Been researching M20 recently, mostly out of curiosity, and have some questions.

Which model was the last one with Johnson bar gear?

From my reading it sounds like the pre F models had such small rear seats that they weren't really useful. Is this true?

The F model was stretched so its rear seat had more leg room but it still had the O360; how is performance?

No Mogas STC for the Mooney? Looked on Petersons site and they don't have one for the Mooney.

I've had an 87 Mooney M20J (201) since '91.

The Mooney is a solid, trust worthy, efficient airplane. Up until a pilot tried to penetrate a level five thunderstorm near Bakersfield about 15 years ago, there had never been an inflight breakup. There remains no cure for stupid - unfortunately

Running LOP, my Mooney does 160 - 162 knots burning less than 9 gph. Walls to the ball in smooth air it will do 165. With 900 lbs useful, it won't haul full fuel, 4 people and baggage. But, it will fill the seats and still has good range with partial fuel.

In the go fast race, Mooney put bigger engines on. Some feel those are nose heavy. They do wear out the front shock disk sooner than the O and IO-360 birds. For awhile, and when my ship was made, they used the IO-360-A3B6D (the D standing for the notoriously crappy Bendix dual mag, although the B-3000 version that came on my ship was just marginally crappy. I re-engined and have individual mags now - Lycoming never should have used the single "dual mag".

If you choose a Mooney, be aware that even though "Piper Painter" successfully flies his Mooney in the back country, this is more a testament to his flying skill than it is an endorsement for the Mooney's suitability for this type of flying. The Mooney has limited prop clearance (maybe 9 or 10 inches) and a rut or soft spot can easily result in a prop strike. The Mooneys wet wings, at least in the opinion of some, are not suited for the jarring and bumps of rough field use, and this may result in fuel weeps and leaks, especially in older Mooneys that have not had an expensive/difficult tank reseal.

For an efficient and fast traveling machine, the Mooney is hard t beat. For back country play, consider something with a high wing and a tailwheel.

bumper

The only way I'd seriously consider a Mooney is if I gave up on selling the Luscombe and decided to get a traveling plane. I'd still have the Luscombe for playing in the dirt. My wife wants something fast that can fit our 2 kids and luggage for a weekend. I've seen some nice looking 20Cs and Es but like I said most of what I read indicates that I need an F to fit anyone it the back seat. An F seems to have a big price jump.

Several years ago I owned and enjoyed a C model. It was fun, fast and reasonably efficient for cross country travel. My son and I sat up front and my wife took the back seat. She's about 95 lbs. and 5' 2" so she was comfortable back there. It looked rather tight to me so I used it like a two seater.

I bought the Mooney because my 7ECA champ was too slow for the travel I had to do at the time, and my family never liked the Champ -but you could always count on them to fill the seats in the Mooney. I sold the Champ (easily) and that was a mistake because I liked it better than the Mooney for pure fun. Eventually I sold the Mooney too.

The Mooney is fun to fly in the way you fly Mooney's. Just know a Mooney can hurt you if you think it's just a faster two-seater.

whee wrote:The only way I'd seriously consider a Mooney is if I gave up and selling the Luscombe and decided to get a traveling plane. I'd still have the Luscombe for playing in the dirt. My wife wants something fast that can fit our 2 kids and luggage for a weekend. I've seen some nice looking 20Cs and Es but like I said most of what I read indicates that I need an F to fit anyone it the back seat. An F seems to have a big price jump.

It just depends Whee on who you put in the back seat and who's in the front seat. I've got about a 29" inseam and prefer being fairly close to the pedals. I've had 4 folks in my '67 C model. It's MUCH better than cramming the same folks in a Porsche for instance. If you are a long legged guy then no, your seat back will be up against the back seats. No room for legs. But if you scootch up you can get somebody reasonably sized back there. The C and E models have more useful load in most cases than a similarly equipped early 182. Amazing eh?

As far as manual gear I'm not sure when the cross-over was final but the electric hear became an option after Mooney was taken over by Republic Steel in '68. More important though is that you just don't want one of those later model C, E, or F's anyway. When Republic took over the badge they immediately made changes that you won't like. For instance, the underside of the wing in the '68+ models is not flush riveted until you get to the J model in 1974. That's the 201. Most Mooney nuts consider the '66 and '67 to be the best wing and over all speed. I don't know why the '65 doesn't fit in there but it's probably a transition year. The wing is fine. '63 and '64 models have a different shape to the rear windows, a different panel arrangement, a crank up passenger step rather than the pneumatically operated one in later models. The differences are subtle and over-all don't amount to a hill of beans from '63 right through '67. I wouldn't consider one after that unless it was a J model and up.

Nearly once bought a '66 E - given European avgas prices I am surprised they are not more popular over here.

The rear seat in an E, C or Mark 21 is only suitable for one petite adult, sitting sideways.

You don't want your maintenance shop learning on them - while robust, well built, you need to have a shop that knows them.

I do like the '64 Mark 21 with the smaller rear window, but if looking for a family cruiser my inclination would be a 205, Six or 182. Useful load, simple systems and space are a real advantage.

I'll add more later. But I am 5'7.5" and I have had people that are 6'2" sit behind me on a flight 1-2 hours and they had plenty of leg room. I also wasn't all the way up, I was a couple holes back on the rail. I have also had people that are tall sit up front and they are often less comfortable up front than they are in the back. So saying they don't have room in the back is only goingto be true if you slide the seats all the way to the back because your a giant. Otherwise the back seats are actually really comfortable. I like it more than my front seat! I have flown many times with 4 people in the plane and they never complained about the space. I love the fact that I can haul 1000lbs of fuel/stuff on 180Hp and have a nice speed/fuel flow to go along with it. The 65 is a great model and I love my easy to maintain gear system. I dont have to worry about a motor failing on me....unless I break my arm. Also the airplane is different than others, but if you fly it enough you can do amazing stuff with it. It just doesn't have the wing clearance like high wings! If you have questions I have a bit of information since I currently own a C and regularly fly it all over the damn place, as you should know!

I agree with Bryan. I'm 6' 3" and I'm actually more comfortable in the back of his Mooney than in the front. When I ride in the front my knees get in the way of the yoke. I usually slide the seat all the way back after takeoff so I'm more comfortable, as long as no one is in the back. Then before landing I'll slide forward to lock it in the aft most holes again.

My next airplane is going to be a '66 E model. I joined MAPA and am starting the search. Pound for pound, one of the nicest traveling airplanes out there.

I have a fair amount of hours in E's and F's, and never had issues with room, comfort, or load carrying capabilities.

Gump

I was an Angel Flight pilot when I owned a Mooney. The patients sometimes had a hard time getting up on the wing and crawling into the plane, but on the other hand they couldn't believe how fast I could get them to the MSP area. If I wanted another retractable it would definitely be a Mooney.

I'm unlikely to ever trade off my Cessna P172D, but it's really poky compared to any of the Mooneys. I have a fair amount of time in a C model--enough that I can smoothly operate the gear --and about 150 hours in a K model (231). If I wanted a fast traveling machine, a Mooney would be high on my list, for sure.

The only time I have landed a Mooney on a rough strip was on a ranch strip near Walsenberg, CO, to drop off the owner's wife. Landing and taking off was easy, but I worried about striking the prop while taxiing. The Mooney is fairly close coupled, so that it bobbles a lot on rough ground.

Mooneys really demand good speed control. The typical error which leads to crow-hopping and prop strikes is coming in too fast and trying to force it down. Come in slow enough, and it's an easy airplane to land. I routinely took both the C and the 231 into Lee Schloredt's strip near Sundance, WY, which was 2100' x 20' at 5000' elevation.

Cary

Sounds like is need to look inside one and make my own decision. I'm 6'1" but have short legs, usually makes legroom not an issue but headroom is.

Like I said earlier, mostly curiosity at this point.

I'm 6-2 and legroom wasn't too much of an issue but they're a little tight shoulder to shoulder. I got a tour of the Mooney factory, they were really cool people and it's an impressive wing. The cage around the cabin is impressive too, no door means lots of protection around the pilot. They were building an ovation painted like a bengal when I was there, really cool looking plane.

I've got about 100 hours in a 65 C model. I took it to Oshkosh last year and with two of us with the rear and baggage loaded to the brim, it didn't miss a beat! The Positive Control that Mooney's have takes some getting used to, but you grow to love it. It's a rock solid IFR platform also. I always planned for 150 knots @ 9gph, and that was with a tired engine of around 2200 SOH. I really liked the simpleness/robustness of the manual gear and flaps....well the flaps are pumped down but still somewhat manual. The only reason why I don't have one is what you said earlier...there's no autogas STC for it. If I remember correctly, it had to do with fuel pump and vapor lock issues.

bumper wrote: I re-engined and have individual mags now - Lycoming never should have used the single "dual mag".

Bumper- curious what engine you used to replace that single mag set-up?

My Mooney could back up its performance with a good look sitting on the ramp too.

This was published just today on Air Facts Journal:

http://airfactsjournal.com/2014/03/what ... ilots-lot/


I've flown the newer ones, both Acclaim and Ovations, and thoroughly enjoyed my time in them. Great airplane. Lots of prop strikes though, learn not to do that...

Nosedragger wrote:I'm 6-2 and legroom wasn't too much of an issue but they're a little tight shoulder to shoulder. .

Wider at the shoulder than a Bonanza.

jmd4j wrote:The Positive Control that Mooney's have takes some getting used to, but you grow to love it. .

So get a rubber band to mash the thumb button on the yoke when in the pattern. ByBy positive control.

I've hit my head in turbulence in a Mooney and I've hit it likewise in a Cessna. The Mooney is smoother above the headliner. It doesn't hurt as much.

Clay wrote:This was published just today on Air Facts Journal:

http://airfactsjournal.com/2014/03/what ... ilots-lot/


I've flown the newer ones, both Acclaim and Ovations, and thoroughly enjoyed my time in them. Great airplane. Lots of prop strikes though, learn not to do that...

The article writer's observations about the manual gear, prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he's never flown one or for that matter ever even talked to anyone who has. The manual gear is so easy to operate that even women and children can do it.