Have you ever flown\owned a Mooney?

[[email protected]]

Hi there
I am a '78 Grumman Tiger owner here who is toying with trading up to a
Mooney. Not sure which one, perhaps a 201 for starters or maybe a 231.
My question to the group is "have you ever flown or own a Mooney?" What
are your thoughts about its reputation for being a "cozy" fit and its
performance? What year model was it and what was the cost of insurance?
Any insight into these speed demons greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Lou

[Jack Allison]

Search r.a.o via google groups for Jon Kraus. You should find a ton of
good stuff to read from his purchase experience


--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL-Instrument Airplane
Arrow N2104T

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
you will always long to return"
- Leonardo Da Vinci

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-03-17, > wrote:
> Hi there
> I am a '78 Grumman Tiger owner here who is toying with trading up to a
> Mooney. Not sure which one, perhaps a 201 for starters or maybe a 231.

I've flown both a Grumman Tiger (and Cheetah) and a couple of Mooneys -
an old one with manual gear, and a new one (IIRC, an early 90s model).

Of course, this is entirely subjective. I find the Grumman Cheetah/Tiger
*so much more* fun to fly than a Mooney. For a start, I can see a lot
more out of a Grumman. It's easier to get in and out of. It seems to fly
much nicer, it has a more sporty feel than a Mooney.

Of course if you want the speed, then the Mooney will always win - and
try test flying one; you may disagree with me entirely on the 'fun to
fly' bit.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Robert M. Gary]

I own a Mooney and love it. A couple things I would note...

1) The Mooney is not for short pilots. I'm 6'4" and cannot use the rear
couple sit positions. A friend of mine is 5'10" and has very limited in
flight visibility over the glareshield and must fly with the seat all
the way forward. You can get rudder extensions and cushions but as is,
its for tall pilots.

2) The Mooney baggage door is awesome if you like to load em high. I
travel with my wife and kids and there have been times when the taxi
driver had trouble loading all the luggage in the taxi, but we can
always get it in the Mooney. When I had the Debonair I had to load the
first few bags through the little side door and the rest over the top
of the back seat. With the Mooney you load it from the top and you can
easily load it all the way to the top. For guys that only bring one or
two bags, its probably more work but for those of us that need to stack
em high, it works great.

3) It has great range. When you go down to southern Baja you'll find
that over half the planes down there are Mooneys. Most Mooneys come
stock with about 6.5 hours of fuel till the engine quits. I added the
fuel computer to better manager and I've flown close to 8 hours w/o
being able to find gas.

4) Good high/low performance. I've landed one some pretty small strips
in Mexico and can come in pretty slow, but I can also keep up with the
737's on final if necessary.

5) Simple gear. I have the electric gear but even that is probably the
simpilest gear system you'll find out there. We always had trouble with
leaks in the Arrow. In the Mooney its just one motor and one
transmission that works all 3 gear at once.

6) Not hard to fly. I've tought people to fly Mooneys that haven't
flown in decads and have even trained student pilots to fly the Mooney.
If you can control your airspeed you probably won't find the Mooney to
be difficult to fly at all.

7) Because it sits low, getting in and out is more difficult. In a
Bonanza you sit up, like in a truck, in the Mooney you sit low, like in
a sports car with your legs in front of you. It is more difficult to
get in/out of than a C182 but you're going faster on less gas. If you
want to carry people in the back, the models F and beyond have an extra
10' in the back (just like the Arrow did in 71). I've sat in the back
seat with another full size male before and its doable. No more tight
than the 182.

8) The best part may be the bullet proof IO-360 motor. Its only 200 hp
but it probably the most reliable engine ever made. I don't have to
replace cylinders every 1000 hours as the C182's and Bonanzas tend to
lean towards.

Anyway, not to be a sales person but I enjoy my Mooney.

-Robert

[Juan Jimenez]

I've flown a Mooney once, a M20K if I remember correctly... it's been a
while. Damn thing would climb like a banshee and wouldn't want to come down,
except for the cool speed brakes (Precise Flight?). I could not get used to
the tight confines of its cabin, though. I prefer a little more shoulder
room. When we returned to home field the right tire blew (had a bald spot
and the owner had forgotten to change the tire), but with plenty of left
rudder and some careful braking and I was able to keep it on the runway.


*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

[John Doe]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Hi there
> I am a '78 Grumman Tiger owner here who is toying with trading up to a
> Mooney. Not sure which one, perhaps a 201 for starters or maybe a 231.
> My question to the group is "have you ever flown or own a Mooney?" What
> are your thoughts about its reputation for being a "cozy" fit and its
> performance? What year model was it and what was the cost of insurance?
> Any insight into these speed demons greatly appreciated.
> Thanks,
> Lou
>

It's been almost 20 years since I owned a Mooney. I put about 300-400 hours
on it and then we sold it for a twin.

Here's what I remember.

Small cabin. Big guys over 200 lbs are going to be shoulder to shoulder.

Great flying plane. I remember loving to fly this plane. It was fun. It
did what you want and didn't complain. It was fast enough at the time and I
think they've even made them faster. Didn't drink alot of gas. Didn't want
to slow down during the descents. I commonly found myself fast on final
because I started down late.

It was just a blast to fly. It sits pretty low to the ground, so I never
took it to a grass strip, but for everything else, you could put it down
where you wanted it.

If I needed another small 4 seater, I'd look at them again. I think of them
like a fast little porshe.

[Maule Driver]

I flew an early M20 with the Johnson bar gear - 10+ hours for my
commercial. Tight? My Maule MX7 is tighter but easier to mount,
dismount and load.

The plane is optimized towards cross country performance. Nice wing for
cruising but you are definitely aware when it is in the 'laminar mode'.
Not particularly fun to take off and climb out on an aged 200hp
lycoming. Once it gets up on the step, it performs. Same on landing
except once you get it slowed down past a certain point, you can do some
really nice obstructed short field stuff. I can more easily land short
over a 50ft obstacle than my Maule! (Easier, not shorter).

Hard to say it's fun to manuever but it's a satisfying cruiser. Point A
to B efficiently.

I'm sure it does fine on turf but not it's favorite place.

God, I'd love to have one but I'm on turf and I like to go in all
conditions. So I'm flying it's complete opposite and loving it too. So
it takes me 20 mins longer.

wrote:
> Hi there
> I am a '78 Grumman Tiger owner here who is toying with trading up to a
> Mooney. Not sure which one, perhaps a 201 for starters or maybe a 231.
> My question to the group is "have you ever flown or own a Mooney?" What
> are your thoughts about its reputation for being a "cozy" fit and its
> performance? What year model was it and what was the cost of insurance?
> Any insight into these speed demons greatly appreciated.
> Thanks,
> Lou
>

[Clay]

Mooney is a great airplane.
The laminar flow wing likes to go fast and not slow down. Too many
pilots land the Mooney too fast because they do not plan their
approach.
There is a company at the San Antonio airport that installs speed
brakes in the wing. These things are great! You can leave your power
in and desend without shock cooling the engine. They will help you get
slowed down to a good approach speed.
I was doing some hood work with a doctor in their 231 Mooney,
practicing unusual attitude recovery. He had not flown the 231 since
the speed brakes were installed. The 231 was in getting into the
yellow arc and he had not yet recovered. I told him to push the red
button and he would gain a few more seconds before he was in real
trouble. He pushed the button and the brakes deployed. This gave him
time to correct his situation.
I am 6'4" and weigh 225 lbs. I have no problem fitting in the or
getting out of a Mooney. The person sitting in the rear seat is not a
problem as long as they are in a child seat or had their legs
amputated. The rear seat of a Mooney is like any sports car.
The down part of a Mooney has to do with line boys and tugs. Mooney
has a serious turning limit on the nose wheel. ALWAYS check the nose
gear carefully during preflight. Going past the limits can cause
damage to this structure.

[Matt Barrow]

"Clay" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Mooney is a great airplane.
> The laminar flow wing likes to go fast and not slow down. Too many
> pilots land the Mooney too fast because they do not plan their
> approach.
> There is a company at the San Antonio airport that installs speed
> brakes in the wing. These things are great! You can leave your power
> in and desend without shock cooling the engine.

Not that speed brakes aren't useful, but:
http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/182883-1.html (Reprint from Kas Thomas' TBO
Advisor)

[Al]

I used to work for a Mooney dealer, and got to fly the M20J & K. I liked
them both.
I'm 6'2", 190, and fit comfortably. Strong point: Speed & Miles per gallon.
They are fun to fly, and I have had both in and out of small strips(<1500'),
off of grass & dirt. Climbs well, cross country is a blast, and descent just
requires a little planning. Start down early with a slow descent, trade
altitude for extra speed with the same fuel burn. The added speed in the
early part of the descent, will "pre-cool" the engine so that later power
reductions can be done without "shocking" the engine. Although the
circumstances were a little unusual, I've flown a 231 literally "cross
country", non-stop, SFO -> DCA in 8hrs.

Al



"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
m...
> I've flown a Mooney once, a M20K if I remember correctly... it's been a
> while. Damn thing would climb like a banshee and wouldn't want to come
> down, except for the cool speed brakes (Precise Flight?). I could not get
> used to the tight confines of its cabin, though. I prefer a little more
> shoulder room. When we returned to home field the right tire blew (had a
> bald spot and the owner had forgotten to change the tire), but with plenty
> of left rudder and some careful braking and I was able to keep it on the
> runway.
>
> *** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
> *** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from
> http://www.SecureIX.com ***

[Dave Butler]

Matt Barrow wrote:

> Not that speed brakes aren't useful, but:
> http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/182883-1.html (Reprint from Kas Thomas' TBO
> Advisor)

Quite right. When they are useful is when you get a close turn on to the final
and "maintain present speed 'til the marker". Happened just yesterday.

Our speed brakes are vacuum-operated Precise Flight, apparently a bit of a
rarity, probably an aftermarket installation from the 80's.

[Dan Luke]

I've flown an M20F and did not care for it much. It felt cramped and
claustrophobic and wasn't a heck of a lot faster than my Cutlass RG. The
panel was an ergonomic disaster.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Doug Vetter]

wrote:
> Hi there
> I am a '78 Grumman Tiger owner here who is toying with trading up to a
> Mooney. Not sure which one, perhaps a 201 for starters or maybe a 231.
> My question to the group is "have you ever flown or own a Mooney?" What
> are your thoughts about its reputation for being a "cozy" fit and its
> performance? What year model was it and what was the cost of insurance?
> Any insight into these speed demons greatly appreciated.
> Thanks,
> Lou

I'll probably echo what most others have said (both in this thread and
via google) but here's my take:

If you want an airplane that is fast, very fuel efficient, very stable
for IFR operations and reasonable when it comes to maintenance and
insurance costs (particularly as a step-up from a Tiger), a late model
M20J (a.k.a. 201/MSE/Allegro) is for you.

The second you move into the turbo or long-body models you get more
power and speed, but at the cost of higher fuel burn. And because of
the higher hull values, your insurance costs will be higher too,
especially if you have little or no retract time. It's a slippery slope.

I won't belabor the point of small cabins except to say this: you have
to sit in one to appreciate it. If you're going to spend 100K+ on
something, you might as well test driv...er, fly it first and make the
decision based on concrete data rather than a bunch of usenet opinions.

A few downsides of the M20J...

- Maintenance under the cowling is a hassle -- it's tight in there. On
the plus side, come annual time things get a lot easier because you can
remove the belly panel(s) and expose many critical systems at once.
This reduces the time for needed inspections.
- Lethargic climb performance on hot (95F) days above 5K. It needs a
turbo or maybe 20 extra HP during those times, but on the other hand
it's rarely 95F here on the east coast and when it is, all airplanes suffer.
- The laminar flow wing is not without its problems -- rain and even
bugs on the leading edge can lower cruise speed by anywhere from 3-10K.
And just don't fly the Mooney in ice.
- While pushrods beat cables any day and it's very enjoyable to fly
straight and level or in shallow turns, IMHO the Mooney is more an
instrument platform than it is a true "pilot's airplane".
- The baggage door is too small. It's sometimes necessary to wedge
larger bags in via the main door and over the seats.

Hope this helps. Safe flying,

-Doug

--------------------
Doug Vetter, ATP/CFI

http://www.dvatp.com
--------------------

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Matt Barrow" > wrote:

> "Clay" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > Mooney is a great airplane.
> > The laminar flow wing likes to go fast and not slow down. Too many
> > pilots land the Mooney too fast because they do not plan their
> > approach.
> > There is a company at the San Antonio airport that installs speed
> > brakes in the wing. These things are great! You can leave your power
> > in and desend without shock cooling the engine.
>
> Not that speed brakes aren't useful, but:
> http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/182883-1.html (Reprint from Kas Thomas' TBO
> Advisor)

I flew a couple of them 30-40 years ago -- great 2-3-place planes, but
CRAMPED for four full-sized people! The Super 21 would cruise about 170
mph and would sip fuel.

Recently, I have flow formation with a 201 and a 231. Their climb rate
leaves something to be desired, but they cruise about 150-160 mph
indicated. It usually takes them awhile to join up, due to their lower
rate-of-climb.

A friend (my wingman) had a gear problem in his 201 last Saturday, but
he was finally able to crank the gear down by hand. The brushes in the
motor had given up the ghost with the gear in the half-retracted
position.

[Dave Butler]

Dan Luke wrote:
> I've flown an M20F and did not care for it much. It felt cramped and
> claustrophobic and wasn't a heck of a lot faster than my Cutlass RG. The
> panel was an ergonomic disaster.

The real speed boost didn't kick in until the J model.

[Dave Butler]

Doug Vetter wrote:

> I won't belabor the point of small cabins except to say this: you have
> to sit in one to appreciate it. If you're going to spend 100K+ on
> something, you might as well test driv...er, fly it first and make the
> decision based on concrete data rather than a bunch of usenet opinions.

Good point. Absolutely correct.

>
> A few downsides of the M20J...
>
> - Maintenance under the cowling is a hassle -- it's tight in there. On
> the plus side, come annual time things get a lot easier because you can
> remove the belly panel(s) and expose many critical systems at once. This
> reduces the time for needed inspections.

Removing the belly panels on mine requires removing about a million screws. At
some point there is an improved design with fewer screws. Also the cowling has a
lot of screws. You have to remove the cowling to see inside, except for the oil
filler door. You have to remove the cowling to replace the landing light.
There's access to behind the panel by removing the glareshield.

> - Lethargic climb performance on hot (95F) days above 5K. It needs a
> turbo or maybe 20 extra HP during those times, but on the other hand
> it's rarely 95F here on the east coast and when it is, all airplanes
> suffer.

Can't say I've particularly noticed this.

> - The laminar flow wing is not without its problems -- rain and even
> bugs on the leading edge can lower cruise speed by anywhere from 3-10K.
> And just don't fly the Mooney in ice.

Agreed. The rain effect it quite noticable.

> - While pushrods beat cables any day and it's very enjoyable to fly
> straight and level or in shallow turns, IMHO the Mooney is more an
> instrument platform than it is a true "pilot's airplane".

Quite so.

> - The baggage door is too small. It's sometimes necessary to wedge
> larger bags in via the main door and over the seats.

Baggage door opening:
Above ground(sill): 46"
Entry width: 17"
Entry height: 20.5"

[Michael]

> I am a '78 Grumman Tiger owner here who is toying with trading up to a
> Mooney. Not sure which one, perhaps a 201 for starters or maybe a 231.

It would have to be a later model to give you a significant speed
improvement. I've flown a few different flavors - my friend bought an
F-model with the 201 cowlings and some speed mods, and the speed
difference between that and a Tiger is certainly less than 10 kts.

The R model (Ovation) is a real speed demon, but now you're talking
about some big bucks. It's also roomier than the F and K I flew, but
still very cramped.

I've also worked on Mooneys. How do you fix a prop governor leak on
one? Start by taking the engine mounts loose from the firewall.
Otherwise you won't get to anything. Mooneys are very time-consuming
to service; everything is much too tight. For the same reason, you
really need to buy a good one - a lot of maintenance corners get cut
when it's just so much hassle to get to anything.

In general, I don't care for Mooneys. In fact, I would prefer the
Tiger - not as cramped, way cheaper to maintain, way better visibility,
almost as fast.

Michael

[Robert M. Gary]

> The panel was an ergonomic disaster.

Sounds like an old Mooney. The same can be said for all pre-70's
airplanes, flight instrument all over the place. I've seen some C-182s
that make my head spin with airspeed under the yoke, DG in top center
etc.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

> And just don't fly the Mooney in ice.

Actually, the Mooney is one of the very few single's out there than can
be purchased with known-ice. The 231's had this as a factory option.
None of that boot junk either, real weeping wings that provide ice
protection all the way back. The Mooney was built to get the business
man to his meeting quickly.

-Robert