Mooney M20C vs Arrow 180

[Hank]

51 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

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....

Bonanza production rates are < 10 annually, maybe < 5. The PA-28 and 172 models are in demand from flight schools. Not sure how many 182 and 206s are still being produced. 

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, 1980Mooney said:

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....

Perhaps, but I don’t know of any other certified aircraft with a 70 year old type certificate that has spawned variants that operate on such a wide spectrum of performance. The M20D and the M20TN are built on the same basic design. One is 125mph trainer and the other will cross the continent in the flight levels at >250mph…

[1980Mooney]

15 minutes ago, Hank said:

Bonanza production rates are < 10 annually, maybe < 5. The PA-28 and 172 models are in demand from flight schools. Not sure how many 182 and 206s are still being produced. 

Piper built 146 PA-28 last year and 107 this year through Sept.

Textron/Cessna 

• built 151 C-172 last year and 120 this year through Sept.
• built 48 C-182 last year and 38 this year through Sept
• built 42 C-206 last year and 28 this year through Sept

Textron/Bonanza built 3 G36 last year and 3 this year through Sept

Read the Cirrus and Diamond numbers and weep....

https://gama.aero/wp-content/uploads/2022ShipmentReport2023-03-10.pdf

https://gama.aero/wp-content/uploads/2023ShipmentReport11-21.pdf

[dkkim73]

26 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

Read the Cirrus and Diamond numbers and weep....

 

"Aye, and if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon!"

[Fly Boomer]

57 minutes ago, Hank said:

Bonanza production rates are < 10 annually, maybe < 5. The PA-28 and 172 models are in demand from flight schools. Not sure how many 182 and 206s are still being produced. 

I recently read somewhere that there have been a couple of years where Bonanza production was <1.

[1980Mooney]

3 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

I recently read somewhere that there have been a couple of years where Bonanza production was <1.

True.  2020-2021 was zero.  But Textron has been building them again for the past 2 years unlike Mooney.  There is some small demand for them.

https://gama.aero/facts-and-statistics/quarterly-shipments-and-billings/

Edited November 29, 2023 by 1980Mooney

[Shadrach]

4 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

I recently read somewhere that there have been a couple of years where Bonanza production was <1.

All of the legacy manufactures to which @1980Mooney refers would be out of business without the revenue generated by their turbine offerings. Cirrus and Diamond deserve great credit for generating and capturing incremental sales where the legacy manufacturers have failed.

[EricJ]

1 hour ago, 1980Mooney said:

Piper built 146 PA-28 last year and 107 this year through Sept.

Textron/Cessna 

• built 151 C-172 last year and 120 this year through Sept.
• built 48 C-182 last year and 38 this year through Sept
• built 42 C-206 last year and 28 this year through Sept

Textron/Bonanza built 3 G36 last year and 3 this year through Sept

Read the Cirrus and Diamond numbers and weep....

https://gama.aero/wp-content/uploads/2022ShipmentReport2023-03-10.pdf

https://gama.aero/wp-content/uploads/2023ShipmentReport11-21.pdf

More Barons than Bonanzas!   That's kind of interesting.

The USAF/CAP still buys a number of C182s every year to keep the fleet replenished.   I don't know what percentage of the total that might be.

Piper only stopped making Arrows a few years ago.   Apparently the flight schools just jump everybody right to the Seminoles for complex training and multi at the same time.

[Pinecone]

45 minutes ago, EricJ said:

The USAF/CAP still buys a number of C182s every year to keep the fleet replenished.   I don't know what percentage of the total that might be.

Also 172s and 206s.

CAP seems to be moving to 206 Turbo for the mountain states and 182s and 172 for flatter states.  172 are still around due to initial training for cadets.  Cadets can get the Private through CAP, sometimes for little to no cost.

[C.J.]

On 11/27/2023 at 3:07 PM, N2391Y said:

I have been looking at Mooney M20Cs and Arrows. 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. 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!

I considered a 200HP Arrow II and rented one for 7 hours before buying my M20C. I'd flown a C for COM/INST & CFI-I ratings in 77-78 & taught in a T-tailed Arrow IV in 79-80. I'd advise against a T-tailed Arrow due to poor pitch authority during take-off/landing but either a 200HP Arrow or a M20C (or E) would be a good choice. Test fly all of them & then decide which is the right choice for YOU.

The claim of 140 KTAS in cruise from a 180HP Arrow is wishful thinking. Referring to the graphs below a 200HP Arrow II is capable of 140 KTAS given the right conditions, but I wouldn't count on it most of the time. An Arrow cabin seems more spacious but with a front seat passenger, staggering the seats is necessary for comfort & I doubt if there's more than an inch difference in cabin width. It handles well, stall is docile power on/off, dirty/clean thanks to that Hersey Bar wing but the trade-off is a nauseating ride even in light turbulence. During the time I was actively looking, Arrow II asking prices were nearly always more than a M20C.

Mooney versus any Piper or Cessna single brings to mind the old saying "this is NOT your father's Oldsmobile". Push-Pull rods vs cables, laminar flow wing w/ flush rivets vs fat cambered wings, one continuous wing vs a left/right wing assembly & steel cage cabin for structural integrity, Johnson Bar low maintenance gear, a trim-able tail assembly & wide span flaps make a Mooney unique amongst the conventional bug-smashers out there. It has a good solid control response in routine flying & ride is far superior in turbulence to that of an Arrow. Stall is gentle with minor left wing drop w/ gear and flaps down, but the stall break while clean, with full throttle is abrupt accompanied by rapid left wing drop even with the ball perfectly centered. 

I operate 65% @100* ROP with my longest cross country from North Carolina to northern Michigan broken down into 2 or 3 legs. I have no speed mods but am equipped with Power Flow exhaust and flight plan for 135 kts @ 5000, 140 kts @ 7500 and 144 kts @ 10,000 interpolating between. My C can best those figures by a few knots. Best actual TAS at 10500 was148 knots. I typically operate at 2200 pounds GW.

The 2 graphs are from the PA28R-200 POH @ 2650 lbs GW - TAS in MPH

The 2 tables are from the M20C POH @ 2200 lbs GW - TAS in MPH

Good luck with your search.

[hammdo]

This is my ‘66 Mooney M20C @ 2400 RPM, 21" WOT @9000 ft:

173 MPH true (150 KNOTS) leaned to 8.2 GPH block time - very consistent. Does have speed mods:

just an idea to consider…

-Don

 

[EricJ]

10 hours ago, C.J. said:

The claim of 140 KTAS in cruise from a 180HP Arrow is wishful thinking. Referring to the graphs below a 200HP Arrow II is capable of 140 KTAS given the right conditions, but I wouldn't count on it most of the time.

The 200 hp Arrow II that I used to fly was pretty consistent around 135 kts.    I always wondered whether there was something wrong with it, but that's pretty much what they do.  The one I flew even had some speed mods.

[N201MKTurbo]

When I first started flying, I was doing service calls for work. Actually, my first solo cross country as a student had a job at the other end and I got reimbursed for the trip.

Anyway, I was flying Tamahawks, 150s and Cherokee’s. I knew an instructor with an Arrow. My first retract flight. I needed to go to St. George, UT. I was underwhelmed with the performance. It cost twice as much as the Archer I could rent, but sure didn’t give twice the performance. It was like 5 KTS faster.

[AndreiC]

I have some time in an Arrow (about 100 hours, part of a club) and probably close to 1000 hours in Cherokees, about 500 in a Cherokee 180 I owned. I loved all of them. The handling characteristics of the 180 were very docile, and I had no qualms going into a 2000 foot grass runway with it. I got better at landing the M20E I now own, but I'd still think twice about that 2000 foot runway. The Mooney is surely faster, but I am not sure the difference is as large as people on this thread make it to be -- I think I was seeing 135 knots in the Arrow (it was an Arrow II 201) and about 112 in the Cherokee. My 1970 M20E may be on the slow side. It does fairly consistently 142, and pushing it hard I may be able to do 150 at 6500, but I don't think I will see book performance. Plus I like to fly LOP, being a CB, and that slows things down a bit. 

I think @PT20J 's description is spot on. A 5-7 knots difference won't be that substantial. The handling is different, and it is a matter of preference, to me it was hard to adapt to the much heavier controls of the Mooney. Also I feel that the visibility in the Mooney is worse than in a Cherokee, and I really enjoy looking outside while flying, so this is a drawback for me. Finding a mechanic familiar with, and willing to work on a Mooney is a non-trivial matter as well. Am I happy with the Mooney? So far yes, but, as my son would say, with an asterisk. (But then again, I've had the Mooney for 6 months, while I've had Cherokees for 20 years... These things take time to get used to.)

[mizer2167]

On 11/30/2023 at 4:49 PM, Andrei Caldararu said:

I have some time in an Arrow (about 100 hours, part of a club) and probably close to 1000 hours in Cherokees, about 500 in a Cherokee 180 I owned. I loved all of them. The handling characteristics of the 180 were very docile, and I had no qualms going into a 2000 foot grass runway with it. I got better at landing the M20E I now own, but I'd still think twice about that 2000 foot runway. The Mooney is surely faster, but I am not sure the difference is as large as people on this thread make it to be -- I think I was seeing 135 knots in the Arrow (it was an Arrow II 201) and about 112 in the Cherokee. My 1970 M20E may be on the slow side. It does fairly consistently 142, and pushing it hard I may be able to do 150 at 6500, but I don't think I will see book performance. Plus I like to fly LOP, being a CB, and that slows things down a bit. 

I think @PT20J 's description is spot on. A 5-7 knots difference won't be that substantial. The handling is different, and it is a matter of preference, to me it was hard to adapt to the much heavier controls of the Mooney. Also I feel that the visibility in the Mooney is worse than in a Cherokee, and I really enjoy looking outside while flying, so this is a drawback for me. Finding a mechanic familiar with, and willing to work on a Mooney is a non-trivial matter as well. Am I happy with the Mooney? So far yes, but, as my son would say, with an asterisk. (But then again, I've had the Mooney for 6 months, while I've had Cherokees for 20 years... These things take time to get used to.)

My only significant experience is in PA28's and C172s. I have an insignificant amount of time in a Bonanza.

I don't see a lot of difference between the handling of the PA28's and C172s I've flown.

Given your description of the Mooney's controls @Andrei Caldararu I'm curious, would you describe the Mooney as being fun to fly? My primary mission is boring holes in the sky, but with the ability to carry 3+overnight bags 400 nm on rare occasions.

[Schllc]

On 11/29/2023 at 2:48 PM, 1980Mooney said:

True.  2020-2021 was zero.  But Textron has been building them again for the past 2 years unlike Mooney.  There is some small demand for them.

https://gama.aero/facts-and-statistics/quarterly-shipments-and-billings/

I’m willing to bet mooney could have sold three new aircraft had they been able to produce them. 
I do agree that three hardly constitutes “demand”, but mooney’s sin wasn’t the product, it was a disastrous/incompetent/non existent marketing, and expensive construction methods. 

[M20F]

I wouldn’t buy an Arrow with counterfeit money. 

[gmonnig]

On 11/27/2023 at 2:07 PM, 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!

Weird that your insurance would be so high on a Comanche. My 250 was cheaper to insure than my M20E was at the same hull value. It was around $1500 vs $1850. I sold my E to a fellow MS'er. I miss it but the Comanche 250 can be had for the same price. It'll beat a C/E in all categories.... speed, room, useful load, climb rate, range, routine maintenance, better corrosion resistance, quieter, and more room to work under the cowl. Good ones don't come up as frequently as good Mooneys, but both aircraft are getting long in the tooth.

 

[Immelman]

On 11/27/2023 at 12:07 PM, 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.

Just my opinion: The arrow is a complete dog of a complex trainer. Don't go there. Your cardinal may do better.

 

And I am not just saying that from a biased Mooney perspective.

[Dialed In]

    https://www.flywildblue.com/airplane-for-sale/1967-piper-arrow/n3962t

@N2391Y I have a 1965 m20E and love it. I have not read all the responses however my hanger neighbor is selling this arrow, it is well sorted and he takes very good care of it. If I were in the market this one would be towards the top of my list. 

[AndreiC]

On 12/2/2023 at 8:51 PM, mizer2167 said:

Given your description of the Mooney's controls @Andrei Caldararu I'm curious, would you describe the Mooney as being fun to fly? My primary mission is boring holes in the sky, but with the ability to carry 3+overnight bags 400 nm on rare occasions.

It is very responsive at cruise speeds, and fun to fly. At landing speed I find myself using quite a bit of muscle pulling on the controls. This could be due to a number of reasons. 1) the elevator travel (as well as aileron travel) is much shorter in the Mooney than in the Cherokee. I remember you could turn the controls left/right through about 360 degrees in the Cherokee; in the Mooney it is more like 120 degrees. 2) The Mooney controls have springs you push-pull against, unlike the Cherokee. 3) I may not yet be using enough trim on landing.

3+overnight bags is/is not doable depending on the size of the people. My E has a useful load of 891 lbs. With full tanks (54.4 gallons) and 7 qts of oil that leaves 550 lbs for passengers and bags. You do the math... but that would only allow 3 people (you + two more) that are 175 lbs each and 3 x 8 lbs bags. Pretty tight. My old 180 Cherokee had 995 lbs useful load, which would have helped.

[Hank]

@Andrei Caldararu, it sounds like you ate fighting the PC system. Press the button on the left yoke horn and it's magically easy to turn. I don’t do this, because it reminds me / keeps me from overbanking in the pattern.

Use trim so that you can let gomof the yoke and maintain your attitude, whether climbing, at cruise or descending. If you let go and the nose immediately moves, adjust the trim some more.

It's all part of becoming one with your Mooney. 

[Vance Harral]

3 hours ago, Andrei Caldararu said:

With full tanks (54.4 gallons) and 7 qts of oil that leaves 550 lbs for passengers and bags.

I really don't understand people's obsession with filling the tanks for every flight scenario, especially in a Mooney.  54 gallons is nearly 6 hours of endurance in an E model.  Almost nobody wants to fly in any kind of piston single for anywhere near that length of time.  Put 30 gallons of gas in the airplane instead of 54, now you've got over 3 hours' endurance and about 700 lbs of payload.  Completely reasonable for a 3-person trip.

Show me an airplane where you can fill the tanks and fill the seats and still depart legally, and I'll show you an airplane whose designers made the fuel tanks too small.

[AndreiC]

16 hours ago, Hank said:

@Andrei Caldararu, it sounds like you ate fighting the PC system. Press the button on the left yoke horn and it's magically easy to turn. I don’t do this, because it reminds me / keeps me from overbanking in the pattern.

Use trim so that you can let gomof the yoke and maintain your attitude, whether climbing, at cruise or descending. If you let go and the nose immediately moves, adjust the trim some more.

It's all part of becoming one with your Mooney. 

My plane does not have the PC system any more. It was replaced with an STEC 30 long ago. Also, I know how to trim, thank you very much (1300 hours of flying have taught me this much...) All I was saying was that on landing, as the speed goes down and controls are less and less effective, even with a lot of nose up trim I need more muscle in the flare than I needed in the Cherokee. You can debate whether that's true or not, and if my technique is right, but that was my impression after switching over.

The obsession with full tanks is a natural one. I'd rather have more fuel than I need, than less  Full tanks is a known quantity to start with. Less than full, it's not clear how much you have. Plus I keep tanks full many times just to protect the insides of the tanks. Once the tanks are full, it is a non-trivial problem to empty some amount before a flight. And finally, when I stop somewhere where fuel is cheap, I am happy to fill up to the brim. 

A few months ago I took a flight from Madison to Nashville, moving my son to college. Landing at JWN, about a 3.5 hours flight. Price of fuel at JWN was outrageous. Two adult males (not three!) and baggage. Passengers were 440 lbs. Baggage 110 lbs. I wanted full fuel so I could fly to JWE, fly somewhere else afterwards to fuel at normal prices, and still have a 1 hour reserve. We barely fit inside the 895 lbs useful load. In the Cherokee, with the extra 100 lbs useful load, I would have been much more comfortable with the situation. It is not fun to depart on a hot day at gross weight.

I don't think that being honest about the strong/weak points of an airplane you (and I) love is a bad idea. It is a great plane. But all planes have their strong/weak points, and one should be clear eyed when going into making a purchase which for many of us may be the biggest beyond buying a house.

[A64Pilot]

No, he’s right, a Mooney is heavy on the controls specifically for the reason he states, limited control throws. I keep meaning to measure out of curiosity but I think total aileron throw is only 45 degrees or so for a total of about 90 degrees, about half what it is on some aircraft.

Additionally a Mooney isn’t as responsive particularly in roll as many GA aircraft, the illusion of being “sports car like” comes from the very limited control throws not actually pitch and roll rates.

However that’s not a bad thing,  the mission is cross country flight at decent airspeed and relatively high efficiency, it’s not to go out and fly aggressively dreaming of being top gun, being a little heavy adds in stability and particularly cuts down on pilot induced oscillation.

Coming out of a C-210 it’s light on control especially pitch, and coming out of a C-140 it feel like your flying a dump truck, all three are very good airplanes, just different.