..Tell me about Mooney

gismo said:
Felix, I think you're overstating the Bonanza performance unless you're talking about flying along the upwind side of the mountains. The Bonanza Jesse would be most likely to afford would be one of the earlier V-tails with 225 or 250 HP. The one I had was 225 and I could cruise at 145 KTAS on about 10 gph or 155 KTAS burning about 13.5 gph. Of course this was before I knew anything about LOP
Click to expand...
Yeah, I was referring to IO520/550, for which those numbers are spot on. Not a guess, either, as I had digital KTAS readout.
 
Well, Jesse, did you get taught? :p
 
sba55 said:
Yeah, I was referring to IO520/550, for which those numbers are spot on. Not a guess, either, as I had digital KTAS readout.
Click to expand...

That's still subject to pitot/static error but typically within a few knots.
 
el con said:
For discussion what do you expert's think of the PIPER COMMANCHE, designed by AL Mooney and about the size of the earlier bonanza's.
IMHO-Commanche-250
Strong airframe with stout landing gear
155 -160kts
10-15gph fuel burn
About anything you can squeeze in it can carry
Selling for less than mooney's or bonanzas.
Well--- let's hear it
Click to expand...

Comanches are friggin' GREAT airplanes. I want one. :yes: preferably one with two fans :yes: :yes: but a 250 or 260 would be great too. They're reasonably efficient - All variants including the twin should do at least 10nmpg, though I'm not sure about the 400 - I have no desire to feed that monster IO-720 engine! They're also reasonably fast, you can get great deals on them, they're well-supported, and there are still quite a few mods available for them should you desire an upgrade.

Downsides: Mainly the landing gear system. There's a 1000-hour inspection AD and the bungees (yes, bungees) need to be replaced every 3 years IIRC. But there's still a lot of them flying and Webco makes new, stouter parts should you need them.

Another "downside" is that some people consider them difficult to land. From what I hear, the issue is reduced stabilator effectiveness due to interference from the vortices off the inner edge of the flap. Personally, I don't think they're that difficult to land, but if you do, I hear the wing fillets available from Knots2U work wonders. http://knots2u.com/2430WF.htm
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Another "downside" is that some people consider them difficult to land. From what I hear, the issue is reduced stabilator effectiveness due to interference from the vortices off the inner edge of the flap. Personally, I don't think they're that difficult to land, but if you do, I hear the wing fillets available from Knots2U work wonders. http://knots2u.com/2430WF.htm
Click to expand...

Some people consider Mooneys difficult to land (I've heard the words "Impossible to make a greaser"), and both are poor mechanics blaming the tools.
 
kent, in my limited experience the comanche isnt too tough to land. although, i think that it is also, like so many others, unforgiving of too much speed on approach. I was sorta just guessing on approach speeds the first few times I landed it. Also, the first time I flew it we were probably pretty far forward CG wise. Second time when we went up to eat lunch with Kim and Phil we threw a case of water in the back seat and it was a lot easier.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Some people consider Mooneys difficult to land (I've heard the words "Impossible to make a greaser"), and both are poor mechanics blaming the tools.
Click to expand...

Yeah, really. If it's so "impossible" to make a greaser, how come my first 5 landings in a Mooney were ALL greasers? :nono:

tonycondon said:
kent, in my limited experience the comanche isnt too tough to land. although, i think that it is also, like so many others, unforgiving of too much speed on approach. I was sorta just guessing on approach speeds the first few times I landed it. Also, the first time I flew it we were probably pretty far forward CG wise. Second time when we went up to eat lunch with Kim and Phil we threw a case of water in the back seat and it was a lot easier.
Click to expand...

Hmm. I threw a whole person in the back, so maybe that's why I didn't notice any difficulty whatsoever. ;)
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Yeah, really. If it's so "impossible" to make a greaser, how come my first 5 landings in a Mooney were ALL greasers? :nono:
Click to expand...

Yeah, I make plenty of greasers in the Mooney. When I don't, it's my fault.
 
jesse said:
Indeed..everything I need to know at this point in the game.
Click to expand...

From what I read that would be that Mooneys are fast, fuel efficient, have lots of room for a big pilot, are easy to land, and not a problem to maintain compared to a Bo. On the other hand - compared to a Bo, Mooneys don't save you very much fuel, are slower, don't have any room up front, and are maintainance hogs that are hard to land.

Did I get it right? :rofl:
 
Anthony said:
Well, I am a huge Mooney fan. However, that is a little harsh on the Bo. You can throttle them back, still get close to Mooney speeds (depending on the model) and burn 12 GPH. Beech's are well built. The whole parts thing is overblown, IMHO. Yeah, parts are expensive. Its an airplane and a darned good one. EVERYTHING is expensive.
Click to expand...

Unless one is comparing a two 4-banger driven planes (IIRC most Bo's are 6 bangers), you have an instant maintenance cost disparity. Those extra two jugs will cost you more at some point, even if burn and everything else are exactly the same.

Cheers,

-Andrew
 
astanley said:
Unless one is comparing a two 4-banger driven planes (IIRC most Bo's are 6 bangers), you have an instant maintenance cost disparity. Those extra two jugs will cost you more at some point, even if burn and everything else are exactly the same.

Cheers,

-Andrew
Click to expand...
Legitimate point. A friend is a corp pilot for a Queen Air. You ought to hear him moan about two 8 bangers :yikes:.

BTW, I really like Bos.
 
It's funny to hear the story of small cabins in Mooneys as a drawback. And it's also funny to see people compare them to planes like C-182s. That's like comparing a Chevy to a Porsche. But there are two differences:

1. When you accelerate to 65kts and pull back on a Porsche, nothing interesting happens.

2. Nobody who owns a Porsche complains about the small cabin.

Phil
 
tonycondon said:
kent, in my limited experience the comanche isnt too tough to land. although, i think that it is also, like so many others, unforgiving of too much speed on approach. I was sorta just guessing on approach speeds the first few times I landed it. Also, the first time I flew it we were probably pretty far forward CG wise. Second time when we went up to eat lunch with Kim and Phil we threw a case of water in the back seat and it was a lot easier.
Click to expand...

The Comanche and the Mooney have the same landing issue, and that is they are very energy critcal. The distance between too little or too much is a fairly narrow when compared to a more lightly loaded wing. If you're 300 under gross, you best not come down final as fast as you do at gross. Most people I helped who have told me about problems landing a Mooney were all trying to do so far too fast. The first time I ever flew a Mooney was an old short one with 200hp and Johnston Bar gear, what is that, a C? E????

Guy was coming over the threshold at 80 and we were floating forever. I took it for a stall and figured 65 for short final. Plane did fine then nice nose high landings on the numbers. Not sure where he came up with the 80, it's "what he was taught"....
 
pcorman said:
It's funny to hear the story of small cabins in Mooneys as a drawback. And it's also funny to see people compare them to planes like C-182s. That's like comparing a Chevy to a Porsche. But there are two differences:

1. When you accelerate to 65kts and pull back on a Porsche, nothing interesting happens.

2. Nobody who owns a Porsche complains about the small cabin.

Phil
Click to expand...

What I don't like about the Mooney is that it's heavy handed and difficult to fly with true finesse with the high ratio aileron controls. I would like to have the Mooney M-20T, that might be fun...
 
Lance F said:
Legitimate point. A friend is a corp pilot for a Queen Air. You ought to hear him moan about two 8 bangers :yikes:.

BTW, I really like Bos.
Click to expand...

Its called a PT6-135A Conversion.....holy crap those 8 cyls are hand grenades.
 
Henning said:
The Comanche and the Mooney have the same landing issue, and that is they are very energy critcal. The distance between too little or too much is a fairly narrow when compared to a more lightly loaded wing. If you're 300 under gross, you best not come down final as fast as you do at gross. Most people I helped who have told me about problems landing a Mooney were all trying to do so far too fast. The first time I ever flew a Mooney was an old short one with 200hp and Johnston Bar gear, what is that, a C? E????

Guy was coming over the threshold at 80 and we were floating forever. I took it for a stall and figured 65 for short final. Plane did fine then nice nose high landings on the numbers. Not sure where he came up with the 80, it's "what he was taught"....
Click to expand...
Short 200hp is an 'E'. A modied up 67-early 68 E is a fast/economical two person ride.
80 MPH at gross is 1.3 Vso. I like to be on the low side, 1.25:)
 
taters said:
Hey Jesse,
cool your looking at these..

If you need a pre-buy or maint.I would recommend Wilmar,MN a good Mooney Maintaince outfit for pre-buy annuals etc. Know alot of local guys go there heard nothing but good things and no humpfest.
Click to expand...

Willmar probably knows Mooneys - At least that's their rep - But we got some god-awful customer service there with a Piper a couple of years ago. Bad enough that we decided if we ever need maintenance at that airport again, we'll be pulling the wings off and trucking the plane to a better shop. :mad3:
 
astanley said:
Unless one is comparing a two 4-banger driven planes (IIRC most Bo's are 6 bangers), you have an instant maintenance cost disparity. Those extra two jugs will cost you more at some point, even if burn and everything else are exactly the same.

Cheers,

-Andrew
Click to expand...

Yeah, but the extra two cylinders and marginally extra cost to maintain them give you the flexibility to either go faster than most Mooneys and burn more fuel or go slower and burn what a Mooney burns.

When did I say you could disagree with anything I say? :D:D:D
 
taters said:
Hey Jesse,
cool your looking at these..

If you need a pre-buy or maint.I would recommend Wilmar,MN a good Mooney Maintaince outfit for pre-buy annuals etc. Know alot of local guys go there heard nothing but good things and no humpfest.
Click to expand...

Jesse's on more of a house buying track at the moment. :yes:
 
Seems like a good string for my first post in this forum ....

To the OP:

Buying an aircraft is somewhat like buying a hat. You just have to try a bunch on and find one that fits you. I've owned a C150, C172, Beech Sport, Bonanza A35, and two Mooney M20C's. For me, the Mooney is my favorite. I almost never force a live human into the tiny back seat. I love the sportscar like feel of the cabin, the firm but responsive controls (great IFR feel), the speed and low fuel burn. Fly one and see if it fits.

To everyone:

Hello from the Carolinas. Let's have lunch at 57A some saturday.
 
N5571Q said:
Seems like a good string for my first post in this forum ....

To the OP:

Buying an aircraft is somewhat like buying a hat. You just have to try a bunch on and find one that fits you. I've owned a C150, C172, Beech Sport, Bonanza A35, and two Mooney M20C's. For me, the Mooney is my favorite. I almost never force a live human into the tiny back seat. I love the sportscar like feel of the cabin, the firm but responsive controls (great IFR feel), the speed and low fuel burn. Fly one and see if it fits.

To everyone:

Hello from the Carolinas. Let's have lunch at 57A some saturday.
Click to expand...

Welcome, Theo!
 
Looks like this thread has all the info possible ... here's the website to my Mooney, which is the Mooney Ted flew, as mentioned in the thread: www.clubmooney.com.

This is a 1974 M20F, and I have about 50 hours in a C. I'd take the F over a C anytime. Yes, it's nice to have the johnson bar for reliability, but you get to like that electric gear real quick and the C is just bigger. Anyway, no reason to get into a discussion because it's all been said already.
 
Danos said:
They always do dont they :D
Click to expand...

In the strictest sense that's true but the difference is nowhere near 6/4 cost wise. There are some IO-360s that cost more on overhaul/rebuild than many six cylinder engines. And hopefully the days of "topping" an engine every 500-800 hours are behind us so the only real extra cost might be for spark plugs and a slightly more time consuming annual inspection due to the need to check two extra cylinders for compression and condition.
 
ghayes said:
This is a 1974 M20F, and I have about 50 hours in a C. I'd take the F over a C anytime. Yes, it's nice to have the johnson bar for reliability, but you get to like that electric gear real quick and the C is just bigger. Anyway, no reason to get into a discussion because it's all been said already.
Click to expand...

Don't you mean the F is bigger? ;)

I've never flown a C, but I liked the F quite a bit.
 
Well Jesse Ed Guthrie has a 1977 M20J-201 and he LOVES it and i have about 10 hours in it and if i didn't own my Warrior i'dprobably have a 201. Also my buddy Rick has a newer 201 and he love his too.
Dave G.
 
jesse said:
Seems like there is a lot of bang for the buck with Mooney. I've never flown in one--never sat in one--I've never even looked inside the cockpit. I don't know any of the models or what they mean...but I'm pretty sure I need one.

Teach me so that I can buy one. Thanks :)
Click to expand...

You got yourself a plane, but landed a long way from Mooney!
 
Necropost!

Very different than a Mooney, but I think overall it fits what he wants to do better. I've been impressed with how much utility he's gotten out of that plane.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Necropost!

Very different than a Mooney, but I think overall it fits what he wants to do better. I've been impressed with how much utility he's gotten out of that plane.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was searching and reading threads about 252's and stumbled across Jesse's post.
 
The World's Most Interesting Pilot, Chuck Norris, and now possibly David White are all Mooney aviators.
 
Mooneys are high quality, efficient airplanes. BUT, as has been mentioned, the mechanicals are stuffed in the cowling pretty tightly. My only beef with Mooneys is, after you get to fly a real nice airplane - like a Bonanza or Bellanca, a Mooney flys like an old tractor. I like the Comanches, save for the 180hp version. The 250/260 does everthing well...you can load it up with 4 fat guys and fuel for Utah.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top