Cost of Ownership: Arrow II vs M20J

upload_2017-7-8_16-6-10.png
Little product I whipped out in in excel to illustrate my point. NM vs KTGS, in hours, rounded to 10th of an hour.

IOW.... Cruise speed deltas are really not that important at the ranges that most people fly with frequency (sub-400). For those who do go beyond that range consistently, cruise speed does matter as the shading illustrates. Where your family falls on the pax-endurance also makes a difference to whether your choice of airplane works for you or not. These are subjective metrics outside the stated performance of the aircraft in question.

For me, since I'm already sunk on 4 years of ownership in the arrow, none of the competitors represent a large enough increase in capability in order to make the transaction costs and mx-kabuki of the "new-to-my-AP-logbooks" game worth the hassle. So until I can significantly change my mission, or agree to overkill the current mission (aka the wife currently wanting to transpose our current 400nm 2+1 mission ....onto a Lanceo_O:rolleyes::D), the Arrow is simply good enough for government work.

P.S. OP fwiw, I just got my Arrow back from annual today so here's the updated numbers: July 2013-July 2017, mx costs (parts and labor, with labor faaaar outstripping parts): $20,705... I don't do owner assisted and my labor rates are not regionally competitive, so I'm on the high side for an arrow imo due to location. Biggest single item expense has been the gear powerpack giving up the ghost this year. That was 2.2 AMU with labor. Rest of the time the gear has been solid reliable and not a detraction to dispatch rate. I didn't count the TOOLBOX AFFAIR as it had nothing to do with the airplane, and the guilty party paid for it. It did ground me for 3 months waiting on a rear spar replacement, and a real testament to the benefit of owning a common PA28. Had that happened on a Comanche? Buh Bye birdie most likely.

Good luck on whatever you end up buying.
 
Thanks for that. Good perspective on cruise speed for distances that myself and probably many others actually fly.

The proliferation of the Arrow is definitely a plus as you mentioned. I imagine repairs and maintenance will almost always be easier than on a Mooney.
 
shinysideup said:
Thanks for that. Good perspective on cruise speed for distances that myself and probably many others actually fly.

The proliferation of the Arrow is definitely a plus as you mentioned. I imagine repairs and maintenance will almost always be easier than on a Mooney.
Click to expand...
Yea, the mechanic may beatch a little about the Mooney being a little tighter. Doesn't seem to make a difference in labor costs, the Mooney is built better, goes faster, and the parts are available. Take your pick.
 
IMG_2761.JPG 1000 nm at 165kts and you look far better while doing it! ;)
 
Velocity173 said:
MSE? I'm showing 170 cruise and 690 nm range.
Click to expand...

M20R Ovation... 175kts on 13gph, 89 gallons usable, 100gal if you go past the filler necks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
@gsengle and while I'd fly that plane in a heartbeat I suspect that's more in the range of a quarter million... a bit out of my price range at the moment. That being said, if you're ever in the Toronto area I'd love to gas it up in return for a flight.
 
hindsight2020 said:
View attachment 54682
Little product I whipped out in in excel to illustrate my point. NM vs KTGS, in hours, rounded to 10th of an hour.

IOW.... Cruise speed deltas are really not that important at the ranges that most people fly with frequency (sub-400). For those who do go beyond that range consistently, cruise speed does matter as the shading illustrates. Where your family falls on the pax-endurance also makes a difference to whether your choice of airplane works for you or not. These are subjective metrics outside the stated performance of the aircraft in question.

For me, since I'm already sunk on 4 years of ownership in the arrow, none of the competitors represent a large enough increase in capability in order to make the transaction costs and mx-kabuki of the "new-to-my-AP-logbooks" game worth the hassle. So until I can significantly change my mission, or agree to overkill the current mission (aka the wife currently wanting to transpose our current 400nm 2+1 mission ....onto a Lanceo_O:rolleyes::D), the Arrow is simply good enough for government work.

Good luck on whatever you end up buying.
Click to expand...

I feel similarly. I'd love to step up to a J model, but there is only a 10 knot difference give or take. Since it's just me and the wife now, longer fuselage doesn't matter too much. Unless I get a bump of 25+ knots or so (and that's not a cheap jump in plane costs), I can't justify the move.
 
shinysideup said:
@gsengle and while I'd fly that plane in a heartbeat I suspect that's more in the range of a quarter million... a bit out of my price range at the moment. That being said, if you're ever in the Toronto area I'd love to gas it up in return for a flight.
Click to expand...

You missed me, see below.... I've seen early ovations on the market between 150 and 200, they are a good deal I believe. Mine is a 1996.... if I didn't have an R, I'd have a J or K. I sold the arrow to upgrade to this. The Arrow is slooooowwww...

241005c4fb57a89caacacb51c99f712f.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
M20R Ovation... 175kts on 13gph, 89 gallons usable, 100gal if you go past the filler necks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Oh, well we're talking 200+ grand for an aircraft then. If I was going to step up to that, I'd go with a Velocity XL at 205 kts and 1000 nm for almost half the cost. If we wanted to go into M20R costs, then I'd go with a a Velocity TXL at 250 kts and 1000 nm.

You'll never beat performance and cost of an EAB. It comes down to owner preference of EAB vs production.
 
Velocity173 said:
Oh, well we're talking a 1/4 of a million dollar aircraft then. If I was going to step up to that, I'd go with a Velocity XL at 205 kts and 1000 nm for almost half the cost. If we wanted to go into M20R costs, then I'd go with a a Velocity TXL at 250 kts and 1000 nm.

You'll never beat performance and cost of an EAB. It comes down to owner preference of EAB vs production.
Click to expand...

Nah, I've seen em for as little as 150. But sure, EAB has advantages. Mine was more like 175, and is a FIKI airplane. 1000lbs useful. It's a lot of airplane for the money.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
You missed me, see below.... I've seen early ovations on the market between 150 and 200, they are a good deal I believe. Mine is a 1996.... if I didn't have an R, I'd have a J or K. I sold the arrow to upgrade to this. The Arrow is slooooowwww...

241005c4fb57a89caacacb51c99f712f.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The first airport I flew out of in Ontario was City Centre... convenient but pricey. Let me know if you're ever back in the area.
 
Velocity173 said:
Oh, well we're talking 200+ grand for an aircraft then. If I was going to step up to that, I'd go with a Velocity XL at 205 kts and 1000 nm for almost half the cost. If we wanted to go into M20R costs, then I'd go with a a Velocity TXL at 250 kts and 1000 nm.

You'll never beat performance and cost of an EAB. It comes down to owner preference of EAB vs production.
Click to expand...

What's the 165 kt model worth?
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
About 65K. Of course this is an RG SE so you're looking at a book speed of 187 kts. Doubtful you'll see that though.

https://www.trade-a-plane.com/mobil...ELOCITY+RG&listing_id=2265806&s-type=aircraft

Or, you can spend 148K and break 200 kts.

https://www.trade-a-plane.com/mobil...CITY+XL-RG&listing_id=2270666&s-type=aircraft
Click to expand...

gsengle said:
If you wanna go really fast and don't mind burning some fuel, and want a real bargain, look at Mooney M20M Bravos. Lyc tio540 turbo 270hp, expensive to overhaul, but have seen as low as 120k...

220kts 75%power at 25,000 ft

https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/18393935/1989-mooney-m20m-bravo


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

All very enticing.. but I think the combination of a reputable certified airframe and an ubiquitous 4-banger is the way I'd want to go. I've never sole-owned before and I guess I'm a bit paranoid about keeping things simple for reliability and cost.
 
Then look at Vintage Mooneys, C-J. Either an O-360 (stone simple) or IO-360; two fuselage lengths (short body; mid body adds 5" back seat legroom and 5" baggage space). You won't find a certified plane with better nmpg, or speed for the fuel. My C trues out in the high 140s for 9gph; I've flown over 4:30 twice, landing with 1:15 or more fuel, and was ready to stand up and walk around.

It's hard to complain about mileage like my truck, at triple the speed . . . Flying over traffic jams at 170 mph is nice!
 
When I was looking for the plane back in 2011, I was choosing between the same models initially. Ended up with V35 Bonanza :)
 
teejayevans said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is exactly where I run our J most of the time, 50 LOP, 2400rpm, and I get 145kts at 8.5gph. Getting that extra 10-15kts costs you another 3gph.
 
Bill Jennings said:
This is exactly where I run our J most of the time, 50 LOP, 2400rpm, and I get 145kts at 8.5gph. Getting that extra 10-15kts costs you another 3gph.
Click to expand...

Wow! I fly my C model ROP, 2500 and get 145-148 KTAS for 9 gph block time. I just don't have the option for "that extra 10-15 knots"! :)
 
Bill Jennings said:
This is exactly where I run our J most of the time, 50 LOP, 2400rpm, and I get 145kts at 8.5gph. Getting that extra 10-15kts costs you another 3gph.
Click to expand...

That seems slow. But my only experience with a J model is with one that has a Lopresti cowl and a few other subtle speed mods. That airplane would true out about 10 knots faster than you're seeing at lower altitudes with similar power settings. I can't imagine that the mods to the airplane I flew had that much effect on the performance.
 
mondtster said:
That seems slow. But my only experience with a J model is with one that has a Lopresti cowl and a few other subtle speed mods. That airplane would true out about 10 knots faster than you're seeing at lower altitudes with similar power settings. I can't imagine that the mods to the airplane I flew had that much effect on the performance.
Click to expand...

I don't think the Lopresti cowl adds a lot to the J models. The factory cowl is pretty slick already, but the Lopresti looks damn cool IMO.
 
rbridges said:
I don't think the Lopresti cowl adds a lot to the J models. The factory cowl is pretty slick already, but the Lopresti looks damn cool IMO.
Click to expand...

I agree, I seriously doubt there is much improvement. Even the Arrow I flew a bit with a Lopresti cowl isn't appreciably faster than one with a standard cowl.

The biggest thing I like about the Lopresti stuff is their fit and finish plus their ease of removal for maintenance.
 
mondtster said:
The biggest thing I like about the Lopresti stuff is their fit and finish plus their ease of removal for maintenance.
Click to expand...

you must have forgot "/sarcasm" at the end of that post...:D
 
hindsight2020 said:
you must have forgot "/sarcasm" at the end of that post...:D
Click to expand...

Nope. They're far easier to deal with in my opinion. Particularly compared to the old Mooneys, which have 10,000 screws you get to remove.

But yes, compared to the standard issue Arrow cowls, they're a little harder to remove.
 
Mooney over Arrow, any day of the week.

When flying the Mooney, I've been called Bonanza, Cirrus, and King Air. When flying an Arrow, I've never had ATC call me anything other than "Arrow" or "Cherokee."

Mooneys are fast, efficient, and IMO much more fun to fly. There are an AWFUL lot of old wives' tales about them, with a couple that I hear with great frequency:

"They're cramped." Nuh uh. I'm 6'4" and 3xx#. Al Mooney was 6'5". The Mooney is the most comfortable four-seater I've ever flown.

"They're expensive to maintain." Nope, not any more so than anything else. They're built like tanks. I've never replaced a single Mooney part. Tires, brakes, autopilot servos, lights, etc. but not a thing on the Mooney. And WRT fuel tanks, every airplane has trouble with fuel tanks, as someone else pointed out. Only one I've ever had to spend money on (not my money, but flying club money!) was a 182 with leaky bladders.

In addition, if you look at maintenance cost per mile instead of per hour, they're likely cheaper to maintain - You're covering those miles faster!

shinysideup said:
I've heard the gear system can be problematic on the Cessna RGs.. any merit to that?
Click to expand...

Yep. The warning systems like to go out and are made of unobtanium. Our R182 got a cracked gear pivot, which Cessna offered to replace for a 3-4 month wait time and $19,000. Luckily, you can get them fixed for only about 6 weeks of downtime and $5,000. :eek:

Now, it's one of the most versatile airplanes ever made, so you take the good with the bad. But, ouch.
 
Pilawt said:
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.
Click to expand...
A couple reasons for that. The J models were originally fitted with ram air inlets that bypassed the air filter an added an inch or so of MP when at altitude. An AD or SB required them to be removed. That was rescinded, but many of the ones removed were never put back in. Mooneys rely on laminar airflow for their efficiency, and so small variations in the rigging of the flaps, control surfaces and gear doors can make a noticeable difference.
 
Ken Ibold said:
A couple reasons for that. The J models were originally fitted with ram air inlets that bypassed the air filter an added an inch or so of MP when at altitude. An AD or SB required them to be removed.
Click to expand...

Ours was and remains sealed, but I'm good with that. I didn't think ingesting raw air was worth another inch or two. Earlier Mooney models had more restrictive air intakes and there WAS gain to be had by opening the ram air.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Little product I whipped out in in excel to illustrate my point. NM vs KTGS, in hours, rounded to 10th of an hour.
Click to expand...

Nice.

I built something similar. After taking 4 hours to get home from Charleston in a 172 due to high headwinds, I started looking for more speed. More speed helps with headwinds; a percentage of TAS thing. My two favorite reasons I love the SR22 is 310 hp means a higher climb rate (which gets you to cruise speed and cooler air sooner) and more speed. We took a couple of long trips in an Arrow one summer and I thought we were never going to get to 9,000'. :(

speeds2.jpg

I start with 250 nm and go up from there, as 250 nm is generally my short trips. We fly up to see our daughter at UK, right at 250 nm, but we drive to see our daughter at South Carolina (165 nm). More speed means a flight back from Chicago (GYY - Gary, IN) to Atlanta (PDK) is typically one ~3 hr leg. I do Angel Flight missions where I'll do both legs as it's much faster for the patient and family than stopping, moving luggage, signing more paperwork and getting into another plane.
 
Question for the Mooney mavens ...

The "long-body" Mooneys (M20F Executive and M20G Statesman) built in 1967, and some in 1968, have a pronounced droop in the leading edge of the outer wing panels, something like the taper-wing PA-28s:

Screen Shot 2017-07-11 at 9.20.05 AM.png

By the 1969 model year that seems to have disappeared:

Screen Shot 2017-07-11 at 9.26.13 AM.png

The short-body Mooneys don't have this drooped leading edge.

Did this have any noticeable effect on performance or handling in the M20F/M20G?
 
Pilawt said:
Question for the Mooney mavens ...

The "long-body" Mooneys (M20F Executive and M20G Statesman) built in 1967, and some in 1968, have a pronounced droop in the leading edge of the outer wing panels, something like the taper-wing PA-28s:

View attachment 54759

By the 1969 model year that seems to have disappeared:

View attachment 54760

The short-body Mooneys don't have this drooped leading edge.

Did this have any noticeable effect on performance or handling in the M20F/M20G?
Click to expand...

You can judge the effectiveness of the Twisted Wing by its lifespan . . . one whole model year of the almost 60 that Mooney has been making airplanes. Seems to me it was the 1967s only.

By the way, when the M20-L was introduced, the F, G and J became known as "mid-bodies," being a mere 10" longer than short bodies; the real long bodies are more than two feet longer . . . to accommodate and balance out the big Continental 6-cylinder engines.
 
The real cost differential between an Arrow and a Mooney will be the fuel used to make the same trip. Plus the much extra time that the Arrow requires.
 
Hank I agree! Put 100 hours on in a arrow then bought the mooney J. Same gas per hour 132kts vs 160kts! Oh and the mooney can, if you want carry 1/3 more fuel! MN to Florida non stop. Oh and if going east to NY and big tail winds exist in the FLs yep run it up to FL210, and still true 143kts on 6.2gph but maybe put 50-90kts on the tail. Never seen a arrow do that. BUT the nice thing about a arrow is the gas filled landing shocks, makes a crappy landing feel good. The mooney rubber landing gear pucks not so much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Hank S said:
You can judge the effectiveness of the Twisted Wing by its lifespan . . . one whole model year of the almost 60 that Mooney has been making airplanes. Seems to me it was the 1967s only.
Click to expand...
Looks like it was mid-way through the 1968 model year when the Twisted Wing was discontinued -- somewhere between s/n 680160 and 680198.
 
Hank S said:
The real cost differential between an Arrow and a Mooney will be the fuel used to make the same trip. Plus the much extra time that the Arrow requires.
Click to expand...

So you don't think the maintenance costs will be significantly different? Due also to the tighter cowlings and whatnot on the Mooney.
 
shinysideup said:
So you don't think the maintenance costs will be significantly different? Due also to the tighter cowlings and whatnot on the Mooney.
Click to expand...

Do you really think the nexus of a few extra hours a year taking out screws overcomes the fuel savings you'll see? There's nothing else on a Mooney J that's more expensive to maintain. Same engine. More solid airframe. Make sure the fuel tanks are good, but that's about it. You could save $30-40 in a single leg in fuel between the Mooney and Arrow. That'll add up quickly.

But better yet, just take the screws out yourself the few times a year it's required. Win/win.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top