All these Mooney discussions...

BrianR

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Aug 31, 2011
Messages
413
Location
Upstate NY
Display Name

Display name:
BrianR
...led me to follow up on something I heard a while back: a somewhat-local guy has a 1977 Mooney 201, pretty well-equipped, with a new GTN 650, autopilot, Garmin 696, HSI, engine analyzer, available for rental. Although he calls it a "club", the plane is actually owned by the FBO, which he also owns. He limits users to a total of 10, and charges $75 per month plus $135 per tach hour wet.

I'm not sure, never having really looked at rental rates for complex airplanes (since there aren't any others in my area, to my knowledge), but that strikes me as pretty reasonable. I am paying the same hourly rate (per Hobbs hour) at my club for the 182.

If I flew it 10 hours per month, it brings the hourly rate to $142.50.

I have found myself doing more cross-country than local flying, so the extra speed would be nice. I fully intend to start work on my instrument rating any day now, so it looks like a nice instrument platform (as is the 182). I usually fly alone, or with one passenger, so I think I'd be fine with the weight.

I have never flown, nor even sat in, a Mooney. I am not tiny, though I'd hardly call myself huge (5'11", 210 lbs). From what I've read, I should fit in this plane just fine.

I intend to contact the guy and go look at the airplane. But in the meantime, what do folks think about this? Good deal? Run of the mill? At first glance, it seems like not a bad way to have access to a nice, fast airplane. While I'd love to buy a plane, it's just not in the cards for a few more years.
 
Depends on the condition of the plane and how many hours you spread that monthly across, but $135hr for a nice 201 is a good price wet.
 
Personally, I would rather fly a ratty 201 over a cherry 182 any day. So if it's a nice 201, the decision would be an easy one for me.
 
but $135hr for a nice 201 is a good price wet.

I was thinking same. A local club has a decent 182 for $110 wet as a comparison. But at the 201's speeds and "fuel mileage", $135/hr wet would be attractive.

Consider the worst case fuel consumption (12gph?) and do the math with the fuel costs local to you to get a dry rate. If that was at DTO, you're renting that 201 for about $60-65 dry.

If the rest of the due diligence about joining this clan checks out, then this might be a pretty nice deal for the OP.
 
Last edited:
It's a good deal, but expect a pretty long checkout. You will have to demonstrate Airspeed Discipline before the FBO will rent it to you. Mooneys are UNFORGIVING of touching any part to the ground above 75 mph. 182s, OTOH, are tolerant of 60-80 mph.

You may not like what you are told after your first session.
 
...led me to follow up on something I heard a while back: a somewhat-local guy has a 1977 Mooney 201, pretty well-equipped, with a new GTN 650, autopilot, Garmin 696, HSI, engine analyzer, available for rental. Although he calls it a "club", the plane is actually owned by the FBO, which he also owns. He limits users to a total of 10, and charges $75 per month plus $135 per tach hour wet.

I'm not sure, never having really looked at rental rates for complex airplanes (since there aren't any others in my area, to my knowledge), but that strikes me as pretty reasonable. I am paying the same hourly rate (per Hobbs hour) at my club for the 182.

If I flew it 10 hours per month, it brings the hourly rate to $142.50.

I have found myself doing more cross-country than local flying, so the extra speed would be nice. I fully intend to start work on my instrument rating any day now, so it looks like a nice instrument platform (as is the 182). I usually fly alone, or with one passenger, so I think I'd be fine with the weight.

I have never flown, nor even sat in, a Mooney. I am not tiny, though I'd hardly call myself huge (5'11", 210 lbs). From what I've read, I should fit in this plane just fine.

I intend to contact the guy and go look at the airplane. But in the meantime, what do folks think about this? Good deal? Run of the mill? At first glance, it seems like not a bad way to have access to a nice, fast airplane. While I'd love to buy a plane, it's just not in the cards for a few more years.

Brian - I have owned my 1975 M20F for 21 years and just love it. I am 6'3" and have weighed over 200 lbs. the whole time. The Mooney will fit you like a glove (in a good way). I have a fair amount of time in Cessnas and as Bruce pointed out they are fairly forgiving on landing speeds. There are 2 rules I land by in my Mooney. Nail 80 mph on final and you will be landing with the best of them. The other is that if you are too fast and try to land it, you will porpoise and if you don't do a go around after the second one, you will wheel burrow the prop.

The price quoted for the rental is reasonable. Just make sure there aren't any hidden costs and that the plane is maintained correctly.
 
I put about 100 hours on an M20F that I loved. It's a great XC machine, and that price seems reasonable. I'd go for it.
 
That's a really good deal for a 201, I pay more per month in dues and only slightly less per hour to fly the M20J that I've got. The one I fly has a few speed mods and I have seen 170kt in level flight at full power and ground speeds over 200kt before. Most of my flight experience is in C-152s and the Mooney was ALOT of airplane to get checked out in, but I found the challenge in operating this speed machine to be very rewarding as a pilot. :yes:
 
That's a great deal... The fact that the hourly wet rate is tach vs Hobbs makes it even more so. Absolutely loved flying the 201s we had in our club. Enjoy!
 
Another one to add to the chorus - That's a good deal. Not super-duper-great-stupendous (which might be suspicious!), but good enough that I'd take it.

You'll fit in the Mooney just fine, and you'll love the speed and efficiency. Enjoy!
 
Another one to add to the chorus - That's a good deal. Not super-duper-great-stupendous (which might be suspicious!), but good enough that I'd take it.

You'll fit in the Mooney just fine, and you'll love the speed and efficiency. Enjoy!

David would fit in a Mooney Mite. :D
 
It's a good deal, but expect a pretty long checkout. You will have to demonstrate Airspeed Discipline before the FBO will rent it to you. Mooneys are UNFORGIVING of touching any part to the ground above 75 mph. 182s, OTOH, are tolerant of 60-80 mph.

Talked to the guy, he said insurance will require 10 hours, with my lack of any retract time. I was hoping for a bit less, but I'm going to do it -- as long as the plane isn't a POS, which I doubt is the case. Can always start work on the instrument rating if I master the Mooney in 5!

And yeah, the 182 will tolerate a fair amount of inattention...as long as you don't get too slow in the flare and drop it on the nosewheel...which I've managed to avoid so far!
 
And yeah, the 182 will tolerate a fair amount of inattention...as long as you don't get too slow in the flare and drop it on the nosewheel...which I've managed to avoid so far!

I'm a little worried about this comment, as I've seen it a couple of times now from you and it's not really accurate for the 182, IMHO.

It's actually pretty hard to do any dropping on the nosewheel when you're too slow with a real flare going on (assuming the hamfisted pilot did flare at all), what really happens is that configuration usually results with a "solid" three point "arrival".

To drop on the nosewheel you'd have to stall the elevator, and it's really hard to do that. You'd have to be all the way forward with the CG, and violent about it.

If you talk to the folks who've bent firewalls, it's almost always a porpoise or pilot-induced-oscillation in pitch, that tags the nosewheel hard enough to break things. They're essentially flying the nosewheel into the runway with speed and lots of energy. They're not too slow.

If you have that yoke back and try to make the mains touch first, as all us nose-dragger pilots should, and that yoke is back in your lap, if you're too slow in a 182, you'll "arrive" hard, all at once, and that's usually not going to be a nosegear and firewall busting event. At least some of the shock will be eaten up by simultaneously abusing all three wheels and the airframe. Flare ten feet in the air and drop on like that, with the yoke full back, sure... you'll break all sorts of stuff. Heh. No argument there. Should have shoved in the power sooner.

But, for relatively normal flare heights, arriving too FAST is usually what triggers the pitch oscillations from a PIO in a 182, as tehy try to flare without flying ("ballooning") back up. Often caused by people trying to land them at 172 speeds which are FASTER, which surprises a lot of new 182 pilots when they transition. (Vso is lower on the 182. That's a big wing with big flaps.)

Over the fence at 65 is almost too fast. That's okay if you're slowing, but a solid 65 is going to be a long flare that'll take some finesse to bleed the speed off, and a lot of float. Let her slow up a bit. Just be ready for the speed decrease to increase drag and sink rate.

Too slow, if you're really flying it, you can arrest the high sink rate that develops from the speed reduction with a judicious blast of power from that lovely 230 HP beast hanging there on the engine mounts in front of you, if you have to.

Too fast, if it bounces, same thing, but it's a go-around... don't let it become a porpoise by pushing the elevator forward. Once it's back, keep it back. Don't screw around and try to fix a bounced landing on anything other than a runway where you can chew up at least an extra 1000' or more setting it back down.

And what you're really doing is adding lots of power to transition to full-flap level slow flight and then flaring and reducing power for a normal mains-first landing, when you "rescue" a bounced landing in the 182. It takes a lot of time and disaptance.

It's best to ingrain the technique to just fly away and come around and do it again at first. Save the heroics for a day when you've got a mile of runway left and you make a conscious decision to "re-land" after powering up and flying again, even if its just enough power to hold level flight with the flaps hanging out.

I disagree that it's "too slow" that gets you into nosegear trouble in a 182. It's "no flare" and often "too fast" with a PIO that breaks things. More energy, more destructive power.

Too slow, if you flare at the right time or even a couple of feet high, just get the darn yoke back in your lap and keep it there and it'll "plant" on all three gear simultaneously. Not nice on the nose strut, but it'll survive.

One caveat... If the nose strut isn't properly serviced and is weak, it'll compress too fast and bottom out on the upstroke and that will jar you and the strut mount pretty good. You'll hear a huge clunk at the bottom and cringe. Usually such a bad nose strut will give plenty of warning and be doing that under the weight of the engine during taxi-out ling before you need to launch or land on it. Turn around and take the airplane back to the shop if its bottoming out taxiing and get it serviced. Flight's over. :)

You've probably done the "fly a foot off the runway the length of the runway" practice technique with your CFI. Talk with them about setting up a 70 knot over the fence speed or even 75 with full flap and attempting a landing out of it (be on a hair trigger to go around) on a really long runway, and see how long it takes, and how touchy in pitch the airplane is at the round out and flare. It'll want to go back up, bad. Don't let it.

Tiny pulls of elevator flying a couple of feet above the runway and don't let it land, until the speed bleeds down... just don't let it land... If you keep pulling on the elevator and refusing to let it touch down, the nose will keep rising to try to block your view of true remaining runway) and the mains will eventually touch down. Don't relax the elevator at touch down either. Common mistake. You're not done flying yet. (That'll slam the nosegear down, and give the strut a workout.) When the mains touch, keep coming back until you run out of elevator. Just keep playing that mental "don't let the nosegear land" game.

Being too slow in the 182 is fixable. Being too fast will almost always lead to PIO for newer 182 pilots. That PIO gets out of hand, it'll be what really crunches the firewall via the nosegear.
 
Nate,

I don't doubt the accuracy of what you write. And lord knows, it took you far longer to write it than it did to make my one-line rather flip comment. :D

I have just under 100 hours in the 182. I do love the airplane. And I've found it to be quite forgiving; it wasn't until I had probably 20 hours in it that I discovered how much of a difference coming over the threshold at 60-65 kts made in my ability to consistently land gracefully, versus the 70 or so I had been using. And, I've found that landing with a bit of power, as well as trimming properly, helps assure the correct attitude.

However, if it's incorrect that the frequent nosegear/firewall damage seen in 182s is related to getting too slow, it's a common belief. I admit I am simply repeating what I've heard from other pilots, as I've been fortunate enough not to experience it myself (knocking on wood).

The one I fly has that damage history. I've talked to the guy who did it. He said it resulted from getting too slow, stalling a few feet above the runway, and it dropped straight onto the nosegear. Now, maybe his recollection differs from reality. But the guy is a very experienced CFI/DPE, so I took it as factual.

A quick Google search reveals discussions about nosewheel landings both as a result of being too slow, and from landing too flat, and bouncing, as you describe. I suspect all the factors may have a role in the problem.

In any event, thanks for taking the time for the insightful analysis!
 
I think the altitude over the runway makes a lot of the difference. When the airplane slows down for the flare, it also starts to settle. If you are higher, the nose-down rotation can win. If you're close, it won't. When I did my 10-hour retract pennance in Arrow, I managed to get it slow in the flare and the nose went down. I told my CFI that I was afraid that I came close to wheelbarrowing it, if did not actually. He said it wasn't even close, and that I would need to start flaring way higher than normal to have the time for nose rotate far enough, but I should hit airspeeds more accurately all the same (and so I did later). All this can be different in 182, of course, but it's the principle of not flaring too early.
 
My 182 time pales in comparison to you guys at about 11hrs or so, so take with a grain of salt.

I flew the 182N and the POH gives a final approach of 70-80MPH. I use the lower number. I enjoy the challenge of holding a precise number on landing. The 182 I found more difficult than the 172, but I was still able to keep it within a few MPH above target. My math tells me that 70MPH = 60.8kts, so that's right where I land the 172 also.

I was cautioned that the reason for bent firewalls in the 182 is due to pilots pushing forward when the 182 floats due to....excessive speed.

I think airplanes fly nicer when they're flown on the wing in ground effect and not coasting in fast or on power. You can feel what it doing better.
 
Trim to desired configuration and attitude on the descent, with speed adjusted to actual weight using the formula. Desired speed can easily be 6-8 knots slower when lightly loaded. Learning to " wait for it" is a bit more difficult in the 180-series until you realize it's almost always going to take longer than you think. A wee smidgen of power during flare can help with touchdowns in 180-series planes.

.
My 182 time pales in comparison to you guys at about 11hrs or so, so take with a grain of salt.

I flew the 182N and the POH gives a final approach of 70-80MPH. I use the lower number. I enjoy the challenge of holding a precise number on landing. The 182 I found more difficult than the 172, but I was still able to keep it within a few MPH above target. My math tells me that 70MPH = 60.8kts, so that's right where I land the 172 also.

I was cautioned that the reason for bent firewalls in the 182 is due to pilots pushing forward when the 182 floats due to....excessive speed.

I think airplanes fly nicer when they're flown on the wing in ground effect and not coasting in fast or on power. You can feel what it doing better.
 
Mooneys look cooler than Cessna 182s. Of course we know that is the most important criteria when choosing what airplane to fly. :)
 
Well a Mooney wouldn't be my first choice for off-airport landings either. It's my first choice for everything else though. :lol:
 
I have long-since concluded that airplanes are like dogs. If you like one with a pink nose just buy it and take it home. Nobody else really cares so long as it doesn't pee on their leg.
 
...led me to follow up on something I heard a while back: a somewhat-local guy has a 1977 Mooney 201, pretty well-equipped, with a new GTN 650, autopilot, Garmin 696, HSI, engine analyzer, available for rental. Although he calls it a "club", the plane is actually owned by the FBO, which he also owns. He limits users to a total of 10, and charges $75 per month plus $135 per tach hour wet.

I'm not sure, never having really looked at rental rates for complex airplanes (since there aren't any others in my area, to my knowledge), but that strikes me as pretty reasonable. I am paying the same hourly rate (per Hobbs hour) at my club for the 182.

If I flew it 10 hours per month, it brings the hourly rate to $142.50.

I have found myself doing more cross-country than local flying, so the extra speed would be nice. I fully intend to start work on my instrument rating any day now, so it looks like a nice instrument platform (as is the 182). I usually fly alone, or with one passenger, so I think I'd be fine with the weight.

I have never flown, nor even sat in, a Mooney. I am not tiny, though I'd hardly call myself huge (5'11", 210 lbs). From what I've read, I should fit in this plane just fine.

I intend to contact the guy and go look at the airplane. But in the meantime, what do folks think about this? Good deal? Run of the mill? At first glance, it seems like not a bad way to have access to a nice, fast airplane. While I'd love to buy a plane, it's just not in the cards for a few more years.

We're exactly the same size and I flew a Mooney for 12 years and never felt cramped. Great flying machines. Excellent IFR platform.
 
Trim to desired configuration and attitude on the descent, with speed adjusted to actual weight using the formula. Desired speed can easily be 6-8 knots slower when lightly loaded. Learning to " wait for it" is a bit more difficult in the 180-series until you realize it's almost always going to take longer than you think. A wee smidgen of power during flare can help with touchdowns in 180-series planes.

Heh. Yep. A wee smidge. My bad habit at first was to add too much when I was light, and it wouldn't land. Heavy, you might need more or you'll arrive heavily. ;)

Agreed with the comment about height of flare too. I said if you're ten feet up and keep flaring and flaring it'll eventually do something really bad. Most folks seem to get in trouble after they get the flare down where it should be when they start getting cocky and thinking they can fix bad airspeed control down in the flare. They pull, balloon, push, and whack the nosegear down first and bend stuff.

What the smidge of power does is make that yoke a little lighter feeling. A little airflow over the elevator makes a big difference if you think the 182 feels "heavy". It's better to get the thing trimmed first which will also have a similar effect because you're not pulling all the way down final. If you get it right, it's easy to fly down final with no pressure at all and a bit of power and just simultaneously flare and close throttle smoothly and it's done flying. Especially at Flaps 40. Loads of drag. ;)

With 40 flaps if you have a model year that has that ability, you can often be at full up elevator trim, power off, with a fairly steep approach angle. Timing that type of flare is critical, if you're going to play in that realm.

Most folks today teach to drag the 182 in with some power to flatten out that steep angle and descent rate at first, which is fine. Many folks never go beyond that, since it meets the (incorrect IMHO) definition of some people of "stabilized" approaches that came over from jets. You're plenty stabilized coming down like a rock steeply with no power at all, if that was your intent and it's trimmed and you're just sitting there watching the runway get bigger in the window.)

Eventually, most folks shoukd at least practice the steeper approaches with a quick hand on the throttle, in order to clear large obstacles and stop VERY short, later on. The 182 will do nifty things. It does take practice though.

I bet things get seriously entertaining in the 180 doing steep approaches with conventional gear. That's be busy but very satisfying if you got consistently good at it! Wayne's the expert on that. I'd probably put the darn thing in the ditch. A man's got to know his limitations, and my feet aren't as hooked to my brain as I would like. ;)
 
Back
Top