I'd always heard that sitting in a Mooney was like sitting in a Porshe. I'd never been in a Porshe but I did my instrument and commercial in a C model Mooney. Then my buddy bought an old 912. First time he took me for a ride I got in it and said holy sh*t, its like sitting in a Mooney.
Yes I am planning to go full time aviation. I'm a little old (late 30s). At this point I think it will kinda depend on how bad the virus slows the industry down. I've always wanted to fly professionally. I'm planning to close my current business due to the virus and I'm just done doing it with all the risks and damage( I own a boat rental company). So I'm transitioning to getting all my ratings done this year and starting a more passive side business as a backup to aviation if it doesn't pan out. ( I have a 2nd business doing rental property and plan to grow that now, I can farm out the day to day management if I end up getting hired at a regional)
I was worried going from a 172 to a Mooney M20C would make the commercial check ride more difficult to do the maneuvers like landing precisely or the chandelles etc? I'm just starting commercial training so this I one of my hesitations moving away from a 172 lol. Was it good for the maneuvers? Not too much more difficult to use a mooney for it in your opinion?
Forgot to mention that I wouldn't worry about Grumman parts availability. These planes are very simple, so there aren't many parts to it. And what few parts you might need is pretty well supported.
M20G is a C with more leg room (180hp) - M20F is an E with more leg room (200hp). Personally, my 1B is useful in the same way my GS1200 is useful - cheap to run and fun solo or two-up.
The gross take-off weight for my M20E is 2575 lbs. My ship empty weight is 1695 lbs, I weigh 230 lbs, my wife weighs 150 lbs. If I take 312 lbs of gas, it leaves 188 lbs. Plenty for 2 people: we never have more than 55 lbs of baggage. But not so good if a child is added.
Tough to say what this is going to do to the industry. I began my pro flying stint in spring of 2001 so I can say with some authority that timing can be a factor in how the career transition goes. Right now, my hunch is the time to get into airline flying was either 2-3 years ago or 3-5 years from now but that' s only my guess.
I thought it was great plane to do the commercial in, but I had well over 100 hours in it before I started working on the comm stuff. Doing it with less time in type might add a few hours to your training but I don't think it'd be impossible. That wing is slippery so it'll get away from you if you let it. But I think that just requires you to be that much more precise with the maneuvers which I saw as a good thing.
They range from 135-145 depending on rigging and year. The newer, the faster.
Well equipped. But with that engine time I don't think I'd plan on keeping it more than 150-200 hours unless you're going to keep it forever.
What sort of range can you get off the AA1B? Like for 2 do you have to fill less fuel? How much range with 2 adults in that situation?
Nice yeah whatever I buy if it's not a 2 seater C150 time builder Ill probably plan on keeping forever and overhauling the engine eventually
Hmm that empty weight is higher than I had expected. Most seems to have a bit higher useful load at least the trade a plane specs show that. Any other Mooney owners can you chime in with useful load?
Just so I can nail the 1000 ft markers... honestly at this point if I time build to 400 hrs and take the commercial test with the virus slowing aviation jobs down it probably doesn't matter so I'll just get good n ready.
I know that there are people out there whose first airplane turns out to be their forever airplane but I think you're betting against the house if you bank on that.
My M20E is a Chapparal, meaning electric everything and not the lightest. However, I took a checkout in a 1967 M20E Super 21 and it was 1651 lbs empty: only 44 lbs lighter.
The Tiger does seem a good compromise if I can find one for a decent price. It's amazing how much they go for in my mind at least...I like the Sundowner Musketeer option but the speed does concern me a bit with those as most of them seem quite slow (ala 172 speeds). My one concern with Grumman is the parts availability. How tough is it to find parts? I see comments like inability to find the wheel pants and that is concerning as who knows what other parts I just won't be able to find in 5,10 years down the road etc.
Wait so the AD won't apply to this model Piper? I'd never heard of this... Can you give me a little more info or point me to where I can read more about that?
I would love the Piper option and enjoyed the Cherokee 160 I got my private in years ago...but wife is very concerned about the wing spar issues on the pipers. I don't want to have to get that eddy current inspection done all the time. Are there certain years or models that are excluded from this that Kristin had mentioned? The useful load on the comanches is amazing.I really like the 182 for a first airplane: There's a crap-ton of them out there, so they're easy to find, easy to buy, easy to maintain, and easy to sell. They aren't the best at anything, but they're pretty darn good at everything.
I own a Mooney M20R Ovation - Obviously, you won't get one of those for $60K, but the older Mooneys are great for efficiency. I think you'd do well with an M20E. It sounds to me like your mission is going to be majority solo/long trips, with occasional family participation. The Mooney will save you a lot of money on gas.
If you can get a bird that can carry the load you want plus four hours of fuel, that is PLENTY. Don't make the family do legs over 3 hours if you want them to come with you again, regardless of what type you're flying.
A few other posters have mentioned it, @Kristin gave the best detail, but you should definitely consider a Comanche. The PA24-180 would be analagous to an M20C in terms of speed and efficiency, maybe a few knots slower. However, it does have a larger cabin and higher useful load. A Comanche 250 would have operating costs more like those of the 182, but would also give you a much higher speed.
The other thing the Comanche has going for it is price. About a year ago, I helped someone who was looking for a plane in a slightly lower price range than yours, who wanted good cross country ability, and good useful load (they were going to be carrying scuba tanks frequently) find a Comanche 250 for $45K that already had WAAS GPS and ADS-B, and this was well before the market tanked. You can get a lot of bang for your buck here, so well worth considering.
Does this apply to the entire Comanche line then? Or are there any exception? Would the 250 or 260 be good as well? Is the entire Comanche name built on the PA-24 airframe I guess would be what im asking
Yes, all of the PA-24s use the same fuselage. I'd want a 250 or 260.... really would want the 400, but not to own!
Hmm I love the useful load on the 250/260 Comanches but the fuel burn sure looks painful. Is it able to be leaned out to less than 14 gph? Lol.
The Comanche 180 looks more up my alley with a better fuel burn. Since I really don't want to spend 14 gph worth of $$$ every flight...ty for the info I am looking into those now.
You can always pull the power back to Comanche 180 speeds and fuel burn if you are just up playing around
Do you think you could pull the power back far enough to get down to 10 GPH from 14 GPH? I wouldn't mind slowing it down for my time building when i needed to go slow.