Cost of Ownership: Arrow II vs M20J

First of all, great forum, been lurking for some time but I think it's finally time I made an account.

I recently left a partnership on account of a move across the country, and am now considering sole ownership. I've researched several aircraft and have mostly narrowed my sights down to an Arrow II or III, or Mooney M20J. I've flown both, though only maybe 2 hours in a J, and like different things about each.

The Arrow is dead simple to fly, forgiving, roomy enough, and I believe relatively simple and easy to maintain.

The Mooney is faster, sexier, and more cramped, but also more expensive to maintain (or so I hear) on account of the very tight cowlings and certain other design decisions (wet wings for example).

My question is, what do you guys think of each, and can anyone chime in on some real ownership costs on one or both? I've found some answers searching both here and on Mooneyspace, but more input would be greatly appreciated.

 

I owned a PA28RT201 Arrow IV and an M20R Ovation. I haven't found the much more capable Mooney to cost really any more to maintain.... the Mooney is far more solidly built. Newer Mooneys are also not so hard to work on, and a J is on the modern side. Personally I think the Mooney is way more airplane for your dollar. The Arrow is useful as a commercial trainer so that may slightly bolster market prices.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I owned an Arrow II for about 4 years and 500 hours. As you said its simple to fly . Landing gear system is simplest of all and pretty much trouble free. Sticky starter is an issue. Engine is bulletproof. Its slow for the size of engine but you will cruise in comfort. It wont glide very well with hershey bar wings but it will land right after you chop power so it wont float forever like mooney. Insurance will be high for either of them if you are new pilot and do not have IR. First annual might be expensive with any airplane. I heard mechanics hate working on mooneys due to tight engine compartment.

 

A J model is no easier to work on than any of the previous models. The newer Continental powered planes do appear a bit more friendly to maintain but I have no personal experience dealing with them. Cost to maintain a J model is probably going to be a bit more than an Arrow, simply because it takes longer to do the same maintenance processes, not because they need more parts or have more expensive parts.

Given the two choices, for personal transportation I'd probably choose a Mooney over an Arrow. But if the options were opened up a bit I'd choose neither.

 

I assume you researched and ruled out the other IO-360 retracts already? The Cessna Cardinal RG, Beech Sierra, and Rockwell Commander 112 are good comparisons to the Arrow and M20J.

 

An Arrow's landing gear is simpler than a Mooney's? Really?

 

The emergency gear extension is.

 

The Cardinal RG, Sierra, and Rockwell are good comparisons to an Arrow, none are a good comparison to an M20J.

 

Commander 112 would be fine.... if you always operated out of sea level fields on 50 degree days.

Run the takeoff numbers for you and a couple friends coming out of Grand Canyon airport in the summer. They will shock you.

 

Find the fuel required for a trip, add in people and bags, then run the weight and balance. Note that each plane will require a different fuel load, the Mooney least of all. 2-3 gph for 100 hours a year for several years adds up quickly!

 

An M20J was the first of my five airplanes, and by far my favorite as an all around transportation machine. We flew with two car seats in the back and the baggage bay stuffed to the gills.

As for maintenance costs, the wet wings are the primary concern relative to an Arrow. Bladders are available but cut into useful load. When I bought my J, it leaked like a sieve. First order of business was to reseal, and they were trouble free after that. I did not see much difference in costs for a J compared to other airplanes I've owned. The airplane that was a real PITA was a Lance with the LoPresti cowl. That sucker had 492 screws to take out to change the oil. (OK, slight exaggeration, but my mechanic would cut the price by $50 if I did the cowl R&R.)

The construction quality of a J model is MUCH superior to an Arrow. I owned two Lances and found them to be tin cans compared to the Mooney. Plus the Mooney is faster and so much cooler. No doubt in my mind that I would pick a J over an Arrow every time.

 

Yes the arrow gear is simpler. Oleo struts, a hinge, and a hydraulic actuator to pull em up and hold em up. No up locks. Remove the hydraulic pressure and the gear falls. Dirt simple.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

The wet wing is probably my biggest concern with an M20J. If it had fuel tanks like the Arrow I think the scales would be fully tipped towards the Mooney. Burning 10 GPH for 160 knots is just amazing.

I've considered the Cardinal B/RGs, as well as the Commander 112. The Cardinals were quite roomy, but I think I want to stick with a low wing. Fueling is easier and I just find them sexier. The Commander 112 is a nice plane but a bit harder to find from what I gather. I believe they also have a wet wing and I've heard parts may be more difficult to source too.

My usual trip has myself and one passenger and is generally less than 350 nm, so either the Mooney or Arrow seem like a good candidate. How do you guys find sitting in the J for 3-4 hours at a time?

 

The only real difference is the wings. Mooney builds wet wings, as several posters have pointed out. Most leak unless they've been resealed, which is expensive. Bladders do cost about 30 lbs of useful load, but are a permanent fix.

For that you get speed. They called the M20J the 201, because that's how fast it goes. All that on an I0360. No other aircraft comes close. Get an Arrow if you like flying slow.

 

Zero problem in the J for that time. Once you're in, they are very comfortable, with room to stretch out. Al Mooney was a tall guy. Wide and/or short pilots seem to have more trouble due to the long stretch to the rudder pedals and a narrower cabin. The simple physics of smaller frontal area is a large contributor to the speed and efficiency.

Longest leg I've done was 6:45, and that would stretch comfort in any plane. That got me nonstop from El Paso to Chicago. Try that in an Arrow.

Wet wings are good for 30 years plus between repairs if done right. Go see the gang up in Wilmar for that if needed.

 

With two on board you just stagger the front seats a little and it's spacious.

Don't buy the Arrow, if you plan on traveling. Speed is everything. I sold my arrow to go Mooney because it was too darn slow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

That is funny. Go on Beech forums and there are extensive threads detailing how to try and care/maintain the bladders, and the costs and troubles to replace, problems with water, wrinkles in the bottom that prevent proper flow out of water.... Home come Beech did not do wet wings....
The list goes on.
There are pluses and minuses to both solutions. Neither is a panacea. The most critical factor is to sort the myth from realities, and make sure the plane you are buying has been properly cared for, or you are willing to invest the time/effort/money to fix the inevitable issues.

Tim

 

My 7 years and 600hrs experience in an Arrow II: Budgeted $800/month fixed and $30/hr dry and netted about $100/month. Of the fixed cost, assume $300 for hangar.

 

We will be coming up on 10 years of ownership of our '82 year J, and the tanks are holding their own. We had a local mechanic who was very good at going in and spot patching, he fixed a couple of places 4 years ago, and we're still good. But yes, we will eventually have to bite the bullet and have the tanks done.

 

Is the remaining $500/mo after hangar rent basically maintenance and insurance then?

 

I don't think anything is a permanent fix, but the mooney bladders do seem to hold up well. There are several guys on the mooney site that have had bladders in service for decades with little to no issues. I'm going on 6 right now knock on wood.

 

I'm sure they do.

However, so does a properly done reseal (not patch), but without the range and payload loss.

 

Nothing wrong with Arrows, but the Cardinal RG (which is a 'Cessna Mooney') will actually glide if you cut the power. The Arrow? Not so much.

 

yep

 

I've heard the gear system can be problematic on the Cessna RGs.. any merit to that?

 

All good planes. Any of them in good shape with good avionics will be good for 350 nm.

The Commander 112A is very nice, with a wide cabin and two doors, plus trailing link landing gear. It's built like a tank, and about as heavy. That means they end up with a low useful load. A friend of mine has one and for he and his wife it works great. I flew it some, but even fueled at tabs we were bumping up again max load, and that's when the kids were under 80 lbs each.

I flew an Arrow for a few years, but I think it was the original, not the II or III. Much better useful load than the 112A and about the same speed.

If you travel much the Mooney's speed will make it the favorite. It's not narrower than Arrow, but you'll sit more like a Corvette and less like a Buick in it than the other planes. When shopping pay attention to useful load. There seems to be a wide variance in useful load in the M20J's when I was looking at them several years ago.

 

For the M20J there was a weight increase of 160lbs in 1989 or so to 2900lbs, anything slightly before that has a lower useful load as they've gotten heavier over the years. So, an early M20J or one post-weight-increase will probably have the best load. But, as usual, every one is different depending on the amount of cruft that was installed, etc.

Of course, I'm still waiting for mine to get anywhere near 160kts at 10GPH.

 

What kind of speeds / fuel flows are you seeing?

 

I've not had a good test yet, maybe this weekend. But it seems to be 145-150 at 11-12GPH. I think the fuel flow is reading high, but I need more data points to check. Hopefully having the EGT probe wires for one of the probes re-crimped and tightened will let me actually lean properly without one probe bouncing between 0 and correct. I suspect I also need to do a standard GPS ground speed pattern to confirm the accuracy of the Airspeed and my computations for TAS.

 

I was thinking high 150s, low 160s should be typical for a J. I have a C model with a J cowling. The 180hp motor gets me along at 150-152 knots. I would love to have another 20HP like the J's have. Just from reading posts, it seems a lot of E and Fs are usually in the mid 140-150 range. Of course, no two planes fly exactly identical, and you'd expect some speed differences from plane to plane.

 

I was told by Joe Cole, who runs a Mooney Service Center, that if the bladders ever leak or week that they can be refurbished in situ for about 1 AMU. hence I consider it a permanent fix.

 

Anyone have specific operating/maintenance costs they'd be willing to share? I know it's quite variable but the more input I can get the better.

 

I run LOP, at 8000' that means 145 at 2400rpm, burning 8.5gph.
Law of diminishing returns...if I wanted to go 160 I'd have to do 2600 rpm and run ROP burning 11+ gph.

 

I don't know about the Mooney (never been in one - rats), but there is no way I could sit in an Arrow that long. Our club used to have a 1969 PA-28R-200 and 3 hours was my absolute limit. I'm not sure what the problem was, but by the time 3 hours rolled around my knees were shot (angle of the rudders to seat?) and it was all I could do to crawl out of that plane. We sold it a while ago and I don't miss it at all.

Now, on the good side, I never bounced a landing in the Arrow. Once the mains touched down it was finished flying. With that Hershey bar wing it had what my CFI called the "safe mode" glide. It glided like a safe. Pull the power and that thing was coming down, NOW. Always landed with a little power on. Not much, but a little. And, as ours had the shorter fuselage, there was no leg room in the back seat. To me that was a 2 person airplane with lots of cargo capacity. Also, with the 3 blade prop we had if you had two people up front with a combined weight of around 400 pounds you needed at least 50 pounds in the baggage compartment to bring the CoG back behind the forward limit. Run your W&B calculations.

Have fun with whatever you buy.

 

Is the front seat area the same as a Cherokee 140's? I have about 70 hours in a '69 Cherokee and would agree with three hours being about as much as I'd want to do at a time. The Arrow II felt roomier to me, and not just in the back seats. Maybe I'm imagining that though...

 

somewhere in the '72ish timeframe the cabin got a little stretch. @Pilawt can spew out mad details about pipers and can confirm or correct my #s.

 

It was indeed the 1972 model year when the Arrow got the cabin stretch (becoming the Cherokee Arrow II). The redesign also included a larger cabin door, a one-foot wing extension outboard of the ailerons, and getting the PA-32-sized stabilator. The same mods were used on the PA-28-180 Cherokee Challenger in 1973, also on the '73 PA-28-235 Cherokee Charger (though the wing was unchanged from prior Cherokee 235s). The Cherokee Warrior, introduced in 1974, inherited the same stretched cabin, as well.

The cabin stretch benefited the rear seat legroom; there was little if any change to the front seat area. In the front seats you'd be hard-pressed to notice any difference in room between a '69 Cherokee 140 and any Arrow, before or after the stretch. The Arrow cabin likely seemed roomier because of the much greater space behind you. The rear cabin bulkhead of all Cherokee 140s was further forward even than those in the older short-fuselage 180s, 235s and Arrows. Also, on the stretched models the pilot seat is slightly more forward relative to the leading edge of the wing, which opens up the downward visibility a bit.

(I was an instructor and demo pilot at a Piper Flite Center in 1972, so it was my job to know this stuff. )

 

Mooneys seem to be particularly prone to variations in performance, even among the same model. There were some quality control issues coinciding with corporate problems and changes, especially during the Butler era. Later models, too -- I had the opportunity to fly several different M20J and M20K aircraft, and the performance varied considerably between individual examples.

 

@Pilawt thanks for the insight. I definitely noticed the wider wingspan but the cabin also felt a bit bigger for some reason. I think the post-72 models would be what I aim for when purchasing.

 

The M20J I flew would get 150 knots on 9gph. I think 160 is for those that really flog it.