Thinking about buying a Mooney

Dylan,

If I had the money I'd buy one
tomorrow!


Me too. Might get a Cirrus, though. Now what was that number for the
millionaire TV show again? ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas, Dylan,

Let me say this: If you ever fly a DA40, the Mooney will definitely
become very much less attractive in that regard.

Do us a favour, stay with this attitude and make the demand for all the
Diamonds, Cirrus, Lancairs etc. grow.

Maybe this will drive the prices for decent Mooneys, Bonanzas etc. down to a
more affordable level so we grown-ups can go out and get one ;-))))))))

Best Regards

Kai

Kai,

Maybe this will drive the prices for decent Mooneys, Bonanzas etc. down


Seriously: I'm sure that will happen sooner rather than later.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Al Marzo wrote in message . ..
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!

Yes, the E model had a much dirtier airframe. If you compare something
like an ultra modern A36 to an old E model that's probably true. The J
model was when they cleaned up the aircrame and finally broke the more
MPH than HP (201 MPH wide open on 200 HP). I can't think of another 4
place plane even today that gets more MPH than it has HP. (I don't
count the 85 MPH Aeronca that had a 65 HP engine )

-Robert

Ah, that explains it. Thanks

On 13 Aug 2004 12:50:05 -0700, (Robert M. Gary)
wrote:

Al Marzo wrote in message . ..
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!

Yes, the E model had a much dirtier airframe. If you compare something
like an ultra modern A36 to an old E model that's probably true. The J
model was when they cleaned up the aircrame and finally broke the more
MPH than HP (201 MPH wide open on 200 HP). I can't think of another 4
place plane even today that gets more MPH than it has HP. (I don't
count the 85 MPH Aeronca that had a 65 HP engine )

-Robert

(Martin Kosina) wrote in message . com...
The Mooney gear is quite simple, especially compared to brand-C RG's.
It is one of the few retracts I would not be afraid of,
maintenance-wise. The wood wing issues are so unique and tend to
overshadow other maintenance concerns for prospective buyers that it
is not fair to compare M20A's along with the other Mooney's, IMHO.

I used to fly a Debonair. Sitting under that during a retact test will
blow your mind. A lot of complicated stuff happens when the gear
cycles. No wonder it takes so long to drop the gear. Compare that to
the Mooney electric gear. On the Mooney the gear just pop out, there
are no complicated doors that have to move back and forth. the only
gear door on the mains is simply bolted to the gear itself and moves
with it.

-Robert

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
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.

Nah, it's not about getting sued. It's the result of some over zealous
health and safety poeple getting involved to justify their jobs.

They just do it because it's something they think should be done.
Then of course you have to stick to the rules, or you're labelled
as reckless or so on, or someone shouts. These people don't use
common sense, they use "the rules".

I was in the pub with a group of pilots on Thursday. One of the
guys said that he was at the RAF Museum at Cosford. He
moved a road cone slightly to take a photograph. The cone
wasn't marking anything like a hole or anything to be wary of,
and actually looked to have just been left there to get it out
of the way. Queue "jobsworth" guy..."You can't move the
cones" "Why?" Rules for the sake of rules.

Paul