Thinking about a Mooney?

[cathead]

I am a Cherokee 140 owner. I have my instrument rating and about 625 hours total time since April of 2009. All of my hours are in my plane. My usual mission is my wife, my 3 year old son, and me for 600 miles or less trips. I have a bug iching me to get a beechcraft bonanza. I recently looked at a few M20J's on controller and found myself asking why not one of these instead of the bonanza? I stumbled upon this website and was wondering what the owners of these planes might say. I love the lycoming engine and mine has been great. It has 1400 hours on it and runs like a top. All I hear about the continentals is how much trouble they are. What would you all recommend I look at?

[jetdriven]

Lycomings eat camshafts. Continentals eat cylinders. Bonanzas love gas more than Mooneys but they are bigger inside and more comfortable. Under 100K? A Mooney. Over 100K? get an IO-520 or 550 Bonanza. My advice? Fly both and see which one you like.

Some good reading here. Yes that is me posting on a Beech forum. I keep reminding them of my 4.2 GPH sighseeing fuel flow. This weekend, I am going to make it 3.9 GPH. http://www.beechtalk...9792&hilit=m20j

[cathead]

It would have to be under $100,000. I was thinking more like under $90,000. I am really looking at Debonair's pretty hard and I like the regualr tail. I think a Debonair with the 225hp engine would fit my mission and fuel burn requirements well.

[jetdriven]

theres one for sale on BT. 152 KTAS. 11.5 GPH. A M20J will do that at 9 GPH. http://www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=70003&view=unread#unread

A friend of mine bought a 1964 S35 Bonanza for 60K last year. It is a 175 knot plane but it does love gas.

[cathead]

Ya, I have seen that one. That's my question, how does that compare to a M20J? What will I be getting out of the Deb that would be worth the extra fuel burn?

[Hank]

_{Either one would be an awesome speed upgrade from your Cherokee, and would have no trouble carrying the three of you 600 nm or more. If you are interested, I know of an F in this area that is for sale. If you stick with Mooney, do not get a short body--stay with F or later. My C is a great 2-person travel machine. Either way, you will go further and faster. Talk to your insurance agent and see if there is any significant difference in premiums or transition training, I don't think there will be but you never know.}

_{In broad, general terms, Mooneys "feel" smaller on the inside due to the low seating position and the close panel. Actual numbers from your tape measure are very, very similar. You sit down in a Mooney, you sit up on a Bo, and of course the Bo feels bigger on the ramp because the landing gear legs are so much longer. With a Mooney, there are no pneumatic legs to have problems with, and parts used to be less expensive. Don't know about Debs, but Bo's can throw out the gear as a speed brake; I have to slow down before I drop the gear. My Mooney is a lot easier to manage on the ground with a push stick than my friends' Bo's just because of the larger size and weight. They both use gas tugs, I push mine by hand.}

_{Rummage around this site for lots of information.}

[KSMooniac]

Can't go wrong with either choice IMO for that mission. Hopefully you can get a ride in both, and checkout the interior dimensions/volume. I've got some time in a V-tail Bo and really enjoyed it. My ultimate step-up piston plane would be a TN-A36. At the end of the day, though, for owner-flown XC on a reasonable budget, the M20J will stand above them all. You won't find a plane that is cheaper to own and fly that delivers useful speed and load-carrying ability for up to 4 people. That is in terms of fuel burn, maintenance requirements, parts prices, insurance costs....everything. Your cost per mile will be higher for pretty much any plane, including a fixed-gear Cessna.

If you share your location, I'm sure we can find someone to give you a ride and twist your arm.

[rbridges]

_{Either one would be an awesome speed upgrade from your Cherokee, and would have no trouble carrying the three of you 600 nm or more. If you are interested, I know of an F in this area that is for sale. If you stick with Mooney, do not get a short body--stay with F or later. My C is a great 2-person travel machine. Either way, you will go further and faster. Talk to your insurance agent and see if there is any significant difference in premiums or transition training, I don't think there will be but you never know.}

_{In broad, general terms, Mooneys "feel" smaller on the inside due to the low seating position and the close panel. Actual numbers from your tape measure are very, very similar. You sit down in a Mooney, you sit up on a Bo, and of course the Bo feels bigger on the ramp because the landing gear legs are so much longer. With a Mooney, there are no pneumatic legs to have problems with, and parts used to be less expensive. Don't know about Debs, but Bo's can throw out the gear as a speed brake; I have to slow down before I drop the gear. My Mooney is a lot easier to manage on the ground with a push stick than my friends' Bo's just because of the larger size and weight. They both use gas tugs, I push mine by hand.}

_{Rummage around this site for lots of information.}

I have zero experience in Beech aircraft, but I agree with Hank's comments about long body mooneys. My C is perfect for me, but my kids are older and don't fly with us. If your son gets much bigger, he'll find it cramped back there in a short body.

[aerobat95]

When I was looking at planes I was at first leaning towards a E model.....ended up buying an F. Love the extra room. Typically when I fly my wife and daughter sit in the back and I have the front. They both have good room to stretch out. Depending on options you might be able to find a nice J or a well equipped F. Get a ride if you can in one. We fly from KWDG-KGTR a 485NM trip and from takeoff to touchdown it is typically 3 hours or less and burn around 30 gallons. You cannot go wrong either way....but Mooneys are more efficient and way cooler to look at :-)

[TWinter]

I went from a 20 yr lay-off from flying. I just got back into it last December. After getting the bug I had to get a plane. I bought a 69' 140. Great plane to get back in the saddle, but after a few months I quickly became bored with it. I stepped into a Mooney M20E in Jun. I'm a old retired Powerlifter. Now fitness club owner and less time on the gym floor, but still 270 pounds at 5'11". More into the business aspect of it, I kept the body weight, just lost the muscle, so you say were did the 270 pounds go..umm, I guess about mid-section. My Mooney is tight getting in, but much like getting into my Z06 Vette. Once you slide the seat back then up and wedge in you feel like a racecar driver, low and in command. Great two person plane, four would be tight for more than a few hours..they need to be pretty small (under 5'9" to have any comfort) in the rear, it can be done though. Bottom line..nothing will be cooler than a Mooney, maybe there are more comfortable models. A J might fit your needs? Just my .02.

[bd32322]

Soon going to be a 2 year mooney owner (m20j). I love the LOP performance, 9 gph 150 ktas 8000 feet. Your 600 nm trips can be done one shot with plenty to spare. I like the over-engineered airframe, tubular structure, single wing spar, and i like it because its different (funky tail and all). I like its full throttle everywhere simplicity and the reliable engine (1800 hours and going strong). I like the huge graceful wingspan, altho thats a pain in a shared hangar sometimes.

I don't like how close my butt is to the floor. This means you cant quite sit upright and have a 90 degree bend at the knee. Your legs are stretched forward instead. Theres no shortage of leg room, its just that you may want to try the seating position first. This can get tiresome for 600 nm. I am 5 feet 9.

Controls are heavier than I'd like, but i find myself using the autopilot a lot on cross countries, so no biggie. For landing and stuff, i am mostly a power and trim person with this plane.

Never sat in a bonanza tho, but i hear they are lively at the controls and have more headroom, upright seating.

[cathead]

I am located in Owensboro, KY.

[Mcstealth]

If you let your wife sit in the Bo, first or at all, your plane of choice, may no longer be your choice

[Parker_Woodruff]

Never sat in a bonanza tho, but i hear they are lively at the controls and have more headroom, upright seating.

I find myself grazing the top of the cabin with my headset in most Bonanzas I sit in. Never a problem with the Mooney.

They fly about like my M20K, but not as nice as my M20J flew.

The A36 flies the best of the Beeches, in my opinion.

[cathead]

Anyone around Owensboro, KY(KOWB) willing to give me a ride in a Mooney? I would be glad to buy the gas and give a ride in a cherokee.

[201er]

600nm is a piece of cake in a Mooney and you can do it nonstop even with standard tanks. I know some might think I'm biased, but honestly I find the Mooney more comfortable than my friend's Bonanza. The Bonanza looks more comfortable but really isn't. Yes, you sit higher and leg goes vertical ahead of you, however, you can't stretch your legs forward because the rudder pedals are practically under you as well. It's nice that there is no center console so stretching sideways is possible but you can't put your legs forward. It makes me feel like flying economy class with the my bag under the seat so I can't stretch my legs.

In my M20J, I can stretch my legs forward or bend my knee, or slide back and put my leg sideways toward the middle. I think the variety of positions that you can sit in is key to long term comfort. I've flown 5 hours, 6 hours, and 8 hours nonstop. It's doable.

The panel (M20J and forward or retrofitted earlier models) and systems are simpler. The weight/balance is simple, the fuel tanks are simple. The Mooney is simpler and more logical. The Bonanza (at least the model I've flown in) adds a lot of complexity (such as having 4 separate tanks or a changing CG) but no benefit over the Mooney for it. Worst yet, the useful load on that Bonanza is worse than on my Mooney. So not only does the Bonanza burn more fuel, take less load, not go as far, but the whole "more comfortable and more cabin space argument" really doesn't float. I haven't sat back seat in the Bonanza but visually it looks like less leg room for backseaters than M20J as well.

For your specific mission a Bonanza would be a viable substitute but that's my four half pennies about Bonanza vs Mooney.

[jetdriven]

A lot of Bonanzas

If you let your wife sit in the Bo, first or at all, your plane of choice, may no longer be your choice

If you let her fly one its all over.

Mike, some V-tails have a 1200 lb useful load, and carry as much as 120 gallons. With the LOP fuel burn 1500+ NM looks pretty easy. It still costs more, but it goes faster. At the same speed, the M20J still beats the Beech by 2 GPH or more . Interestingly, my legs and ass hurt more after getting out of a Mooney after a long flight. And I have about as many hours in a Mooney now as a Bonanza.

[fantom]

Interestingly, my legs and ass hurt more after getting out of a Mooney after a long flight.

I'm trying hard to get that image out of my head, Byron. ;-)

I've got a fair number of hours in a TN F-33 and with tip tanks and LOP it's an amazing cross country machine. The TN A-36 is even better. I'm too used to the seating of a Mooney to prefer a sofa seats of a Bonanza.

[brettinlj]

Can't go wrong with either choice IMO for that mission. Hopefully you can get a ride in both, and checkout the interior dimensions/volume. I've got some time in a V-tail Bo and really enjoyed it. My ultimate step-up piston plane would be a TN-A36. At the end of the day, though, for owner-flown XC on a reasonable budget, the M20J will stand above them all. You won't find a plane that is cheaper to own and fly that delivers useful speed and load-carrying ability for up to 4 people. That is in terms of fuel burn, maintenance requirements, parts prices, insurance costs....everything. Your cost per mile will be higher for pretty much any plane, including a fixed-gear Cessna.

If you share your location, I'm sure we can find someone to give you a ride and twist your arm.

After years of renting, then going on a hiatus, and getting back into flying I have decided to buy. My purchase process is probably going to be slow as I am not pressed and want to make the right choice (it may even take a year or more). I'm curious about the following: "At the end of the day, though, for owner-flown XC on a reasonable budget, the M20J will stand above them all. You won't find a plane that is cheaper to own and fly that delivers useful speed and load-carrying ability for up to 4 people." One of my hesitations is that it seems like to have any range with a 1-hour reserve (my personal minimum), you're talking 2 people with bags, 3 without. Looking at my last 6 months of flying, I often carry 3, usually 2 (I'm including myself in these numbers), and when going on a longer cross country (>350nm) usually have 2 or 3 total persons. But alas, am not rich so its about choosing the compromise. Here is what I am considering (currently I rent an Archer, 182, 172RG, and occasionally a Mooney 252):

Cessna 182 fixed gear (like a 182Q):

Pros: Meets all my mission profiles. Simplicity of fixed gear may balance out increased maintenance costs of the bigger engine. Comfortable for my sig other (a big factor in my purchase decision). Most A&P's familiar. Low insurance. Great for Tahoe trips.

Compromises: Slower on my cross countries (SFO area to Portland, San Diego, Vegas, Palm Springs or LA). Fuel burn (Avgas currently $6.50 - $7.50 in my area).

Grumman Tiger:

Pros: Fun to fly. Great visibility. Low maintenance. Simple. Low purchase price. Low fuel burn.

Compromises: Shorter range. Slower. Good for half my missions, but for others such as long cross countries would involve an extra fuel stop. Not good for 3 people and any bags on a cross country. Low service ceiling, not good for mountain flying like Tahoe.

Mooney M20J:

Pros: Speed. Fuel burn. Efficiency. Meets mission profiles of 2 on cross country, 3 on day trips.

Compromises: Not good for 3 people and any bags on longer cross country. Possibly higher non-engine related maintenance compared to Skylane and Tiger. Not sure about insurance compared to those. Might feel cramped to sig other (I'll let you know after we fly to PSP in the Mooney 252 next month).

Beech Bonanza:

Pros: Meets mission profiles. Comfortable, stable. One of the best single engine prop GA planes ever built. Yes please.

Compromises: Costs - Initial purchase, maintenance, fuel. May only consider this option in a partnership. Would rather have money left over to actually fly.

I do keep going back to the Mooney but my missions actually do involve passengers more than half the time. It may however be worth the compromise. I'm thinking about a partnership with another individual but he is not yet 100% sure. We will hash that out in the coming months. If I don't go into a partnership, the Bonanza option would be off the table unless I get a promotion at work.

I have to say that the Tiger is attractive even if it doesn't meet all my missions from a simple cost, simplicity perspective. This is my first owned aircraft after all. Fun to fly is important, but I actually think, unlike some people, that Mooney's are fun to fly, even on short local flights in their own way.

[201er]

I would just like to point out that you may be a bit off on the numbers (or I'm a bit off on guessing your weight). First of all, the useful load on every single individual plane will be different so pay attention to it regardless of make/model. My 201 has a 987lb useful load. This means I can take full (full for standard tanks, I have increased capacity but just for arguments sake, 64 gallons) and 3 people and bags!

987 - 384 - 170 - 170 - 170 = 93lbs remaining for bags and that is 6 hours of range with reserve. Some people weigh more but others less so for generalization purposes 170 works well, custom to your own profile. At the sacrifice of 10 gallons/1hour you get another 60lbs of baggage. Fuel doesn't have to be sacrificed until you fill the 4th seat. Depending on baggage, that leaves you with 40-50 gallons which amount to 3-4 hours with your comfort reserve. And believe me, with that many people you're not going longer than that regardless.

I know it doesn't look it, but a Mooney packs a lot more useful load and comfort than you'd think. I get over 100lbs more useful load in my 201 than my friend's Bonanza. Also, the 201 handles just fine through gross weight so you don't have to worry about buffer below gross (unless runway is short or DA is high). It's a stupendous airplane, after a year of owning it I am still amazed at how ingenious its design is and outstanding performance.

[brettinlj]

I would just like to point out that you may be a bit off on the numbers (or I'm a bit off on guessing your weight). First of all, the useful load on every single individual plane will be different so pay attention to it regardless of make/model. My 201 has a 987lb useful load. This means I can take full (full for standard tanks, I have increased capacity but just for arguments sake, 64 gallons) and 3 people and bags!

987 - 384 - 170 - 170 - 170 = 93lbs remaining for bags and that is 6 hours of range with reserve. Some people weigh more but others less so for generalization purposes 170 works well, custom to your own profile. At the sacrifice of 10 gallons/1hour you get another 60lbs of baggage. Fuel doesn't have to be sacrificed until you fill the 4th seat. Depending on baggage, that leaves you with 40-50 gallons which amount to 3-4 hours with your comfort reserve. And believe me, with that many people you're not going longer than that regardless.

I know it doesn't look it, but a Mooney packs a lot more useful load and comfort than you'd think. I get over 100lbs more useful load in my 201 than my friend's Bonanza. Also, the 201 handles just fine through gross weight so you don't have to worry about buffer below gross (unless runway is short or DA is high). It's a stupendous airplane, after a year of owning it I am still amazed at how ingenious its design is and outstanding performance.

I will have to take a look at W&B more on some J moels. The 252 I have flown doesn't have that type of payload but I have yet to fly or ride in any other Mooney.

[KSMooniac]

201er's post above is right-on IMO. The 252 is a great plane, but the useful load sucks compared to most 201s, frankly. My '77 has 1025 lb useful load, and I can take 4 non-obese adults and weekend bags on a 500 NM trip. I have a fuel totalizer, fly LOP, and am quite comfortable taking off with less than full tanks so that I can carry more payload. The J's are very, very flexible traveling machines, but slower than a K over longer distances. BUT, you can take 3-4 people at once.

Many of the F models will be similar too. If I were shopping again today, actual useful load for any candidate plane would be high on my list of criteria when screening.

It sounds like you have your typical/favorite missions to fly, so you should work up flight plans with fuel burns and payloads for each of those planes you are considering. I think you might find that the higher fuel burn and slower speed of the 182 might wipe out any apparent useful load advantage. A Bonanza might or might not be any better since there is such a wide variety of those out there, especially with mods.

[fantom]

If you want to maximize your useful load with a J, buy a '77 or '78 model. They gained weight thereafter. Most '77 or '78 Js have a 950 to 1025 pound useful load even with the 2740 pound gross weight.

Jim

Not quite......some newer J's gained useful load to go along with their updated equipment and avionics, as well as a 2,900 pound gross weight. My '94 J came from the factory with a 975 pound useful load and I've picked up another 12 or so since then. 650 pounds of people and bags with full fuel.

You're right to keep coming back to Mooney. Be sure to always check the model year of whomever is offering advice. I have a 1994; Jim owns a 1978

[jetdriven]

C'mon, everyone knows that chicks dig the "77 and "78 models the best. The ones that say "Mooney 201" on the wingtip...

[fantom]

C'mon, everyone knows that chicks dig the "77 and "78 models the best. The ones that say "Mooney 201" on the wingtip...

Especially 'fast' chicks!

Good points, Jim, and don't hold your breath about that final turn. It'll probably be a straight in.