Comparing a Mooney to an Arrow

[DaV8or]

Hate to break it to anyone, but our reservoir cans are remarkably similar.  The function doesn't call for any fancy part, so use what works and minimize cost! 

 

That's what I was going to say. The reservoir in my F is pretty much the same as the one pictured above. I'm OK with it. It works.

[Gatorm]

Well, I am new here but I think I should add to this little piece.  I have owned a warrior, arrow, turbo arrow, lance, saratoga and my father currently owns a SaratogaII TC so I guess I am qualified to give my opinion.  The warrior (which I own now) is a great little flyer if you like to just fly local and short cross country.  The arrow/turbo arrow is an ok airplane but cost too much in my opinion for what you get.  The lance is a great older aircraft which can really haul a load at 150k on 15gph.  Its not fast but its a true family airplane that is hard to beat if you need to haul mom, dad and a couple of kids with luggage.  There really isnt much out there any better except maybe the cherokee6.  The older saratoga's are the same with more wiggle in the air. I always preferred the hershey bar wing because the wing loading was heavier and it was more stable in cruise and had to be flown to the ground, which I like.  The SaratogaII TC is a really nice airplane with lots of room and good speed.  It does not, however, haul near the load of a lance/old saratoga.  It is really a 3 person and bags airplane, not 4.  Alas, I love the little M20K for myself even though I need the family hauler.  I just cant get over the efficiency of the 231 every time I fly it.  I also love the way they ride in weather....rock solid.  The Mooneys are also constructed at a higher level than the pipers, especially the older pipers.  The SaratogaII TC is built pretty darn well.

[pinerunner]

Hank,

Thanks for the offer.

I'm fixing to get started to prepare my around the......er......a.....eastern states tour...

I'll be puttin' the hotdogs on the list!

Best regards,

-a-

If you can include KLEW Lewiston Maine on Oct 26 a Saturday, I talked them into having a flyin "The First Greater Falls Fly-in" that will include good food (I'm thinking of making crepes) and a bit of a tour (no cameras) of the Constellation Lufthansa is restoring. I tried to talk them into a Mooney fly-in but looks like they're opening up to others.

 

Dave

[flyboy0681]

I can only imagine what they are saying about this subject on the Piper owners site.

[wrench]

The only Piper single I can compare my J model Mooney to in performance and handling was the 250 Commanche I jointly owned. The penalty there was about a 3.5 GPH delta for about the same speeds as the J. It was a little more comfortable interior wise and like our Mooney's was a very stable IFR platform. It had a Johnson bar manual gear extension in case the electric gear motor failed. The "book" usable load was about 40 lbs higher but totally negated by additional fuel needed for the comparable endurance. Many had two 15 gal. add-on tip tanks. I think 90gals was the total fuel then.

 

If I were to buy an Arrow it would be the Arrow III model without a turbo unless typical operation was greater than 5K up. Nice and easy to fly and maintain but you won't get asked to slow for other traffic very often in it. I liked the Arrow III best of the 200hp Arrows both turbo and non-turbo but I bought a Mooney for what it's worth opinion wise.

 

A 2006 C182T Nav III we flew last week had almost the same useful load when compared to the 1962 Commanche but 20 knots slower. We were out of the landing weight box by 40 lbs with only 56 of the 95 gals of fuel onboard, three people and 40 pounds in the baggage compartment area. And oh by the way don't forget to sump the 13 yes 13 sump drains in the pre-flight walkaround.

 

Our Mooneys are very good compromises in the single engine realm for value, performance and comfort. But thats just my opinion after many makes and models over the years as a PIC.

 

Bill

[87-205SE]

30 knots slower....My Tiger would run away from an Arrow.    My 205 doesn't need a rest view mirror.   Piper pig.

[Guest]

Strange, my Piper will hand most Mooney’s their bum on a plate!

Clarence

[TCC]

 
 Or better yet - I could get them installed on the wings then I could carry four bikes, two on each wing.

Patey figured it out. E/AB.

[markgrue]

44 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

Strange, my Piper will hand most Mooney’s there bum on a plate!

Clarence

Trouble is your piper has 2 mooney engines on it...   And yes I am jealous.

Mark

[aviatoreb]

54 minutes ago, TCC said:

Patey figured it out. E/AB.

OOOOH - I WANT that.  I NEED that.

[Aerodon]

Old thread, but I think I will add some comments considering that I have owned both, with more than 500 hours in a T-III and T-IV (along with many other Piper's).  

1) When we purchased a 1979 T-IV for $50k in 1994, a 231 was $70k, not an insignificant difference, and quite a lot of that difference was probably due to the better avionics and autopilot that tended to come standard with a 231.

2) The T-IV was about 15kts slower on the same fuel, but I would say the FB engine had a better reputation than the GB or LB.  There is a trade off for most things.

3) The T-IV is easier for both the front and rear passengers to get into, and to be honest I prefer the higher and more upright seating positions in the Pipers.  I think the view is better out of the Piper.

4) I kinda liked the low baggage door, and really like the clip in/out rear seats and flat loading area it left behind in the T-IV.

5) I would say the Piper is easier to work on, and just as well built.  I think the Mooney's had terrible paint and corrosion protection in that era.  Even 1986, who assembles a plane and then just paints the visible parts.

6) Over shorter trips, I don't think the fuel or speed makes much of a difference.  I'm now at the stage where I want to do 2500nm trips, and every bit of speed and efficiency will help.

7) Those that say a T-tail is hard to land, simply haven't mastered the technique required.  An '80 kt landing speed' is misinformation.  Trim properly approach at 70, over the numbers at 60 and you can grease it on.  Take-off too -trim properly and it will fly off the ground like any other plane.

8) The T-tail is great for a hangar, allows you to share a hangar with car or boat.  And I still think it looks better.  So yes, I fell for the marketing ploy.

 9) I would not look down at an Arrow owner.  We all have different priorities and resources.  

10) And Piper is still in production with proper parts network, can't exactly say the same for Mooney.

[Will.iam]

3 hours ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

Having owned a PA28-180, a M20J, and a M20C my instinct was to disagree with the post above, but then I decided a defense was unnecessary.

That having been said, I have never understood people’s preference for the Piper’s low slung baggage door. It’s like trying to pour a glass of water from the bottom. You just can’t fill it up that way.  

Ha never thought of it that way. How would you be able to fill the baggage all the way?

[carusoam]

1 minute ago, Will.iam said:

Ha never thought of it that way. How would you be able to fill the baggage all the way?

The long way…

 

-a-

[flyboy0681]

6 hours ago, carusoam said:

The long way…

 

-a-

There is access behind the rear seat.

As far as the Arrow IV's looks are concerned, I find it to be very sexy.

[steingar]

Guy asks about Arrows vs. Mooneys on this site?  I'd have known the answer before I even tried.

[Guest]

19 hours ago, Aerodon said:

Old thread, but I think I will add some comments considering that I have owned both, with more than 500 hours in a T-III and T-IV (along with many other Piper's).  

1) When we purchased a 1979 T-IV for $50k in 1994, a 231 was $70k, not an insignificant difference, and quite a lot of that difference was probably due to the better avionics and autopilot that tended to come standard with a 231.

2) The T-IV was about 15kts slower on the same fuel, but I would say the FB engine had a better reputation than the GB or LB.  There is a trade off for most things.

3) The T-IV is easier for both the front and rear passengers to get into, and to be honest I prefer the higher and more upright seating positions in the Pipers.  I think the view is better out of the Piper.

4) I kinda liked the low baggage door, and really like the clip in/out rear seats and flat loading area it left behind in the T-IV.

5) I would say the Piper is easier to work on, and just as well built.  I think the Mooney's had terrible paint and corrosion protection in that era.  Even 1986, who assembles a plane and then just paints the visible parts.

6) Over shorter trips, I don't think the fuel or speed makes much of a difference.  I'm now at the stage where I want to do 2500nm trips, and every bit of speed and efficiency will help.

7) Those that say a T-tail is hard to land, simply haven't mastered the technique required.  An '80 kt landing speed' is misinformation.  Trim properly approach at 70, over the numbers at 60 and you can grease it on.  Take-off too -trim properly and it will fly off the ground like any other plane.

8) The T-tail is great for a hangar, allows you to share a hangar with car or boat.  And I still think it looks better.  So yes, I fell for the marketing ploy.

 9) I would not look down at an Arrow owner.  We all have different priorities and resources.  

10) And Piper is still in production with proper parts network, can't exactly say the same for Mooney.

The only thing wrong with the Arrow is that it doesn’t have an IO720 up front!

Clarence

[Joshua Blackh4t]

I bought my 1965 M20E for $50k (Australian)

A while later I met the Arrow that I did my cpl in, it was for sale for $350k. 

Yes, it was newer, IFR and had a lot more glass on the dash, but 7 times the price for nothing much else, and often less.

So I think Mooney is a better bargain