Howdy. Liked and subbed. I haven’t flown GA in over two decades. Currently an A320 Captain so I’m the guy who would flare the Mooney at 80 feet. 😂🤣 In all seriousness, I’ve been kicking around the idea of buying something for a while now, and a M20J has been in my top three contenders. Awesome video.
Just did my first 2 hours towards my checkout in an M20J in a flying club, was actually very easy handling, and learning that it uses pushrods for the controls is likely a big reason it felt so good to fly
I have a total of 3 hrs in it now, and have really enjoyed it. Happy to answer any questions, but I’m still learning for sure. A good instructor with mooney experience is an absolute must
I think people think the 182 as being so much bigger inside because wings on top mean a flat ceiling and straight doors. I bet two doors and very upright seating contribute to the feeling. Lots of time in Skylanes and while they are comfortable they don't have width to spare. You nailed it when you said perception. I have a friend who was convinced the inside of my Audi S5 was going to be cramped compared to his Tacoma. Imagine his surprise to find it every bit as roomy, and far more comfortable on a long drive.
As a Mooney mechanic for 11 years and pilot for the same time amassing 1800 hours I absolutely love Mooneys. The only one I haven't flown id the M20L Porsche edition, or wood wing ones.
I’m 6’3” and 240 lbs, no problem sitting in my Mooney. In fact some say it’s the most comfortable plane out there for tall pilots. One more myth, Mooneys don’t like to slow down; like any other plane, pull back on the yoke far enough and it will come out of the sky eventually.
@@brucecuratola6389 I try to begin descending 10-15 minutes out roughly 250 fpm at a high airspeed. Once at pattern altitude it's easy to bleed off excess speed on downwind. Probably good practice to avoid straight in approaches anyway with complex aircraft just to keep things routine.
How about 6' 4.5" person? Is your head touching? I want a seat that leans back. I had a small car and got used to driving in a reclined position. Sliding the seat forward enough to still reach the hand controls without knees getting in the way would also be necessary with a reclining seat.
@@g18886 just took my brother in law for a flight, 6’5” 320 lbs, 4” head to ceiling clearance. Had to add 40 lbs to the baggage area to get the cg into the safe zone. I was a bit nervous about it but it was a good flight.
I got my Mooney Statesman M20G in 1969, and it was my personal business flying machine for about 8-years. Fabulous instrument flying platform that took me everywhere from New Jersey to California, Texas, and anywhere I had business to do in those great years. As to the rumor of being "cramped" .... that is a FAKE rumor. Wish I still had the Mooney. Always dream of getting another one!
I love the way you straight talk. That is a particular form of speech where you speak simply and lay down the facts and your conclusions. Then you let the chip fall where the fall. Great communications. TY
It’s really only the trailing edge of the rudder that’s slanted forward. I think the “floating” on landing is probably related to the relatively short gear and the low wing which enhances the ground-effect. The cabin width seems smaller in a Bellanca Viking. The Mooneys are amazing planes especially having been developed from drones.
The CG issue is nicely helped by the STC'd mod to replace the IO-360-A1A with the IO-360-A1B6 ...it weighs 18 lbs more because of more counterweights, all on the nose, and removes the restricted RPM range. If you abruptly need to replace your engine (maybe because you let someone else fly it, who came in too fast and tried to drive it on = prop strike) I recommend the modification.
I would say low prop tip clearance is something to be aware of. It is not great on soft field, especially on soft or uneven ground. Yes you can land and takeoff smooth well groomed (flat) soft grass. However if there is dirt and gravel you will pepper your prop or worse get a Prop strike. I KNOW. I was a CFI at a Club with a 201. People flew to a popular airport which was hard surface runway and taxiway, but overflow parking was on dirt. It was a busy airport on summer weekends. There were some uneven surfaces that caused prop to be hit more than once by members in the Clubs 201. I told every pilot I checked out don't park in the dirt. The club banned the Mooney from that airport eventually. Last is float. Agree if you are on speed its not an issue,. It is clean and has short gear which does produce more ground effect. It's not a STOL plane. In regards to prop strike and float, pilots who suck at landing, try to land fast, can get into PIO (pilot induced oscillation) or porpoise, which will result in a bad prop strike.
Yeah, those push-pull rods definitely take some getting used to. I flew PA28s and C172s in training, so the first few times I tried to flare the Mooney, I ballooned pretty badly. But once you get used to it, it's not hard at all. I love the way it flies.
I owned a Mooney M20C Mark21. It had all the things you spoke of and spot on. I loved flying it. As for the landings, the stiff gear made me learn how to land well and smoothly. The one biggest issue I had with the M20C was the airspeed transitions from gear out to cruise and back. The plane wanted to either fly slow or fast and almost never in between. The gear speed was 105 and it did not want to slow down when retracted. A lot of forethought and planning had to go into speed reduction, otherwise you had to bring power back to idle for a minute and I didn't want to shock cool the engine. I would travel at 15,000ft and descend to my airport at 5,000ft. It's cold at 15k and I had to start my descent, about 30 to 45 miles away to keep the engine warm. Anyway, getting the gear down was a task that was done near or around final due to the really low maximum Vle of 105. Once the gear was down though, the plane flew like a brick. That's really the only issue I had with flying the plane. Otherwise, it's an amazing intermediate plane to own and fly.
Great content. I’ve had mine for 20 years. I love the efficiency and speed. More bang for your the buck. My only main disappointment was dealing with frequent leaking fuel tanks over that period. I went with bladders recently.
Most places don’t reseal wing tanks correctly. They just try to patch leaks. I got a complete chemical strip & reseal at Weep-no-More in Willmar, Minnesota ( about $8,000 ) & it should last at least 30 years
I own a '65 C, useful load is mid 700's so you're not throwing four of your 200-pound friends and full fuel in it. The engine mount is designed to remove the top bolts and tilt the engine forward. The landing gear used to have a shock absorber on the nose gear which has been removed on most all Mooney's so taxi slower, the prop is fairly close to the ground.
I love Mooney! The one comment that’s super funny is when you debunk the “Mooneys are crammed” comment, while your head is tilted cuz your headset is hitting the roof ha. Mooney still probably the best bank for the buck. Ur plane is awesome 🤙
Thanks for setting the record straight. Mooneys are like any other niche vehicles, feared by many for no good reasons and loathed by the competition. They are/were incredibly well-engineered and well-thought-out. Thanks for putting those numbers about interior space and range/gas. Mooneys remind me of Alfa Romeos. Everyone has horror stories except for Alfa Romeo owners who take care of their cars, warm them up before revving, and put good oil in them. I love Mooneys.
Owning a 1966 Mooney M20F for more than 10 years now and I couldn't agree more... - Mooneys are different and better type of aircraft than any other brand and type I've ever flown.
Having owned a Cherokee and now a Comanche, I used to fly a M20C and I agree with most of the subjective stuff. Working on the Mooney engine is terrible IMO, but doable. Many things are made easier by a second pair of hands, that were easy one person jobs on my Pipers. I love Mooneys, but my biggest complaint is cabin width. To be clear, I also feel cramped in a 172, a Bonanza (which has a super tall cabin), and my old Cherokee. The legroom in the back is a bit tight but workable. I just got too used to my Comanche which doesn't require offsetting seats so you and your passenger's shoulders overlap. Also flying with four adults is easier with 1250 useful, but 900 isn't a small useful from my experience in singles. I think most people just aren't used to the odd positioning of seat vs the floor vs the panel/yoke and windshield. You get a feeling of being cramped until you get used to it.
I think I agree with everything you said. My hangar neighbor has a Comanche - I like it a lot. The Comanche just lost out to my Mooney when I was picking planes (the final choice was Mooney, Twin Comanche, and Comanche). It helps that my wife is 5 ft. tall and generally small so the 2 of us fit without staggering seats in the Mooney (I actually cut a comment out of the Charlevoix video where my wife said "I used to stagger my seat in the 172 but I don't do it in this plane".) Since it's usually just my wife and I, there's no reason to get something bigger to satisfy my normal use case. I cut it from this video, but I mentioned that I feel uncomfortable in Bonanzas - the way the windows narrow in at the top makes me have to tilt my head sideways to keep my head from hitting the windows. I feel much better in a Mooney than I do a Bonanza, which I think people will think I'm crazy for saying. And I have more than 20 hours in Bonanzas, so that's not a one flight thing. The point I was trying to make when I said that was that every airplane can find someone that may not like it. For me - it's Bonanzas. But I think the way I said it made it sounds like I was trashing Bonanazas, which wasn't my intent - they're awesome airplanes but I just don't fit them. Thanks for watching and commenting.
'96 M20J owner now for two years. Excellent airplane, very well engineered. It is amazing the performance you get on 200 horsepower. My missions are typically back and forth between FL and OH. With full tanks (64 gallons), it will carry me and my wife (total 350), our 70 lb. dog, and 100 pounds of luggage at 155 knots true on 10 gph at 8 or 9 thousand feet and at 3 hours I land with half fuel remaining for a nice fat reserve. It is very comfortable to ride in. Landings are easy if you can hold proper speed control taking into account weight at landing. Over the fence at 75 knots is good at medium weights. Hold your pitch attitude to ensure the mains will touch first, and the natural ground effect increase as the wing gets close to the runway will make for a smooth touchdown. It is very important to not let the nosewheel touch first as it will bounce/balloon and you can easily get into a PIO that culminates in a prop strike. Also, if you are too fast it will naturally float quite a ways down the runway. I could on about its many nice design features. The only negative in my book is that it only has one door.
I agree with everything you’ve stated in this video. I’ve had 3 Mooney’s . 2 were m20E’s. Both of my E’s had 3 bladed props. One aluminum hartzell one composite MT. My E with the MT prop was, in my opinion, balanced perfectly. I also have to say that instrument panel is difficult to work on if you have the 201 windshield mod. Which I had on one of my E’s. Mechanics love the exterior access panel you get with the split or one-piece flat windshield. My only complaint about the E is that it’s almost impossible to fly it and stay out of the yellow arc. It is fast. I contacted Mooney and asked them about the Vne. Why the 201 had higher V speeds than the E. They told me it was simple. They put the nose down and tested later model Mooney’s and they never tested the E so the V speeds didn’t change. In my opinion the E model mooney is a spectacular airplane. A pure sports car-airplane. People who criticize Mooney’s usually don’t know Mooney’s.
Considering the airspeeds these things can get into, a higher structural limit should've been considered. 278 MPH just isn't enough, when they'll gladly do well over 300.
I can hear you wanting to defend your choice in aircraft and it surely is an outstanding airplane. They are the fastest and most efficient affordable choices out there. However, to imply the space is a plentiful in the airplane, you're losing your marbles. It may be wider than its competition at one particular point in the airplane, a point that likely matters least to your body shape, but it's tighter everywhere else. Also, you sit 3 inches from the floor, the seating height and position of the 172 is what makes it seem so comfortable. Just my two cents. Happy New Year and safe flying.
Great video! Sold my 172 2yrs ago and aching to get back into my own plane (renting SUCKS!!!). Narrowed it down to Cardinal, 182, Mooneys, or another 172. I'm sure the mooney's ground handling is better than my Ram crewcab at 5000agl...😂
Your videos are so informative and down to earth..and always on point.. The shoulder width space of the J is very comfortable and more space than a Piper Arrow or 172. Is it true all the Mooneys have the same cabin width? The J is 9" longer, so much better leg room. The Mooney fits around you like a luxury car.. love the feel. great job on this video!
There was a thread on Mooneyspace about this topic. The older models were listed as narrower than the Js in the brochure, but it turned out that the place the measurement was done was different (so they're actually all the same). Some guy measured his 64 C model and got 43.5 inches. From other places that I've read, the chromoly cage from pilot seat forward really hasn't changed until the pilot side door was added in the latest models.
I would say a bit of planning on a Crosswind Take-off is needed based on the 11 knot demonstrated and requires an immediate crab on take-off as there will not be enough rudder for the slip. This is due to small surface area and the wing-tip too close to the ground to track. In short, plan for the crab quickly. Landing hasn't been an issue... True on the CG Aft on the "J" as well and just throw the survival kit in the passenger seat. The other rumors you covered are pretty much right on as to useful load, room available, range, hard to fly and is a numbers plane to get the best performance. Since all my cars are two-seaters in the sporty theme, it feels like a glove and how much does one need. IMHO
I’m not a pilot. But have a lot of experience at sea. We have a saying that I think holds true in aviation. A cheap, fast ship is safer than the safest ship. And it just means that a ship that’s cheap to own and maintain tends to be maintained more meticulously than an expensive one, and speed at sea can mean the difference between having to ride out weather and being able to get around it. And I’d rather be in a well maintained ship that can make it in before weather or get around weather than one that’s better designed but lapses on maintenance due to expense or struggles to make the headway I need to avoid weather.
Hard to fly? No. I bought one and then hired an instructor to teach me how to fly. I had nothing to compare to, but found it straight forward. Mine did not have a wing leveler, so every hour was hand-flown. I would trim it out and fly with a little rudder pressure. The back seat of my short-body was ok for adults on short trips and my kids on long trips. The long seat tracks are a danger. The pilot seat MUST be locked for take off. Otherwise the seat can run back so far the pilot can't reach the yoke.
Have a 1967 M20F. owned from 1981. Mooney to me is like sitting in a sports car. I'm 6'1" and 250 lbs. and I have been told that I was too big to fit in it. They are actually a little wider than a Beech Banna. Mine has electric gear. The ONLY BITCH I have is the FUEL TANKS. Spent $14K on them and still had problems. I am A&P. The way I found to work on the back of the engine is the engine mount. It attaches at the top with bolts into firewall. I still have the access panels in front of the windshield so they are easy to get to. The bottom has CROSS BOLTs. I let the lower cowl hang down. Hook engine on hoist. Losen lower bolts and remove top bolts then pivot engine forward letting hoist hold it while doing whatever I need to work on. I found you take off whatever is in the way to get to what you want. Due to BS fake lawsuit I'm considering selling mine. It's has 1900+ - TT AF, IO-360-A1A (200HP) 350+ - TSOH chrome engine. ZERO SOH Prop. (5 year inspection and never reinstalled.) custom panel, New set of windows for it. new tires. Engine needs minor work. All second gen radios. Interior plastic not so good. Seats factory cloth / leather. Fuel tanks are the unknown. I was going to install bladders when I got wiped out. If interested txt "Mooney" and your phone number to 575 799-1695 as I get so many scam calls, I won't answer if I don't recognize the number. Safe Flying Moonies. Also have a 1957 PA-22/20-150 Piper Pacer basket case. No Wrecked.
Good info. I was under the impression the Mooney was only 42" wide. 43.5" is a significantly better if I ever want to consider changing from my Comanche.
I had a ‘61 B model that I dearly loved. I had no problem doing owner maintenance and owner-assisted annuals. I am not a small man - 6’2”, 220#, so it felt a bit snug, but no worse than a 172. I live the Johnson Bar gear and manual flaps.
Speed control is key when flying a Mooney, on both takeoff and landing. The turbo models have no qualms getting into overspeed territory, that's why the factory found it appropriate to install air brakes on the wings! On quick decent from the high altitude these planes are capable of, those air brakes come in real handy without having to drop the flaps. On approach, some pilots use them to land to keep floating at bay, since Mooneys like to bounce if the airspeed is too high on landing, and the rubber discs in lieu of conventional strut suspension on the landing gear doesn't help matters. Full flaps are going to float, so reducing airspeed down so basically the plane is just about to stall on landing, and maybe fighting against the air brakes with the engine can prevent bounce on touchdown, although that can be hard on the engine.
Many years ago l got a rating on and flew a Mooney M20E. I found it very easy to convert onto only doing a 20 minute flight without passengers. During my first flight carrying passengers to a short grass strip the Mooney suffered and engine failure when joining overhead due to the loss of fuel pressure. From years of practicing forced landings and more than a few incidents with vintage taildraggers there was no panic just a call out from me of " oh shit not again". Although it was a short tricky field with the approach over a 500 foot cliff and a lake at the other end the Mooney handled like a dream, no float at all which could have landed us in the lake mostly because l nailed the approach speed. In fact the landing was feather light and l certainly was thankful for the hard under carriage that announced that we were back on the ground safe and sound.. The Mooney along with the Cessna 177 RG are my two favourite light single tricycle aeroplanes
Well, there ya go. A non pilot liked and subscribed. If you can answer some questions, it would help my decision to buy one. 40 gallons from Detroit to Atlanta? (or so) Can it do 150 knots in cruise? Have you seen or heard of some people getting 10 gph running lean of peak? What about parts availability? And last, (the jury is 3-2 on this) student pilot learning in his own Mooney? Thanks for the informative video. Cross talk was no issue for me, I heard you loud and clear. Ex Army MARS radio operator.
I used to fly a C. Put 2700 hours on it. I found it could be greased on by leaving bit of power on - about 10". The low wing and lots of ground effect made for smooth landings. Cutting the power dropped it on.
I mostly agree, but strongly disagree about the ground handling. Yes, if you taxi fast on rough pavement those rubber pucks will bounce you around a bit. Big deal, slow down. Now compare the ground handling to a C172 or similar if there's any winds or worse yet gusts. The high wing, high CG and leaf spring main gear make it hell to taxi in windy conditions compared to a Mooney hugging the ground. You were right about the cross winds. I've landed a Mooney on a gusty March day at max crosswind component when even the 737 behind me was struggling. You couldn't even taxi a C172 that day.
I have an F with 1100 useful - 2 x 200 lbs + 135 lbs + 145 lbs people with 60 lbs of bags and 6 hour endurance with 45 min reserve at 135 kts. No, I don't do 6 hour legs. Just say'n. Compared to my friends RV-8 the Mooney flys like a truck. It's a stable IFR platform. I don't get why anybody would knock it. You couldn't drag me back kicking and screaming to fly a 172. I will say that the 172 is easier to get into and out of for aging parents, it has better sightseeing visibility and you can stoop under the wing when it rains. :)
Okay there's been maybe 3 and several have survived 9G encounters (estimated) in thunderstorms. The wing spar is incredibly strong. You're more likey to separate the cabin from the spar.
Chris, got the spreadsheet and will populate with the Mooney's I am reviewing. Nice job on this and should make the comparison more empirical and definitive for when I start spending money on a pre-buy inspection. Mike
The width issue (or myth) has been my biggest concern. Thanks for quantifying that. Do you do owner assists annuals? The removal of the cowling is labor intensive and can save some bucks if you do that part.
Thanks to my stupidity (having a full time day job and deciding to open a business), I work around 70-80 hours a week so I'm happy to pay someone to do the work for me so I don't have to worry about it. When I retire from the day job, I'll probably go to the owner assisted annual. As for my cowl, it's an aftermarket upgrade and it's quite easy to remove and install - it's very similar to a C172. Thanks for checking in!
I have the original cowl on my Mooney and it isn't a big deal to remove with the exception of the bottom piece which doesn't normally need to be removed. I'd say maybe 10 minutes to de cowl. That being said there are lots of other panels that have to be removed that do take quite a while, the belly panels come to mind. I'm doing an owner assist annual right now and it's been great to get to know the plane better. I'm getting the opportunity to fix lots of little issues and only paying for parts and my own time.
Go to Air Venture this week. All of those high performance, super fuel efficient planes loaded with ultra modern avionics. I'm not talking about certified planes. Experimental planes are setting the standards on everything aviation. Classic airplanes are over the hill.
Very interesting information! Just curious but how high do you sit in the Comanche compared to the other ones you mentioned and how close are you to the instrument panel ?
I have owned my Mooney N9341V since 2002, I love it and I absolutely agree with your assessment! Beyond the ground handling, Mooneys are great. They are nice to flight, in crosswind not an issue, controls are great, btw my CG is also in the back... Mooneys are also not cramped, but because they are harder to get in there is this feeling that they must be cramped. But not they are not and they are really comfortable. I flew 6 hour legs and they are nice. The only problem is that there is no elegant way to get out of a mooney.
My father has had two Mooneys, I believe the first one was a 65 Super 21, the other was and 67 Executive 21. I believe the corresponding models were an E & F. Loved anytime I got chance to fly with him. Would you know it he sold his plane about the time I finish ground school. I think he could see the handwriting on the wall and he would be fiunding me and put the kibosh on it.
I flew many hours in Mooney 201CA and found it be an amazingly easy and forgiving aircraft. 200mph on 10 gallons per hour, that’s 20mpg. I wish I still had it.
Thanks for content! I watched this a year ago and now as I am finally ready to buy a plane so I watched it again to refresh myself on the Mooney “issues”. They are the best looking single engine plane out there in my opinion and great performers. My big concerns are maintenance costs compared to a 172/Cherokee and the fact that I am 6’ 4”. You fit fine, how tall are you? From what I read Mr Mooney himself was quite tall and designed the Mooney so he could fly it comfortably.
My Mooney M20E handles crosswinds just fine. Much more comfortable in a low wing than a high wing Cessna in strong crosswinds. The float is true, but basically you just have to know your speeds. I can plant it on the 1st or 2nd stripe in the short body E. Full flaps and 70 to 75 mph (watch out for gusts/stalls) will land it in 1,000 ft. With the laminar wings be careful of high DA. I don't do less than about 2,700 ft in summer. My CG doesn't have those issues.
I can only comment on my extremely limited experience. Although Mooneys are great, fast,and efficient aircraft I think that unless you are a slender and well fit person, they are very uncomfortable. My experience is from sitting in the back seat of a '68 M20C Ranger along with my wife on a 2 hour flight in my friend's aircraft. After the flight, we never were so glad to get out of aircraft. Both of us were stiff as boards. It was extremely cramped back there. As for sitting up front, being close to the floor with legs almost straight out, I find personally, that to be uncomfortable as well. That's just my two cents worth.
The crosswind thing might be because at least some of the short bodies (including our 66 M20E) have an aileron-rudder interconnect that makes them feel really weird in roll when cross controlled - as during a slip to a crosswind landing. It's only a feel thing, and I'm with you, I will land the Mooney in crosswinds that I would leave alone in a Cherokee or C-172, let alone a retractable Cessna.
As to distance to pedals and closeness to instrument panel, I think the short yoke throw allowed moving the seat forward to gain rear leg room with a short (efficient) fuselage.
The ground handling is not that bad if you go slower. simple. The problem is everyone wants to rush on the ground slow it down a bit and the pumps are not that bad, but if you pick up speed in the taxi they will get out of control.
the first pressurized Mooney was designed by Karl Krumme, He purchased a new Mooney and stripped it down and redesigned the plane, He ran out of money and failed to make his payments, Mooney execs showed up and repossessed the plane. that plane was Mooney's next year plane, the first to be pressurized and flew really nice. Karl is also the same guy who built the first Bat Mobile for George Barris, He also designed and built the first Pantera sports car by ford, "it was not designed by De Tomaso.
For CG, my C model is actually a bit too far forward. With two adults in the front, I get close to forward limit. Recently upgraded to the SkyTec starter, and that has helped a bit.
Thanks so much. Wonderful myth busting. I’m a Student pilot and looking at a shared partnership with a friend on a 63 M20C and this helped alleviate any concerns I may have.
My take? I've NEVER flown a Mooney, and by no means am I a high time pilot. I don't even own a plane. I simply rent. I have sat in a mooney 252 and thought that it was a perfect plane for me. But I'm only 5-6 and weigh in at 151. So I'm kinda on the small frame size. I have flown a Piper Turbo Dakota which I thought would be perfect as far as room for me also.
Spray those Rubber suspension parts on the Moody with 303 protectant once every year or two. You may find it will last functionally forever. Try it, it's one of the best Aerospace Rubber products that has come out in decades.
Well, just the fact that your right arm is hanging over the right seat makes it look really tight. In my comanche Ive got several inches between my right arm and my front seat passenger.
They are a hard airplane to work on but it becouse they (at less the old ones) have what feels like a million screws you have to take out. Past the all the screws they are not very different then any other of the common 4seat airplane I have worked on.
This is a great concept for Mooney Information but I can't watch it with ATC constantly talking in the background. Ughh. Tnx Mark a very experienced pilot. Bye
The width has more truth than you letting on. Take the measurement around your mid section, shoulders and head. It looks like your head is tilted to the starboard side. Is it, or is it the angle of the video? Love your mooney and the video!
Thank you for this video. I have not yet started training but have looked at lots of prospects for my mission and a Mooney seems to be it. Family trips that get there fast. Does anyone here have thoughts on doing PPL training in an M20?
I knew a couple people who did their initial training in the short body Mooneys and they liked it. The only issue I have with doing an initial in the Mooney is that it is complex. There's a little more thought and consideration to put into flying a complex. The short body Mooneys also have a manual gear extension lever, "Johnson bar". It took me a few tries to get used to on take off since a lot of motion went into using it, that and making sure that you're flying the plane correctly on upwind instead of making drastic pitch changes or rolling. That along with the airspeed transitions from cruise to landing is a little more of a challenge than most complex planes. The maximum gear out speed is 105 and it cruises at about 135 to 160. It is a pretty slick plane and doesn't like to slow down fast, so forethought and planning have to go into that. The reason that's a little more challenging is that most light twins have a gear speed of around 140 and cruise speeds of 120 to 180, so there's an overlap there which makes it easier to plan. Doing touch and goes in the Mooney is tiring for this reason and you'll be doing a lot of that for your initial. All that being said, the short body Mooney is a solid platform and I don't see an issue with training in one for an initial. Just be prepared to work harder in training vs a 172 or Archer.
What is the distance from the seating surface to the celling? Sitting I'm 36 tall, so by the time I put on a headset I'm in the roof in every low wing plane I have flown. Even Cessna 172's I can only fly them if the seats have height adjustable seats with the seat in the lowest position.
I own a F-Model (Mid-Body). It has plenty of legroom in the back. Some Passengers prefer to sit in the back because of the space. But whatever the numbers about cabin width say: It's small. You surely won't have a Bodybuilder as Co-Pilot.
Another very interesting video, thanks for sharing it. I do got one question if you know , Im trying to find out what is the live span airframe hours total maximum of the Mooneys M20 or Mooneys in general. I f you the numbers be great to know. Dave.
I don't think this issue comes up very often because so few Mooney's are used as rentals and therefore never become really high time airplanes like a Piper Arrow would. I own a 1968 Mooney with 3500 hours on it. You rarely see them with more than 5k or so. Generally Mooney's get scrapped because of not being used for long periods of time rather than being used too much. I would rate the airframe as being significantly superior to a Piper Arrow and you see lots of them flying around with 10k hours on them. I wouldn't hesitate to fly a 10k Mooney if it's been well maintained.
Of ALL the planes I flew in my career, I'll take a Mooney hands down, all day! I used to compare it to driving a Porsche, and I had seven of those in my life. You either like it, or dislike it. First hour, you think it's a cool, fast airplane. Next two hours, you fight all it's idiosyncrasies and don't enjoy it. Every hour after that, you discover how much you truly love flying it! Hell, a Baron doesn't fly like a 310, and a 402 doesn't fly like a 310 either. My 56TC Baron didn't fly like a B Baron. They are all different and do unique things. Good video of describing all the things non-Mooney drivers will tell you that's wrong with your plane..........
What impressed me, about the original Mooney's, was the teeny, tiny cabin! You "might" get two smallish adults inside; BUT forget about comfort! Those back seats were only usable for children or dwarfs! But, I guess, solo flying may have been fun????
It's not for sale! :) I think I plan on flying this plane until I don't fly anymore. But seriously, I don't know how much they're going for these days. I paid around $48k for this one, which is less than what I sold my C172 for - crazy, isn't it? And it's not like the 172 was much newer - that was a 1971 and this is a 1966 (and this plane came with a 2-axis autopilot and an approach certified GPS, neither of which were in the 172).
One myth I’ve read is that Mooney has the best retractable landing gear system in terms of maintenance and reliability. Any RG aircraft will require extra maintenance and added costs, but Mooney landing gears are said to require and cost the least.
The Johnson bar Mooney's definitely have the simplest and most cost effective retractable landing gear. The manual system only needs to be lubricated and checked for preload and you are good to go for another year. Combined with the rubber landing gear donuts it's the most cost effective system around. Also very reliable, fun fact I believe it is the only retractable landing gear system that didn't require a backup extension system.
The manual gear Mooneys have linkage that can rust and the loading regulates a special tool to check. Stay atop maintenance and expect to change the rubber pucks every 10-20 years.
How the land of Mooney without floating? Simply get down and put one wheel on the ground and fly along and let everything slow down and you'll land perfect!
I love a Mooney, but those dimensions are not the entire story, not even close. I'm not certain if they measure only the widest point and the remainder of the space is narrower or what, but anyone with their head on straight can sit in a Mooney and then go sit in almost any of the comparison aircraft you mentioned and 100% tell that the Mooney is more cramped.
Either way, I've had a 182, an sr22, and a Cherokee, and I find the Mooney front seating position the best for me. I was in a Baron the other day, and it felt the same width if not less than a mooney.
![⭐️( ลอยกระทง 2024 ) Ver. แดนซ์ Remix BY [ ดีเจกิต รีมิกซ์ ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/rMWOLhgXUHc/mqdefault.jpg)
Howdy. Liked and subbed. I haven’t flown GA in over two decades. Currently an A320 Captain so I’m the guy who would flare the Mooney at 80 feet. 😂🤣 In all seriousness, I’ve been kicking around the idea of buying something for a while now, and a M20J has been in my top three contenders. Awesome video.
seriously buy one they are the ultimate GA plane for cross country
Just did my first 2 hours towards my checkout in an M20J in a flying club, was actually very easy handling, and learning that it uses pushrods for the controls is likely a big reason it felt so good to fly
I am buying a Mooney right now I would love to get with you and chat
I have a total of 3 hrs in it now, and have really enjoyed it. Happy to answer any questions, but I’m still learning for sure. A good instructor with mooney experience is an absolute must
I think people think the 182 as being so much bigger inside because wings on top mean a flat ceiling and straight doors. I bet two doors and very upright seating contribute to the feeling. Lots of time in Skylanes and while they are comfortable they don't have width to spare. You nailed it when you said perception. I have a friend who was convinced the inside of my Audi S5 was going to be cramped compared to his Tacoma. Imagine his surprise to find it every bit as roomy, and far more comfortable on a long drive.
As a Mooney mechanic for 11 years and pilot for the same time amassing 1800 hours I absolutely love Mooneys. The only one I haven't flown id the M20L Porsche edition, or wood wing ones.
You still work on them ?
I’m 6’3” and 240 lbs, no problem sitting in my Mooney. In fact some say it’s the most comfortable plane out there for tall pilots. One more myth, Mooneys don’t like to slow down; like any other plane, pull back on the yoke far enough and it will come out of the sky eventually.
Start slowing 7-8 miles out?
@@brucecuratola6389 I try to begin descending 10-15 minutes out roughly 250 fpm at a high airspeed. Once at pattern altitude it's easy to bleed off excess speed on downwind. Probably good practice to avoid straight in approaches anyway with complex aircraft just to keep things routine.
How about 6' 4.5" person? Is your head touching? I want a seat that leans back. I had a small car and got used to driving in a reclined position. Sliding the seat forward enough to still reach the hand controls without knees getting in the way would also be necessary with a reclining seat.
@@g18886 just took my brother in law for a flight, 6’5” 320 lbs, 4” head to ceiling clearance. Had to add 40 lbs to the baggage area to get the cg into the safe zone. I was a bit nervous about it but it was a good flight.
@@HairHelmet Thanks for the info! I'm going to start looking at Mooney's over Pipers.
I got my Mooney Statesman M20G in 1969, and it was my personal business flying machine for about 8-years. Fabulous instrument flying platform that took me everywhere from New Jersey to California, Texas, and anywhere I had business to do in those great years. As to the rumor of being "cramped" .... that is a FAKE rumor. Wish I still had the Mooney. Always dream of getting another one!
What makes the G different from the C? I found one I’m looking at buying
I love the way you straight talk. That is a particular form of speech where you speak simply and lay down the facts and your conclusions. Then you let the chip fall where the fall. Great communications. TY
It’s really only the trailing edge of the rudder that’s slanted forward. I think the “floating” on landing is probably related to the relatively short gear and the low wing which enhances the ground-effect. The cabin width seems smaller in a Bellanca Viking. The Mooneys are amazing planes especially having been developed from drones.
The CG issue is nicely helped by the STC'd mod to replace the IO-360-A1A with the IO-360-A1B6 ...it weighs 18 lbs more because of more counterweights, all on the nose, and removes the restricted RPM range. If you abruptly need to replace your engine (maybe because you let someone else fly it, who came in too fast and tried to drive it on = prop strike) I recommend the modification.
I would say low prop tip clearance is something to be aware of. It is not great on soft field, especially on soft or uneven ground. Yes you can land and takeoff smooth well groomed (flat) soft grass. However if there is dirt and gravel you will pepper your prop or worse get a Prop strike. I KNOW. I was a CFI at a Club with a 201. People flew to a popular airport which was hard surface runway and taxiway, but overflow parking was on dirt. It was a busy airport on summer weekends. There were some uneven surfaces that caused prop to be hit more than once by members in the Clubs 201. I told every pilot I checked out don't park in the dirt. The club banned the Mooney from that airport eventually. Last is float. Agree if you are on speed its not an issue,. It is clean and has short gear which does produce more ground effect. It's not a STOL plane. In regards to prop strike and float, pilots who suck at landing, try to land fast, can get into PIO (pilot induced oscillation) or porpoise, which will result in a bad prop strike.
Yeah, those push-pull rods definitely take some getting used to. I flew PA28s and C172s in training, so the first few times I tried to flare the Mooney, I ballooned pretty badly. But once you get used to it, it's not hard at all. I love the way it flies.
I owned a Mooney M20C Mark21. It had all the things you spoke of and spot on. I loved flying it. As for the landings, the stiff gear made me learn how to land well and smoothly.
The one biggest issue I had with the M20C was the airspeed transitions from gear out to cruise and back. The plane wanted to either fly slow or fast and almost never in between. The gear speed was 105 and it did not want to slow down when retracted. A lot of forethought and planning had to go into speed reduction, otherwise you had to bring power back to idle for a minute and I didn't want to shock cool the engine. I would travel at 15,000ft and descend to my airport at 5,000ft. It's cold at 15k and I had to start my descent, about 30 to 45 miles away to keep the engine warm. Anyway, getting the gear down was a task that was done near or around final due to the really low maximum Vle of 105. Once the gear was down though, the plane flew like a brick.
That's really the only issue I had with flying the plane. Otherwise, it's an amazing intermediate plane to own and fly.
I had two, M20j was a jewell in every respect
P
Did Tucker pay you to wear the Risky Biscuits shirt? Lol! Nice video, thanks!
Aft CG issue? An engine upgrade would fix that for ya! 😅
Great content. I’ve had mine for 20 years. I love the efficiency and speed. More bang for your the buck. My only main disappointment was dealing with frequent leaking fuel tanks over that period. I went with bladders recently.
My understanding is the fuel tanks are interval to the wing and worn landing gear or hard landings cause the tank leaks. Truth / rumor??
@@brucecuratola6389 every mooney i worked on had wet wings
Most places don’t reseal wing tanks correctly. They just try to patch leaks. I got a complete chemical strip & reseal at Weep-no-More in Willmar, Minnesota ( about $8,000 ) & it should last at least 30 years
I own a '65 C, useful load is mid 700's so you're not throwing four of your 200-pound friends and full fuel in it. The engine mount is designed to remove the top bolts and tilt the engine forward. The landing gear used to have a shock absorber on the nose gear which has been removed on most all Mooney's so taxi slower, the prop is fairly close to the ground.
I love Mooney! The one comment that’s super funny is when you debunk the “Mooneys are crammed” comment, while your head is tilted cuz your headset is hitting the roof ha. Mooney still probably the best bank for the buck. Ur plane is awesome 🤙
Thanks for setting the record straight. Mooneys are like any other niche vehicles, feared by many for no good reasons and loathed by the competition. They are/were incredibly well-engineered and well-thought-out.
Thanks for putting those numbers about interior space and range/gas. Mooneys remind me of Alfa Romeos. Everyone has horror stories except for Alfa Romeo owners who take care of their cars, warm them up before revving, and put good oil in them. I love Mooneys.
Owning a 1966 Mooney M20F for more than 10 years now and I couldn't agree more... - Mooneys are different and better type of aircraft than any other brand and type I've ever flown.
Having owned a Cherokee and now a Comanche, I used to fly a M20C and I agree with most of the subjective stuff. Working on the Mooney engine is terrible IMO, but doable. Many things are made easier by a second pair of hands, that were easy one person jobs on my Pipers. I love Mooneys, but my biggest complaint is cabin width. To be clear, I also feel cramped in a 172, a Bonanza (which has a super tall cabin), and my old Cherokee. The legroom in the back is a bit tight but workable. I just got too used to my Comanche which doesn't require offsetting seats so you and your passenger's shoulders overlap. Also flying with four adults is easier with 1250 useful, but 900 isn't a small useful from my experience in singles. I think most people just aren't used to the odd positioning of seat vs the floor vs the panel/yoke and windshield. You get a feeling of being cramped until you get used to it.
I think I agree with everything you said. My hangar neighbor has a Comanche - I like it a lot. The Comanche just lost out to my Mooney when I was picking planes (the final choice was Mooney, Twin Comanche, and Comanche). It helps that my wife is 5 ft. tall and generally small so the 2 of us fit without staggering seats in the Mooney (I actually cut a comment out of the Charlevoix video where my wife said "I used to stagger my seat in the 172 but I don't do it in this plane".) Since it's usually just my wife and I, there's no reason to get something bigger to satisfy my normal use case.
I cut it from this video, but I mentioned that I feel uncomfortable in Bonanzas - the way the windows narrow in at the top makes me have to tilt my head sideways to keep my head from hitting the windows. I feel much better in a Mooney than I do a Bonanza, which I think people will think I'm crazy for saying. And I have more than 20 hours in Bonanzas, so that's not a one flight thing. The point I was trying to make when I said that was that every airplane can find someone that may not like it. For me - it's Bonanzas. But I think the way I said it made it sounds like I was trashing Bonanazas, which wasn't my intent - they're awesome airplanes but I just don't fit them.
Thanks for watching and commenting.
Flew a M20E in the 70's and really had no complaints, actually enjoyed the hours I spent in it.
I'm working on buying a '64 M20E, super cool to see almost the exact same plane in your videos!!
'96 M20J owner now for two years. Excellent airplane, very well engineered. It is amazing the performance you get on 200 horsepower. My missions are typically back and forth between FL and OH. With full tanks (64 gallons), it will carry me and my wife (total 350), our 70 lb. dog, and 100 pounds of luggage at 155 knots true on 10 gph at 8 or 9 thousand feet and at 3 hours I land with half fuel remaining for a nice fat reserve. It is very comfortable to ride in. Landings are easy if you can hold proper speed control taking into account weight at landing. Over the fence at 75 knots is good at medium weights. Hold your pitch attitude to ensure the mains will touch first, and the natural ground effect increase as the wing gets close to the runway will make for a smooth touchdown. It is very important to not let the nosewheel touch first as it will bounce/balloon and you can easily get into a PIO that culminates in a prop strike. Also, if you are too fast it will naturally float quite a ways down the runway. I could on about its many nice design features. The only negative in my book is that it only has one door.
I agree with everything you’ve stated in this video. I’ve had 3 Mooney’s . 2 were m20E’s. Both of my E’s had 3 bladed props. One aluminum hartzell one composite MT. My E with the MT prop was, in my opinion, balanced perfectly. I also have to say that instrument panel is difficult to work on if you have the 201 windshield mod. Which I had on one of my E’s. Mechanics love the exterior access panel you get with the split or one-piece flat windshield. My only complaint about the E is that it’s almost impossible to fly it and stay out of the yellow arc. It is fast. I contacted Mooney and asked them about the Vne. Why the 201 had higher V speeds than the E. They told me it was simple. They put the nose down and tested later model Mooney’s and they never tested the E so the V speeds didn’t change. In my opinion the E model mooney is a spectacular airplane. A pure sports car-airplane. People who criticize Mooney’s usually don’t know Mooney’s.
Considering the airspeeds these things can get into, a higher structural limit should've been considered. 278 MPH just isn't enough, when they'll gladly do well over 300.
I can hear you wanting to defend your choice in aircraft and it surely is an outstanding airplane. They are the fastest and most efficient affordable choices out there. However, to imply the space is a plentiful in the airplane, you're losing your marbles. It may be wider than its competition at one particular point in the airplane, a point that likely matters least to your body shape, but it's tighter everywhere else. Also, you sit 3 inches from the floor, the seating height and position of the 172 is what makes it seem so comfortable. Just my two cents. Happy New Year and safe flying.
Awesome video. I totally agree with you! I bought my 1981 M20J last year (Oct 2020) and absolutely LOVE it! Best plane I have ever flown.
Short body Mooneys are hard to work on under the cowling. I’m a mechanic at a Mooney service center. Ovations are really nice to work on though.
Great video! Sold my 172 2yrs ago and aching to get back into my own plane (renting SUCKS!!!). Narrowed it down to Cardinal, 182, Mooneys, or another 172.
I'm sure the mooney's ground handling is better than my Ram crewcab at 5000agl...😂
Your videos are so informative and down to earth..and always on point.. The shoulder width space of the J is very comfortable and more space than a Piper Arrow or 172. Is it true all the Mooneys have the same cabin width? The J is 9" longer, so much better leg room. The Mooney fits around you like a luxury car.. love the feel. great job on this video!
There was a thread on Mooneyspace about this topic. The older models were listed as narrower than the Js in the brochure, but it turned out that the place the measurement was done was different (so they're actually all the same). Some guy measured his 64 C model and got 43.5 inches. From other places that I've read, the chromoly cage from pilot seat forward really hasn't changed until the pilot side door was added in the latest models.
Thanks for making this video and dispelling a lot of misinformation about this aircraft!
Mooney has always been my favorite airplane to fly. I loved flying the 1970 Mooney Ranger.
I would say a bit of planning on a Crosswind Take-off is needed based on the 11 knot demonstrated and requires an immediate crab on take-off as there will not be enough rudder for the slip. This is due to small surface area and the wing-tip too close to the ground to track. In short, plan for the crab quickly. Landing hasn't been an issue... True on the CG Aft on the "J" as well and just throw the survival kit in the passenger seat. The other rumors you covered are pretty much right on as to useful load, room available, range, hard to fly and is a numbers plane to get the best performance. Since all my cars are two-seaters in the sporty theme, it feels like a glove and how much does one need. IMHO
I’m not a pilot. But have a lot of experience at sea. We have a saying that I think holds true in aviation. A cheap, fast ship is safer than the safest ship.
And it just means that a ship that’s cheap to own and maintain tends to be maintained more meticulously than an expensive one, and speed at sea can mean the difference between having to ride out weather and being able to get around it. And I’d rather be in a well maintained ship that can make it in before weather or get around weather than one that’s better designed but lapses on maintenance due to expense or struggles to make the headway I need to avoid weather.
Hard to fly? No. I bought one and then hired an instructor to teach me how to fly. I had nothing to compare to, but found it straight forward. Mine did not have a wing leveler, so every hour was hand-flown. I would trim it out and fly with a little rudder pressure. The back seat of my short-body was ok for adults on short trips and my kids on long trips. The long seat tracks are a danger. The pilot seat MUST be locked for take off. Otherwise the seat can run back so far the pilot can't reach the yoke.
I’ll Also from MI…hang out at KPTK and 45G. Enjoying the mooney videos! Keep em coming . Jerry
Have a 1967 M20F. owned from 1981. Mooney to me is like sitting in a sports car. I'm 6'1" and 250 lbs. and I have been told that I was too big to fit in it. They are actually a little wider than a Beech Banna. Mine has electric gear. The ONLY BITCH I have is the FUEL TANKS. Spent $14K on them and still had problems.
I am A&P. The way I found to work on the back of the engine is the engine mount. It attaches at the top with bolts into firewall. I still have the access panels in front of the windshield so they are easy to get to. The bottom has CROSS BOLTs. I let the lower cowl hang down. Hook engine on hoist. Losen lower bolts and remove top bolts then pivot engine forward letting hoist hold it while doing whatever I need to work on. I found you take off whatever is in the way to get to what you want.
Due to BS fake lawsuit I'm considering selling mine. It's has 1900+ - TT AF, IO-360-A1A (200HP) 350+ - TSOH chrome engine. ZERO SOH Prop. (5 year inspection and never reinstalled.) custom panel, New set of windows for it. new tires. Engine needs minor work. All second gen radios. Interior plastic not so good. Seats factory cloth / leather. Fuel tanks are the unknown. I was going to install bladders when I got wiped out. If interested txt "Mooney" and your phone number to 575 799-1695 as I get so many scam calls, I won't answer if I don't recognize the number. Safe Flying Moonies. Also have a 1957 PA-22/20-150 Piper Pacer basket case. No Wrecked.
Good info. I was under the impression the Mooney was only 42" wide. 43.5" is a significantly better if I ever want to consider changing from my Comanche.
Comanche is 45"
I had a ‘61 B model that I dearly loved. I had no problem doing owner maintenance and owner-assisted annuals. I am not a small man - 6’2”, 220#, so it felt a bit snug, but no worse than a 172. I live the Johnson Bar gear and manual flaps.
You got me with this one, I thought 61s were C models ? Could be a mid year thing. Dad than me had a B 1958 1057B. Those were the Days !!
Speed control is key when flying a Mooney, on both takeoff and landing. The turbo models have no qualms getting into overspeed territory, that's why the factory found it appropriate to install air brakes on the wings! On quick decent from the high altitude these planes are capable of, those air brakes come in real handy without having to drop the flaps. On approach, some pilots use them to land to keep floating at bay, since Mooneys like to bounce if the airspeed is too high on landing, and the rubber discs in lieu of conventional strut suspension on the landing gear doesn't help matters. Full flaps are going to float, so reducing airspeed down so basically the plane is just about to stall on landing, and maybe fighting against the air brakes with the engine can prevent bounce on touchdown, although that can be hard on the engine.
Many years ago l got a rating on and flew a Mooney M20E.
I found it very easy to convert onto only doing a 20 minute flight without passengers.
During my first flight carrying passengers to a short grass strip the Mooney suffered and engine failure when joining overhead due to the loss of fuel pressure. From years of practicing forced landings and more than a few incidents with vintage taildraggers there was no panic just a call out from me of " oh shit not again". Although it was a short tricky field with the approach over a 500 foot cliff and a lake at the other end the Mooney handled like a dream, no float at all which could have landed us in the lake mostly because l nailed the approach speed. In fact the landing was feather light and l certainly was thankful for the hard under carriage that announced that we were back on the ground safe and sound..
The Mooney along with the Cessna 177 RG are my two favourite light single tricycle aeroplanes
Well, there ya go. A non pilot liked and subscribed. If you can answer some questions, it would help my decision to buy one. 40 gallons from Detroit to Atlanta? (or so)
Can it do 150 knots in cruise? Have you seen or heard of some people getting 10 gph running lean of peak? What about parts availability? And last, (the jury is 3-2 on this) student pilot learning in his own Mooney? Thanks for the informative video. Cross talk was no issue for me, I heard you loud and clear. Ex Army MARS radio operator.
I used to fly a C. Put 2700 hours on it. I found it could be greased on by leaving bit of power on - about 10". The low wing and lots of ground effect made for smooth landings. Cutting the power dropped it on.
I mostly agree, but strongly disagree about the ground handling. Yes, if you taxi fast on rough pavement those rubber pucks will bounce you around a bit. Big deal, slow down. Now compare the ground handling to a C172 or similar if there's any winds or worse yet gusts. The high wing, high CG and leaf spring main gear make it hell to taxi in windy conditions compared to a Mooney hugging the ground. You were right about the cross winds. I've landed a Mooney on a gusty March day at max crosswind component when even the 737 behind me was struggling. You couldn't even taxi a C172 that day.
Thx for the Mooney videos. Keep em coming
I hang out at 45G and KPTK.
Jerry
I have an F with 1100 useful - 2 x 200 lbs + 135 lbs + 145 lbs people with 60 lbs of bags and 6 hour endurance with 45 min reserve at 135 kts. No, I don't do 6 hour legs. Just say'n. Compared to my friends RV-8 the Mooney flys like a truck. It's a stable IFR platform. I don't get why anybody would knock it. You couldn't drag me back kicking and screaming to fly a 172.
I will say that the 172 is easier to get into and out of for aging parents, it has better sightseeing visibility and you can stoop under the wing when it rains. :)
What about the myth that Mooneys have never had a wing spar failure EVER? 🤔
N9156Z did...
Okay there's been maybe 3 and several have survived 9G encounters (estimated) in thunderstorms. The wing spar is incredibly strong. You're more likey to separate the cabin from the spar.
It has a strong wing but at wheel well they have folded. Typically it's loss of control IMC and over load beyond limitations.
Strongest wing in General Aviation.
@@gringoloco8576 Likely from penetrating a thunder storm. The Mooney wing broke the jig at the factory at 11 G's.
Chris, got the spreadsheet and will populate with the Mooney's I am reviewing. Nice job on this and should make the comparison more empirical and definitive for when I start spending money on a pre-buy inspection. Mike
Turn down or off the comm radio if you are VFR with no flight following
The width issue (or myth) has been my biggest concern. Thanks for quantifying that. Do you do owner assists annuals? The removal of the cowling is labor intensive and can save some bucks if you do that part.
Thanks to my stupidity (having a full time day job and deciding to open a business), I work around 70-80 hours a week so I'm happy to pay someone to do the work for me so I don't have to worry about it. When I retire from the day job, I'll probably go to the owner assisted annual. As for my cowl, it's an aftermarket upgrade and it's quite easy to remove and install - it's very similar to a C172. Thanks for checking in!
I have the original cowl on my Mooney and it isn't a big deal to remove with the exception of the bottom piece which doesn't normally need to be removed. I'd say maybe 10 minutes to de cowl. That being said there are lots of other panels that have to be removed that do take quite a while, the belly panels come to mind. I'm doing an owner assist annual right now and it's been great to get to know the plane better. I'm getting the opportunity to fix lots of little issues and only paying for parts and my own time.
Go to Air Venture this week. All of those high performance, super fuel efficient planes loaded with ultra modern avionics. I'm not talking about certified planes. Experimental planes are setting the standards on everything aviation. Classic airplanes are over the hill.
Very interesting information! Just curious but how high do you sit in the Comanche compared to the other ones you mentioned and how close are you to the instrument panel ?
Also you must tell the people that is the best wing inspection because it have 11 inspection covers on each wing which is great
I have owned my Mooney N9341V since 2002, I love it and I absolutely agree with your assessment! Beyond the ground handling, Mooneys are great. They are nice to flight, in crosswind not an issue, controls are great, btw my CG is also in the back... Mooneys are also not cramped, but because they are harder to get in there is this feeling that they must be cramped. But not they are not and they are really comfortable. I flew 6 hour legs and they are nice. The only problem is that there is no elegant way to get out of a mooney.
Try to put 2 sort of large adults in the front. Not cramped. Al mooney knew it. They have a small cabin. N1057B
My father has had two Mooneys, I believe the first one was a 65 Super 21, the other was and 67 Executive 21. I believe the corresponding models were an E & F. Loved anytime I got chance to fly with him. Would you know it he sold his plane about the time I finish ground school. I think he could see the handwriting on the wall and he would be fiunding me and put the kibosh on it.
I flew many hours in Mooney 201CA and found it be an amazingly easy and forgiving aircraft. 200mph on 10 gallons per hour, that’s 20mpg. I wish I still had it.
Have a ‘68 C in identical paint. Thanks for sharing!
Bounces around while taxing because you're going too fast! The rule of thumb is to taxi at a walking speed.
I thought he was taking off on the taxiway at first
Thanks for content! I watched this a year ago and now as I am finally ready to buy a plane so I watched it again to refresh myself on the Mooney “issues”. They are the best looking single engine plane out there in my opinion and great performers. My big concerns are maintenance costs compared to a 172/Cherokee and the fact that I am 6’ 4”. You fit fine, how tall are you? From what I read Mr Mooney himself was quite tall and designed the Mooney so he could fly it comfortably.
My Mooney M20E handles crosswinds just fine. Much more comfortable in a low wing than a high wing Cessna in strong crosswinds.
The float is true, but basically you just have to know your speeds. I can plant it on the 1st or 2nd stripe in the short body E. Full flaps and 70 to 75 mph (watch out for gusts/stalls) will land it in 1,000 ft.
With the laminar wings be careful of high DA. I don't do less than about 2,700 ft in summer.
My CG doesn't have those issues.
I can only comment on my extremely limited experience. Although Mooneys are great, fast,and efficient aircraft I think that unless you are a slender and well fit person, they are very uncomfortable.
My experience is from sitting in the back seat of a '68 M20C Ranger along with my wife on a 2 hour flight in my friend's aircraft. After the flight, we never were so glad to get out of aircraft. Both of us were stiff as boards. It was extremely cramped back there. As for sitting up front, being close to the floor with legs almost straight out, I find personally, that to be uncomfortable as well. That's just my two cents worth.
I’m looking at buying a Mooney. Thank you for the info.
I think the Mooney Mite is an extremely cool little plane.
The crosswind thing might be because at least some of the short bodies (including our 66 M20E) have an aileron-rudder interconnect that makes them feel really weird in roll when cross controlled - as during a slip to a crosswind landing. It's only a feel thing, and I'm with you, I will land the Mooney in crosswinds that I would leave alone in a Cherokee or C-172, let alone a retractable Cessna.
Always loved Mooneys! At the end of the day, you just can't beat 'em!
Have you ever tried keeping the weight off the nose wheel while taxing… seems to handle better to me
As to distance to pedals and closeness to instrument panel, I think the short yoke throw allowed moving the seat forward to gain rear leg room with a short (efficient) fuselage.
There are rudder pedal extensions. Not easy to install, but 1.5" and 3" available
Risky Biscuits...I love Tucker's channel!
Me too - his channel made me start paramotoring.
Thanks for the video! We have a 1995 J model MSE and really enjoy it. I'm curious what your oil change trick is??
The ground handling is not that bad if you go slower. simple. The problem is everyone wants to rush on the ground slow it down a bit and the pumps are not that bad, but if you pick up speed in the taxi they will get out of control.
the first pressurized Mooney was designed by Karl Krumme, He purchased a new Mooney and stripped it down and redesigned the plane, He ran out of money and failed to make his payments, Mooney execs showed up and repossessed the plane.
that plane was Mooney's next year plane, the first to be pressurized and flew really nice.
Karl is also the same guy who built the first Bat Mobile for George Barris, He also designed and built the first Pantera sports car by ford, "it was not designed by De Tomaso.
The 182 engine compartment is really tight as well.
For CG, my C model is actually a bit too far forward. With two adults in the front, I get close to forward limit. Recently upgraded to the SkyTec starter, and that has helped a bit.
Thanks so much. Wonderful myth busting. I’m a Student pilot and looking at a shared partnership with a friend on a 63 M20C and this helped alleviate any concerns I may have.
My take? I've NEVER flown a Mooney, and by no means am I a high time pilot. I don't even own a plane. I simply rent. I have sat in a mooney 252 and thought that it was a perfect plane for me. But I'm only 5-6 and weigh in at 151. So I'm kinda on the small frame size. I have flown a Piper Turbo Dakota which I thought would be perfect as far as room for me also.
Spray those Rubber suspension parts on the Moody with 303 protectant once every year or two. You may find it will last functionally forever. Try it, it's one of the best Aerospace Rubber products that has come out in decades.
Well, just the fact that your right arm is hanging over the right seat makes it look really tight. In my comanche Ive got several inches between my right arm and my front seat passenger.
Yeah, but a J outruns a 250 comanche on 50 less HP and two gallons an hour less.
They are a hard airplane to work on but it becouse they (at less the old ones) have what feels like a million screws you have to take out. Past the all the screws they are not very different then any other of the common 4seat airplane I have worked on.
good overview... you need to mute the radio when talking on the video - huge distraction
This is a great concept for Mooney Information but I can't watch it with ATC constantly talking in the background. Ughh. Tnx Mark a very experienced pilot. Bye
Love the idea but between database subscriptions, SXM subscriptions, and now GDL 60 subscription/connectivity, I’m bogged down in fees…….
The width has more truth than you letting on. Take the measurement around your mid section, shoulders and head. It looks like your head is tilted to the starboard side. Is it, or is it the angle of the video? Love your mooney and the video!
So, what is the oil change trick? Just purchased a 252
In reference to the comment below. I had a Piper Lance, 1976 version and the retractable gear was dependable and required almost no maintenance.
Completely agree with this! We love our E model. Question, what auto pilot are you using?
Love the content!
Thank you for this video. I have not yet started training but have looked at lots of prospects for my mission and a Mooney seems to be it. Family trips that get there fast. Does anyone here have thoughts on doing PPL training in an M20?
I knew a couple people who did their initial training in the short body Mooneys and they liked it. The only issue I have with doing an initial in the Mooney is that it is complex. There's a little more thought and consideration to put into flying a complex. The short body Mooneys also have a manual gear extension lever, "Johnson bar". It took me a few tries to get used to on take off since a lot of motion went into using it, that and making sure that you're flying the plane correctly on upwind instead of making drastic pitch changes or rolling. That along with the airspeed transitions from cruise to landing is a little more of a challenge than most complex planes. The maximum gear out speed is 105 and it cruises at about 135 to 160. It is a pretty slick plane and doesn't like to slow down fast, so forethought and planning have to go into that. The reason that's a little more challenging is that most light twins have a gear speed of around 140 and cruise speeds of 120 to 180, so there's an overlap there which makes it easier to plan. Doing touch and goes in the Mooney is tiring for this reason and you'll be doing a lot of that for your initial. All that being said, the short body Mooney is a solid platform and I don't see an issue with training in one for an initial. Just be prepared to work harder in training vs a 172 or Archer.
I have only ever flown cessna, 172 175 and now a 182tc skylane
I have always wanted to fly a beautiful.❤ mooney. ❤❤
What is the distance from the seating surface to the celling? Sitting I'm 36 tall, so by the time I put on a headset I'm in the roof in every low wing plane I have flown. Even Cessna 172's I can only fly them if the seats have height adjustable seats with the seat in the lowest position.
I've always heard that Mooney's are tight at the shoulders. I didn't realize they are wider than other aircraft.
The older C and E’s are even better for shoulder room with the bottoms of the windows being lower.
I own a F-Model (Mid-Body). It has plenty of legroom in the back. Some Passengers prefer to sit in the back because of the space. But whatever the numbers about cabin width say: It's small. You surely won't have a Bodybuilder as Co-Pilot.
Another very interesting video, thanks for sharing it. I do got one question if you know , Im trying to find out what is the live span airframe hours total maximum of the Mooneys M20 or Mooneys in general. I f you the numbers be great to know.
Dave.
From everything I know, there is no published airframe life limit. Some discussion on the topic here: mooneyspace.com/topic/33064-life-limits/
I don't think this issue comes up very often because so few Mooney's are used as rentals and therefore never become really high time airplanes like a Piper Arrow would. I own a 1968 Mooney with 3500 hours on it. You rarely see them with more than 5k or so. Generally Mooney's get scrapped because of not being used for long periods of time rather than being used too much. I would rate the airframe as being significantly superior to a Piper Arrow and you see lots of them flying around with 10k hours on them. I wouldn't hesitate to fly a 10k Mooney if it's been well maintained.
@@utah20gflyer76 the only high time Mooney that we know of is one that was an Embry Riddle trainer. It was over 10,000 hours.
Of ALL the planes I flew in my career, I'll take a Mooney hands down, all day! I used to compare it to driving a Porsche, and I had seven of those in my life. You either like it, or dislike it. First hour, you think it's a cool, fast airplane. Next two hours, you fight all it's idiosyncrasies and don't enjoy it. Every hour after that, you discover how much you truly love flying it! Hell, a Baron doesn't fly like a 310, and a 402 doesn't fly like a 310 either. My 56TC Baron didn't fly like a B Baron. They are all different and do unique things. Good video of describing all the things non-Mooney drivers will tell you that's wrong with your plane..........
Excellent video. Couldn’t agree more! Love my J!
Make sure the seat does not slide back on take off.
What impressed me, about the original Mooney's, was the teeny, tiny cabin!
You "might" get two smallish adults inside; BUT forget about comfort!
Those back seats were only usable for children or dwarfs!
But, I guess, solo flying may have been fun????
Another great video. Never flown in a Mooney, but I’m sold. How much?
It's not for sale! :) I think I plan on flying this plane until I don't fly anymore. But seriously, I don't know how much they're going for these days. I paid around $48k for this one, which is less than what I sold my C172 for - crazy, isn't it? And it's not like the 172 was much newer - that was a 1971 and this is a 1966 (and this plane came with a 2-axis autopilot and an approach certified GPS, neither of which were in the 172).
@@FrugalMooney Your plane has the older style windows like my 63 M20c. I have a 65 parts plane that has the smaller more square windows.
Nice Tucker Gott shirt :D
the mooney any models are in my experience is top notch
One myth I’ve read is that Mooney has the best retractable landing gear system in terms of maintenance and reliability. Any RG aircraft will require extra maintenance and added costs, but Mooney landing gears are said to require and cost the least.
The Johnson bar Mooney's definitely have the simplest and most cost effective retractable landing gear. The manual system only needs to be lubricated and checked for preload and you are good to go for another year. Combined with the rubber landing gear donuts it's the most cost effective system around. Also very reliable, fun fact I believe it is the only retractable landing gear system that didn't require a backup extension system.
The manual gear Mooneys have linkage that can rust and the loading regulates a special tool to check. Stay atop maintenance and expect to change the rubber pucks every 10-20 years.
How the land of Mooney without floating? Simply get down and put one wheel on the ground and fly along and let everything slow down and you'll land perfect!
I love a Mooney, but those dimensions are not the entire story, not even close. I'm not certain if they measure only the widest point and the remainder of the space is narrower or what, but anyone with their head on straight can sit in a Mooney and then go sit in almost any of the comparison aircraft you mentioned and 100% tell that the Mooney is more cramped.
Either way, I've had a 182, an sr22, and a Cherokee, and I find the Mooney front seating position the best for me. I was in a Baron the other day, and it felt the same width if not less than a mooney.
Hello all....Can my son fit in mooney. He is 6'4" maybe j model he can....? because he has long legs? Any tall mooney pilots can chime in?