Re: Thinking about buying a Mooney

[Thomas Borchert]

Jon,

Have a pre-buy inspection done by a mechanic that hasn't worked on the
plane for the previous owner.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jon Kraus]

I haven't flown one yet but I did sit inside. It is definitely smaller
than the 172, 182's I am used too. JK

Robert Bates wrote:

> Have you flown one? When I was looking for an airplane I flew a couple of
> the C models because I had always heard how fast and efficient they were.
> They seem unstable in roll- the first one I thought was just that particular
> airplane but the second one was too. There are also quite small inside- I'm
> 5' 8" and it wasn't very comfortable.
>
>
> "Al Marzo" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Get in tough with the type club MAPA, I think, and they'll be able to
>>help. Also those Mooneys are notorious for leaking fuel tanks (wet
>>wings). Takes about $5K each side for the fix. Good luck.
>>
>>On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 00:38:26 GMT, Jon Kraus >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>They have a 1975 Mooney M20 N6832V, I think model "C" at my home
>>>airport. The owners have had it for years and have traded up to a twin
>>>Comanche (sp?). It has a new engine (250 hours) and a new 3 blade
>>>McCaulley prop. The avionics are decent (Bendix KMA 24 audio, 2 - KX155
>>>nav/com KT76a transponder, KR87 ADF and Garmin 150xl GPS). It has
>>>7150 hours on the tach which seems quite high to me but I am really
>>>quite the novice when it comes to airplanes. The interior and paint are
>>>decent (6 for the interior, 8 for the paint). They are asking $45,000
>>>for it. I have done some research and this seems like an OK price but I
>>>haven't seen too many of these with this many hours. Please give me
>>>some feeback without flaming me too bad. :-)
>>>
>>>Jon Kraus
>>>PP-ASEL-IA
>>
>
>

[Jon Kraus]

Thanks for the tip... Wouldn't a Mooney A&P used for a pre-buy
inspection catch this? JK

Al Marzo wrote:

> Get in tough with the type club MAPA, I think, and they'll be able to
> help. Also those Mooneys are notorious for leaking fuel tanks (wet
> wings). Takes about $5K each side for the fix. Good luck.
>
> On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 00:38:26 GMT, Jon Kraus >
> wrote:
>
>
>>They have a 1975 Mooney M20 N6832V, I think model "C" at my home
>>airport. The owners have had it for years and have traded up to a twin
>>Comanche (sp?). It has a new engine (250 hours) and a new 3 blade
>>McCaulley prop. The avionics are decent (Bendix KMA 24 audio, 2 - KX155
>>nav/com KT76a transponder, KR87 ADF and Garmin 150xl GPS). It has
>>7150 hours on the tach which seems quite high to me but I am really
>>quite the novice when it comes to airplanes. The interior and paint are
>>decent (6 for the interior, 8 for the paint). They are asking $45,000
>>for it. I have done some research and this seems like an OK price but I
>>haven't seen too many of these with this many hours. Please give me
>>some feeback without flaming me too bad. :-)
>>
>>Jon Kraus
>>PP-ASEL-IA
>
>

[Jon Kraus]

Thanks Tony... The Mooney does feel like a sports car inside... Not a
lot of room I agree... JK

tony roberts wrote:

> Been there done that.
>
> I was in partnership on a 172 when my partner fell in love with a Mooney.
> He wanted to me to agree to sell the 172 and go in on the Mooney.
> So I went for a test flight.
>
> No disrespect intended to anyone, but those things were designed for
> rich tiny people.
>
> There is no room in them.
> They cost a fortune at annual due to retractable gear, constant speed
> prop, and in our case wood wing.
>
> They burn a lot more gas,
>
> They have more AD's
>
> They cost more to insure
>
> Which all took me back to, "What is my Mission?"
>
> S0 - I bought him out a year ago,
>
> He bought the Mooney.
>
> Now it's for sale.
> I hope he gets his money back - meanwhile I'm enjoying my 172.
>
>
> Tony
>
>
> Tony Roberts
> PP-ASEL
> VFR OTT
> Night
> Almost Instrument :)
> Cessna 172H C-GICE
>
>
>
> article >,
> Jon Kraus > wrote:
>
>
>>They have a 1975 Mooney M20 N6832V, I think model "C" at my home
>>airport. The owners have had it for years and have traded up to a twin
>>Comanche (sp?). It has a new engine (250 hours) and a new 3 blade
>>McCaulley prop. The avionics are decent (Bendix KMA 24 audio, 2 - KX155
>>nav/com KT76a transponder, KR87 ADF and Garmin 150xl GPS). It has
>>7150 hours on the tach which seems quite high to me but I am really
>>quite the novice when it comes to airplanes. The interior and paint are
>>decent (6 for the interior, 8 for the paint). They are asking $45,000
>>for it. I have done some research and this seems like an OK price but I
>>haven't seen too many of these with this many hours. Please give me
>>some feeback without flaming me too bad. :-)
>>
>>Jon Kraus
>>PP-ASEL-IA
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> --

[Jon Kraus]

I sure will... Thanks !! JK

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Jon,
>
> Have a pre-buy inspection done by a mechanic that hasn't worked on the
> plane for the previous owner.
>

[Jack Showers]

> decent (6 for the interior, 8 for the paint). They are asking $45,000
> for it. I have done some research and this seems like an OK price but I
> haven't seen too many of these with this many hours. Please give me
> some feeback without flaming me too bad. :-)
>
> Jon Kraus
> PP-ASEL-IA

Jon:

I'm on my second Mooney, a 1974 M20F. The major points are that
they are small inside and out which is why they are a bit faster than
the other four-cylinder single retracts. They airframe is considered
to be among the strongest. The tanks do leak, but most of us don't
get too antsy about that until it's really bad, which takes years in
most cases. The leaks are usually only seen in traces of blue under
the wings. If they drip, well, that's a problem, but that's rare.
The gear doesn't require frequent repair as did my Arrow, for
instance. I flew a C model all over the South and West for about 6
years, and found it to be a good enough airplane that I didn't even
consider any other make when I got out of the partnership that owned
the C (and I've owned interests in quite a few airplanes). Once you
get used to the small interior and the slightly demanding landing
characteristics, you get sort of addicted. No question but that
Mooney ownership brings with it something of a cult appeal. There are
periodic Mooney Fly-ins around the US, a couple of which are monthly
events. The Mooney Mail List, recommended earlier, is excellent, with
huge archives covering everything imaginable regarding Mooneys.

Jack

[David Megginson]

Robert Bates wrote:

> Have you flown one? When I was looking for an airplane I flew a couple of
> the C models because I had always heard how fast and efficient they were.
> They seem unstable in roll- the first one I thought was just that particular
> airplane but the second one was too.

For "unstable", substitute "responsive". A Cessna 172 or 182 has a lot of
roll damping because of hull effect, and a Cherokee has even more because of
dihedral -- that makes them very easy planes to fly, even in IMC (I love my
Warrior as an IMC platform), but it also makes them sluggish and
unresponsive for maneuvering, and in the case of dihedral, it adds drag as
well (for the 172/182, it's the struts that add the drag).

From what I understand (not having flown one), the Mooney has much less
roll damping than brands P and C, and it also uses rods rather than cables
for the ailerons so that they respond instantly to your yoke inputs (without
having to take up slack in cables first). You're also flying faster than a
PA-28, 172, or 182, so there's a higher dynamic pressure acting on the
ailerons for a plane about the same size and weight. It's not surprising
you'd find it very jumpy in the roll.


All the best,


David

[Al Marzo]

It's like driving a sports car, tight fitting and very responsive, so
be ready for that. Check your mission profile before deciding on the
airplane of your dreams. Not every aircraft is for everyone or their
purposes.

On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 12:36:00 GMT, David Megginson
> wrote:

>Robert Bates wrote:
>
>> Have you flown one? When I was looking for an airplane I flew a couple of
>> the C models because I had always heard how fast and efficient they were.
>> They seem unstable in roll- the first one I thought was just that particular
>> airplane but the second one was too.
>
>For "unstable", substitute "responsive". A Cessna 172 or 182 has a lot of
>roll damping because of hull effect, and a Cherokee has even more because of
>dihedral -- that makes them very easy planes to fly, even in IMC (I love my
>Warrior as an IMC platform), but it also makes them sluggish and
>unresponsive for maneuvering, and in the case of dihedral, it adds drag as
>well (for the 172/182, it's the struts that add the drag).
>
> From what I understand (not having flown one), the Mooney has much less
>roll damping than brands P and C, and it also uses rods rather than cables
>for the ailerons so that they respond instantly to your yoke inputs (without
>having to take up slack in cables first). You're also flying faster than a
>PA-28, 172, or 182, so there's a higher dynamic pressure acting on the
>ailerons for a plane about the same size and weight. It's not surprising
>you'd find it very jumpy in the roll.
>
>
>All the best,
>
>
>David
>

[Al Marzo]

Absolutely, but if they're not leaking now, and have never been done,
you need to plan on it. It's just one of those things.

On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 11:33:57 GMT, Jon Kraus >
wrote:

>Thanks for the tip... Wouldn't a Mooney A&P used for a pre-buy
>inspection catch this? JK
>
>Al Marzo wrote:
>
>> Get in tough with the type club MAPA, I think, and they'll be able to
>> help. Also those Mooneys are notorious for leaking fuel tanks (wet
>> wings). Takes about $5K each side for the fix. Good luck.
>>
>> On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 00:38:26 GMT, Jon Kraus >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>They have a 1975 Mooney M20 N6832V, I think model "C" at my home
>>>airport. The owners have had it for years and have traded up to a twin
>>>Comanche (sp?). It has a new engine (250 hours) and a new 3 blade
>>>McCaulley prop. The avionics are decent (Bendix KMA 24 audio, 2 - KX155
>>>nav/com KT76a transponder, KR87 ADF and Garmin 150xl GPS). It has
>>>7150 hours on the tach which seems quite high to me but I am really
>>>quite the novice when it comes to airplanes. The interior and paint are
>>>decent (6 for the interior, 8 for the paint). They are asking $45,000
>>>for it. I have done some research and this seems like an OK price but I
>>>haven't seen too many of these with this many hours. Please give me
>>>some feeback without flaming me too bad. :-)
>>>
>>>Jon Kraus
>>>PP-ASEL-IA
>>
>>

[David Megginson]

Al Marzo wrote:

> It's like driving a sports car, tight fitting and very responsive, so
> be ready for that. Check your mission profile before deciding on the
> airplane of your dreams. Not every aircraft is for everyone or their
> purposes.

The M201 will remain one of the planes of my dreams because of the
combination of speed and fuel economy, but I don't believe that I'm good
enough for one yet (even if I could afford to upgrade) -- I still get some
slight heading drift in IMC in my Warrior from time to time, especially in
the first 15 minutes or so of a flight, and that would be much exaggerated
in a smooth, slick plane like a Mooney.


All the best,


David

[Dave Butler]

Jon Kraus wrote:
> They have a 1975 Mooney M20 N6832V, I think model "C" at my home
> airport. The owners have had it for years and have traded up to a twin
> Comanche (sp?). It has a new engine (250 hours) and a new 3 blade
> McCaulley prop. The avionics are decent (Bendix KMA 24 audio, 2 - KX155
> nav/com KT76a transponder, KR87 ADF and Garmin 150xl GPS). It has
> 7150 hours on the tach which seems quite high to me but I am really
> quite the novice when it comes to airplanes. The interior and paint are
> decent (6 for the interior, 8 for the paint). They are asking $45,000
> for it. I have done some research and this seems like an OK price but I
> haven't seen too many of these with this many hours. Please give me
> some feeback without flaming me too bad. :-)

Like all airplanes, Mooney's design is a compromise. In the Mooney, they have
biased the compromise in favor of going fast and economically, at the expense of
ease of entry and exit, and (some say) comfort and space. Personally I think you
have to admire the engineering tailored for a particular mission, high-speed,
economical cross-country personal travelling.

If you "get it" you can overlook the comfort and space issues. It's more like
sitting in a sports car with your fanny close to the belly pan and your legs
straight out in front of you. I find it a comfortable seating position, others
may not. By contrast, brands C and P (particularly C) are more like a kitchen
chair seating position.

The windscreen is close to your face, which gives a wide angle of view, but
makes some feel claustrophbic.

The landing gear is so simple and reliable that you can almost ignore the extra
expense. You do have to swing the gear at annual, but compared to brands C and
P, the landing gear is trouble-free. It's an all mechanical system with no
hydraulics. It just works.

The "suspension" is hard with no hydraulic struts to absorb the bumps. You will
not be taxiing as fast as brands C or P. It's also unforgiving of misjudged
landings. You -will- bounce. If you're buying used, find out when the "hockey
pucks" hard rubber suspension was last replaced. Mooney recommends every 10
years. It's about a $2K repair. If you take the weight off the wheels and the
pucks don't expand to fill the extra space, it's time to replace them.

As someone else mentioned, fuel leaks are another potential problem and
expensive repair.

The ground clearance of the main landing gear fairings is a consideration if you
plan on operating from rough fields.

Get a good instructor with lots of Mooney experience to check you out. Type
knowledge will save you lots of time in learning to land it. It's not hard, but
it's definitely different.

I'm biased because I have a J model, but you might consider whether you want to
hold out for a J. It has a lot of aerodynamic cleanup and goes a little faster
and farther then the earlier models on the same amount of fuel. Prices are, of
course, correspondingly higher.

I love mine, wouldn't go back to Cessna for anything, but it's not for everybody.

[Dude]

David's advice is about right.

New Mooney's are most often bought by former Mooney owners. So there has to
be something to that.

They are not that small at all. That's a big myth in many ways. Don't
write them off as small without sitting in one to see how well it fits you.
If you are long legged, it can be a good choice (Mooney's have LONG seat
rails that can turn it into a 3 seater if the pilot is tall enough).

They are short from floor to ceiling, but they are actually pretty wide.
You also sit close to the panel (which I think will be good with the new
glass panels). I think the size myth is caused by the short gear and short
cockpit comobined with the small windows. The interior dimensions are really
pretty good over all.

My biggest caveat on a Mooney this old (or anything complex or high
performance this old) is that it can be a reasonably cheap to own bird, OR
NOT. Older planes can end up costing more than new ones if you don't do due
diligence. Mooney gear is some of the less damage prone according to some
owners, but I never owned one.



"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
...
> Jon Kraus wrote:
> > They have a 1975 Mooney M20 N6832V, I think model "C" at my home
> > airport. The owners have had it for years and have traded up to a twin
> > Comanche (sp?). It has a new engine (250 hours) and a new 3 blade
> > McCaulley prop. The avionics are decent (Bendix KMA 24 audio, 2 - KX155
> > nav/com KT76a transponder, KR87 ADF and Garmin 150xl GPS). It has
> > 7150 hours on the tach which seems quite high to me but I am really
> > quite the novice when it comes to airplanes. The interior and paint are
> > decent (6 for the interior, 8 for the paint). They are asking $45,000
> > for it. I have done some research and this seems like an OK price but I
> > haven't seen too many of these with this many hours. Please give me
> > some feeback without flaming me too bad. :-)
>
> Like all airplanes, Mooney's design is a compromise. In the Mooney, they
have
> biased the compromise in favor of going fast and economically, at the
expense of
> ease of entry and exit, and (some say) comfort and space. Personally I
think you
> have to admire the engineering tailored for a particular mission,
high-speed,
> economical cross-country personal travelling.
>
> If you "get it" you can overlook the comfort and space issues. It's more
like
> sitting in a sports car with your fanny close to the belly pan and your
legs
> straight out in front of you. I find it a comfortable seating position,
others
> may not. By contrast, brands C and P (particularly C) are more like a
kitchen
> chair seating position.
>
> The windscreen is close to your face, which gives a wide angle of view,
but
> makes some feel claustrophbic.
>
> The landing gear is so simple and reliable that you can almost ignore the
extra
> expense. You do have to swing the gear at annual, but compared to brands C
and
> P, the landing gear is trouble-free. It's an all mechanical system with no
> hydraulics. It just works.
>
> The "suspension" is hard with no hydraulic struts to absorb the bumps. You
will
> not be taxiing as fast as brands C or P. It's also unforgiving of
misjudged
> landings. You -will- bounce. If you're buying used, find out when the
"hockey
> pucks" hard rubber suspension was last replaced. Mooney recommends every
10
> years. It's about a $2K repair. If you take the weight off the wheels and
the
> pucks don't expand to fill the extra space, it's time to replace them.
>
> As someone else mentioned, fuel leaks are another potential problem and
> expensive repair.
>
> The ground clearance of the main landing gear fairings is a consideration
if you
> plan on operating from rough fields.
>
> Get a good instructor with lots of Mooney experience to check you out.
Type
> knowledge will save you lots of time in learning to land it. It's not
hard, but
> it's definitely different.
>
> I'm biased because I have a J model, but you might consider whether you
want to
> hold out for a J. It has a lot of aerodynamic cleanup and goes a little
faster
> and farther then the earlier models on the same amount of fuel. Prices
are, of
> course, correspondingly higher.
>
> I love mine, wouldn't go back to Cessna for anything, but it's not for
everybody.
>

[Ken Reed]

>> They have a 1975 Mooney M20 N6832V, I think model "C" at my home
>> airport.

> No disrespect intended to anyone, but those things were designed for
> rich tiny people.

Huh ? A 'C' model Mooney is wider inside the cabin than a Cherokee 140
and identical in width to a Bonanza. The cabin isn't as tall as others,
but that's wasted space (and efficiency). A 'C' model Mooney sells for
the same as a Cherokee 180 of similar vintage. You don't have to be rich
or tiny to fly a Mooney.

> There is no room in them.

There's plenty of room in them. I have close to 1000 lb useful load too.

> They cost a fortune at annual due to retractable gear, constant speed
> prop, and in our case wood wing.

Not at all. To drop off and pick up a 'C' model Mooney at annual (no
owner assist) runs about $1200. Owner assisted annuals are less than
half that. The gear on 'C' models is dead simple. Manual gear, hydraulic
flaps; nothing to go wrong. The O-360 engine is as bullet proof an
engine as ever was made. 'C' models do not have wooden wings.

> They burn a lot more gas,

Say what ? 'C' model Mooneys are some of the most efficient airplanes
out there. I get close to 20 mpg in mine and burn 8.5 GPH (at 147 kts)
at 12,000 ft (my typical cruise altitude).


> They have more AD's

Than what ?

> They cost more to insure

My insurance is $1200/yr for 1 million smooth. A friend of mine pays
$1100 for his Warrior with a similar hull value.
---
Ken Reed

[Bob Miller]

I've got about 200 hrs in PA28s and PA32s as well as a few hundred in
various Cessna products. I have owned an M20C modified to near-M20J
config for about 3 years and fly it 250 hrs/yr primarily for business.
I have also flown M20J, K and S.

- All M20's have relatively trouble free gear. The manual ones in
particular need looking at once per year and to be greased. Other
than that, no more problem than a fixed gear bird. Overall an early
Mooney, well kept is a very low cost maintenance bird.
- (Potential) weak points are original fuel tanks, corrosion of the
steel structure. There are very few recurring AD's.
- The M20 has the same cabin width as your PA28 and Beech. The Beech
gives you a perception of room due to the volume behind the
windscreen, which the Mooney does not. It is definitely smaller than
your PA32.
- For the life of me, I can't figure out the comments about the Mooney
being light in roll. AvConsumer's guide: "soggy ailerons". The plane
does not roll well. This makes it ideal as an IFR platform (partial
panel is cake) but poor in a flat scissors.....! However, you only
need a little throw on the control yoke to get full aileron
deflection.
- The flight control linkages are hands down better than cables. Fly
an M20 for a couple hundred hours then take a PA32 up. For a second
you might have an irrational fear that the controls are disconnected.
- Also don't know where the "high fuel consumption" comment comes
from. O360, IO360, TSIO360, IO550, TIO540 will burn the same
regardless of airframe. If you compare to an O235 or O320, of course
it will burn more!
- To say it's a whole different game than a PA28. We Mooney pilots
would like you to believe that. It goes about 15-25 kt faster in
cruise on the same HP. Look at the cross sections and the wing
construction and you'll see why. Other than that, they're not that
different.
- With a Vso down around 49 kias, the early (lighter) M20's will take
off and land short. Using a little brake I can typically get the
first turnoff at my homefield at about 700 ft. Again, you can call it
pilot skills if you want.
- the type club comraderie is a big plus, especially WRT maintenance
tips (www.aviating.com) There are several Mooney events each month
(Georgia, southwest, upper midwest) to choose from, active mailing
list, stuck pilot's list, etc. etc.
- There is a wide socioeconomic spectrum of people who own Mooneys,
which is neat. From us poor souls with the early ones to lawyers,
doctors, CEOs and DINKs with the later Ovations and Bravos.
- Safety wise the M20 has a long glide range, a strong structure, and
a steel cage around the cabin. Do some searches in the NTSB.gov on
inflight breakups in the M20! Really nice to know when you're going
over the mountains and hit some bumpies.
- Low gear door comment is more applicable to M20J and later which
have an extra set of doors. Earlier M20 gear doors don't stick down
much more than a PA28.
- My M20C stalls like a PA28, that is I can honk back the yoke and use
the rudders to hold it level.
- Because you sit on the floor, the visibility over the panel could be
better. It's a poor a/c to teach your kids to fly for that reason.
- There is more myth than reality to the hard-to-land stories. Look
out for speed control on final (fast in ground effect will eat up lots
of runway) and keep that back pressure in! Start on a long runway and
you'll be fine. But...any plane has its issues. The PA32's is that
if you come in on-speed and pull power to idle you can setup some
(relatively) hellacious sink rate. Choose your poison.
.......beautiful airplane.

[Thomas Borchert]

Kevin,

> Buy a bird with a good three axis auto pilot.
>

Two will do - and save immensely on cost. The Mooney isn't that prone
to yawing, AFAIK.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

David,

> but I wouldn't be comfortable if it were a necessity rather than just a
> convenience.
>

FWIW, a two-axis autopilot is required for single-pilot IFR in Germany.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Paul Sengupta]

"Bob Miller" > wrote in message
om...
> - The flight control linkages are hands down better than cables. Fly
> an M20 for a couple hundred hours then take a PA32 up. For a second
> you might have an irrational fear that the controls are disconnected.

Is this related to cable vs. rods? My plane handles like a sports
car (several people have noticed the similarity between the plane
and my MR2...partly because with the T-bar roof you've got
glass all round, bit like my plane's canopy) but it has cables
connecting the sticks to the control surfaces.

Paul

[Paul Sengupta]

"Ken Reed" > wrote in message
link.net...
> > No disrespect intended to anyone, but those things were designed for
> > rich tiny people.
>
> Huh ? A 'C' model Mooney is wider inside the cabin than a Cherokee 140
> and identical in width to a Bonanza. The cabin isn't as tall as others,
> but that's wasted space (and efficiency). You don't have to be ...
> ... tiny to fly a Mooney.
>
> > There is no room in them.
>
> There's plenty of room in them. I have close to 1000 lb useful load too.

Well, from my perspective, having never sat in a Mooney, I would
probably not fit. For me, headroom is the problem. A 172 has plenty,
a PA-28 doesn't quite have enough. If you can move the seat all the
way down (some don't move) then there's just enough room in a
PA28 for a headset band between my head and the roof. In some
PA28s I seem to have a small gap between the headset band and
the roof, some I'm actually pressed up against the ceiling.

If the Mooney cabin isn't as tall as the PA28s, then I'd probably
not be able to fit.

I can't fit in most sports cars either. My mk.2 MR2's ok though.
(Jay, you didn't see me squeezed in to Brian's car, did you? :-) )

Paul

[Al Marzo]

On 10 Aug 2004 00:02:51 -0700, (Robert M. Gary)
wrote:

>Mooneys are certainly not for tiny people. I'm 6'4" and bought the
>Mooney because I could fit in it. I have a partner that is of average
>size and he has a difficult time reaching the rudders unless the seat
>is pushed all the way up. He almost can't reach the fuel selector. So
>I would agree that the Mooney is designed for taller pilots. It
>certainly is NOT for tiny people.
>
>It does not burn much gas. What other plane does 160 knots on
>10gal/hr?
>
>It does cost more to operate than a 172 but it costs more to drive a
>Lexus than to drive a Ford to. Its no where close to the cost of a
>Bonanza though.
>
Robert;
Not long ago I followed a friend to Flora, Illinois from North Texas
(about 350 NM IIRC) where he dropped off his M20E for fuel tank
repair. We went up in a loose formation. The Mooney was flat out,
firewall forward (newly o/h'd engine) and I was throttled waaaaay
back in my old Bonanza. When we arrived (and upon return), I burned
about 5 gallons less than he did. So when we're speaking about
operating costs, there are some other things we need to factor in.
When I talk about speed, I like to refer to no-wind situations. I'll
never say that the Bonanza gets 160 knots per hour on any fuel flow!

I think I remember reading where Al Mooney was about 6'4". Skinny as
a rail, but the height was there.

In any event, the manual gear and hydraulic flaps are a big plus. If
there are no major squawks with this A/C, it seems to be a good price.

[Kai Glaesner]

Al,

> [...] We went up in a loose formation. The Mooney was flat out,
> firewall forward (newly o/h'd engine) and I was throttled waaaaay
> back in my old Bonanza. When we arrived (and upon return), I burned
> about 5 gallons less than he did. [...]

Maybe he ran a bit to rich....? ;-)

Difficult to estimate if a bird is more or less economic using data from one
single event happening under unknown conditions.

Best Regards

Kai Glaesner

[Jon Kraus]

Thanks Bob for the awesome write-up !! The plane is in for an annual
right now... I'll get to go up in her in a week or so... Thanks again !!
JK

Bob Miller wrote:
> I've got about 200 hrs in PA28s and PA32s as well as a few hundred in
> various Cessna products. I have owned an M20C modified to near-M20J
> config for about 3 years and fly it 250 hrs/yr primarily for business.
> I have also flown M20J, K and S.
>
> - All M20's have relatively trouble free gear. The manual ones in
> particular need looking at once per year and to be greased. Other
> than that, no more problem than a fixed gear bird. Overall an early
> Mooney, well kept is a very low cost maintenance bird.
> - (Potential) weak points are original fuel tanks, corrosion of the
> steel structure. There are very few recurring AD's.
> - The M20 has the same cabin width as your PA28 and Beech. The Beech
> gives you a perception of room due to the volume behind the
> windscreen, which the Mooney does not. It is definitely smaller than
> your PA32.
> - For the life of me, I can't figure out the comments about the Mooney
> being light in roll. AvConsumer's guide: "soggy ailerons". The plane
> does not roll well. This makes it ideal as an IFR platform (partial
> panel is cake) but poor in a flat scissors.....! However, you only
> need a little throw on the control yoke to get full aileron
> deflection.
> - The flight control linkages are hands down better than cables. Fly
> an M20 for a couple hundred hours then take a PA32 up. For a second
> you might have an irrational fear that the controls are disconnected.
> - Also don't know where the "high fuel consumption" comment comes
> from. O360, IO360, TSIO360, IO550, TIO540 will burn the same
> regardless of airframe. If you compare to an O235 or O320, of course
> it will burn more!
> - To say it's a whole different game than a PA28. We Mooney pilots
> would like you to believe that. It goes about 15-25 kt faster in
> cruise on the same HP. Look at the cross sections and the wing
> construction and you'll see why. Other than that, they're not that
> different.
> - With a Vso down around 49 kias, the early (lighter) M20's will take
> off and land short. Using a little brake I can typically get the
> first turnoff at my homefield at about 700 ft. Again, you can call it
> pilot skills if you want.
> - the type club comraderie is a big plus, especially WRT maintenance
> tips (www.aviating.com) There are several Mooney events each month
> (Georgia, southwest, upper midwest) to choose from, active mailing
> list, stuck pilot's list, etc. etc.
> - There is a wide socioeconomic spectrum of people who own Mooneys,
> which is neat. From us poor souls with the early ones to lawyers,
> doctors, CEOs and DINKs with the later Ovations and Bravos.
> - Safety wise the M20 has a long glide range, a strong structure, and
> a steel cage around the cabin. Do some searches in the NTSB.gov on
> inflight breakups in the M20! Really nice to know when you're going
> over the mountains and hit some bumpies.
> - Low gear door comment is more applicable to M20J and later which
> have an extra set of doors. Earlier M20 gear doors don't stick down
> much more than a PA28.
> - My M20C stalls like a PA28, that is I can honk back the yoke and use
> the rudders to hold it level.
> - Because you sit on the floor, the visibility over the panel could be
> better. It's a poor a/c to teach your kids to fly for that reason.
> - There is more myth than reality to the hard-to-land stories. Look
> out for speed control on final (fast in ground effect will eat up lots
> of runway) and keep that back pressure in! Start on a long runway and
> you'll be fine. But...any plane has its issues. The PA32's is that
> if you come in on-speed and pull power to idle you can setup some
> (relatively) hellacious sink rate. Choose your poison.
> ......beautiful airplane.

[Ron Natalie]

>
> Huh ? A 'C' model Mooney is wider inside the cabin than a Cherokee 140
> and identical in width to a Bonanza. The cabin isn't as tall as others,
> but that's wasted space (and efficiency). A 'C' model Mooney sells for
> the same as a Cherokee 180 of similar vintage. You don't have to be rich
> or tiny to fly a Mooney.

The E that I flew had plenty of room in the shoulders...and even plenty of height
(I'm a long legged 6'1), but the place my legs go was awfully tight (rubbing uncofortably
against the center console). Actually, on the way out to OSH, I rode several hours in
the back seat along with the pilot's flight bag and some other miscellany. Not the
worst back seat I've ever been in.

Of course, the real speed comes with the J or later models.

[David Megginson]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

>>but I wouldn't be comfortable if it were a necessity rather than just a
>>convenience.
>
> FWIW, a two-axis autopilot is required for single-pilot IFR in Germany.

How practical is flying in Germany? For example, if you were in Munich and
had a business meeting in Hamburg, would flying yourself *ever* make more
sense than driving or taking the InterCity train? From the regulations
I've seen and heard about, the legislators in EU countries seem to view
private aviation as strictly recreational, like driving speedboats in the
Mediterranean or snowboarding in the Alps, and thus have little to hold them
back from over-regulating it.

I'm not suggesting that aviation is the cheapest way to get around but it's
often practical in North America, especially outside of icing season -- even
in my Warrior, a 500-1,000 km trip is much faster by plane than driving, and
often, it's faster than flying commercial (especially if I would have to
change planes in a busy hub) and much cheaper than four round-trip airline
tickets. Since my plane burns 30 liters/hour (8 gph), the cost of gas is
only marginally higher than driving my minivan the same distance, though
engine and maintenance reserve is worse for a plane than a car. We have
lots of airports, many without landing fees, and pay no per-flight fees for
air traffic control use (Canadian small aircraft owners pay about USD
45/year fixed cost for Nav Canada service, a bit like a tax, but have
unlimited access to the system VFR or IFR; the Americans pay only through
fuel taxes). Most FBOs will give you one free night parking with a top-up,
and some don't charge for parking at all: when they do, the cost is
typically USD 10-15/night -- when I flew to a conference in Philadelphia
last December, I paid USD 10.00 less in total to park my plane at
Philadelphia International Airport for five days than I would have paid to
park a car at my hotel downtown.

If European citizens did start to see private aviation as practical, maybe
the attitudes at Brussels and the various national capitals might start to
change. Right now, Western Europe is small and compact with excellent rail
service and cheap discount commercial flights between major cities, but what
will happen when Turkey, the Ukraine, and Russia become more integrated with
Western Europe? There won't be cheap commercial flights to every town where
people might want to do business, and the distances will suddenly be too
large for efficient rail travel. Perhaps things will improve over there
before too long. We'll keep our fingers crossed for you.


All the best,


David

[Dave Butler]

Ron Natalie wrote:
>
> The E that I flew had plenty of room in the shoulders...and even plenty of height
> (I'm a long legged 6'1), but the place my legs go was awfully tight (rubbing uncofortably
> against the center console).

Yeah, that happens to me, too, at 6'0". I pull the seat up to the third hole in
the seat rails in order to be able to push the rudders to full travel, but that
means my knees are bent when I'm not pushing the rudder, and that means my right
knee rubs against the center console. I wish they'd put a radius on that corner
of the console so it wouldn't be so sharp.

> Actually, on the way out to OSH, I rode several hours in
> the back seat along with the pilot's flight bag and some other miscellany. Not the
> worst back seat I've ever been in.

Yes, as someone else pointed out, the seat rails have a lot of travel. When my
pilot's seat is pulled up as described above, there's no shortage of back seat
legroom, at least by GA standards.

>
> Of course, the real speed comes with the J or later models.
>

A lot of the J features can be retrofitted to the earlier models, if you're
willing to pay for it. Of course, you'll still have a pre-J when it comes to
resale, and you will have paid as much as if you'd just bought a J.

[David Megginson]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Basically, it is nowhere near as practical as in the US. You haven't
> even mentioned IFR time slots for ALL IFR traffic, enroute fees for IFR
> traffic with an MTOW of 2 metric tons and above, the requirement to
> have an "official observer" present at even the tiniest airfield for it
> to be open/usable, landing fees and fuel cost.

Are those just IFR arrival slots, or IFR enroute slots as well?

> But still, GA flying is practical and usable for some pilots -
> especially if you don't want to go between the major hubs (like Hamburg
> and Munich) but rather into the less populated areas of Eastern Germany
> and Poland. Many midsize companies have production facilities there and
> use GA to get to them.

That makes sense. As I mentioned in my earlier posting, I'd expect to see
much more of that as the EU and its economic influence moves eastward into
the former Soviet Union itself.


All the best,


David

[Kai Glaesner]

Al,

> Well, there was up and back with almost exactly the same results.
> Does that count?

No ;-) If instead you would have switched and operated each others plane
with the same engine/mixture management you use in your own: maybe.
Determining the efficency of an airplane needs time and skill if done right.

Best Regards

Kai

[Thomas Borchert]

David,

> Are those just IFR arrival slots, or IFR enroute slots as well?
>

Both. And in lower airspace, where there is virtually nothing going on.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Al Marzo]

Wow! Since I haven't the slightest idea why that would matter, you
need to explain to me why this should be done in this, a very
unscientific and casual comparison.

I did go back and check the data, the trip was 544NM. So I guess I'll
restate that I was throttled waaaaaay back so as not to run ahead of
the Mooney, he was firewall forward to keep up with me and on both
legs I burned about 10 gallons less than he. He has the 200 hp engine
and I the 250 hp engine. Extrapolating the memory, it took me about
$25 less in fuel to make each trip than it did he. I probably could
have used the same fuel and arrived about an hour before, so the
potential owner needs to check his mission profile before making any
decision. But for $45K, I would look hard at that Mooney.

Al

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 09:18:38 +0200, "Kai Glaesner" >
wrote:

>Al,
>
>> Well, there was up and back with almost exactly the same results.
>> Does that count?
>
>No ;-) If instead you would have switched and operated each others plane
>with the same engine/mixture management you use in your own: maybe.
>Determining the efficency of an airplane needs time and skill if done right.
>
>Best Regards
>
>Kai
>

[WARREN1157]

>What other plane does 160 knots on
>10gal/hr?

Not the Mooney C model unless there is a good tailwind and running 2300 RPM.

[WARREN1157]

>A wood wing could be a disaster and you'd be foolish
>to buy a Mooney with one.

I was thinking about a wooden wing mooney for fish spotting. Saw one floating
in a magazine article.

[Kai Glaesner]

Al,

> Wow! Since I haven't the slightest idea why that would matter, you
> need to explain to me why this should be done in this, a very
> unscientific and casual comparison.
>
> I did go back and check the data, the trip was 544NM. So I guess I'll
> restate that I was throttled waaaaaay back so as not to run ahead of
> the Mooney, he was firewall forward to keep up with me and on both
> legs I burned about 10 gallons less than he. He has the 200 hp engine
> and I the 250 hp engine. Extrapolating the memory, it took me about
> $25 less in fuel to make each trip than it did he. I probably could
> have used the same fuel and arrived about an hour before, so the
> potential owner needs to check his mission profile before making any
> decision. But for $45K, I would look hard at that Mooney.

Al,

strange thing if it was a M20E "flat out", "firewall forward" and with a
"newly o/h'd engine". It should do about 150 TAS on ~23" and 2500 RPM on
altitude and on a cruise setting, burning about 10.5 GpH. Sounds odd to me
that you have to go "throttled waaaaay back" to let him keep up with you in
your old Bo'.

Obviously he was running with a less-than-ideal setting and burning much to
much fuel, say: he has not pulled the mixture (re knob) to a setting giving
something inbetween of max RPM or min SFC. Mooney's are know for their
efficiency and this reputation is not based on a single event. ;-)

Best Regards

Kai

P.S.: If you really are in the topic of measuring aircraft efficiency I
would recommend using the "CAFE 400" equation to compare aircraft (look
under http://www.cafefoundation.org/challenge.htm for more details)

Speed^1.3 x Miles Per Gallon x Payload^0.6

Use a efficient yet safe (material and you) setting during your tests,
consider running LOP (cause it's about efficiency) I'm looking forward
hearing from your results... ;-)

[Dylan Smith]

In article ers.com>,
David Megginson wrote:
> sense than driving or taking the InterCity train? From the regulations
> I've seen and heard about, the legislators in EU countries seem to view
> private aviation as strictly recreational, like driving speedboats in the
> Mediterranean or snowboarding in the Alps, and thus have little to hold them
> back from over-regulating it.

I think it varies widely by country - and the trouble with
harmonization, they all want to harmonize with the strictest (i.e.
worst) rules. To compare British airspace with German airspace, the
differences that directly affect me:

1. I have an FAA ticket. I can fly in Britain without needing to do any
paperwork at all; in Germany you have to convert to a JAA license.
2. In Britain, flying IFR in class G airspace with no flight plan at all
is routine. In Germany, you need IFR slots for everything. (Although US
pilots might think flying IFR in class G is suicidal, it must be
remembered over much of Britain, class G extends from SFC-FL245 and you
can get Radar Advisory Service - think flight following where they will
vector you around other traffic - over most of the country)
3. In Britain, all you need is the landowner's permission to land
somewhere. In Germany (as the other poster pointed out) there has to be
an official observer at even the tiniest airfield.

There are probably many more differences. I sincerely hope that our much
more liberal rules aren't harmonized with anywhere else in the EU. The
most annoying thing after moving from the US is the higher fuel prices
and most GA fields have landing fees. I don't fly anything nearly big
enough to attract en-route IFR fees though.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Dude wrote:
> They are not that small at all. That's a big myth in many ways. Don't
> write them off as small without sitting in one to see how well it fits you.
> If you are long legged, it can be a good choice (Mooney's have LONG seat
> rails that can turn it into a 3 seater if the pilot is tall enough).

My main beef with the Mooney (I've not got that many hours in them, and
I've been in the older manual gear ones as well as a 1994 or thereabouts
newer model) is that the forward visibility was terrible. The panel
seems very high, and the windscreen very small. The older one felt
almost 'tank slit' like. Although the physical width of the Mooney cabin
is the same as a Bonanza, the Bonanza felt much bigger, probably because
I could see out of it (I have long legs and a short body, maybe people
with short legs and a long body don't have this problem).

I'm not keen on Pipers for much the same reason
(especially the Cherokee Six - the one I've been
in may have just had an over inflated nose-strut, but that huge long
nose combined with a slight nose up attitude on the ground meant that
the view ahead was more like in a tailwheel plane than a nosedragger).
The Lance has to be the worst though - with that huge long nose, not
only is the forward visibility crap, but the plane looks ugly and
misproportioned too.

As with anything - the best thing to do is to try the plane on for size.
I found the Mooney a great flying plane, but due to the rather poor
outward visibility, if I had that kind of money I'd be buying a Bonanza
instead.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[David Megginson]

Dylan Smith wrote:

> There are probably many more differences. I sincerely hope that our much
> more liberal rules aren't harmonized with anywhere else in the EU. The
> most annoying thing after moving from the US is the higher fuel prices
> and most GA fields have landing fees. I don't fly anything nearly big
> enough to attract en-route IFR fees though.

Thanks for the info. I'm hoping to do some flying in the UK some time when
I'm over on business -- I'd especially like to fly along the SE coast past
Hastings, where my spouse and I spent a big part of our honeymoon in the
summer of 1988.

If I recall correctly, isn't there also a restriction in the UK that you
need prior permission to land at any field (vs. Canada or the U.S., where
prior permission is required mainly at military or private fields)?


All the best,


David

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Newps wrote:
> an annual either. A wood wing could be a disaster and you'd be foolish
> to buy a Mooney with one.

Metal wings can be a disaster, too. If you've got an A&P who knows wood
and can do you a pre-buy inspection, there's nothing wrong with a wood
wing plane if the wood is in good condition. I fly a Schleicher Ka-8
glider (with a looong wood wing) that was built in the 1960s, and tow
gliders with an Auster (with a rather shorter wood wing) that was built
in 1946, and both are doing fine.

If you don't have anyone nearby who knows wood, then I'd agree with
staying with what can be supported locally.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dave Butler]

Dylan Smith wrote:

> My main beef with the Mooney (I've not got that many hours in them, and
> I've been in the older manual gear ones as well as a 1994 or thereabouts
> newer model) is that the forward visibility was terrible. The panel
> seems very high, and the windscreen very small. The older one felt
> almost 'tank slit' like.

Did you have the seat pulled forward so you could press the rudder pedals to
full deflection? I find pulling the seat forward gives you a great angle of
vision because you're so close to the windscreen. OTOH, some people find it
uncomfortable -because- they're so close to the windscreen. Claustrophobia, you
know.

> if I had that kind of money I'd be buying a Bonanza instead.

If I had Bonanza money, I'd fly a Bonanza, too. Mooney and Bonanza are not the
same kind of money.

Dave

[Ken Reed]

>> What other plane does 160 knots on 10gal/hr?

> Not the Mooney C model unless there is a good tailwind and running 2300 RPM.

The individual that wrote the above was discussing a 'J' model Mooney. A
'J' model will run 160 kts on 10 GPH at 2500 RPM. I get 147 kts on less
than 9 GPH at 2500 in my lowly, stock 'C' model.
---
Ken Reed

[Al Marzo]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 16:24:08 +0200, "Kai Glaesner" >
wrote:

>Al,
>
>> Wow! Since I haven't the slightest idea why that would matter, you
>> need to explain to me why this should be done in this, a very
>> unscientific and casual comparison.
>>
>> I did go back and check the data, the trip was 544NM. So I guess I'll
>> restate that I was throttled waaaaaay back so as not to run ahead of
>> the Mooney, he was firewall forward to keep up with me and on both
>> legs I burned about 10 gallons less than he. He has the 200 hp engine
>> and I the 250 hp engine. Extrapolating the memory, it took me about
>> $25 less in fuel to make each trip than it did he. I probably could
>> have used the same fuel and arrived about an hour before, so the
>> potential owner needs to check his mission profile before making any
>> decision. But for $45K, I would look hard at that Mooney.
>
>Al,
>
>strange thing if it was a M20E "flat out", "firewall forward" and with a
>"newly o/h'd engine". It should do about 150 TAS on ~23" and 2500 RPM on
>altitude and on a cruise setting, burning about 10.5 GpH. Sounds odd to me
>that you have to go "throttled waaaaay back" to let him keep up with you in
>your old Bo'.
>
>Obviously he was running with a less-than-ideal setting and burning much to
>much fuel, say: he has not pulled the mixture (re knob) to a setting giving
>something inbetween of max RPM or min SFC. Mooney's are know for their
>efficiency and this reputation is not based on a single event. ;-)
>
>Best Regards
>
>Kai
>
>P.S.: If you really are in the topic of measuring aircraft efficiency I
>would recommend using the "CAFE 400" equation to compare aircraft (look
>under http://www.cafefoundation.org/challenge.htm for more details)
>
> Speed^1.3 x Miles Per Gallon x Payload^0.6
>
>Use a efficient yet safe (material and you) setting during your tests,
>consider running LOP (cause it's about efficiency) I'm looking forward
>hearing from your results... ;-)
>

Well we could get scientific about it, then start citing facts such as
top mounted antennas, gap seals, paint and other factors that may
bring in a total 1 kph, but the comparison is real as well as
consistent. If we want to speak about performance we need to keep
everything in perspective and not compare a Mooney to a Bonanza of the
same vintage.

I worship in the House of GAMI. My JPI hymnal is always turned to
page LOP.

[Dylan Smith]

In article le.rogers.com>, i
David Megginson wrote:
> If I recall correctly, isn't there also a restriction in the UK that you
> need prior permission to land at any field (vs. Canada or the U.S., where
> prior permission is required mainly at military or private fields)?

No. However, most airfields are private and you'll need PPR at those,
it's just a matter of making a phone call before you depart. (Some
airports are PPR only some of the time, and 'just turn up' the rest -
the ones that are sometimes PPR usually have some sort of activity like
skydiving or gliding going on).

The AIP (the equivalent of the A/FD + approach plates) is avaiable
online at http://www.ais.org.uk and has information for any airfield
with an ICAO airport identifier in Britain. You have to register, but
it's free and the information is in PDF form (I usually print out the
pages for an airfield I'm going to). This has the phone number of the
airfield too, but unfortunately it doesn't tell you whether it's PPR or
not. (It's best to just assume it is since many of them are and call
them anyway).

Some airfields (typically the larger ones) want you to wear 'high
visibility' (orange vests) if you are out walking on the ramp. Funnily
enough, although the risk of getting sued is an order of magnitude more
likely in the States (and the settlement costs several orders of
magnitude higher) people in Britain seem to be far more paranoid about
lawsuits than people in the US.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Dylan,
>
>> The panel
>> seems very high, and the windscreen very small.
>>
> Let me say this: If you ever fly a DA40, the Mooney will definitely
> become very much less attractive in that regard.

I have flown a DA-40, and I agree. If I had the money I'd buy one
tomorrow!

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Thomas Borchert]

Dylan,

> If I had the money I'd buy one
> tomorrow!
>

Me too. Might get a Cirrus, though. Now what was that number for the
millionaire TV show again? ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Kai Glaesner]

Thomas, Dylan,

> Let me say this: If you ever fly a DA40, the Mooney will definitely
> become very much less attractive in that regard.

Do us a favour, stay with this attitude and make the demand for all the
Diamonds, Cirrus, Lancairs etc. grow.

Maybe this will drive the prices for decent Mooneys, Bonanzas etc. down to a
more affordable level so we grown-ups can go out and get one ;-))))))))

Best Regards

Kai

[Thomas Borchert]

Kai,

> Maybe this will drive the prices for decent Mooneys, Bonanzas etc. down
>

Seriously: I'm sure that will happen sooner rather than later.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Robert M. Gary]

Al Marzo > wrote in message >...
> On 10 Aug 2004 00:02:51 -0700, (Robert M. Gary)
> wrote:
>
> >Mooneys are certainly not for tiny people. I'm 6'4" and bought the
> >Mooney because I could fit in it. I have a partner that is of average
> >size and he has a difficult time reaching the rudders unless the seat
> >is pushed all the way up. He almost can't reach the fuel selector. So
> >I would agree that the Mooney is designed for taller pilots. It
> >certainly is NOT for tiny people.
> >
> >It does not burn much gas. What other plane does 160 knots on
> >10gal/hr?
> >
> >It does cost more to operate than a 172 but it costs more to drive a
> >Lexus than to drive a Ford to. Its no where close to the cost of a
> >Bonanza though.
> >
> Robert;
> Not long ago I followed a friend to Flora, Illinois from North Texas
> (about 350 NM IIRC) where he dropped off his M20E for fuel tank
> repair. We went up in a loose formation. The Mooney was flat out,
> firewall forward (newly o/h'd engine) and I was throttled waaaaay
> back in my old Bonanza. When we arrived (and upon return), I burned
> about 5 gallons less than he did. So when we're speaking about
> operating costs, there are some other things we need to factor in.
> When I talk about speed, I like to refer to no-wind situations. I'll
> never say that the Bonanza gets 160 knots per hour on any fuel flow!

Yes, the E model had a much dirtier airframe. If you compare something
like an ultra modern A36 to an old E model that's probably true. The J
model was when they cleaned up the aircrame and finally broke the more
MPH than HP (201 MPH wide open on 200 HP). I can't think of another 4
place plane even today that gets more MPH than it has HP. (I don't
count the 85 MPH Aeronca that had a 65 HP engine :) )

-Robert

[Al Marzo]

Ah, that explains it. Thanks

On 13 Aug 2004 12:50:05 -0700, (Robert M. Gary)
wrote:

>Al Marzo > wrote in message >...
>> On 10 Aug 2004 00:02:51 -0700, (Robert M. Gary)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Mooneys are certainly not for tiny people. I'm 6'4" and bought the
>> >Mooney because I could fit in it. I have a partner that is of average
>> >size and he has a difficult time reaching the rudders unless the seat
>> >is pushed all the way up. He almost can't reach the fuel selector. So
>> >I would agree that the Mooney is designed for taller pilots. It
>> >certainly is NOT for tiny people.
>> >
>> >It does not burn much gas. What other plane does 160 knots on
>> >10gal/hr?
>> >
>> >It does cost more to operate than a 172 but it costs more to drive a
>> >Lexus than to drive a Ford to. Its no where close to the cost of a
>> >Bonanza though.
>> >
>> Robert;
>> Not long ago I followed a friend to Flora, Illinois from North Texas
>> (about 350 NM IIRC) where he dropped off his M20E for fuel tank
>> repair. We went up in a loose formation. The Mooney was flat out,
>> firewall forward (newly o/h'd engine) and I was throttled waaaaay
>> back in my old Bonanza. When we arrived (and upon return), I burned
>> about 5 gallons less than he did. So when we're speaking about
>> operating costs, there are some other things we need to factor in.
>> When I talk about speed, I like to refer to no-wind situations. I'll
>> never say that the Bonanza gets 160 knots per hour on any fuel flow!
>
>Yes, the E model had a much dirtier airframe. If you compare something
>like an ultra modern A36 to an old E model that's probably true. The J
>model was when they cleaned up the aircrame and finally broke the more
>MPH than HP (201 MPH wide open on 200 HP). I can't think of another 4
>place plane even today that gets more MPH than it has HP. (I don't
>count the 85 MPH Aeronca that had a 65 HP engine :) )
>
>-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

(Martin Kosina) wrote in message >...
> The Mooney gear is quite simple, especially compared to brand-C RG's.
> It is one of the few retracts I would not be afraid of,
> maintenance-wise. The wood wing issues are so unique and tend to
> overshadow other maintenance concerns for prospective buyers that it
> is not fair to compare M20A's along with the other Mooney's, IMHO.

I used to fly a Debonair. Sitting under that during a retact test will
blow your mind. A lot of complicated stuff happens when the gear
cycles. No wonder it takes so long to drop the gear. Compare that to
the Mooney electric gear. On the Mooney the gear just pop out, there
are no complicated doors that have to move back and forth. the only
gear door on the mains is simply bolted to the gear itself and moves
with it.

-Robert

[Paul Sengupta]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Some airfields (typically the larger ones) want you to wear 'high
> visibility' (orange vests) if you are out walking on the ramp. Funnily
> enough, although the risk of getting sued is an order of magnitude more
> likely in the States (and the settlement costs several orders of
> magnitude higher) people in Britain seem to be far more paranoid about
> lawsuits than people in the US.

Nah, it's not about getting sued. It's the result of some over zealous
health and safety poeple getting involved to justify their jobs.

They just do it because it's something they think should be done.
Then of course you have to stick to the rules, or you're labelled
as reckless or so on, or someone shouts. These people don't use
common sense, they use "the rules".

I was in the pub with a group of pilots on Thursday. One of the
guys said that he was at the RAF Museum at Cosford. He
moved a road cone slightly to take a photograph. The cone
wasn't marking anything like a hole or anything to be wary of,
and actually looked to have just been left there to get it out
of the way. Queue "jobsworth" guy..."You can't move the
cones" "Why?" Rules for the sake of rules.

Paul