Mooney M20C vs Arrow 180

[N2391Y]

Hey everyone! I have officially decided to take the plunge into upgrading and selling my plane. I have a 1968 Cessna 177 Cardinal with the original 150HP engine. I've anyways thought about selling it for a faster plane, but now its listed and I'm ready to move on.

With that, I have been looking at Mooney M20Cs and Arrows. I'd love a Comanche or Super Viking but insurance on those is out of my budget (7k a year for both) since I don't have my instrument rating yet. I'm looking for something that can do 135-145 knots and do so economically. Arrows with the 180HP engine caught my eye because owners claim to get 140 knots out of them, and insurance is very resonable. I have yet to get a quote on a Mooney. Owners also say the cabin is bigger than a Mooney. However, Mooneys do seem faster and from what I've heard, have a more "sporty" feel on the controls. For those of you that own a C model that debated getting an Arrow, what made you buy the Mooney? What cruise speeds do you guys see? I'm looking forward to hearing your responses. Thank you!

[KSMooniac]

Welcome!

You're not likely to find a lot of Arrow fans here.    You should look at both in person, and hopefully get rides in both too.  Even better if you can look at one opened-up for inspection.  Then go read about the wing attach AD on the Arrows too.  Mooneys are far more solid and well-built IMO, so long as you get one that isn't riddled with corrosion.  I don't believe 180 HP arrows will get 140 knots unless they're descending too.  That is pretty easy in a C model...and some are faster.  (They're all hand-built, and vary from bird to bird due to antennas, rigging, etc.)

Insurance will suck in Year One for any RG/XC plane you get until you get the IR and 100 hours in type.  Just know that it will get better, and you would have to spend a lot in rental money to get more RG experience to try to lower the insurance cost....more than you would save on the premium!  Just get a good plane you can fly a lot in the first year vs. a flying project with lots of down time.

[Hank]

I recently flew a 180-hp Arrow II. I recall getting around 120 knots, but I wasn't going anywhere, just up with an instructor to make sure I was fit to bring my M20-C back from the shop. No idea what the fuel burn was.

My C travels at 7500-10,000 msl, ~145 knots true, on less than 9 gph; I measure from fuel pump to fuel pump, as I don't have fuel flow gauge--sometimes I'm down to 8.4 gph on long trips (longer than 2-1/2 hours).

My C carries 52 gallons of fuel, which I expect to last at least 5-1/2 hours. I've done 4:45 twice, and filled up with 41 gallons when non-stop and 42 gallons with three legs (1 hr; 20 minutes to fuel stop, pump wouldn't work; 3:20 to destination).

Another thing:  the baggage door on the Arrow is at floor level, while mine is up by the ceiling. How would you load the Arrow for this trip? I did it all through the baggage door.

[201er]

17 minutes ago, N2391Y said:

Hey everyone! I have officially decided to take the plunge into upgrading and selling my plane. I have a 1968 Cessna 177 Cardinal with the original 150HP engine. I've anyways thought about selling it for a faster plane, but now its listed and I'm ready to move on.

With that, I have been looking at Mooney M20Cs and Arrows. I'd love a Comanche or Super Viking but insurance on those is out of my budget (7k a year for both) since I don't have my instrument rating yet. I'm looking for something that can do 135-145 knots and do so economically. Arrows with the 180HP engine caught my eye because owners claim to get 140 knots out of them, and insurance is very resonable. I have yet to get a quote on a Mooney. Owners also say the cabin is bigger than a Mooney. However, Mooneys do seem faster and from what I've heard, have a more "sporty" feel on the controls. For those of you that own a C model that debated getting an Arrow, what made you buy the Mooney? What cruise speeds do you guys see? I'm looking forward to hearing your responses. Thank you!

Before getting a Mooney I used to rent a 1968 Piper Arrow. It's a bit of a stretch to call it a 140 knot airplane. More like 135. And that was pushing it cause it was a rental.

I wouldn't say the Arrow was more roomy. More boxy so it seems more spacious but in reality pretty similar. An M20C should be 5-15 knots faster on the same fuel burn. Depends on speeds mods like sloped windshield, cowl, etc.

They are honestly similar enough though that it will ultimately come down to the complete package that you are able to find. How are the radios, paint, engine time, useful load, etc? A great condition arrow vs a trashed M20C could be more preferable.

One draw back of the older Mooneys is the cluster panel. I'm pretty sure Arrows of similar vintage have six pack panels. If you plan to stay strictly or mostly VFR, this may not be an issue. But, if you want to do instrument training and serious IFR, you may want to look at a later Mooney or the Arrow.

[201er]

5 minutes ago, Hank said:

Another thing:  the baggage door on the Arrow is at floor level, while mine is up by the ceiling. How would you load the Arrow for this trip? I did it all through the baggage door.

What happens when you tell a woman to pack light

[PT20J]

The Arrow II (PA28R-201) with the semi-tapered wing is a bit faster I think. I used to flight plan the Archer II at 120 KTAS and the Arrow II 140 and come out pretty close.

On the positive side, Arrows are simple, with comfortable interiors and big windows. They are lighter on the controls and more responsive than Mooneys. Their stall characteristics are benign and they are not as speed sensitive on landing and the oleo struts make most landings greasers.

On the negative side, they are less efficient than a Mooney. And, most Arrows have been used for rental and training and it is hard to find one that doesn't look pretty tired. And, there is the wing spar AD to consider.

Skip

[EricJ]

I rented a 200 hp Arrow II for a while before I bought my M20J.    Arrows are nice, fun to fly, easy to manage, but slow compared to a Mooney.   The cabin and cargo area sizes are about the same, both are comfortable.

Both have some quirks as well.   The landing gear on an Arrow can be expensive to maintain if things break, and the wing ADs can be an issue.   Mooney gear is very simple, even the electric models, in comparison, although the gear emergency deployment on the Arrow is about as dirt-simple as you can get.

You could do much worse than either an M20C or an Arrow, or even a Cardinal RG if you were so inclined.

As expected, most folks here have Mooneys because they meet the criteria or appeal better than the others, so notes here will have some bias. 

 

[DCarlton]

I flew Archers, Dakotas and Arrows before buying my M20 F.  I don't think there are any other normally aspirated production airplanes that will outrun, out climb, or demonstrate better endurance than a Mooney.  You can take off behind a 180 or 200 hp Cessna or Piper and pass them in the climb every time.  You'll have to move up to a Beech for similar or better performance.  If I were to fall back to a Piper, I'd go with a fixed gear Archer or better yet, Dakota for simplicity.  I've always thought the Dakota was a great airplane with the LYC IO-540 but you'll have a bigger fuel bill.  For Cessna, I'd consider a good ole 182 or thoroughly inspected and well maintained Cardinal.  

Just for fun, I've attached a Piper pic for you; this airplane parks near me.   Now compare that to any Mooney.  ;> 

[Pinecone]

In the day, the Grumman Tiger ads pointed out that they were faster then 200 HP retracts to include the Arrow and the Cardinal.  They did NOT compare to a Mooney.  I find it hard to believe a normally asprirated Arrow will do a real 140 KTAS

I used to flight plan 132 KTAS fly ing rental Tigers and beat the numbers.

In fact, a Tiger might be a good move for you.  With the Sensenich prop they are around 140 KTAS, fixed gear (lower insurnace), fix pitch prop (lower maintenance).

But obviously  we are biased here.

[201er]

And if you consider an M20E, F, or J, then it is no contest! Faster any day of the week (and roomier except E).

[Hank]

2 hours ago, 201er said:

One draw back of the older Mooneys is the cluster panel. I'm pretty sure Arrows of similar vintage have six pack panels. If you plan to stay strictly or mostly VFR, this may not be an issue. But, if you want to do instrument training and serious IFR, you may want to look at a later Mooney or the Arrow.

Mooney went 6-pack from the factory in 1969, so less of a worry about that. To say.nothing of how many have upgraded avionics and made new panels--no one custom made a shotgun panel, they're all 6-packs. Here's the factory panel in my 1970 C.

[DCarlton]

1 hour ago, Hank said:

Mooney went 6-pack from the factory in 1969, so less of a worry about that. To say.nothing of how many have upgraded avionics and made new panels--no one custom made a shotgun panel, they're all 6-packs. Here's the factory panel in my 1970 C.

 

I read all the articles and worried about the impact of non-standard instrument layouts before I bought my '67.  However, I adjusted to a non-standard layout easily and never really thought that it resulted in a handicap or poorer pilot performance.  It just is what it is.  I actually like where the DG is located (upper right).   Don't think about it unless the subject comes up.  

[Utah20Gflyer]

Before I bought my G model Mooney I was renting a 200hp Arrow that would do maybe 140 knots.   I flight plan for 145 knots in my 180 hp Mooney at 8.5 gph at 10.5k.   Speed at 12.5k is more like 140 knots and fuel burn is just under 8 gph. 
 

I was actively looking at Arrows when I bought my Mooney.   They are ok, but after owning the Mooney for several years I am glad I went Mooney.  A 180hp Arrow I would bet is a 130-135 knot airplane, I’m not saying that’s slow but you’ll burn less gas and go faster in a Mooney so why choose an Arrow?   
 

I was flying approaches with a CFI friend of mine two weeks ago and he said “This Mooney really gets up quick”.  He normally flies Archers.  I wasn’t even trying to climb quickly, it’s just Mooneys are very clean airframes.  A Mooney just feels like a “real” airplane to me.  Even with a 180 hp engine they just perform really well.  

[Tommooney]

Hi   91Y

I'm old now so i'm going the opposite direction you are. I bought my Ovation factory new exactly 20 years ago. Only test pilot Mike Miles flew it 12 hours testing before we had BBQ lunch in Kerrville and he handed me the keys. No one else has ever flown it. It has 1500 hours since. Never a problem. After previously owning a Cherokee, '63 M20C, Twin Comanche ( great and fun plane but maintenance was long waits for parts ) 

My wife has decided not to fly small planes anymore after the last cross country CA to Maine 2021. My kids have moved far away: NYC, Norway, Italy.

I'm looking to trade down to a Cardinal for the easier entry, lower costs, less proficiency, etc. The Ovation is now wasted on me as I don't need coast to coast capability. Just a flight around SoCal once a week for fun.

An Ovation is much more $$$ than you described BUT, I rarely have any repair needs between annuals. Price is about $275K so you can figure what loan payments would be. Its paid off but I started with a 15 year loan at 6% when I bought it new from factory ($400K new ). It was a big $$ stretch for me back then but I have no regret, flying problem free coast to coast 20 years. 185K cruise @ 10K'. It flies every week. All JPI data is uploaded to SavvyMx monthly. All annuals at MSCs. Everything works for hard IFR when needed.

We can talk if you have any interest.  I just want one more trip to the Bahamas this winter( for me, best flying in the world to the 50 airstrips on the islands ).

Good luck.

Tom

805-300-6621

[Huckster79]

Don’t rule out the e,f,g… I really fell hard for the F, she’s slower than a J, but a J just wasn’t in the budget, but I love the extra room of the longer cabin…

I can’t say much about the arrow, but I’ll tell ya why I went Mooney after thinking super Viking, Navion, Bellanca Cruisair, older Bonanzas and a few others.  My flying hours were c172 and mostly Cessna 140.

the Mooney controls are beautiful compared to cabled ones.

Shes absurdly efficient! I burned a full 1/3 less fuel than my 180hp c172 friend on a recent trip together and got there far faster, we left an hour n a half behind him, and passed him entering the pattern at his second fuel stop, my first and I only stopped to pee as I was at 1/2 tanks. So not only is her fuel burn great- the fact I can skip fuel stops adds even more speed in practicality.

Theres  a steel roll cage around my family… that means the world to me flying my kids a lot. 

1050 useful load, gives me a 4 adult plane if I don’t top off.

manual gear- I love how simple my retract system is, but wouldn’t have ruled one out w electric- I just really like the J bar setup. 
 

just a few notes as to why I chose my Mooney M20F

[MBDiagMan]

Unless there was a huge price difference and your budget wouldn’t allow for the Mooney, I can’t imagine how the Cherokee could even be a contender in this decision.

[Pinecone]

15 hours ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

Good point.  But have you seen how much Tigers cost these days?  You can buy the belle of the M20C ball for less.  Pay me now or pay me later in increased insurance and maintenance costs I guess the market assumes.  

That is why I did not end up with one.  It was where I started looking.  Prices high and most seemed to have orginal avionics or maybe an early GPS, not even 430 vintage.

But, a lot less insurnace cost for a low time pilot.

[eman1200]

mooney.

[Huckster79]

On 11/27/2023 at 9:18 PM, MBDiagMan said:

Unless there was a huge price difference and your budget wouldn’t allow for the Mooney, I can’t imagine how the Cherokee could even be a contender in this decision.

concur! But I think he can find a very nice C for sure for less than an arrow… my insurance guy recommended Arrow to me when I decided to sell the c140, but most are similar priced or north really of a even a good F… 

I just couldn’t get excited about the arrow… I’m sure it is a good machine but it seemed like the Skyhawk of retracts to me… doesn’t mean there’s anything “wrong” with either,  just no sexiness to them IMO…

[M20F-1968]

At best the Arrow is a 135 kt airplane.  I had the opportunity to look at wings removed from a Cessna, Piper, Mooney and Bonanza.  

The two best structurally were the Mooney and Bonanza.  The Piper and Cessna were not even close.

Add to the Mooney consideration of its steel roll cage, one-piece wing, clean airframe, faster speeds (my modified F, which is essentially a J) is close to some Bonanza speeds with a lot more efficiency and simplicity, and similar cabin space the Piper, along with what everyone else here has said, the answer is clear -- MOONEY!

I did my instrument training in a Grumman Tiger years ago.  It is a fun little plane, BUT, it is no a Mooney, and I would not own one due to the bonded airframe.

The Arrow is essentially an Archer with retractable gear.  It is not much faster than the Archer, all things considered.

I have always been impressed with the engineer that went into the Mooney.  It is a design that has stood the test of time.

The FAA said to me years ago that they have seen crashes involving a Mooney where the passengers walked away, that would not have occurred in any other GA airplane.  That also trips the scale considerably.

John Breda

 

[Shadrach]

10 hours ago, Huckster79 said:

concur! But I think he can find a very nice C for sure for less than an arrow… my insurance guy recommended Arrow to me when I decided to sell the c140, but most are similar priced or north really of a even a good F… 

I just couldn’t get excited about the arrow… I’m sure it is a good machine but it seemed like the Skyhawk of retracts to me… doesn’t mean there’s anything “wrong” with either,  just no sexiness to them IMO…

After looking on controller I don’t see a lot of distance between similarly equipped Arrow 1 and the M20C. Same with the later arrows and the Fs. Avionics is the biggest variable.

[dkkim73]

5 hours ago, M20F-1968 said:

The Arrow is essentially an Archer with retractable gear.  It is not much faster than the Archer, all things considered

 

I just bought a Mooney and found many of the reasons John listed compelling. Also, for some mission-specific reasons. So I'm obviously pro-Mooney in the balance. 

But this line caught my eye. I did a lot of my instrument rating training in Archers and Warriors. They are very stable, forgiving, docile airplanes with charming if sedate personalities. So I could see an insurance advantage, though the RG nature might offset that. I was part of a club, so not as aware of maintenance and ownership costs with Pipers. But it also might make for a less stressful flying experience in some cases. 

So I guess my point is, the flying might be easier and slower in general, with a bit of a speed boost in cruise for the RG aspect over an Archer. But it might fit your mission better? I know I'm less intimidated by the idea of jumping in a straightleg C172, or even C182 in terms of having to be "on game" all the time. 

For sporty, in terms of IFR-capable platforms, I don't think it's a question  

 

[Buckeyechuck]

I did half of my commercial in an older Arrow 201 and the rest in the C model that I now have owned for over 20 years. I found the Arrow harder to land as you need to keep power on all the way to the ground. The Arrow flies like a rock down and dirty. I couldn’t make the runway from a mid field downwind simulated engine out. I find the C much easier to land as long as you maintain the right approach speeds. On a mid field down wind simulated engine out you have almost an eternity to get set up for landing. Mooney for me. 

[1980Mooney]

4 hours ago, dkkim73 said:

But this line caught my eye. I did a lot of my instrument rating training in Archers and Warriors. They are very stable, forgiving, docile airplanes with charming if sedate personalities. So I could see an insurance advantage, though the RG nature might offset that. I was part of a club, so not as aware of maintenance and ownership costs with Pipers. But it also might make for a less stressful flying experience in some cases. 

So I guess my point is, the flying might be easier and slower in general, with a bit of a speed boost in cruise for the RG aspect over an Archer. But it might fit your mission better? I know I'm less intimidated by the idea of jumping in a straightleg C172, or even C182 in terms of having to be "on game" all the time. 

For sporty, in terms of IFR-capable platforms, I don't think it's a question  

@N2391Y I am not sure that I understand what your mission is.  I looked at your Flightaware and I see a ton of pattern work.  If you are trying to build time and get your IFR at a low cost within your budget there are a lot of options - finding a reliable/low maintenance plane with the best panel at the lowest price is probably a priority (that might be the one you are selling....).  Retractable gear is going to cost you a $1000 more per year for insurance (maybe more - don't know your hours) and more in Annual.  The higher speed of the Mooney may provide you some "psychic income" as you think about the increased speed that you will rarely use or need.  But you will not see much difference between the planes discussed in this thread if it is just for getting your Instrument ticket.

I understand your dilemma - you have the first year Cardinal with the 150 HP engine which was considered underpowered. There is no real power upgrade path for the original Cardinals because of small fuel tanks, limited fuel system, etc.  I can see your need for change.  If you have 200-300 nm trips in the future or hauling a person or 2 a M20C can be a good choice - you will see the difference.,  You will miss the double door, easy entrance and larger cabin of the Cardinal that you are selling.  Everything in aviation is a trade-off. An Arrow is somewhere in between but the original 180 hp Arrows which you reference are at the low end of "in between".  Perhaps you are not mentioning the 200 HP Arrows due to budget.  Have you looked at later model Cardinals also with 180 HP?  They will also be an "in between" option which you are familiar.

[1980Mooney]

10 hours ago, M20F-1968 said:

I had the opportunity to look at wings removed from a Cessna, Piper, Mooney and Bonanza.....The Piper and Cessna were not even close....

I have always been impressed with the engineer that went into the Mooney.  It is a design that has stood the test of time.

All the planes mentioned in this thread have "stood the test of time".  They are all flying and in demand.  And unlike Mooney, the PA28 Pipers, Bo's and 172, 182, 206 Cessna's are still being produced....