Thinking about buying a Mooney

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... ;-)

In article gers.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"

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"

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

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"

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

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

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.

In article ble.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"

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"