Flew first Mooney today!

[benpilot]

I should have my PPL this month if all goes well on the checkride then I can gain some complex airplane experience.

[triple8s]

"Benchracer"

[robert7467]

I am not saying that a Mooney is a bad plane to learn in, after all I learned to fly in a Mooney. However, saying that a Mooney is lighter on the controls if its trimmed properly is telling me that you have a long way to go in your PPL journey, since trimming is a part of the basics of flight. If I could go back, and look at some of my post during my PPL journey, I would laugh at myself, so don't feel too bad about it, just understand that you have a long way to go. Also, when you get your PPL, you still have a long way to go.

[bumper]

Richard Bach in his heyday had 9 aircraft at once. He opined that 9 was too many . . . 5 was about right.

 

At one point I owned 5 and found that is too many, 3 is about right. Especially so if you like to do your own work, owner assist annuals that sort of thing. But in all cases the planes were uniquely different.

 

re. the Mooney / Bonanza thing: Even the Injuns were smart enough to use three feathers . . . 

 

bumper

[benpilot]

Both are great planes for different missions. Having a superfast Mooney Bravo and Bonanza A36 would be nice. 

[bumper]

  On 6/6/2013 at 3:48 PM, skynewbie said:

Both are great planes for different missions. Having a superfast Mooney Bravo and Bonanza A36 would be nice. 

 

How can I put this gently . . .

 

bunk

 

They are both fast multi seat cross-country machines. One is a bit more efficient, one carries more, one will cost more in maintenance (on average), but they both fulfill the same mission.

 

As an example of what I'm talking about, I have a 201 and a Husky, two very different aircraft, only one of which is suitable for landing off-field and playing in the Nevada outback or camping in the Idaho back country. Now you can press the Husky into service for long distance travel, but the Mooney cruises at just over 160 knots while the Husky (with big tires) is happiest at near half power, 105 knots burning 6 gph (pour the coals to it and it'll go 117 knots and burn almost twice as much). Mooney wins the travel contest hands down . . . but the Husky is way fun to play with!

 

bumper

[fantom]

  On 6/4/2013 at 11:48 PM, skynewbie said:

I should have my PPL this month if all goes well on the checkride then I can gain some complex airplane experience.

 

[rob]

  On 6/6/2013 at 4:04 PM, bumper said:

How can I put this gently . . .

bunk

They are both fast multi seat cross-country machines. One is a bit more efficient, one carries more, one will cost more in maintenance (on average), but they both fulfill the same mission.

As an example of what I'm talking about, I have a 201 and a Husky, two very different aircraft, only one of which is suitable for landing off-field and playing in the Nevada outback or camping in the Idaho back country. Now you can press the Husky into service for long distance travel, but the Mooney cruises at just over 160 knots while the Husky (with big tires) is happiest at near half power, 105 knots burning 6 gph (pour the coals to it and it'll go 117 knots and burn almost twice as much). Mooney wins the travel contest hands down . . . but the Husky is way fun to play with!

bumper

I said exactly the same thing earlier in this thread and couldn't agree more. Owning an A36 and a Bravo concurrently would be foolish.

[TWinter]

  On 6/6/2013 at 4:04 PM, bumper said:

How can I put this gently . . .

 

bunk

 

They are both fast multi seat cross-country machines. One is a bit more efficient, one carries more, one will cost more in maintenance (on average), but they both fulfill the same mission.

 

As an example of what I'm talking about, I have a 201 and a Husky, two very different aircraft, only one of which is suitable for landing off-field and playing in the Nevada outback or camping in the Idaho back country. Now you can press the Husky into service for long distance travel, but the Mooney cruises at just over 160 knots while the Husky (with big tires) is happiest at near half power, 105 knots burning 6 gph (pour the coals to it and it'll go 117 knots and burn almost twice as much). Mooney wins the travel contest hands down . . . but the Husky is way fun to play with!

 

bumper

If I could afford a second or had a choice of what combination I would pick for two aircraft to own...this has always been it. Great choices! Mooney & Husky/Cub

[aviatoreb]

  On 6/6/2013 at 4:04 PM, bumper said:

 

 

As an example of what I'm talking about, I have a 201 and a Husky, two very different aircraft, only one of which is suitable for landing off-field and playing in the Nevada outback or camping in the Idaho back country. Now you can press the Husky into service for long distance travel, but the Mooney cruises at just over 160 knots while the Husky (with big tires) is happiest at near half power, 105 knots burning 6 gph (pour the coals to it and it'll go 117 knots and burn almost twice as much). Mooney wins the travel contest hands down . . . but the Husky is way fun to play with!

 

bumper

 

You have the dream hangar!

 

I always figured something low and slow like a cub should be the second airplane to match a high and fast Mooney, but a Husky as "the other girl" sounds divine.

 

I figured if I ever had two airplanes like that, I would get matched "bumper stickers".  One would say "My other airplane is a Mooney" and the other sticker would say "My other airplane is a Husky".

[bumper]

Thanks.

 

I started late, at 46 back in '91 . . . so trying to make up for lost time. The Mooney and Husky really complement each other well. "The other girl" in the hangar rounds out the "trilogy" and is an ASH26E, shown in my avatar over Job's Peak. I built a sideways tow-out gear that allows me to store the 59 foot (18 meter) glider assembled in the hangar. It gets pushed out to the glider staging area with a golf cart and then self-launch from there, almost as easy as taxiing out in the Mooney.

[carusoam]

Bumper,

What powers the self launch feature? That sounds interesting...

Best regards,

-a-

[preinke]

It looks like that I am going to have a 201 and a Cessna 180 for a while. The market is pretty saturated with 201s and am not in the give away mode yet. I have had a Luscombe 8A/E for the last couple years and it is a hoot to fly but our grass strip airport is disappearing because of the root of all evil - money and progress. The loss of the airport forced me to move the plane 50 miles away from where I live and cost twice as much. I am trading the Luscombe for the 180 thinking that it could be a fair compromise but kinda relish the current situation with both

 

Paul

'77J

'46 Luscombe 8A/E

'38 Chief project

[bumper]

  On 6/7/2013 at 2:43 AM, carusoam said:

Bumper,

What powers the self launch feature? That sounds interesting...

Best regards,

-a-

It's a Mid West single rotor Wankel engine making 50 hp at about 7400 rpm - - like most Wankels, turbine smooth (2-strokes being the bane of most self-launchers - - little suckers try to vibrate themselves and anything attached to them to pieces).

 

This engine was originally developed for the Norton motorcycle in the 50's. It was a two rotor and had problems with seals, heat, and normal Wankel marginal fuel efficiency. Not being a success in motorcycles, they certified it for aircraft  . Guess it was about 8 years ago, Diamond Aircraft bought the rights to the Mid West Wankel and intended to use it in one of their tractor motorglider designs. Small form factor = lower flat plate area, that sort of thing, but it never happened. A division of Diamond makes them still, but I think the only customer is Schleicher. 

 

bumper

[benpilot]

Nice I am going to fly some different models of Mooney to get better picture. I've flown different Bonanza and Cessna models just need to experience more Mooney land.

Fuel efficiency and speed is very attractive to me as well as the very stable feel of the Mooney. I like Bonanzas too but they do not feel as stable in turbulence as the Mooney Rocket I flew. After my checkride this month, I can get checked out in a Mooney 20F or 201J and make a better more informed decision!

[NotarPilot]

Skynewbie, do you even have a clue on what your mission profile is in regards to airplane ownership? Granted, I haven't really been following your posts so maybe I missed it if you already posted it but I'm wondering if you even know what you want to do in your airplane, should you buy one.

For me I knew I wanted something efficient and fast since time and the cost of avgas are important to me. I wanted the ability to carry three passengers with me on occasion. My J has performed this mission as expected. I've had 4 adults in the plane with no problem. I got my instrument rating in the plane with no problem. The plane has had an excellent reliability track record. I spent hours and hours researching the best plane for me and I haven't regretted buying my Mooney once. I'm a devout Mooniac.

Might I suggest you sit down and figure out what you want to do and figure out what you're willing to compromise with because unless you're a millionaire you'll find aircraft ownership is a huge compromise when you're just some Joe Shmoe like me. Good luck and do your homework.

[benpilot]

 

Agree- right now my mission as a single guy is 1-3 pax with a plane that is fast, comfortable and will be reliable and fun to fly on long trips.

I've narrowed it down to three that fit this: Mooney, Beechcraft, and Socata. All have merits and limits so it really is a trade off. I think flying other Mooney will help since Rocket is unique and other Mooney pilots with whom I've spoken with say long body Mooney like Bravo and Ovation would better fit my goals. So for a Mooney, I'd be looking at these or perhaps a 252 TSE. I need something that can be valuable for IFR and high density altitudes like flying over mountains.

[KSMooniac]

Parker's 252 is the best deal on the market right now.

[Parker_Woodruff]

And as I just posted, it will do 194 KTAS on 11.6 gallons per hour.  Proven here:

 

[fantom]

  On 6/11/2013 at 7:39 PM, KSMooniac said:

Parker's 252 is the best deal on the market right now.

 

Plus it has a great paint scheme, and you better jump on those 3" rudder extentions being sold in another thread.

 

BTW, everything in aviation, like everything in life, is a trade-off.

[driller]

moved

[benpilot]

 

But for what Parker is selling his 252, I can buy a Mooney Bravo or used Ovation.

[Bill_Carter]

The difference in Parker's 252 and the Bravo or Ovation you can buy at the same price is in the condition of the airplane. Parker's 252 is said to be in top shape. To buy a Bravo or Ovation in top shape is going to cost a whole lot more than what Parker is asking.

That being said, it is worth looking into those possibilities though. :\

[Parker_Woodruff]

I keep my costs and fuel burns down to the penny. You'll quickly exceed the extra price of my plane (if any) in operating costs for the Bravo. Also, it would be tough to find an Ovation cheaper and any Bravo will cost more to overhaul, feed, and maintain.

[N1026F]

  On 6/13/2013 at 5:06 AM, skynewbie said:

 

 

But for what Parker is selling his 252, I can buy a Mooney Bravo or used Ovation.

 

I have an Ovation--no, you can't.  And I bought mine at auction; sight unseen.