Mooney info?

[dlevy]

I'm considering a Mooney and would like to learn about the different models.
Any suggestions?

[Jim Burns]

http://www.mooneyevents.com/chrono.htm

Jim

"dlevy" > wrote in message
. ..
> I'm considering a Mooney and would like to learn about the different
models.
> Any suggestions?
>
>

[dlevy]

Geezzz.... Thanks!!!!

"Jim Burns" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.mooneyevents.com/chrono.htm
>
> Jim
>
> "dlevy" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> I'm considering a Mooney and would like to learn about the different
> models.
>> Any suggestions?
>>
>>
>
>

[J. Severyn]

Join the Mooney mailing list(s). Lurk and contribute. Ask questions. You
will learn about all Mooney models from owners, pilots, Mooney factory folk,
and the original pilots that flew Mooneys for FAA certification test
flights. Check it out.
http://lists.aviating.com/mooney/

John Severyn
@KLVK

"dlevy" > wrote in message
. ..
> I'm considering a Mooney and would like to learn about the different
> models. Any suggestions?
>

[Jim Burns]

http://modsquad.cc/Frames/Intro/intro_f.html has more info. There are also
a couple of Mooney type clubs, Mooney Owners of America or something
similar. One used to have a Mooney Buyers Guide or Kit that they sold to
give prospective owners info on each model.

Once you've narrowed it down to a model and year, you can search the FAA
database and research all the AD's.

Also, talk to several owners to get realistic ideas of speeds, room/space,
and expenses.

Jim

"dlevy" > wrote in message
. ..
> I'm considering a Mooney and would like to learn about the different
models.
> Any suggestions?
>
>

[Robert M. Gary]

All good info. Its hard to go wrong with a Mooney unless you are short.
Fast plane made for tall pilots.

-Robert, 6'4"

[Robert M. Gary]

MOA (Mooney Owners Association) and MAPA (Mooney Aircraft Pilot's
Association). Of the twp MAPA is probably more populare but MOA has the
world famous Bob Kromer who was a test pilot for Mooney in their rag.
MAPA is owned by an insurance co trying to sell you insurance (smae one
as Cessna and Bonanza's association) and MOA is owned by a Mooney
service center trying to sell you mods.

-Robert

[Matt Whiting]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> All good info. Its hard to go wrong with a Mooney unless you are short.
> Fast plane made for tall pilots.

Why? Does the seat not move far enough forward to reach the pedals or
is it a visibility over the instrument panel issue? Obviously, I've
never sat in a Mooney.

Matt

[Robert M. Gary]

A little of both. I have a friend that is about 5'10" and he has a bit
of trouble. First, he does have a little trouble seeing over the panel.
Second, while he can move the seat up it causes the yoke to be closer
to his belly than he'd like. It ends up not being much of a big deal
for VFR but he feels odd during IFR trying to reach charts with the
yoke between his eyes and his kneeboard. In a Mooney you sit low with
your feet almost straight out in front of you. Its great of us tall
guys who want a very long stretch to the pedals but harder for those
less tall.

BTW: My wife is 5'5" and cannot see anything in front of us at
all.However, that issue could be solved with a cushion and perhaps
pedal extensions.
-Robert

[Dan Luke]

"Matt Whiting" wrote:

>> All good info. Its hard to go wrong with a Mooney unless you are
>> short.
>> Fast plane made for tall pilots.
>
> Why? Does the seat not move far enough forward to reach the pedals or
> is it a visibility over the instrument panel issue? Obviously, I've
> never sat in a Mooney.

There isn't a "good" position for the seat if you're under 6', IMO. I'm
5'11" and I very much dislike flying my friends M20F because of the way
I have to pull the seat so close to the yoke. Visibility over the glare
shield is poor, too. The overall feeling is claustrophobic compared to
a Bonanza or a 172.

Pre-201 Mooneys are not very fast, either unless they have extensive
speed mod's. My buddy's airplane is barely 10 knots faster than mine.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Ron Natalie]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> All good info. Its hard to go wrong with a Mooney unless you are short.
> Fast plane made for tall pilots.
>
> -Robert, 6'4"
>
Tall narrow pilots, and for fast you need to go with the J or later
models.

[Newps]

Matt Whiting wrote:

> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
>> All good info. Its hard to go wrong with a Mooney unless you are short.
>> Fast plane made for tall pilots.
>
>
> Why? Does the seat not move far enough forward to reach the pedals or
> is it a visibility over the instrument panel issue? Obviously, I've
> never sat in a Mooney.

I have flown a Mooney. I'm 6'2" and it's like crawling into a coffin.

[Robert M. Gary]

My 1976 F does 150 kts on 9.5 gals/hr. The older E and C models are a
little faster because they have shorter cabins. I've sat in the back of
mine with another full size guy. Its not like a full size BMW but
better than a 172. If you are comparing a 172 with a C you'll end up
going MUCH faster in the C for about the same purchase price.

-robert

[Robert M. Gary]

Newps,
I'm guessing you're not getting a Porche for Christmas.

[Matt Whiting]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>
>>> All good info. Its hard to go wrong with a Mooney unless you are short.
>>> Fast plane made for tall pilots.
>>
>>
>>
>> Why? Does the seat not move far enough forward to reach the pedals or
>> is it a visibility over the instrument panel issue? Obviously, I've
>> never sat in a Mooney.
>
>
> I have flown a Mooney. I'm 6'2" and it's like crawling into a coffin.

I feel almost that way in the 67 Arrow I now fly after owning a 182 for
several years.

Matt

[Newps]

I don't think so but in case somebody wants to know which one to shop
for I would like a mid to lates 80's 911 convertible with a whale tail.
Or a 69 Vette convertible with the 454. Either one. Doesn't matter.



Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Newps,
> I'm guessing you're not getting a Porche for Christmas.
>

[Newps]

Matt Whiting wrote:


>
> I feel almost that way in the 67 Arrow I now fly after owning a 182 for
> several years.

What was the point of that switch?

[Matt Whiting]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I feel almost that way in the 67 Arrow I now fly after owning a 182
>> for several years.
>
>
> What was the point of that switch?
>

Economics. The company I work for had about 70% of its sales in the
telecomm and photonics market during the collapse of 2001 and I was
building a new house at the time. I'm now in a flying club and the
Arrow is what they have.

Matt

[dlevy]

I'm 5' 2" and this is a serious drawback. Anyone short out there that
managed the problem?

There really isn't an alternative.

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> All good info. Its hard to go wrong with a Mooney unless you are short.
> Fast plane made for tall pilots.
>
> -Robert, 6'4"
>

[Paul kgyy]

Are you getting your 150k alone or at gross? I get very close to that
when alone in my Arrow, which is supposed to be a lot slower.

[Al]

Sure. I trained a lady whose husband owned an "E" model. She is 5' 4". She
bought a seat pad, one with a couple inch thick back and bottom. Using that
and with the seat up forward, she had no problems. I'm 6' 2", and her seat
was well forward of mine.
Al


"dlevy" > wrote in message
. ..
> I'm 5' 2" and this is a serious drawback. Anyone short out there that
> managed the problem?
>
> There really isn't an alternative.
>
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> All good info. Its hard to go wrong with a Mooney unless you are short.
>> Fast plane made for tall pilots.
>>
>> -Robert, 6'4"
>>
>
>

[Newps]

dlevy wrote:
> I'm 5' 2" and this is a serious drawback. Anyone short out there that
> managed the problem?
>
> There really isn't an alternative.

No alternative to the Mooney? Huh?

[Dave Butler]

dlevy wrote:
> I'm considering a Mooney and would like to learn about the different models.
> Any suggestions?
>
>

http://www.mooneypilots.com/

Click on "MAPA Log Sample Articles", "Pre-purchase Inspections".

[Jon Kraus]

I have a '79 201 and I disagree with the "There isn't a "good" position
for the seat if you're under 6'" statement. I am 5'10" and don't have
any problem flying IFR or seeing over the glareshield. I do admit that
you have to "put the Mooney on" instead of just jumping in a Cessna.
Similar to sitting in a sports car as opposed to jumping in a SUV.

Now that I have had the plane for a little more than a year I am
comfortable with with it. I believe that if you measured the Mooney and
the Cessna you'd not find too much difference. The main difference to me
is how the seats work. The Mooney sits right on the floor and your legs
streatch out in front of you. The Cessna is more like sitting on a chair.

After flying both Mooney's and Cessna's I would say that both have good
and bad points. You have to define your mission to see which plane
better fits your mission. For me I wanted to go places fast instead of
just beating around the "neighborhood" and eating hamburgers. Not that I
don't eat the hamburgers mind you; that isn't why I bought the plane.

The OP should do lots of research to determine which way to go. They
should also remember that airplane ownership is usually quite a bit more
expensive than owning.

Jon Kraus
'79 Mooney 201
4443H @ TYQ


Dan Luke wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" wrote:
>
>
>>>All good info. Its hard to go wrong with a Mooney unless you are
>>>short.
>>>Fast plane made for tall pilots.
>>
>>Why? Does the seat not move far enough forward to reach the pedals or
>>is it a visibility over the instrument panel issue? Obviously, I've
>>never sat in a Mooney.
>
>
> , IMO. I'm
> 5'11" and I very much dislike flying my friends M20F because of the way
> I have to pull the seat so close to the yoke. Visibility over the glare
> shield is poor, too. The overall feeling is claustrophobic compared to
> a Bonanza or a 172.
>
> Pre-201 Mooneys are not very fast, either unless they have extensive
> speed mod's. My buddy's airplane is barely 10 knots faster than mine.
>

[Jon Kraus]

Arrgggg...

I meant to say:

They should also remember that airplane ownership is usually quite a bit
more expensive than RENTING.

Jon Kraus wrote:

> I have a '79 201 and I disagree with the "There isn't a "good" position
> for the seat if you're under 6'" statement. I am 5'10" and don't have
> any problem flying IFR or seeing over the glareshield. I do admit that
> you have to "put the Mooney on" instead of just jumping in a Cessna.
> Similar to sitting in a sports car as opposed to jumping in a SUV.
>
> Now that I have had the plane for a little more than a year I am
> comfortable with with it. I believe that if you measured the Mooney and
> the Cessna you'd not find too much difference. The main difference to me
> is how the seats work. The Mooney sits right on the floor and your legs
> streatch out in front of you. The Cessna is more like sitting on a chair.
>
> After flying both Mooney's and Cessna's I would say that both have good
> and bad points. You have to define your mission to see which plane
> better fits your mission. For me I wanted to go places fast instead of
> just beating around the "neighborhood" and eating hamburgers. Not that I
> don't eat the hamburgers mind you; that isn't why I bought the plane.
>
> The OP should do lots of research to determine which way to go. They
> should also remember that airplane ownership is usually quite a bit more
> expensive than owning.
>
> Jon Kraus
> '79 Mooney 201
> 4443H @ TYQ
>
>
> Dan Luke wrote:
>
>> "Matt Whiting" wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> All good info. Its hard to go wrong with a Mooney unless you are short.
>>>> Fast plane made for tall pilots.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why? Does the seat not move far enough forward to reach the pedals
>>> or is it a visibility over the instrument panel issue? Obviously,
>>> I've never sat in a Mooney.
>>
>>
>>
>> , IMO. I'm 5'11" and I very much dislike flying my friends M20F
>> because of the way I have to pull the seat so close to the yoke.
>> Visibility over the glare shield is poor, too. The overall feeling is
>> claustrophobic compared to a Bonanza or a 172.
>>
>> Pre-201 Mooneys are not very fast, either unless they have extensive
>> speed mod's. My buddy's airplane is barely 10 knots faster than mine.
>>
>

[dlevy]

What can go that fast (J) on that fuel burn and have ample used selection?
A bonanza? Not for 100k.

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> dlevy wrote:
>> I'm 5' 2" and this is a serious drawback. Anyone short out there that
>> managed the problem?
>>
>> There really isn't an alternative.
>
> No alternative to the Mooney? Huh?

[Al]

I don't remember who said it first, but:

If it flies, floats, or fornicates, it is cheaper to rent.

al

"Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
...
> Arrgggg...
>
> I meant to say:
>
> They should also remember that airplane ownership is usually quite a bit
> more expensive than RENTING.
>
> Jon Kraus wrote:
>
>> I have a '79 201 and I disagree with the "There isn't a "good" position
>> for the seat if you're under 6'" statement. I am 5'10" and don't have any
>> problem flying IFR or seeing over the glareshield. I do admit that you
>> have to "put the Mooney on" instead of just jumping in a Cessna. Similar
>> to sitting in a sports car as opposed to jumping in a SUV.
>>
>> Now that I have had the plane for a little more than a year I am
>> comfortable with with it. I believe that if you measured the Mooney and
>> the Cessna you'd not find too much difference. The main difference to me
>> is how the seats work. The Mooney sits right on the floor and your legs
>> streatch out in front of you. The Cessna is more like sitting on a chair.
>>
>> After flying both Mooney's and Cessna's I would say that both have good
>> and bad points. You have to define your mission to see which plane better
>> fits your mission. For me I wanted to go places fast instead of just
>> beating around the "neighborhood" and eating hamburgers. Not that I don't
>> eat the hamburgers mind you; that isn't why I bought the plane.
>>
>> The OP should do lots of research to determine which way to go. They
>> should also remember that airplane ownership is usually quite a bit more
>> expensive than owning.
>>
>> Jon Kraus
>> '79 Mooney 201
>> 4443H @ TYQ
>>
>>
>> Dan Luke wrote:
>>
>>> "Matt Whiting" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> All good info. Its hard to go wrong with a Mooney unless you are
>>>>> short.
>>>>> Fast plane made for tall pilots.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why? Does the seat not move far enough forward to reach the pedals or
>>>> is it a visibility over the instrument panel issue? Obviously, I've
>>>> never sat in a Mooney.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> , IMO. I'm 5'11" and I very much dislike flying my friends M20F because
>>> of the way I have to pull the seat so close to the yoke. Visibility
>>> over the glare shield is poor, too. The overall feeling is
>>> claustrophobic compared to a Bonanza or a 172.
>>>
>>> Pre-201 Mooneys are not very fast, either unless they have extensive
>>> speed mod's. My buddy's airplane is barely 10 knots faster than mine.
>>>
>>
>

[Robert M. Gary]

I think you'll need a good 2" pad and likely rudder extensions. The
distance from the front of the seat to the pedals is quite long.
However, its been done.

-Robert

[Newps]

dlevy wrote:
> What can go that fast (J) on that fuel burn and have ample used selection?
> A bonanza? Not for 100k.

A Bonanza? Yes. I bought one. My S35, which is the fastest model,
cost me $88K this past August. At 75% I indicate 165 Kts and usually
true at 172-175 kts. That costs 15 gph. 165 kts true costs 13 gph.
155 kts true costs 11 gph. Want to bust your buddy's in the 182's
chops? 19" and 2100 gets me 135 kts IAS on 9 gph. 1271 useful(with 4
seats in) and a cabin that isn't a tomb to crawl into. Look in Trade A
Plane, there's a million of them for sale.

[Javier Henderson]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> dlevy wrote:
>> What can go that fast (J) on that fuel burn and have ample used
>> selection?
>> A bonanza? Not for 100k.
>
> A Bonanza? Yes. I bought one. My S35, which is the fastest model,
> cost me $88K this past August. At 75% I indicate 165 Kts and usually
> true at 172-175 kts. That costs 15 gph. 165 kts true costs 13 gph. 155
> kts true costs 11 gph. Want to bust your buddy's in the 182's chops?
> 19" and 2100 gets me 135 kts IAS on 9 gph. 1271 useful(with 4 seats in)
> and a cabin that isn't a tomb to crawl into. Look in Trade A Plane,
> there's a million of them for sale.

Newps,

What year is your S35?

How does the CG range work out? I always heard that it's "too narrow",
but I never really checked into that.

How big are the fuel tanks?

Thanks,

-jav

[dlevy]

Thanks! I don't really want a Mooney. They're too loud and I hate the
cabin.
I currently have a Musketeer and it is painfully slow.

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> dlevy wrote:
>> What can go that fast (J) on that fuel burn and have ample used
>> selection?
>> A bonanza? Not for 100k.
>
> A Bonanza? Yes. I bought one. My S35, which is the fastest model, cost
> me $88K this past August. At 75% I indicate 165 Kts and usually true at
> 172-175 kts. That costs 15 gph. 165 kts true costs 13 gph. 155 kts true
> costs 11 gph. Want to bust your buddy's in the 182's chops? 19" and 2100
> gets me 135 kts IAS on 9 gph. 1271 useful(with 4 seats in) and a cabin
> that isn't a tomb to crawl into. Look in Trade A Plane, there's a million
> of them for sale.

[Matt Barrow]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> dlevy wrote:
>> What can go that fast (J) on that fuel burn and have ample used
>> selection?
>> A bonanza? Not for 100k.
>
> A Bonanza? Yes. I bought one. My S35, which is the fastest model, cost
> me $88K this past August. At 75% I indicate 165 Kts and usually true at
> 172-175 kts. That costs 15 gph. 165 kts true costs 13 gph. 155 kts true
> costs 11 gph. Want to bust your buddy's in the 182's chops? 19" and 2100
> gets me 135 kts IAS on 9 gph.

How are you leaning?

> 1271 useful(with 4 seats in) and a cabin that isn't a tomb to crawl into.
> Look in Trade A Plane, there's a million of them for sale.

From the "Bonanza Guide" , Budd Davisson, Plane and Pilot, February, 2001

S35-1964
A third generation of Bonanza was born with the "S" model because the 0-470
was tossed out in favor of a healthy IO-520 with 285 horses. With this
engine, the Bonanza reached it's zenith in terms of power plants until the
turbo charged models came along two years later. The "S" also introduced
regular seats way back in the rear of the cabin that faced forward. They had
messed with an optional 5th seat since the 1961 "N" model, but it was a
marginal seat. With the "S" they had real seats back there. With slightly
less than 1,400 pounds useful, the airplanes could carry six people and
still fill the 50 gallon standard (80 gallons, optional) tanks as long as no
one carried any baggage.

The "S" also introduced the three-blade prop as an option.


Model Year Prices Speed, knots
S35 1964 $78,000 178 -285 hp

[Peter R.]

Matt Barrow > wrote:

> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> A Bonanza? Yes. I bought one. My S35, which is the fastest model, cost
>> me $88K this past August. At 75% I indicate 165 Kts and usually true at
>> 172-175 kts. That costs 15 gph. 165 kts true costs 13 gph. 155 kts true
>> costs 11 gph. Want to bust your buddy's in the 182's chops? 19" and 2100
>> gets me 135 kts IAS on 9 gph.
>
> How are you leaning?

I would concur with Newps' numbers. At 75 degrees lean of peak, wide open
throttle, and 2500 rpms, my V35B with a turbo-normalized IO-520 will true
between 175 and 190kts (altitude depending) and between 15.5 and 16.5 gph
(OA temperature depending).

19" and 2200 rpms will also result in similar numbers as his, again keeping
mixture LOP.

--
Peter

[Matt Barrow]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow > wrote:
>
>> "Newps" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> A Bonanza? Yes. I bought one. My S35, which is the fastest model,
>>> cost
>>> me $88K this past August. At 75% I indicate 165 Kts and usually true at
>>> 172-175 kts. That costs 15 gph. 165 kts true costs 13 gph. 155 kts
>>> true
>>> costs 11 gph. Want to bust your buddy's in the 182's chops? 19" and
>>> 2100
>>> gets me 135 kts IAS on 9 gph.
>>
>> How are you leaning?
>
> I would concur with Newps' numbers.

I don't disagree; they seem right out of the book. I'm just wondering if
he's LOP or ROP.

> At 75 degrees lean of peak, wide open
> throttle, and 2500 rpms, my V35B with a turbo-normalized IO-520 will true
> between 175 and 190kts (altitude depending) and between 15.5 and 16.5 gph
> (OA temperature depending).

WOT, 60 LOP gives me 188kts and 16.4 gph at 12,500 in my TNIO-550 B36, the
big difference being that you and are are running TN'ers.
> 19" and 2200 rpms will also result in similar numbers as his, again
> keeping
> mixture LOP.
>
> --
> Peter

[Newps]

Javier Henderson wrote:

>
> Newps,
>
> What year is your S35?

1964

>
> How does the CG range work out? I always heard that it's "too narrow",
> but I never really checked into that.

You have to watch it more than I did my 182. With my wife and two
teenagers I can put 60-70 pounds in the baggage area and not be out of
CG on landing after burning 60 gallons. I don't make hardly any trips
with the whole family so for me it is a nonissue.

>
> How big are the fuel tanks?

74 gallons usable. There are several options for tip tanks, at least
one of which will raise the gross weight. Any tip tank also helps any
CG issues.

[Newps]

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>dlevy wrote:
>>
>>>What can go that fast (J) on that fuel burn and have ample used
>>>selection?
>>>A bonanza? Not for 100k.
>>
>>A Bonanza? Yes. I bought one. My S35, which is the fastest model, cost
>>me $88K this past August. At 75% I indicate 165 Kts and usually true at
>>172-175 kts. That costs 15 gph. 165 kts true costs 13 gph. 155 kts true
>>costs 11 gph. Want to bust your buddy's in the 182's chops? 19" and 2100
>>gets me 135 kts IAS on 9 gph.
>
>
> How are you leaning?

The numbers I listed are right out of the book. I have been
experimenting with lean of peak and at the 19"/2100 setting I can get to
8 gph without any roughness and I don't have GAMI's.

[Matt Barrow]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
> >>A Bonanza? Yes. I bought one. My S35, which is the fastest model,
cost
> >>me $88K this past August. At 75% I indicate 165 Kts and usually true at
> >>172-175 kts. That costs 15 gph. 165 kts true costs 13 gph. 155 kts
true
> >>costs 11 gph. Want to bust your buddy's in the 182's chops? 19" and
2100
> >>gets me 135 kts IAS on 9 gph.
> >
> >
> > How are you leaning?
>
> The numbers I listed are right out of the book. I have been
> experimenting with lean of peak and at the 19"/2100 setting I can get to
> 8 gph without any roughness and I don't have GAMI's.

What are the temps you're getting? At the setting you mention, how much LOP
are you?

[Newps]

Matt Barrow wrote:

>>>
>>>
>>>How are you leaning?
>>
>>The numbers I listed are right out of the book. I have been
>>experimenting with lean of peak and at the 19"/2100 setting I can get to
>>8 gph without any roughness and I don't have GAMI's.
>
>
> What are the temps you're getting? At the setting you mention, how much LOP
> are you?

I have a single cylinder non digtal EGT gauge, your garden variety Alcor
EGT and the standard analog CHT in the cluster. The CHT temp is pretty
low, at any power setting. At those power settings maybe 250F. I am
running at 50 LOP.