Thinking about buying a Mooney

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.

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.

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

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.

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)

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)

"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

"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

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.

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