Feeling the Need For Speed

Hello:

I currently own a 68 cherokee 180. Had it for 8 years. I'm IFR rated with
over 600 hours.

I'm looking for a faster ride for me, the Mrs. and a small dog. I'm not too
interested in a turbo to fly high as the wife and dog are opposed to flying
on O2 (I know that will put a limit on the speed, but thems the breaks!).

I have been looking at Mooney (M20J).

Any pros, cons, alternate suggestions?

Thanks in advance

Mike

I have been looking at Mooney (M20J).

Any pros, cons, alternate suggestions?

Well, it's a great time to buy. A buddy of mine just sold his Mooney for
$41K -- and he's damn glad to get *that*.

Five years ago, it would've been worth 50% more, easily.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Jun 11, 8:47*pm, "mbremer216" wrote:
Hello:

I currently own a 68 cherokee 180. Had it for 8 years. I'm IFR rated with
over 600 hours.

I'm looking for a faster ride for me, the Mrs. and a small dog. I'm not too
interested in a turbo to fly high as the wife and dog are opposed to flying
on O2 (I know that will put a limit on the speed, but thems the breaks!).

I have been looking at Mooney (M20J).

Well the Mooney is the perfect plane for what you want to do. Its also
very, very fuel efficient. The O2 issue really depends on where you
live. I live in California so we have to wear O2 anytime we fly East
just to avoid getting rocks in our teeth.
You may want to consider the M20F as well. Its a little bit slower
than the M20J but quiet a bit less expensive.
Also, all avionics installations costs extra in a Mooney (all shops
add a Mooney sur-charge) so try to find a plane with the radios you
want vs. trying to add them yourself.

-Robert

mbremer216 wrote:
Hello:

I currently own a 68 cherokee 180. Had it for 8 years. I'm IFR rated with
over 600 hours.

I'm looking for a faster ride for me, the Mrs. and a small dog. I'm not too
interested in a turbo to fly high as the wife and dog are opposed to flying
on O2 (I know that will put a limit on the speed, but thems the breaks!).

I have been looking at Mooney (M20J).

Any pros, cons, alternate suggestions?

Thanks in advance

Mike




Where do you fly and on what type of surfaces do you land? What kind of
room are you looking for on the inside? Bonanza's, Mooney's and 210's
will by far get you your best gas mileage. I made my choice and went
with the Bonanza. At 75% I get 178 kts true at 15 gph at best altitude.
At 10,000 MSL at just a hair under 65%, 19"/2300 rpm I get 159 kts
true burning 11.5 gph. I used to have a 182 and at the top of the green
in cruise I would indicate 135-140 mph, sucking down 12.5-13 gph. In
the Bo at 150-155 MPH indicated, 45%, I burn 8.5 gph So as you can see
I get damn near twice the mpg as the 182 if I want as well as the
capability to go 47 kts faster while still getting better mpg than the 182.
Go get a ride in or at the very least sit in all you are interested
in. Mooney guys have a complex about people saying their planes are
small on the inside. Only you can make that decision. I flew one for a
few hours. Way too small for me. Major design difference too. In the
Mooney you sit on the floor with your legs straight out. In the Bo and
210 you sit on a chair just like in your kitchen, legs bent and with
room to move them around. Baggage door on the top of the fuselage, not
the side. Damn stupid if you ask me. Ever try to load a 48 qt cooler
filled with appropriate beverages from the top? Or get it out again?
Some people like it though. Go figure. No prop or gear door clearance
so nothing rougher than mowed grass. I spend a lot of time landing off
road in the Bo so that would be a deal breaker for me no matter what
else the plane had going for it. Too hard to land with those rubber
donuts. You need to be on speed. I don't want to be on speed landing
in the dirt. I want to be able to not have to even look at the panel
while landing. The 200 HP and lower Mooneys are ground lovers. They
have low horsepower and low drag but need comapartively more runway than
either the Bo or 210. The older ones had manual gear which can't
break, tnat's a good deal. Makes insurance a little lower too.
The 210 and the Bo are about the same speed. I don't like 210's
because Cessna's design philosophy for every plane is to build them as
light as possible. So they usually have a little better useful load
than the Bo but you feel like the whole thing is made out of a beer can.
When I had my 182 I was always having things rattle apart. That was
one of the first things I noticed about the Bo, built like a tank. You
pay for that in weight but things don't break. If you're interested in
a 210 make sure you call you insurance agent first. 210 owners crash
their birds with alarming regularity and as such you'll find insurance
can be 2-3 times higher than a Bo or Mooney. 210's have smaller tires
and therefore is not as good on dirt strips. Bonanza's were designed at
a time when most runways were not paved and they kept that thinking
right into the brand new ones. I have 7.00x6 mains and more prop
clearance than my 182 had with the larger nosewheel. The Mooney is far
and away the worst of the three to have to work on. Somebody here with
a Mooney says it takes something like an hour and a half to decowl the
engine. That's criminal. The 210 is Ok but not great, you'll have a
good 15 minutes getting a cowl off, having to screw with induction air
tunnels. In the Bo...10 seconds with the models with the camlocs. No
seconds with the models with the single handle. The Mooney has this god
awful belly pan with a zillion screws. The 210 and Bo have the standard
inspection panels. Stuff you wouldn't think of until you have to work
on it.
I wouldn't even consider aircraft like Arrows, 172RG's, Commanders.
They're too slow for the additional cash it costs to insure. Jay's
right, this is about the best time ever to buy. The longer you wait the
better it'll get for you. I have a 64 S35 and I lowered my hull value
for my insurance that comes due in August. The hardest part for you
will be getting an owner to sell his plane for what it's actually worth,
not what he thinks it's worth.

On Jun 12, 7:27*pm, Newps wrote:

* *Go get a ride in or at the very least sit in all you are interested
in. *Mooney guys have a complex about people saying their planes are
small on the inside. *Only you can make that decision. *I flew one for a
few hours. *Way too small for me. *Major design difference too. *In the
Mooney you sit on the floor with your legs straight out. *In the Bo and
210 you sit on a chair just like in your kitchen, legs bent and with
room to move them around. *Baggage door on the top of the fuselage, not
the side. *Damn stupid if you ask me. *Ever try to load a 48 qt cooler
filled with appropriate beverages from the top? *Or get it out again?
Some people like it though. *Go figure.

Funny, I can't figure out why anyone would want the door on the bottom
like my old Bo. In the Bo we loaded the first bags though the door but
you can only access the bottom of the baggage area with the door and
the rest must be loaded over the back seat. In the Mooney I've never
had to load bags over the back seat. Most of our trips are with bags
to the ceiling. I've never seen a car where you load the trunk through
a little door on the side so I can't imagine why anyone would do that
with a plane.

-Robert, M20F

Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Jun 12, 7:27 pm, Newps wrote:

Go get a ride in or at the very least sit in all you are interested
in. Mooney guys have a complex about people saying their planes are
small on the inside. Only you can make that decision. I flew one for a
few hours. Way too small for me. Major design difference too. In the
Mooney you sit on the floor with your legs straight out. In the Bo and
210 you sit on a chair just like in your kitchen, legs bent and with
room to move them around. Baggage door on the top of the fuselage, not
the side. Damn stupid if you ask me. Ever try to load a 48 qt cooler
filled with appropriate beverages from the top? Or get it out again?
Some people like it though. Go figure.

Funny, I can't figure out why anyone would want the door on the bottom
like my old Bo. In the Bo we loaded the first bags though the door but
you can only access the bottom of the baggage area with the door and
the rest must be loaded over the back seat. In the Mooney I've never
had to load bags over the back seat. Most of our trips are with bags
to the ceiling. I've never seen a car where you load the trunk through
a little door on the side so I can't imagine why anyone would do that
with a plane.

-Robert, M20F

Like I said, a few people like the door on the top. I wish I had a
larger door but never do I think I need a door on the top.

On 2008-06-14, John Smith wrote:
Some Bo's have a GIGANTIC door on the side.
They have a flush mount D-handle that you rotate out 90-degrees and
twist. Anyone know which model Bo I am thinking of?

I can't speak to the 4-place Bonanzas, but my boss's A36 has one of those.
You can get in and out of that door very easily.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (got it!)

In article ,
Newps wrote:
mbremer216 wrote:
Hello:

Where do you fly and on what type of surfaces do you land? What kind of
room are you looking for on the inside? Bonanza's, Mooney's and 210's
will by far get you your best gas mileage. I made my choice and went
with the Bonanza. At 75% I get 178 kts true at 15 gph at best altitude.
At 10,000 MSL at just a hair under 65%, 19"/2300 rpm I get 159 kts
true burning 11.5 gph. I used to have a 182 and at the top of the green
in cruise I would indicate 135-140 mph, sucking down 12.5-13 gph. In
the Bo at 150-155 MPH indicated, 45%, I burn 8.5 gph So as you can see
I get damn near twice the mpg as the 182 if I want as well as the
capability to go 47 kts faster while still getting better mpg than the 182.

What model Bo? I'm dreaming of something bigger & faster than my old
M20C.

Any other Bonanza owners here? Do you really get 11.5 gph at 159 kts?

--
-Ed Falk,
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

Edward A. Falk wrote:

Any other Bonanza owners here? Do you really get 11.5 gph at 159 kts?

No, I don't.


I get 135 knots at about 9 gph. However, if I remember correctly my
Bonanza has something like 60 less HP and is 30 years older than Scotts.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Boise, ID

Edward A. Falk wrote:
In article ,
Newps wrote:
mbremer216 wrote:
Hello:
Where do you fly and on what type of surfaces do you land? What kind of
room are you looking for on the inside? Bonanza's, Mooney's and 210's
will by far get you your best gas mileage. I made my choice and went
with the Bonanza. At 75% I get 178 kts true at 15 gph at best altitude.
At 10,000 MSL at just a hair under 65%, 19"/2300 rpm I get 159 kts
true burning 11.5 gph. I used to have a 182 and at the top of the green
in cruise I would indicate 135-140 mph, sucking down 12.5-13 gph. In
the Bo at 150-155 MPH indicated, 45%, I burn 8.5 gph So as you can see
I get damn near twice the mpg as the 182 if I want as well as the
capability to go 47 kts faster while still getting better mpg than the 182.

What model Bo? I'm dreaming of something bigger & faster than my old
M20C.

Any other Bonanza owners here? Do you really get 11.5 gph at 159 kts?


I have the S35, first year of the big engine, the IO-520. For a number
of reasons I wouldn't buy one older than that. Do the math yourself, at
10K I indicate 155 MPH and I was at 19"/2300 rpm burning 11.5. I was
about 30 degrees lean of peak so I could have gone slightly faster,
maybe another 5 mph, if I wanted to go about 75 rich. I bought this
particular model because it is the first year of the six seaters. I
insure it for four. It's the year they removed the bulkhead and really
opened up the cabin, easily three times the baggage area of the 67 182 I
used to have. Plus the rear seats slide out individually, makes it
really easy to set up the interior any way you want.