Mooney gone?

By the way, I've filled the seats in my diminutive Money Ranger on more than one occasion. Damn thing will carry close to 1000 pounds at 140 knots burning 8.5 gallons an hour. All on a little O360. They were all big people too, and I had no complaints. Find me another airplane that can do all that for the price of a Mooney Ranger. Moneys are the biggest bang for your buck in all of GA.
 
I think your definition of big is vastly different than others. You aren't putting 4 Kents or even 2 Kents and 2 Mes in your Mooney and going anywhere, if we can even fit in to start with.
 
Depends on what your judging criteria is. Personally I think a Luscombe or an early Bonanza is the biggest bang for your buck in aviation.
 
Depends on what your judging criteria is. Personally I think a Luscombe or an early Bonanza is the biggest bang for your buck in aviation.

His judging criteria is "whatever he owns is the best." Go back through posts. It used to be that the Cherokee 140 was the best value out there.
 
Here's a 62 C model I owned for 17 years and put a lot of hours on, many times with big loads. 142 knots cruise 8.3 gph, would do 154 knots at max power. Did 3 Cayman Caravan trips with it, one was with 4 adults and full fuel IFR at 10K. Other than being a pain to work on it was a wonderful airplane in many respects. I've owned several aircraft including 3 experimentals (built one). Back when I was using the Mooney as an extension of my job, I'd constantly get the bug for other aircraft but wind up keeping the Mooney after doing comparisons. Speed, fuel burn, load, good ride in turbulence as well as the confidence factor of a strong airframe were always major considerations.
Granted, given the cost of the new models coupled with other good choices at those prices, it's no wonder they are having a tough time. I've flown most Mooney models over the years and obviously like the airplane, however, if I were in the market for a new aircraft there are several others that I would consider first.
N242TS.jpg
 
It all depends on what your priorities are. Every plane is a compromise. Mooney is a great value for most speed/cost of operation comparisons.
 
I have two sons 6'5" and 6'7" respectively. They love flying Mooneys. But they are also both not overweight.

Their dad (me) is 6'2" and 240 lbs (fat). I don't like sitting in a Mooney.

I remember at one of the Mooney Summits in Panama City, the speaker made a comment about mooney pilots. Most are not overweight (by much, lol). If you look around the room, there were a few with some weight on their bones, but for the most part, mooney pilots aren't "thick."
You have to walk up a wing and sink down into the cockpit. I can do it by muscle memory at this point, but new people look awkward trying to get seated the first time.
 
His judging criteria is "whatever he owns is the best." Go back through posts. It used to be that the Cherokee 140 was the best value out there.
I can't believe I ever said that about the Cherokee. In fact you'll have to provide the posts to make me believe you. I said it slipped just fine (to someone who thought old taildraggers were the bees knees), and I thought mine was a really nice example of the breed. But there's a reason I got the Mooney.

Depends on what your judging criteria is. Personally I think a Luscombe or an early Bonanza is the biggest bang for your buck in aviation.
I guess "bang for your buck" means going as fast as you can on the least money. The old Bo's are really good for this too, but their systems are more complex, they have an additional pair of cylinders, and they're really old. You do it wrong and you can be on the hook for a crapload of maintenance. That, and I think you're going to have trouble getting tail feathers in the future.

My Mooney has dependable Johnson bar gear and hydraulic flaps. Not a lot to break, and I like it that way. And the O360 is one of the more bulletproof engines out there. I do like the old Bonanzas, they're really neat planes. But I didn't need the big interior for my diminutive exterior, so I went Mooney.

No, I can't fit 4 Kents or 4 Eds. I suspect the airplane that can is burning kerosene.
 
I can't believe I ever said that about the Cherokee. In fact you'll have to provide the posts to make me believe you. I said it slipped just fine (to someone who thought old taildraggers were the bees knees), and I thought mine was a really nice example of the breed. But there's a reason I got the Mooney.
No, I can't fit 4 Kents or 4 Eds. I suspect the airplane that can is burning kerosene.

Search only goes back to 2013 using your name and Cherokee, so unless management allows the search results to go back indefinitely it will be tough for me to find the exact post. I fly a single that will haul 4 of me and nearly full fuel (6+ hours). There's also a number that will haul four Kents. But neither of them will have a 360 on the other side of the panel, I will grant that.
 
Wow... I'm now a unit of measure. :rofl:

I would never have used the word “responsive” to describe a Mooney’s controls. “Solid”, “stable”, or even “heavy”, maybe, but not “responsive”.

The airplane is solid and stable. The controls are responsive... Mainly, the roll axis. I think it feels more responsive than some others do simply because full deflection on the ailerons is only 45º away from center with the yoke and not 90º like most types are.

No, it's not going to rival a Pitts in responsiveness... But it flies better than if it were on rails, and responds well to control inputs (the very definition of "responsive"). It's definitely not twitchy or hard to handle.

Definitely felt like a machine built to get you as far as quickly/efficiently possible.

That's exactly what it is.

This is a measurement across the floor and not the shoulders. Mooney’s taper in fast from elbows up to the shoulders and head.

In general low wing planes are widest on the floor and high wing planes wider at the top. The Mooney, though a great plane tapers in even quicker than an Arrow. Part of what makes Mooney’s high speed performer is less drag from the smaller silhouette of the cabin coupled to a large engine.

All true, though I would argue that the Mooneys don't really taper that fast. They're kind of egg-shaped on top, as opposed to the Pipers we've been discussing which tend to be a bit more square, or a Bonanza that's almost a perfect semicircle. In terms of lateral headroom, then, I have more in the Mooney than I do in a Bo (I bump my head in the Beeches where the "corner" would be in the others :( ). I do have less lateral headroom than in, for example, Ed's Comanche, but unless I'm "dancing" in the seat, it's wasted space. I don't hit my head in the Mooney, so it has enough room, but too much more would be... Well, too much. All it would do at that point is increase drag.

A 182 feels cavernous by comparison, but flys more like a truck and the Mooney a sport car.

Having hundreds of hours in both... You're right on. And both are fine airplanes.

Maybe that's my problem. I like flying too much, so I tend to see the positives of all of them, because there are very few that I wouldn't want to own!
 
I think a big part of the Mooney cramp bash is simply what you get used to. In a Mooney you sit on the floor sort of like a Sports car. In most Cessnas you sit in a tall chair more like an 18 wheeler. If those who get out of a 172, 182 or 210 into a Mooney feel the change is as weird as I feel in a Cessna, I understand how they see it as something odd. I went from my Cessna 140 to a Mooney and it felt fine because my Cessna has 150 seats that set lower on the floor than other cessna’s. For me personally I would much rather sit with my legs stretched out in front of me than sit bolt upright in a chair with my feet way below the seat.

I keep my son in laws 172 in my hangar with my planes and he mostly flies his Baron that he keeps in a different hangar. He has been asking me to fly the 172 rather than let it set, so I will get some time in an 18 wheeler and see how easy it is for me to get used to the seating.
 
I think a big part of the Mooney cramp bash is simply what you get used to. In a Mooney you sit on the floor sort of like a Sports car. In most Cessnas you sit in a tall chair more like an 18 wheeler. If those who get out of a 172, 182 or 210 into a Mooney feel the change is as weird as I feel in a Cessna, I understand how they see it as something odd. I went from my Cessna 140 to a Mooney and it felt fine because my Cessna has 150 seats that set lower on the floor than other cessna’s. For me personally I would much rather sit with my legs stretched out in front of me than sit bolt upright in a chair with my feet way below the seat.

I keep my son in laws 172 in my hangar with my planes and he mostly flies his Baron that he keeps in a different hangar. He has been asking me to fly the 172 rather than let it set, so I will get some time in an 18 wheeler and see how easy it is for me to get used to the seating.

Great perspective. I’m a 182 owner and have flown in a Mooney. I never internalized the main seat differences. For me nice post.
 
Last edited:
I just read an article about Mooney. It stated.....

"If past is prologue, the company will remain as a corporate entity, keep producing parts, and do whatever it must do to keep its FAA production certificate viable.
During its last hibernation, that meant producing farcical reports on periodic safety training and environmental committee meetings, as well as undergoing regular FAA inspections of its closed factory."

I would be curious to see a few of these 'farcical' reports. Anyone have a link?
 
I think the criticism of useful load is highly misplaced.

Show me another 180 HP plane that has a useful load of 688 pounds when loaded with 4.5 hours + VFR reserve of fuel at 140 knots like my C model has.

You got me with the speed, but otherwise the club's Penn Yan STCed C-172N has you beat. Full long range tanks give a 5 hour + 1 hour reserve and a useful load of about 755 pounds. 180 hp.
 
You got me with the speed, but otherwise the club's Penn Yan STCed C-172N has you beat. Full long range tanks give a 5 hour + 1 hour reserve and a useful load of about 755 pounds. 180 hp.
So you found one plane with a specific STC that can compete. Again, I think the criticism of the useful load is highly misplaced.
 
You got me with the speed, but otherwise the club's Penn Yan STCed C-172N has you beat. Full long range tanks give a 5 hour + 1 hour reserve and a useful load of about 755 pounds. 180 hp.
The Penn Yan 180hp 172 STC does turn the 172 into a much more useful and better performing airplane. But its still slow as a dog compared to the Mooney. And to me anyway, its just as cramped in the front seats.
 
So you found one plane with a specific STC that can compete. Again, I think the criticism of the useful load is highly misplaced.

You brought up the useful load, not me. I still give the Mooney the advantage on speed.

The Penn Yan 180hp 172 STC does turn the 172 into a much more useful and better performing airplane. But its still slow as a dog compared to the Mooney. And to me anyway, its just as cramped in the front seats.

No argument about the 172 being slow. Heck, the club's 182 is slower than the Mooney (just not as much), but with full long range tanks that particular 172 has it beat by over 100 pounds on useful load, as well. The extra 24 gallons of 100LL (@ 6 pounds/gallon) eats up the difference, and then some.

Nice to hear a direct comparison about the front seat room of the Mooney vs. the 172. I have no experience with the Mooney, but I'll agree that the 172 is a bit lacking in shoulder room with two aboard. I like the 182 much better in that regard.
 
I just read an article about Mooney. It stated.....

"If past is prologue, the company will remain as a corporate entity, keep producing parts, and do whatever it must do to keep its FAA production certificate viable.
During its last hibernation, that meant producing farcical reports on periodic safety training and environmental committee meetings, as well as undergoing regular FAA inspections of its closed factory."

I would be curious to see a few of these 'farcical' reports. Anyone have a link?
'Farcical' doesn't mean 'false'. We had safety meetings—mandatory—with the single person in the department presenting to himself. That's likely the Mooney scenario.
I'd bet a nice lunch that the last new Mooney aircraft has already been produced; someone will buy the name for a bag of peanuts and perhaps produce parts.
 
You brought up the useful load, not me. I still give the Mooney the advantage on speed.



No argument about the 172 being slow. Heck, the club's 182 is slower than the Mooney (just not as much), but with full long range tanks that particular 172 has it beat by over 100 pounds on useful load, as well. The extra 24 gallons of 100LL (@ 6 pounds/gallon) eats up the difference, and then some.

Nice to hear a direct comparison about the front seat room of the Mooney vs. the 172. I have no experience with the Mooney, but I'll agree that the 172 is a bit lacking in shoulder room with two aboard. I like the 182 much better in that regard.
Yeah, I brought it up in the first place. You tried to refute it and failed.
 
Yeah, I brought it up in the first place. You tried to refute it and failed.

And where did I attempt to refute it? I pointed out that the Mooney was faster, but that the STCed C172 could carry more for longer. If that is false, please prove your position. Otherwise, you are making incorrect statements.
 
And where did I attempt to refute it? I pointed out that the Mooney was faster, but that the STCed C172 could carry more for longer. If that is false, please prove your position. Otherwise, you are making incorrect statements.
Read my original premise that you responded to.
 
didnt read all 6 pages.. is Mooney gone or what?
 
Depends on what you mean by gone. They had a skeleton crew working up until last week of about 15, not sure with this Covid stuff where they are now, but seems like they are all at home for the moment.
 
Depends on what you mean by gone. They had a skeleton crew working up until last week of about 15, not sure with this Covid stuff where they are now, but seems like they are all at home for the moment.
It's kind of ironic, but if they were already struggling, this might give them a way to extend a bit.
 
Interesting I should find this thread. Mooney is back up and running with a Pilot and Mooney owner at the helm. I hope things work out for the better. Their stated goal is a gross weight increase, and their means to get it can be retrofit onto the older Mooneys. Sound thinking, way better than some farcical jet A burning fiberglass trainer.
 
Interesting I should find this thread. Mooney is back up and running with a Pilot and Mooney owner at the helm. I hope things work out for the better. Their stated goal is a gross weight increase, and their means to get it can be retrofit onto the older Mooneys. Sound thinking, way better than some farcical jet A burning fiberglass trainer.

I'm kinda hoping that it'll eventually be possible for me to get the composite cowl along with a composite spinner and composite prop and ditch one of the batteries out of the tail. What with our avionics upgrades removing things out of the tail, we're getting more and more nose heavy already.
 
Mooneyspace website is down, I’ve been unable to get on for 2 days?
 
Mooneyspace website is down, I’ve been unable to get on for 2 days?
It was up briefly last night and then it went back down. I know they recently did a software upgrade so that may be part of it.
 
Is gross weight the reason they weren't selling and the reason the company has bounced in and out of bankruptcy?

I agree it's good to have people with a passion at the helm (wish Cessna had that), but if they want to do more than support an existing fleet they need to really study what the 30-50 year old aircraft buyer is after that he or she can't find on the used market. Plus, the older Mooney's weren't known for poor WB, that came later

Goodluck to them.. we need more planes and manufacturers out there, not less!
 
Is gross weight the reason they weren't selling and the reason the company has bounced in and out of bankruptcy?

I agree it's good to have people with a passion at the helm (wish Cessna had that), but if they want to do more than support an existing fleet they need to really study what the 30-50 year old aircraft buyer is after that he or she can't find on the used market. Plus, the older Mooney's weren't known for poor WB, that came later

Goodluck to them.. we need more planes and manufacturers out there, not less!

I wish them well too.

I hope Pipistrel does well with the Panthera. I was thinking it was never going to happen since it was taking so long. Maybe it still won't, but I hope they get it certified soon and it sells well.

More competition and options are good.

Maybe they all need to do more promoting of shared ownership. I know Cirrus and Mooney both have programs on that, but they don't seem promoted well. I would think there are a lot more buyers that could afford $200k for a 1/4 of a plane than buyers that can afford $800k to own it on their own. Plus then the ongoing fixed costs are divided by four as well; or 2 or 3 for small group ownerships.
 
Its interesting, watching all the lust over new retract aircraft and all the vitriol from older pilots getting insurance on their retracts...

It does make me feel better about Dad getting a FG for his last airplane, at least for now the insurance is reasonable.
 
I hope Pipistrel does well with the Panthera. I was thinking it was never going to happen since it was taking so long. Maybe it still won't, but I hope they get it certified soon and it sells well.
Me too.. and it seems like they're well on their way. There are several videos of the plane flying, some from as recent as last week with a demo flight .. honestly the new designs really hone in on what a contemporary buyer wants.. they want a comfortable cabin and simple "turnkey" ownership. That what you see in the Panthera, DA50, and the SR22. For what it's worth, a bells and whistles loaded G3 SR22 had quite a rather pathetic payload once it was fully gassed.. but that plane had no problem selling.

Maybe they all need to do more promoting of shared ownership. I know Cirrus and Mooney both have programs on that, but they don't seem promoted well. I would think there are a lot more buyers that could afford $200k for a 1/4 of a plane than buyers that can afford $800k to own it on their own.
You would think, but these joint partnerships seem fairly uncommon. Aircraft choice is so personal, pilots so rare, and people with the money even more rare, that it's hard to find two people in a reasonable close geographic area who want the same plane and have the same budget. And of course then comes scheduling.. two people can share a plane fine.. but 3 or 4 people.. that starts to really cut into weekends, holidays, scheduling, etc. You end up in flying club/flight school rental territory with scheduling but also have all the headaches of owning your own airplane. And.. if you want out.. then they have to either buy you out or you need to replace yourself, not easy
 
Me too.. and it seems like they're well on their way. There are several videos of the plane flying, some from as recent as last week with a demo flight .. honestly the new designs really hone in on what a contemporary buyer wants.. they want a comfortable cabin and simple "turnkey" ownership. That what you see in the Panthera, DA50, and the SR22. For what it's worth, a bells and whistles loaded G3 SR22 had quite a rather pathetic payload once it was fully gassed.. but that plane had no problem selling.

Depends on the year. Later in the G3 model the weight seemed to go up. Not sure if the G1000/Perspective avionics are heavier or if it is something else. An early G3, having the Avidyne displays, with TKS and AC often has around 1,050 pounds of useful load, which about the same as my G2 without AC. Cirrus also added bigger tanks in the G3, so if one fills the tanks then payload will go down. I think the bigger tanks were largely for the turbo models as people are often flying them at 75-80% and wanted more range.

You would think, but these joint partnerships seem fairly uncommon. Aircraft choice is so personal, pilots so rare, and people with the money even more rare, that it's hard to find two people in a reasonable close geographic area who want the same plane and have the same budget. And of course then comes scheduling.. two people can share a plane fine.. but 3 or 4 people.. that starts to really cut into weekends, holidays, scheduling, etc. You end up in flying club/flight school rental territory with scheduling but also have all the headaches of owning your own airplane. And.. if you want out.. then they have to either buy you out or you need to replace yourself, not easy

Definitely depends upon location. In a city there are more people, so odds of a match go up. In a small town, yeah, one is probably out of luck.

You are right though. Everyone seems to want "their vision of the plane", so even small differences seem to make a no-go. I wanted a G3 with AC, but an opening popped up on a G2 without AC. Knowing how hard it can be to set up a co-ownership I decided to buy into the G2. Probably could have found another buyer or two over time, but wanted to get back into a co-ownership and stop renting, plus the vast majority of my flying has been without AC, so it was just a "want".

I've been in groups before with 3 or 4 pilots and rarely do we have a scheduling conflict. In on SR22 there were 2 "real" conflicts in 4.5 years with 4 pilots; real being two people actually wanted to go somewhere at the same time. The other conflicts were someone wanting to just go out and fly for a little bit only to find on the schedule that someone else had it out on a trip. More, "ho-hum, some other day" and not a big deal. It's a traveling plane, and that's largely how we used it. Fewer owners should make it more available, no doubt. Between dollars, work and other activities we often found we can't fly as much as we'd like anyway. In none of the groups I've been in have I seen a big holiday demand, so I guess that can vary by the people in the group. Maybe others have that problem.

One of our owners wanted out this year. He wants to move up to a SETP, and the other two of us can't afford that. Even during the pandemic his share sold in two months, maybe three. We had one buyer sooner, but he really wanted AC and preferred to have only two owners. He was also talking with another pilot and sold him on a SR22 G3 and they set-up a two person LLC. In a smaller city or a town selling a share could be a big challenge.

We're in the Atlanta metro area, so many people, making better odds to find a match.
 
Back
Top