Crossroads

[BigTex]

Purchasing an airplane or even a car for that matter is a very personal thing.  Once someone makes a connection with the plane or car, there's no rational logic or suggestion that will change that persons mind. 

 

Here in Dallas, there's a local talk show called Wheels hosted by Ed Wallace.  He gets calls all the time where folks call in asking his opinion on two or three cars.  It's pretty obvious early on in each conversation that the caller has already decided but is only looking for support for their decision.  I've yet heard Ed talk anyone out of the car they've decided on.  In fact, if Ed doesn't agree with the car they decided on, very often they get combative and argumentative.

 

It's pretty clear that MJC has made that connection with the Trinidad and is really looking for support for his decision, not offer other options. 

 

MJC, I hope things work out with your new Trinidad.

[John Pursell]

There is a type club for the Socata Carribean series: www.socata.org

There still is US parts support in Florida and parts from Europe. To properly lubricate the control bushings, the control surfaces should be removed at annual. The requirement for replacement is on condition and can be traced back to improper lubrication.

Having said that, there are many trade offs and I hope that the Mooney fleet will continue to be supported. The funny thing when you read stuff on the Internet is that you will eventually need parts that only come from the manufacture.

[scottfromiowa]

Dang, I thought this was an Eric Clapton thread...

[N33GG]

Wow...

MJC, sorry you had a bad experience with the Piper. As I guess is always the case, you pay your money and you take your chances. My experiences with Pipers was a very different story.

Good luck with whatever you decide. I can tell you from personal experience, your children will be grown and gone way too quickly, and you will wish you could just have your C-Model back. Again, good luck!

[fantom]

Hate to say it, John, but your Bravo could be considered a fringe market aircraft, also.

...I have had acquaintances who purchased fringe market aircraft before, a Siai Marchetti, a Socata, and a Meyers 200 coming immediately to mind.  Their experiences were extraordinarily bad....

[N33GG]

Always stirring the pot Fantom... my kind of guy!

[RJBrown]

I Agree with John Greens statement. I run a car repair business. Same idea but worse for planes. I started Japanese Specialists 6/1/81. Fringe cars like Isuzu, Suzuki, Daewoo, Kia, Hyundai cost MORE in the long run than Toyota, Honda and Nissan for the same reasons. The Suzuki dealer is the only source and must special order almost everything. Toyota stuff is everywhere.

[fantom]

Always stirring the pot Fantom... my kind of guy!

 

Who me.....nah.

 

Just defending an exotic, with less than four wheels or two legs, that I've always had a passion for.

 

 

Just like a Bravo....more expensive than most to keep in the air.

[flyboy0681]

 Now that one is through college and the other is soon to be, the Mooney is mainly for my wife and I

 

 

Identical situation here, one in and one on the way.

 

Just last week I came across a situation where all four of us were going to pile into the J. Luckily for me, my wife and daughter are lightweights (my son not so much) and I was able to stay legal with a full fuel load.

 

I agree that a Saratoga is probably what you need.

[mjc]

What I took exception to was "If you really want to make the buying mistake of your life, the Trinidad will sate your desires." Per wikipedia, "In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion." You can probably see that "mistake of your life" can be considered inlammatory and intended to produce an emotional response. If that's not correct, my apologies for having misread your message.

 

If it helps to know, I am the original poster. The decision right now is between keeping the M20C, getting a Trinidad, or getting an A36. I really do appreciate the good suggestions I've received. I have considered every one, including the six-place Pipers, but some just aren't going to work for me. (I disregarded the one about the 747. I hope that doesn't upset anyone.) We did both like the Trinidad, but it is true that it is a lower-volume airplane than a Mooney or Beech. If Mooney stops making parts, someone else may step in. If Socata stops making parts, the line is probably more in doubt. I have considered that and it is one reason the decision isn't yet made. (On the other hand, who's to say that there will continue to be support for the now 40 plus year old M20Cs.) Mostly not made. The A36 is a currently the third place option.

 

If all I wanted was to make breakfast runs, we'd keep the M20C. In fact, all four of us piled into the M20C just this morning for a beautiful flight to Half Moon Bay for breakfast and it was great. But that isn't all I want to do. When I was little, my family took car trips all over. I'd like to do that with my family, but with an airplane. I'd like us to go camping, visit relatives, and see national parks. I would like to believe that having an airplane will make it easier, not harder, to bring the family to Glacier Park or the Grand Canyon. Maybe I'm delusional, and as a couple of folks have suggested, my family won't want to do that in any plane. Or maybe they just won't if the plane is too small or too uncomfortable. This is what I'm trying to figure out.

 

The only reason I discounted the M20J (which is, by the way, one of my favorite airplanes ever and if I could have afforded one ten years ago I'd have bought one) is that there is a significant cost to getting a different airplane (e.g. sales tax, first annual, improvements). The M20J fixed costs are about the same as the Trinidad's or A36's, so I figured why take that hit for a 5" space gain. At 75-100 hours a year, the difference in fuel costs are less than $1000 a year. But again, a decent suggestion since it would fit the budget.

[Alan Fox]

I would lean towards the Beech or a Cessna ... The Beech products have remained virtually unchanged for almost 40 years , and the parts are interchangeable within different planes in the line....(a bonanza and baron share about 70% of thier parts ) That being said , the yards are packed with beech parts.....The Beech and the Mooneys are the most Robust planes I have ever owned  ..... I would not even consider a Socata , or Grumman , Commander etc.... Doesnt matter how good the plane is , if you cant get parts , you have nothing.....

[Marauder]

I feel your pain, Michael, and even relate to it, as I have a growing family of my own. I find your analysis to be thoughtful and generally consistent with my own, with just a few exceptions.

That having been said, if I wanted to camp on a regular basis with my family and I wanted to do it by air, an A36 or Cessna R182 or 210 would be my shopping universe. If I could shake the feeling that all real airplanes have retractable landing gear, I would consider a few other less expensive options. But I can't. I too previously owned a Cherokee, and although it was a great plane in its own way, I couldn't bring myself to own another either.

Good luck. I know that you are a true Mooney devotee and we will miss you, but there is a good chance that you will be back in a few years when the children are out of the house.

Jim

Michael -- I echo Jim's sentiments. 14 years ago I was standing in your shoes. I debated long and hard with myself and friends about what to do (the internet had not begun to introduce me to my new friends ). What was the turning point for me was my logbook. I was flying routinely 150 to 200 hours per year. I counted the number of times each year that I had taken the entire family on trips which required an overnight stay at my destination. I found that with the obligatory family events around holidays (some of which I remembered canceling out of because of weather) and the two family vacations a year, most years I could count less than 7 trips (totaling less than 35 hours per year -- Mooneys are fast!). I had other day trips to the shores/beaches but it was just a matter of fuel trade-offs. It was only on those holiday trips with extra weight due to the Christmas presents that I needed to rent/borrow a bigger plane.

 

I think you are going about this the right way. Just keep the emotions in check when you are negotiating the deal!  

[johnggreen]

Hate to say it, John, but your Bravo could be considered a fringe market aircraft, also.

 

Interesting analysis.  Have you ever owned a Bravo?  Ever maintained one?

 

In eight years of ownership, I have not cancelled a flight once.  Never had an issue finding a part.  I have a detailed record of every maintenance repair and every part replaced for preventive maintenance.  In fifteen minutes, my head book keeper can print out every $ paid for fuel, oil, maintenance, insurance, etc.  I can tell to the penny the expense of owning the Bravo and it is completely in line with other high performance, turbocharged aircraft.

 

So, having actual experience and knowledge of the airplane, i am very curious what would classify it as "fringe"?

 

Jgreen 

[johnggreen]

MJC,

 

You asked a question and I answered it as honestly as I could.  I didn't realize that I needed to skirt around the truth for sensibility sake. As for being a troll, there is one other ordinary prerequisite; anonymity.  If you will notice, my name is fully displayed and always has been.  If the site change didn't alter it, so is my locale which is KGNF for future reference.

 

 

 

Jgreen 

[jetdriven]

 

The only reason I discounted the M20J (which is, by the way, one of my favorite airplanes ever and if I could have afforded one ten years ago I'd have bought one) is that there is a significant cost to getting a different airplane (e.g. sales tax, first annual, improvements). The M20J fixed costs are about the same as the Trinidad's or A36's, so I figured why take that hit for a 5" space gain. At 75-100 hours a year, the difference in fuel costs are less than $1000 a year. But again, a decent suggestion since it would fit the budget.

 

The fixed costs are similar, but the cost of fuel and parts for an A36 or a Trinidad will be 30-50% higher.  I have flown a Trinidad and an A36 or two, and the fuel burn is 13 on the minimum, and 16 or 17 if you are in a hurry.

[Mcstealth]

Okay, I will say it.........  RV-10

[jetdriven]

This is a good problem/decision to have. I'm currently leaning towards the non-turbo Lance with six forward facing seats, good useful load and the same300hp engine that's on the Cherokee6. My fuel bill will increase by 50% over theM20C. But for family quality of life I'll eat some more brown bag lunches :-)

I'm enjoying this discussion and appreciate this forum. Happy New Year.

 

The non-turbo Lance is more like a 150 KTAS airplane that burns 16-17 GPH, the big Lycomings are none too efficient. Some won't run LOP either. If thats the case, your trip fuel burn will double.  IDK about you, but we poured 8 or 9 grand in avgas through our M20J last year in 175 hours, and that's 9 GPH average and LOP.  I couldn't imagine doubling that.

[jetdriven]

I think an early 1968-1974 A36 can be had for 100K or less. They will fly 13-14 GPH LOP at 160-165 KTAS all day long, and the annual costs are not much more than an M20J, about 3K for a base annual plus breakdowns.  That Continental IO-520BB is a great engine as long as it flies often.  

 

I don't think there is a 6-seat airplane that can be flown for a lower cost per mile. 

[mjc]

I've done some pretty extensive research on the low end of the A36 spectrum. One can pick up a 68-74 model, as Jim says, for $100k, but at that price or lower it will need or desperately want two of following: engine, paint, interior, or autopilot. Few at that price had much in the way of newer avionics, but I don't have those now so I didn't focus much on that.

Also, I have found that the A36 is more of a 170 kt. airplane on 16 gph ROP, or 160 kt. on 13.5 gph LOP, as Jim states. Still, it is the most efficient 6-place we investigated. The Trinidad matches its efficiency, but won't carry six and won't make more than 160 kts. The Lance is as Jim says even slower. Not one can match an M20C for efficiency, let alone the gold standard M20J.

Speed is somewhat relevant to me just to avoid that extra half hour of "are we there yet?" I'm sure will one day set in. There's not much difference between 140 and 150, true, but 160 or even better wouldn't hurt to have available if I have to get another plane.

[mjc]

You have my attention and interest in the 68-74 A36s. I'll just have to get some members of my family to fly facing backwards.

 

Avionics aren't a big issue for me as long as what is installed is solid and works. We fly dozens of hours of IMC with our old school VOR, KNS80 RNAV, and XM WAAS GPS on the yoke.

 

One last airplane to consider in addition to the Twin Comanche is the Travel Air, any thoughts on that one?

 

I sure do wish Mooney had made a 5+seat airplane.

I looked at the long body Mooney, and it is spacious enough for four, but many lack useful load, and in your case you need more than four seats. I think a six seat Mooney would have been sweet.

The middle row of the A36 can face forward or backward. The only downsides of the A36 are the very high parts prices and according to my mechanic, the likely need for cylinder work before TBO.

Trinidads will carry five, with three across in the back, but those three better be neither tall nor wide.

I didn't consider any twins. I had my engine overhauled and wouldn't want to do that again once, let alone twice!

[BigTex]

I'd seriously look at a Piper Saratoga.  If I planned on needing 5+ seats, it's what I'd consider before a Cherokee 6 or even an A36.  You can pick up a mid 80's model for around $150K.

 

Here's an example of one.

 

http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/PIPER-T-SARATOGA-SP/1980-PIPER-T-SARATOGA-SP/1251451.htm

[jetdriven]

That money will get you a Turbonormalized A36 with Aspen and 530W.  200 KTAS.

http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/BEECHCRAFT-A36-BONANZA/1975-BEECHCRAFT-A36-BONANZA/1252017.htm

 

Here is one owner's numbers:

1979 A36 IO550 TN WWII with tips (120 gallon usable verified).
useful load 1500#

TAS varies with altitude, but assuming typical trip...
17,000MSL
195 KTAS
16.6 GPH LOP
That's $0.50 per nm cruise only (add in climb/cruise (avg 19 gph) and its .58 pnm)

[jetdriven]

But a hundred grand will get you this, and it has a 100 hour engine in it.  Now you got me thinking about them...

 

http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/BEECHCRAFT-A36-BONANZA/1970-BEECHCRAFT-A36-BONANZA/1254189.htm

[BigTex]

Here's the stat's on the Saratoga:

 

Piper PA-32R-301T Turbo Saratoga SP (3-blade prop) - Performance Data Horsepower: 300 Gross Weight: 3600 lbs Top Speed: 295 kts Empty Weight: 2078 lbs Cruise Speed: 177 kts Fuel Capacity: 102 gal Stall Speed (dirty): 57 kts Range: 784 nm   Takeoff Landing Ground Roll: 960 ft Ground Roll 732 ft Over 50 ft obstacle: 1420 ft Over 50 ft obstacle: 1725 ft   Rate Of Climb: 1120 fpm   Ceiling: 20000 ft

 

Pretty close to the A36...

[Ron McBride]

MJC When I was 14 my Dad had a C model. Dad, Mom, Brother and Me flew in it to the East Coast. I was a lot smaller then. The plane was packed very carefully and as light as possible. We did make this work. And yes with 2 small children it is a challenge not to bring to much stuff. You have a very nice C model now, you have done the engine, paint and interior if I remember correctly. The radios are good. If you get another plane, You will need to do some of these improvements again. I have an F model, other than the extra 5 inches and 64 gallons of gas, the gain is not great for you. I have a usefull load of approx. 675#'s with 64 gallons of fuel. Good Luck on your decision. Ron