Looking to see if I fit in a m20c

[65MooneyPilot]

Thanks for the update. The Cherokee is a great learning airplane. You can also move up in the Piper aircraft. I have flown a lot of them over the years. The Cherokee 235 is a nice aircraft and the Cherokee 6-300 is a great plane. Multi engine Seminole is another good training plane. All ATP schools use them and I got my Multi engine commercial instrument in it and my ATP. So good luck and fly safe. 

[Z W]

All sounds like a good plan.

Since you mentioned wanting to get higher - My M20C really didn't like to climb much above 10,000 feet of density altitude. I was not comfortable doing a lot of mountain flying with it. The carbureted engine really notices the lack of air. It sounds like it would do better than your Cherokee 140, but if regular mountain trips are in your future, you might look for an M20E model, which I've heard with the extra 20 horsepower and fuel injection, performs much better at altitude. Sometimes they come up available for comparable money to the M20C's.

[Hank]

27 minutes ago, Z W said:

All sounds like a good plan.

Since you mentioned wanting to get higher - My M20C really didn't like to climb much above 10,000 feet of density altitude. I was not comfortable doing a lot of mountain flying with it. The carbureted engine really notices the lack of air. It sounds like it would do better than your Cherokee 140, but if regular mountain trips are in your future, you might look for an M20E model, which I've heard with the extra 20 horsepower and fuel injection, performs much better at altitude. Sometimes they come up available for comparable money to the M20C's.

It all depends on the weather. High temps or low pressure, my C suffers in the climb (doesn't everyone?). I did go to 15K one warm summer afternoon, step climbing the last three or four thousand feet, but the next day I did some searching and calculated that DA had been 18,800, which made me feel much better.

[Quantum Blueberry]

3 hours ago, Z W said:

All sounds like a good plan.

Since you mentioned wanting to get higher - My M20C really didn't like to climb much above 10,000 feet of density altitude. I was not comfortable doing a lot of mountain flying with it. The carbureted engine really notices the lack of air. It sounds like it would do better than your Cherokee 140, but if regular mountain trips are in your future, you might look for an M20E model, which I've heard with the extra 20 horsepower and fuel injection, performs much better at altitude. Sometimes they come up available for comparable money to the M20C's.

Fun story actually, what reminded me to post an update was doing research into if when the training wheels come off if I wanted to try to shoot for something like a M20C for cost, M20E for fuel injection for better LOP operations (been watching a lot of old Mike Buche webinars) or something in the Mooney family or elsewhere thats turbocharged so I can get through the mountains without any issues. Thats still pretty early on though so I don't know a ton of the pros/cons to turbochargers, mostly just that from what people have said on another topic on here that they're only about an extra 2k or so to overhaul or fix every few annuals, which while not small change isn't enough to dissuade me from looking into one. I know that theres one low time turbocharged M20C on trade-a-plane right now that has very appealing avionics and thats piqued my interest, but then again since its not injected it might have issues with running LOP which isn't optimal. I'm yet to go and test out LOP on my O-320 since weather has sucked pretty much since be brought it back home, so I'm not sure how lycoming carbureted engines like it. The decision point is a ways off, so I've got plenty of time to drool over all the cool planes I can't afford and decide which one is the one for me and do some testing with the 140.

If I may ask, when you say it doesn't like to climb above 10k DA, do you mean that it *won't* climb above 10k DA, or just that it slows to about 200 fpm or something of the like? I don't mind spending some time getting up to altitude usually, obviously just shooting straight up to around 15k ft for mountain flying would be awesome, don't get me wrong, but you work with what you've got and can afford. Obviously every aircraft will be slightly different for any number of reasons, but knowing what the absolute DA max on an M20C is would help a lot, especially for PIREP vs POH numbers. (Curse you 140 POH, you LIED to me!)

Main reason I'm looking at upgrading into the Mooney line instead of the piper line is just that from what I've seen Mooneys get much better bang for your buck when it comes to fuel, and a better bang for your buck when it comes to how much airplane you get. (a mid time M20C is the cost of a High time Cherokee 180 with internal issues when I was looking before biting on the 140) There's a possibility of me using it to time build up to my ATP post getting my commercial, at least in conjunction with flight instructing or something of the like to make sure that I'm getting a lot of high quality IFR time. I know that one issue people have is flying to earn money and not having much IFR time and that can make it hard to get hired on for ATP operations, at least as the local legends at my flight school and online have it. A lot of people on here have gotten better fuel burn on their M20C/E than I do in the 140, but thats likely due to me leaning wrong on the flight back because I didn't know how to do it properly yet. (specifically 6-7 gph vs my 8.7 gph in the 140)

[Z W]

My recollection is the M20C would climb pretty comfortably to 10k and cruise there pretty well. To get to 12k, you had to accelerate for a while, then climb a few hundred feet, then repeat. It didn't want to sustain a climb. And once you were up there, true airspeed really decayed to where it was much slower.

A big driver in switching to the turbo we have now was a trip across Texas and New Mexico on a hot day with moderate turbulence up to 12,500 feet in the C model. I couldn't get higher, and I thought my wife was going to open the door and jump out. The density altitude may well have been 15k or more.

I took the C model to Sante Fe which you can access without getting too high, and Denver, but was never comfortable heading through true mountain areas. A few hundred feet per minute of downdraft and you're unable to climb at all. Not a good feeling when trying to cross a mountain pass.

Turbo vs. non-turbo is a whole different topic with lots of threads here. I'm in the turbo camp. But, your cost numbers are a little outdated. I spent $13k overhauling a M20K turbo this year. Mine was completely worn out and they couldn't re-use any parts, so that's about a worst case scenario in 2025 numbers, but that's what it cost. Spread over 20 years and almost 1400 hours, it's not an unreasonable cost, but that's what it was. I should have done a preventative overhaul at 1,000 hours and it probably would have been much cheaper. I'd still rather have it than not.

[bigmo]

I currently own/fly an F and am in the slow-ish process of moving to Utah. Not at all concerned about high altitude ops. When I ferried it back from Washington state, we took a few shortcuts center offered us and spent a good chunk of time above 15K. Weather wasn't causing any DA issues and the plane did just fine. Sure, I'd love a turbo, but the FI 360's are brilliant motors. 

[Quantum Blueberry]

3 hours ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

It’s no rocket ship doing it, but I’ve taken my PowerFlow exhaust equipped M20C to 17,500’ pressure altitude in the summer with two men aboard and full tanks.  Having flown it for decades and also having owned a M20J for 12 years I haven’t noticed much if any difference between them in terms of high altitude performance.  

Back to the original question of this thread, though.  I’m 6’4” and now 190 pounds, although I was 165 when I started flying Mooneys in my teens, 40 years ago.  Both the J and the C are equally comfortable for me, but with me flying the C it is essentially a three seat airplane whereas the J’s backseat remains entirely useable.  That and 10 knots and the J’s better looks and higher gear and flaps speeds is the difference between them.  I also owned a ‘66 PA28-180 for a few years and it and the C are entirely comparable in terms of interior room.  

If the PA-28 is about the same size inside as a Mooney, then I should have no problems fitting inside one, unless they have that weird little handle that the passenger side has, it digs into my gut if I try to sit on the passenger side in the 140. Assuming its possible to reliably get up that high when needed, I think a non turboed Mooney would more than meet my needs, obviously a turbo is a "nice to have" feature but definitely not deal breaking given that new info. 

4 hours ago, bigmo said:

I currently own/fly an F and am in the slow-ish process of moving to Utah. Not at all concerned about high altitude ops. When I ferried it back from Washington state, we took a few shortcuts center offered us and spent a good chunk of time above 15K. Weather wasn't causing any DA issues and the plane did just fine. Sure, I'd love a turbo, but the FI 360's are brilliant motors. 

You my friend have inspired me to go down the rabbit hole of comparing the C to the E to the F to the J, probably gonna go with one of the latter three due to injectors playing better with LOP ops, but I'm yet to properly test them in the Cherokee so we'll have to see how that goes on a carburetor, could still happily end up with a C.

12 hours ago, Z W said:

My recollection is the M20C would climb pretty comfortably to 10k and cruise there pretty well. To get to 12k, you had to accelerate for a while, then climb a few hundred feet, then repeat. It didn't want to sustain a climb. And once you were up there, true airspeed really decayed to where it was much slower.

A big driver in switching to the turbo we have now was a trip across Texas and New Mexico on a hot day with moderate turbulence up to 12,500 feet in the C model. I couldn't get higher, and I thought my wife was going to open the door and jump out. The density altitude may well have been 15k or more.

I took the C model to Sante Fe which you can access without getting too high, and Denver, but was never comfortable heading through true mountain areas. A few hundred feet per minute of downdraft and you're unable to climb at all. Not a good feeling when trying to cross a mountain pass.

Turbo vs. non-turbo is a whole different topic with lots of threads here. I'm in the turbo camp. But, your cost numbers are a little outdated. I spent $13k overhauling a M20K turbo this year. Mine was completely worn out and they couldn't re-use any parts, so that's about a worst case scenario in 2025 numbers, but that's what it cost. Spread over 20 years and almost 1400 hours, it's not an unreasonable cost, but that's what it was. I should have done a preventative overhaul at 1,000 hours and it probably would have been much cheaper. I'd still rather have it than not.

I do think that I'll eventually get a turbo, but given what others have said its not as make or break as I thought it was. Those prices are a bit steeper than I was hoping for, but they're definitely manageable as long as I play my cards right in the long run, especially if I want to safely fly through the Rockies in IFR. 

[Pinecone]

The Mooney you WANT is a 252/Encore.

Nothing like the same climb rate at 17,000 as at sea level.  And LOVE the TAS up high. 

But, they are not cheap.

 

[EricJ]

On 3/29/2025 at 10:52 PM, Quantum Blueberry said:

If the PA-28 is about the same size inside as a Mooney, then I should have no problems fitting inside one, unless they have that weird little handle that the passenger side has, it digs into my gut if I try to sit on the passenger side in the 140. Assuming its possible to reliably get up that high when needed, I think a non turboed Mooney would more than meet my needs, obviously a turbo is a "nice to have" feature but definitely not deal breaking given that new info. 

A buddy has a PA-28-180, I have an M20J.    The cabin dimensions are very comparable between the two, in width, height, length, etc., they're basically the same in the general dimensions.   The differences are not enough to matter in a purchase decision, imho.

My non-turbo J model Mooney flies fine up through well into the teens, and I've had it as high as 18k ft.   If you need to go up there routinely, you'll probably want a turbo.   If you just need to go up there once in a while, a non-turbo is probably fine depending on the details of what you're doing.    I live in the southwest, where it's pretty normal to fly above 10k to stay out of the terrain, and I used to fly back and forth between AZ and SoDak frequently, which required crossing the continental divide somewhere along the way.   I've never felt like I needed a turbo, but requirement vary depending on personal preference and the details of what you want to do.  

[dkkim73]

The original "do I fit?" Question was recently definitively answered in this thread: