Have you ever flown\owned a Mooney?

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.

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

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
--------------------

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.

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.

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"

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

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

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