M20C vs M20E

SkyHog

SkyHog

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
18,510
Location
Middle of nowhere Texas
Display Name
Everything Offends Me
Home Airfield
KLUD
Hey all!

I have some time in an M20C, but not in any other Mooneys. Looks like the M20E sells for around the same price as the M20C.

What's the difference? They look pretty similar.

In other news, would either or both work for a family of 4 (two plus sized adults and 2 children that will grow into adults)? Also need to throw a big dog in the baggage compartment.
 
Nick, primary difference between the C and E is that the E has the 200 HP angle valve engine and the C has the parallel valve 180 HP engine. The Es are therefore better performers since they have more power.

Personally I think either is way too small for your needs. If you want to consider a Mooney, look at an F model since that's the bigger cabin.
 
what Te* is trying to say is C = 180hp carbureted, E = 200hp fuel injected. same body (considered 'short body')
 
eman1200 said:
what Te* is trying to say is C = 180hp carbureted, E = 200hp fuel injected. same body (considered 'short body')
Click to expand...
Yup, same body but the engine differences go more than carb vs. injected. As Ted said, the 200hp is the angle valve engine which runs a little hotter and is considered a little less reliable than the parallel valve engine.
 
Dang. Ok. Might have to trade speed for size then. Price range would be around that area - I know Mooneys are always cheaper than they should be, but the bigger Mooneys are a huge step up in price
 
ya, ok. that's probably what he what asking. angle valve or parallel valve. my bad.
 
Plus sized adults plus TWO children? C182 minimum for me, mainly because of the two door ingress. My arrow ii would get old with that crowd due to one door, and they are about the size of the 182 and 20F/J, cabin wise. differences in perceived size are a function of floor layout, headroom, and seating position. Width wise they're all the damn same.

A cardinal RG would be a good compromise. Arrow category performance on a 48 inch wide cabin in the front seats. Thats only one inch narrower than a pa32/34 series btw. If they werent so cult priced i would have gone that route myself. Gear doesnt suffer from the propensity to cracking that the 172/182 pivots and actuator housings do (big $$$), so that somewhat ameliorates the mx expense and general ridiculousness of the cessna high wing retract system.

I could not in good conscience recommend a short body mooney for your mission. Those things are bona fide 2 seaters, volume wise.
 
I suspect the spec sheets done in different ways so as to not be comparable when talking width. I've got lots of time in both bodies and a 182 (not the oldest ones) is noticeably wider at the shoulders than the Arrow and Mooney. So maybe they are all the same at various points, but in the place people actually care (at the shoulders), I notice a difference. A 172 is also supposedly 40 inches wide, just two shy of the 182. No freaking way.
 
Last edited:
We have a M20E. As already mentioned, the E has the 200 hp fuel injected engine, but the same fuselage and manual gear as the C. Best short field performer of all Mooneys, due to its relatively light weight.
For a family of 4 I would however consider it to be too small, particularly in the second row. A later model with a longer fuselage, starting with the F, might suit you better, but I guess it will still be a tight fit.

A Piper Comanche would probably be a better choice for you, on a similar price level.
 
German guy said:
We have a M20E. As already mentioned, the E has the 200 hp fuel injected engine, but the same fuselage and manual gear as the C. Best short field performer of all Mooneys, due to its relatively light weight.
For a family of 4 I would however consider it to be too small, particularly in the second row. A later model with a longer fuselage, starting with the F, might suit you better, but I guess it will still be a tight fit.

A Piper Comanche would probably be a better choice for you, on a similar price level.
Click to expand...

If I were him, I'd entertain the M20F at nearly the same price point, especially if his kids aren't likely to grow up to be giants (i.e. is he average height?). The io-360 is a reliable engine and the fuel economy is so much better than when you move up to the 6 cylinders (ask me how I know :)). Most M20Fs seem to be 1000-1050 pounds useful, which is plenty for four people and 550nm range at 9GPH.
 
Last edited:
Don't forget about the big dog he mentioned. Are you going to have room for any bags at all in that Mooney with 4 folks and a dog. I think not!

Sounds like a Cherokee 6-260 mission to me. About the same speed as the C model Mooney, 6 seats, plenty of baggage, 2000 hr TBO Lycoming engine, burns a little more fuel, 13 gallons per hour instead of 10. Over 80 gallons of fuel gives great range capability. Simple, easy to maintain Cherokee systems.

All for just a little bit more money than the the Mooney. Operating expenses might be pretty close considering the fixed gear maintenance, insurance, hours flown and range. Not near as sexy as a Mooney though.

Ask your mechanic which is easier to work on.
 
Last edited:
Both the M20C and M20E are "short bodied" Mooneys. There really isn't much of a back seat, unless the front seaters are utterly diminutive, like yours truly. The back seat got a stretch in the M20F, and they tend to go for more money as a result. The M20G has the stretched body with the carbonated engine. It is sort of the dog of the Mooneys, though flying at 135 knots burning 8.5 salons an hour is hardly slouching.

The real sweet spot of the Mooney fleet is the M20J, or 201 (so named because that's how fast they go). Same I0360, but lots of aerodynamic improvements by Lo Presti himself. Again, a little more money.

I wouldn't think about one seriously until after you've sat in one, they truly aren't for everyone. I know there are a several Mooney owners who participate on Mooneyspace, might not be a bad place of you to check. I rather agree with the others though, with your family and where you are I'd be looking at a Skylane. Seat everyone, take lots of gas and cough oomph to keep you away form the rocks.

Was it Basic Med that got you back in the game?
 
The rear seat in the C/E isn't bad for one person. I flew all the way out to Oshkosh in the backseat of an E shared with the pilot's flight bag. It wasn't too bad as I was able to fit diagonally.
 
steingar said:
Both the M20C and M20E are "short bodied" Mooneys. There really isn't much of a back seat, unless the front seaters are utterly diminutive, like yours truly. The back seat got a stretch in the M20F, and they tend to go for more money as a result. The M20G has the stretched body with the carbonated engine. It is sort of the dog of the Mooneys, though flying at 135 knots burning 8.5 salons an hour is hardly slouching.

The real sweet spot of the Mooney fleet is the M20J, or 201 (so named because that's how fast they go). Same I0360, but lots of aerodynamic improvements by Lo Presti himself. Again, a little more money.

I wouldn't think about one seriously until after you've sat in one, they truly aren't for everyone. I know there are a several Mooney owners who participate on Mooneyspace, might not be a bad place of you to check. I rather agree with the others though, with your family and where you are I'd be looking at a Skylane. Seat everyone, take lots of gas and cough oomph to keep you away form the rocks.

Was it Basic Med that got you back in the game?
Click to expand...
Thanks Steingar!

It's basicmed that is about to get me back in the game. Got my physical scheduled. Just need a BFR and a bunch of rustoleum to get back to where I was!
 
Thanks everyone. Will look at Comanches too. Most of the flying I plan on doing will be out and backs to ABQ, and family vacations to places around Nebraska, Wyoming and Kansas.

Not gonna need a ton of baggage, but my wife will probably change that one up
 
SkyHog said:
Thanks Steingar!

It's basicmed that is about to get me back in the game. Got my physical scheduled. Just need a BFR and a bunch of rustoleum to get back to where I was!
Click to expand...
Nick, that is fantastic news. Bruce says that aviation is like Herpes. It never goes away.

Last time I saw you was a few years ago, but the person I recall would not be entirely comfortable in my Mooney. Now, that was several years ago and things do change, which is why I said you should sit in one before considering it. More importantly, you should have Mrs. Skyhog sit in one. I should have followed my own advice, Mrs. Steingar hates the Mooney, though she does like how fast we get there.

I think a Comanche is a really, really good idea. Those things are cavernous on the inside. They go fast, though they do it using a big engine. Of course, the other thought for you is an older Bo...
 
I'd agree, the Comanche is the way to go. Call up Ed and buy his so he can finally go buy a Twinkie like he's been wanting to for years. Plus given the higher DAs where you live, the parallel valve 540 (and the 250 HP that comes with it) will be welcome. Plus, the parallel valve 540 is one of the most durable engines ever built.
 
TigerGene said:
Don't forget about the big dog he mentioned. Are you going to have room for any bags at all in that Mooney with 4 folks and a dog. I think not!

Sounds like a Cherokee 6-260 mission to me. About the same speed as the C model Mooney, 6 seats, plenty of baggage, 2000 hr TBO Lycoming engine, burns a little more fuel, 13 gallons per hour instead of 10. Over 80 gallons of fuel gives great range capability. Simple, easy to maintain Cherokee systems.

All for just a little bit more money than the the Mooney. Operating expenses might be pretty close considering the fixed gear maintenance, insurance, hours flown and range. Not near as sexy as a Mooney though.

Ask your mechanic which is easier to work on.
Click to expand...

Look at the Mooneys again. In my C, I walk away from Sixes (I get 170-175 mph True at altitude), and do it on 9 gph, so you're looking at 50% more fuel for noticeably less speed. But the Six will carry more weight and many more cubic feet as long as you realize that much of the extra weight is for extra fuel to go the same distance. I've flown 4:40 with my wife and several days' luggage, and landed with about 1:15 in the tanks, twice, so I know it wasn't a fluke.

Gear maintenance is minimal--most shops quote ~20 hours for annual, which I defray by helping out. It keeps me up to date on how the plane is doing, and I get a heads up on things to watch or to plan for. It's also very educational, I learned a lot about how the plane is put together and how things work. My last two annuals were $900 each, including the dreaded gear maintenance (which is me crawling around with a grease gun).

Figure out what your frequent trips will be--distance, people and bags. Look at some planes, figure the fuel required, then add people and stuff, and do the weight and balance. My wife and I traveled for 10 days in my M20-C, and carried a couple of bags for friends traveling with us by Skyhawk, who were loaded to gross. My plane was pretty full after adding their stuff, but still not at gross weight.

There is no denying that the F has more room--10" longer cabin split evenly between back seat leg room and baggage space (the front seat space is identical). Expect ~150 knots and 10-11 gph.

Enjoy the hunt for a plane in good shape! And welcome back!!
 
Nick, look at a lance as well. Congrats on your return to the air.
 
2012, huh. Did you see a lady named Michelle at Del Sol? She was in USAF and stationed at Kirtland. She had a Comanche (I don't remember which one), which she put on leaseback with Del Sol right about 2012. I looked at it, and that airplane was seriously low inside. In the end, I never checked out in it, because there was no point if I could not fit in it.

Before getting a Mooney, I looked at 182s, largely under influence of Roald and other Purpleboarders. It was far too much airplane for what I needed, and I wanted more speed (for the buck). But seems like a better fit for your requirements. An affordable 182 cruises about as fast as Tiger, BTW. Don't discount the power of that massive Continental.
 
I have about 75 hrs in each and they are pretty similar. The c has a carb, e is fuel injected and runs smoother. Full throttle and 2400 rpms, 6k feet the c was around 135kts and the e is 150kts. If you're really concerned with cruise speeds fly the actual plane first. The older C models can vary a bit depending on speed mods and updated cowl,etc. Neither had major maintenance costs, the johnson bar will help with that. Great plane for a few years depending on how big the kids are. The dog may fit, but not with bags for the four of you.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I'd agree, the Comanche is the way to go. Call up Ed and buy his so he can finally go buy a Twinkie like he's been wanting to for years. Plus given the higher DAs where you live, the parallel valve 540 (and the 250 HP that comes with it) will be welcome. Plus, the parallel valve 540 is one of the most durable engines ever built.
Click to expand...

Is Ed still selling his? Last time I thought he stopped trying to sell it.
 
charheep said:
Is Ed still selling his? Last time I thought he stopped trying to sell it.
Click to expand...

Technically you're right, but I don't see him turning down a reasonable offer.
 
You know the best way to get a hold of him? I dont think he is a frequent POA'r.
He used to, many moons ago, have a page up for his plane. I think thats long gone though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top