tired of the specialized technique, especially the soft field takeoff. I did notice a couple of things. First, landing distances are shorter on grass (unless it’s wet). Grass acts as a pretty good brake. So I was able to land at some short fields without problems. Second, takeoffs from short grass fields are easier than you think. The idea is to get the aircraft off the runway and into ground effect, then let it accelerate before climbing. For that purpose you don’t even need to be over a runway, just good ground without tall brush, and many of the grass fields were set up just exactly that way. We have had a few people on this site who operate out of grass strips as their home field fairly often. I am not sure how the later, large engined aircraft would handle it but my 231, which is more nose heavy than a J, handled it well.

Edited April 7, 2023 by jlunseth

[LANCECASPER]

1 hour ago, jlunseth said:

Earlier in my Mooney career Minnesota had a program called Fly Minnesota where you got a leather jacket if you landed at 135 of Minnesota’s 138 public use airports. 

Very cool accomplishment.  Very expensive leather jacket. 

[jlunseth]

Thanks! Well, the best part of it was the experience of landing the aircraft on pretty much any type of field there is other than high elevation, which we just don’t have here. Busy fields, short fields, soft fields, short and soft fields, pretty much everything.

[KSMooniac]

The only prop approved for Mooneys with a smaller diameter than stock is the MT 3 blade.  All of the metal 3 blade options are the same diameter, but at least they offer more weight and vibration.  ;)

[carusoam]

1) More weight

2) More vibration

3) More thunderous sound

4) Larger diameter

5) Fancy silver paint

6) fewer blades…. 2 Vs. 3, and 3 vs. 4….

7) More comfort with buying traditional stuff that grand pappy flew before the war….

Go Old Tech!  
 

PP humor only, sort of…

Best regards,

-a-

[jkgyr52]

FWIW - I would be cautious about reported UL in any used airplane. My IA (A Mooney specialist), has a policy that any newly purchased aircraft be weighed on scales before purchase. He has rarely seen an aircraft that weighs less or equal to the logbooks W/B sheet. I have owned a half dozen Mooneys and they all weighed more than the paperwork and one was ~ 75 lbs. heavier than the W/B sheet.

Jeff

[ArtVandelay]

FWIW - I would be cautious about reported UL in any used airplane. My IA (A Mooney specialist), has a policy that any newly purchased aircraft be weighed on scales before purchase. He has rarely seen an aircraft that weighs less or equal to the logbooks W/B sheet. I have owned a half dozen Mooneys and they all weighed more than the paperwork and one was ~ 75 lbs. heavier than the W/B sheet.
Jeff

Does he do it correctly? I haven’t found one that does. I went through all the W&B sheets and found about 15 errors, but in the end they were within ~1 lb as they mostly balanced out.

Mooneys don’t fall out of the sky because they’re a few pounds overweight.

[Guest]

Worry about the plane’s empty weight, then lie about your own.  Sounds right to me.

[A64Pilot]

The majority of my work is off of grass, there are some rough strips I’ve landed on and won’t go back. Part of Fl that I live most of the grass strips used to be orange groves, some weren’t well smoothed out.

Last airplane was an M6/235 Maule on 29” tires, Mooney won’t do gravel bars like the Maule did, but grass is no problem. 

Grass, not mud, mud would be bad, and mud with gravel would be real bad

Personal opinion is that gross weight is really mostly about performance than anything else, if you takeoff over gross just beware of the performance hit.

It’s CG that will kill you, and thankfully it would be real difficult to load a J out of CG if mine is typical. Bonanza’s and I assume Debonairs don’t often have the useful load that the book says, because it’s real easy to get out of CG prior to getting to gross weight, not always but it needs watching closely, especially as CG moves aft as fuel burns off.

But honestly if it’s a dirt strip maybe a Cherokee just might be a better airplane, Pipers are built better for off airport use than a Mooney.

 

[jkgyr52]

Yes he uses digital scales and follows the method outlined in the POH.

 

[KLRDMD]

On 4/4/2023 at 9:30 AM, M20Doc said:

Sounds to me that you need to look into a Piper Comanche 250/260 series.  

Or a Bonanza

[PrairieFlyer]

Thanks again everyone. As I have more questions I’ll make sure to add them to the thread. 
 

My question on the gear doors was answered by Carusoam. 

 

Planning a 300NM cross country tomorrow with a 10kn headwind. 2Hrs 56 minutes with the Cherokee, with a generic J I pulled off ForeFlight 2Hrs 08 minutes, and 4.3 gallons less fuel! 

[carusoam]

1Hr, 42 minutes using an M20R… ROP.   
 

My usual flight was 200nms…

Flight planning is super easy with shorter distances…

Longer distances… weather can add to the challenges….

Some parts of the country, the weather can become unfamiliar when traveling long distances….  Mountains, and big lakes, and SW deserts and things…

Get to know the weather forecasts….

Go Mooney!

-a-

[Guest]

11 hours ago, KLRDMD said:

Or a Bonanza

Did they ever build one with a reliable a Lycoming engine?

[Fly Boomer]

7 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

Did they ever build one with a reliable a Lycoming engine?

Hey now .......... some of us like our Continentals!

I'm sure you know this but, for others, I just looked it up, and the Muskrat had a Lycoming from time to time.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Fly Boomer said:

Hey now .......... some of us like our Continentals!

Death by Gold paint or death by Grey paint, Gold is just quicker.

[Fly Boomer]

1 minute ago, M20Doc said:

Death by Gold paint or death by Grey paint, Gold is just quicker.

Ouch! 

[takair]

6 hours ago, PrairieFlyer said:

Thanks again everyone. As I have more questions I’ll make sure to add them to the thread. 
 

My question on the gear doors was answered by Carusoam. 

 

Planning a 300NM cross country tomorrow with a 10kn headwind. 2Hrs 56 minutes with the Cherokee, with a generic J I pulled off ForeFlight 2Hrs 08 minutes, and 4.3 gallons less fuel! 

Love my Mooney, but have you considered a Lance. Gets the speeds and UL you want, just a little more fuel burn. Better on grass. 

[ilovecornfields]

On 4/5/2023 at 8:02 AM, 1980Mooney said:

The flip side is 20 years and 10 owners after a repair - it has been reviewed and looked at so many times - it has stood “the test of time”. It becomes less and less relevant as a purchase or sale issue. 

I always wondered about that. If the average length of ownership is only two years isn’t that a red flag that something made then want to sell pretty soon after acquiring the airplane? For me, finding an airplane took a lot of time and money so I definitely wouldn’t be eager to sell and buy something else unless I had a good reason to.