Cessna 182RG/Mooney 201J

FlyingTiger

FlyingTiger

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
424
Location
Northeast PA
Display Name
Display name:
FlyingTiger
I've had it in my mind that a 201J was the plane for me. Despite having 4 kids, a six seater just didn't make sense for the rare occasion when the whole family would fly. I liked the speed (important to me), fuel burn and acquisition cost, wasn't thrilled about the cabin space/layout or load capability. Figured it was only a matter of time before purchasing one however a buddy of mine recently pointed out that 182RG would be a great alternative. Sure enough, it's as fast as a 201J with better room and load capability and cheaper/easier maintenance. Negatives, more fuel burn and a little more in acquisition cost (I think?). Right now the RG seems like a no brainer over a 201J because I think you recoup the fuel cost with the reduced maintenance costs. Am I missing something? Who out there has flown both aircraft or at least the 182RG? Some of the blanks I need to fill in is IFR stability and general handling characteristics plus any other important operating factors I may be unaware of?

Thanks in advance and please, lets not make this a Mooney-Cessna war, the 201J is a great aircraft, just think the 182RG might be better for me.
 
Last edited:
A 182RG is not as fast as a Mooney 201. You're at least 20kts off of each other. 145 vs. 165... on a good day.

I am a former Cessna driver who had his heart set on a 201, and bought a Piper. I LOVE Mooneys and like Cessnas. The guy that sold me my Lance was a former Mooney 201 owner. He said it best: "You have smaller kids. I had smaller kids. Kids grow. When my kids grew, they didn't fit into the Mooney anymore, and I ran into weight issues. You'll be there in 5 years. Save yourself the grief and buy the Lance now." He was right. The only reason I bought my Lance was because with the LoPresti cowl it went as fast as a Mooney... and I wanted the speed. It is a nice plane... I love it.

A Mooney is a Corvette of the skies. A Lance/Saratoga is an SUV of the skies. A 182 is a Camry of the skies. If this is going to be anything more than a X-C machine for no more than 2 or 3 people, the Mooney is your choice. If you're going to tote around another kid or two, go with the 182RG. But, having that extra space is nice if you do take the family along. My wife was instantly sold when she saw the Lance. You're not shoulder-to-shoulder with each other. There is room!

Mooney's would be more expensive to maintain generally speaking than a Cessna... but I had been warned by my mechanic and several other Cessna owners that Cessna gears are notoriously mx pigs. The Mooney gear wafers are not cheap to replace, either. Piper gears are as reasonable as a retractable gear gets.
 
You'll need to buy a 182RG and convert it to 300HP to approach the speeds of the Mooney 201. Then you have to burn 17-18 gallons an hour to do so. I was in a regular 235HP one the other day. We were lucky to make 145 knots.

Personally, I wouldn't worry about the speed. Do you need the extra room or not? If you do, then don't get the Mooney. An extra 20-25 knots isn't going to make you happy if you can't fit what you need.

I'm not sure you'd save much of anything on maintenance. They are both four place retracts and we've all heard bad things about the Cessna gear. It'll probably come down to how lucky you get with squawks coming up.

To me, the difference between 9-10 GPH vs. burning 14-15 in a 182 (and even more if it's a conversion to higher HP) will add up very quickly and has to be taken into account.

Also, why not a 250/260 Comanche if you want room and speed? I've only flown one once, but it was as roomy as the 182, decently fast (160 knots or so), carried a load, and it's a low wing if you prefer them.
 
Last edited:
Let me ask you this as well. What have you been flying? Are you used to Cessnas?

I can't stand the Mt. Everest level panel height in a 182, both in the air and on the ground. I also don't like the high wing or head-above-window angle when trying to spot traffic.

Those are personal preferences, but they are important. Same for the Mooney. Do you like sitting on your butt with your legs stretched out? I personally didn't like it that much (although it wouldn't be a deal breaker).
 
Last edited:
Is getting there more comfortably worth more than getting there a little faster?
 
Since I started flying again, most time is in an Arrow III, 2nd most time in a 172M. A little over 300 total, commercial rating.

In regard to speed comparisons, despite published cruise speeds of 170kts, I have read from multiple sources that the Mooney 201J is at best a 160kt airplane and most usually fly in the mid 150s. Based on the comments above, sounds like the published cruise speeds of 156kt for the RG are inflated as well. :rolleyes2:

Speed is an important factor for me, otherwise I would just stick with renting the Arrow and it's 135kt cruise. Load capability is not as important but it would nice to be able to carry 4 adults from time-to-time and I would be willing to pay a little more for gas to get that.
 
Last edited:
I have flown in 3 different J model mooneys, I have at least 20 hours in each and maybe 100 total hours in the J.

A really nice J, with a prop that is in spec and no loose or cracked fairings, perfectly rigged will just make 160 knots on about 9gph. We had one that was like this, the other two were older and 6-7 knots slower. They had worn and chipped paint, props leading edge was worn and rough, the cowling and fairings didnt fit perfectly.. all that stuff adds up.

My understanding is that a perfectly rigged, clean 182RG will cruise in the low 150's.
 
FlyingTiger said:
Speed is an important factor for me, otherwise I would just stick with renting the Arrow and it's 135kt cruise. Load capability is not as important but it would nice to be able to carry 4 adults from time-to-time and I would be willing to pay a little more for gas to get that.
Click to expand...

If it's that important to you, I wouldn't take the chance with a 182RG. I think you aren't going to see that much faster speeds then the Arrow. Maybe 10 knots? And at 145 knots in an 182RG you are probably burning upwards of 14GPH while the Mooney is going to do around 155-160 knots on 9GPH (burn more and it'll go a little faster). That adds up, both in hourly fuel burn, and burning less fuel overall because you get their faster.

Again, why not look at a Comanche? Speed of a 201, room of a 182. High payload as well + 90 gallon tanks I believe. Good planes.

You've got time in a 172 but mostly fly an Arrow. Do you like high wings? Would an even higher panel height bother you? Just all depends. It bothered me but everyone is different.
 
Last edited:
I would prefer the comfort in the 182 rg as opposed to the added speed,ease of entry in the Cessna seems to be easier for us old guys.
 
The Censsna will be better than the Mooney in every way... except when flying. Getting in and out, loading stuff, access to knowledgeable mechanics, camping under the wing, landing in the back country, all favor the 182. But once in the air, the Mooney wins.

For me it's about the flying... so I own a Mooney.
 
I fly a 182RG non-turbo. I have never flown in a M20J so I can't give a comparison. But I do have an opinion.

The 182RG.

Speed: I don't know where people are getting the 145kt figure. That is very wrong. I consistently get 152kts TAS. When the temperature is right and my destination allows me to cruise between 5-8, I can get 155 or so. Pretty decent pace.

Loading:
Full fuel will take you as far as any 4 people can handle sitting in a 4 seat airplane. That is about 5.5 hours until you run out of gas. 600 miles, 4 people, no problem. Full Fuel Payload is 797 pounds in the 182RG I fly... That is a normal sized family and bags, no problem. More than 600 miles it is faster and cheaper to just fly commercial. 600 miles is a long way.

Loading:
Doors on both sides, CG is nearly impossible to screw up. To put the 182RG out of its CG range, you have to be making a serious effort. The backseat is very easy to get into and I constantly get "wow there is a lot of room back here" from passengers. The front sits high, kind of like a suburban.

Ground Handling: Very easy to maneuver, as long as you remembered to put the gear down before landing. If you forget to put the gear down, taxiing is really difficult.
On landing, breaking needs to be VERY light. The tires on the RG are very small and are very susceptible to tire skidding. The plane can be stopped with light breaking in less than 1200 feet even with a full load, so unless you are flying the plane wrong, this shouldn't be an issue.

Handling: In flight, the plane handles incredibly well. Stalls are gentle and landings are easy. A lot of high performance planes have a difficult time getting slow. Not an issue with this plane. The gear and the first set of flaps can go down at 140 knots. Being able to put them down at 140 lets you fly faster, further. Going into Los Angeles airports, I can keep my speed up to almost keep up with jet traffic. Gear down when established and i can hold 135 knots until the FAF. Throw in the first set of flaps and the plane slows down quickly, and easily controlled. Cooling is also easy because of this. Once its time to descend, you just slowly pull the throttle out until you are on the runway. No need to add power at any point during descent regardless of gear and flap position.

IFR:
Full payload climb to 10k just about any day keeping 500fpm. Most days, all the way up to 12k. Have to love that.

Very stable platform. RG I fly has a GTN750 in it, no autopilot. Plane is very capable and is extremely stable. I don't even feel the urge to want an autopilot. ILS/LPV approaches to minimums aren't an issue. Configuration changes can be made very gentle and controlling the plane in IMC is as easy as staying on pavement going down a 3 lane freeway.

For a family pusher, the 182RG is a pretty great airplane.

You said you have 4 kids though. The 182RG only has 4 seats ~ that would mean you would have to pick your favorite two (or 3 and leave the wife)
 
ahkahn said:
A Mooney is a Corvette of the skies. A 182 is a Camry of the skies.
Click to expand...

Not quite. If you're going to choose cars as an analogy perhaps choose two four seaters and also choose two that have a maximum speed within 10-15% of each other. :lol:

Both are a fine choice. I'd get the 182 personally because I'm somewhat claustrophobic. Everyone is different. Get the one that works for YOU.
 
I find my Mooney easier to load than a Cessna. The lift over the doorsill is high, because it's at the roof; Cessna baggage doors are at the floor, making it difficult to stack to the ceiling through the baggage door. When I travel, the towbar slides down between bags and the canopy cover goes on top to hold everything in place.

My M20C will keep up with most 182s, on 9 gph. A J model will fly in the mid-150s if lean of leak, faster if rich. May Js have useful loads of 900-1000 lbs, and carry 64 gallons of fuel. If lean of peak, 9-10 gph will last a long time; Rich should be 12-13 gph, also a long time. Either will let you trade fuel for pax / baggage and still have good range. My C model has 670 lbs with full fuel,which will last 5-1/2 hours; I've made two flights > 4-1/2 and landed with 11-12 gallons each time, almost 90 minutes' duration.

Now that the factory is running again, the gear springs are available at reasonable prices (for an airplane part). They rarely need replacing. I've heard horror stories about Cessna and Comanche gear problems--hydraulics, transmissions, lots of stuff; Mooneys have none of that, just one electric motor, one green light and one mechanical indicator that is actually painted in the mechanism so it can't be wrong.

Whatever you buy, test fit the family first. You probably won't be able to test-load it with heavy suitcases and shopping bags, though. Enjoy the hunt!
 
Wow!

I don't know where you guys are getting your figures for the 182.
Are you sure you aren't giving Tiger numbers for a welded leg job?

I used to regularly fly a 1978 R182 and was always truing between 154 and 156 on just under 12 gph at 10,000' [[ ROP ]]

Never flew a Mooney, so can't make that comparison, also not sure of the comparison on MX --- but remember, the R182 flys with Cessna retractable gear (like on the Cutlass, Cardinal, and Centurion.) Low MX costs aren't one of its strong points.
 
I have quite a few hours in the 182RG as a renter, and as much as I like the space, comfort and carrying capacity of the 182RG, I'll not be buying one. I typically see about 145 KTS in the rental fleet. But mostly the repair cost/complexity of the gear system keeps me from considering owning one. My current plan is to find a nice 201 for now and then upgrade to something with a turbo and known ice later(unless I manage to find something affordable this time).

I'm sure you've seen this, but this seems to be a decent M20J review: http://www.mooneypilots.com/mapalog/M20J Evaluation/M20J_evaluation_report.html
 
Last edited:
I had a 182, it wasn't right for me.
I rented a 300hp r182 and loved it, but they lost the leaseback on it.
I have a share in a Mooney 231 and it works great for me, I plan 190kts up high and with just two of us full fuel and bags aren't a concern, but might not be right for you.
It all depends on your mission
 
According to cospilot.com 182 RG goes 154 burning 13.1 at 8000' 75% power
J POH 171 burning 10.8 at 8000' 75% power.
In the end, you have to decide what's your priorities...
 
I remember an old engine builder quotation: Horsepower sells engines; torque wins motor races.

TAS is a nice number for comparing and bragging, but the real question is whether one airplane or another will save you a fuel stop on your usual trips. Even if the Mooney is no faster than the R182 or a 'toga, its considerably smaller fuel burn will probably reduce the number of fuel stops versus the others.

If you normally stop for breaks at, say, four hours then this is less of a consideration.

Re M20J, R182, and Saratoga I have flown all three plus have a bunch of Cherokee Six time. For creature comfort and carrying stuff, nothing beats the PA-32s. I once watched a guy load a twin bed mattress and box spring into one and there are stories of PA-32s carrying pianos. Front seat comfort is fantastic. Despite many years driving sports cars and formula racers, I feel cramped in the Mooney. When I pull the throttle to idle it ends up on top of my kneeboard. Getting in and out is a hassle. The 182s are kind of a middle ground. Easy to get into because of the double doors, more crowded in the front seats than the PA-32s but nothing like the Mooney.

Life's a tradeoff.
 
airdale said:
there are stories of PA-32s carrying pianos.
Click to expand...
More than stories. Piper touted it in their advertising.

PA-32-301_piano.jpg
 
FlyingTiger said:
Since I started flying again, most time is in an Arrow III, 2nd most time in a 172M. A little over 300 total, commercial rating.

In regard to speed comparisons, despite published cruise speeds of 170kts, I have read from multiple sources that the Mooney 201J is at best a 160kt airplane and most usually fly in the mid 150s. Based on the comments above, sounds like the published cruise speeds of 156kt for the RG are inflated as well. :rolleyes2:

Speed is an important factor for me, otherwise I would just stick with renting the Arrow and it's 135kt cruise. Load capability is not as important but it would nice to be able to carry 4 adults from time-to-time and I would be willing to pay a little more for gas to get that.
Click to expand...


Think a mooney would be more inline with a C210 or bigger engined PA24.

Between the Mooney and a RG 182, I'd go Mooney all day long, I'd also take a peek at a PA24-250 or larger, comfy and great bang for the buck on this type of mission
 
Last edited:
James331 said:
Think a mooney would be more inline with a C210 or bigger engined PA24.

Between the Mooney and a RG 182, I'd go Mooney all day long, I'd also take a peek at a PA24-250 or larger, comfy and great bang for the buck on this type of mission
Click to expand...

I would go mooney too but not for him with kids.
What about a debonair? Nice one for sale I the classifieds?
Don't get me wrong, I love my Mooney but it's not right for everyone.
 
Last edited:
If economy of operation is not a primary consideration, a six banger option of any kind will be a more useful long term purchase for a mission set whose sortie legs will effectively (due to fuel range, pax endurance/comfort, or a combination of both) never exceed 500NM.

That said, there are more economic choices that fulfill the 182RG XC performance envelope on an apples to apples basis. The Comanche 250 or above is the most glaring of those examples. An N/P35 Bonanza or a 33 Deb is another. The 182 however, will offer more ingress/egress ease and pax sightseeing value than any of these three IMO.

One could even go for even more inefficiency and get into a PA-32R or welded 32 and haul all that volume around at Arrow speeds and 15gph (or 182rg speeds for the 32R), if comfort is more important than economy. One thing remains clear to me: Head to head, neither the 20J nor the 182RG are going to make one lick of difference in getting you 600NM or less with any time difference of consequence, even accounting for some of the more wildly optimistic outlier speed/fuel claims made on here. It all comes down to which can you honestly tolerate sitting in for the amount of time you'll be flying at a time. For me personally, ALL the options I've mentioned will be superior to the Mooney on the comfort-over-economy metric, which is why I purchased an Arrow instead of a 20F. Figure out which one is most pressing value metric and go from there. You'll have to pay an opportunity cost either way, no getting around that. Good luck.
 
neither choices will haul four real adults and "luggage"....possibly 4 adults and one overnight bag....but, ain't no way they're bringing much.
 
If you don't like sitting low with legs slightly bent (Corvette position), you won't like a Mooney. But it's funny, tall people tend to like it because there is plenty of leg room, seating position not withstanding. The J has the room, with full tanks, you are only going to have around 600lbs for passengers and luggage. Getting out isn't that bad unless you have bad knees, again it's like standing up from a foot stool.
 
I sat in the back seat of a J model for an hour once and it was miserable. And I'm 5'9" tall.

I guess I'd have to get a tape measure to prove it, but I feel like my Archer has more legroom in the back.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
I sat in the back seat of a J model for an hour once and it was miserable. And I'm 5'9" tall.

I guess I'd have to get a tape measure to prove it, but I feel like my Archer has more legroom in the back.
Click to expand...

I find that very hard to impossible to believe in a mid body Mooney unless the front seater didn't move the seats forward at all.
 
Like I said, I'd have to get a tape measure out to prove it, and maybe I'm incorrect. Maybe they're close to the same, maybe the front seat guy did have his seat jammed back, IDK.

The J is kind of like a sports car, the RG more of an SUV. The OP said he'd occasionally like to haul 4 adults. I'm not entirely sure what the useful load is with full fuel for the Mooney, but I know it's significantly less than the RG and that 4 adults and full fuel might not be possible.

Anyways I really don't have a lot of experience with either, maybe flyingcheesehead will chime in as he has flown both extensively(though I'm not sure what model his Mooney is).
 
If you're regularly getting 145 in the 182RG you need to fly at better altitudes or get something looked at. We rarely true that low in ours at it's NA. I have true'd as high as 167 (level) but 150-155 is typical. And 14-15 gph? Try 11-12.
 
150 on 13 for a 182rg is what I've heard. No way you get that on 11, when a comanche 250 (a cleaner airframe and sleeker wing) does it on 12. This is mid weights and 2-bladed props of course, you throw a 3 blade and gross weight and all these numbers go to drag hell quick.
 
hindsight2020 said:
150 on 13 for a 182rg is what I've heard. No way you get that on 11, when a comanche 250 (a cleaner airframe and sleeker wing) does it on 12. This is mid weights and 2-bladed props of course, you throw a 3 blade and gross weight and all these numbers go to drag hell quick.
Click to expand...


There is a lot of error in people's claims (instrument, bad memory or wishful thinking). That's why I posted numbers from the POH or a unbiased source. But know matter what, if fuel efficiency and speed is top priority, get a Mooney.
 
Thanks for all the input. Some good food for thought…….

A few of you have mentioned the comanches as a good alternative and to be honest, up to know I have dismissed that aircraft out of hand because you can't get one that isn't at least 43 years old. Maybe I should search for the threads about buying an older aircraft and reevaluate that :idea:
 
Keep in mind some of that extra useful load isn't so useful as the Cessna needs 40% more gas to go the same distance.

I've flown 1000 hours in. My J and it trues at 150kts on 9.2gph. In economy configuration or slow to 182rg speed of 140kts and it only needs 7.2gph.

So you probably can run with 34 gallons 1/2 fuel and go just as far as the 182 fully fueled.

The J also has about 960lb useful load for the older ones such as a 77 that have the 2,740 max gross weight. The newer ones 82' (I think) and newer are 2,900lbs gross. The planes interiors got heavier but they never changed anything on the plane except airspeed indicator is one knot higher stall speed and a small weight I the tail. So can a person fly with another 140lbs over gross on a 77'j? Not legally. Just throwing that out there. Cause if someone were to use that extra capacity it would mean a useful load of 1,160lbs. There is a clear reason why the factory never went back and updated the older "Js" with the gross weight increase.....they wouldn't have sold new ones.
 
Aaronk25 said:
Keep in mind some of that extra useful load isn't so useful as the Cessna needs 40% more gas to go the same distance.

I've flown 1000 hours in. My J and it trues at 150kts on 9.2gph. In economy configuration or slow to 182rg speed of 140kts and it only needs 7.2gph.

So you probably can run with 34 gallons 1/2 fuel and go just as far as the 182 fully fueled.

The J also has about 960lb useful load for the older ones such as a 77 that have the 2,740 max gross weight. The newer ones 82' (I think) and newer are 2,900lbs gross. The planes interiors got heavier but they never changed anything on the plane except airspeed indicator is one knot higher stall speed and a small weight I the tail. So can a person fly with another 140lbs over gross on a 77'j? Not legally. Just throwing that out there. Cause if someone were to use that extra capacity it would mean a useful load of 1,160lbs. There is a clear reason why the factory never went back and updated the older "Js" with the gross weight increase.....they wouldn't have sold new ones.
Click to expand...

This is bugging the heck out of me:mad: The 182RG trues out at 152 knots+ ALL DAY on 13GPH. Saying it only gets 140 is dumb. There are a lot of welded leg 182's that get only 140.

The mooney is going to go roughly the same speed, using 4 GPH less, with 200 pounds less of payload. That means it will probably cost about $20-$25 a hour more in fuel alone. If an extra 200 pounds of payload 600 vs 800 is worth 20 dollars more a hour to you, then the 182RG is a better plane. If you can get by with only 600 pounds of full fuel payload, because you don't need to carry full fuel or 4 people, then get the mooney.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
I sat in the back seat of a J model for an hour once and it was miserable. And I'm 5'9" tall.

I guess I'd have to get a tape measure to prove it, but I feel like my Archer has more legroom in the back.
Click to expand...

Was it a J model? My c model is lacking in backseat leg room.
 
teejayevans said:
There is a lot of error in people's claims (instrument, bad memory or wishful thinking). That's why I posted numbers from the POH or a unbiased source. But know matter what, if fuel efficiency and speed is top priority, get a Mooney.
Click to expand...

Since we keep referencing different numbers on the 182:

140knots is at (essentially) engine idle; unless you are talking about a 182R instead of an R182 ---- one has welded wheels, and the other (Tiger's reference) has folding wheels.
I share Golfpilot's frustration
 

Attachments

  • R182 Performance.pdf
    63.2 KB · Views: 27
Last edited:
The C82R matches my mission requirements perfectly. So, in my very biased opinion it's the best thing since sliced bread; "Best in Class". I can verify the higher speeds posted - I get book.

In the ten years of ownership I've NOT had a single gear squawk.
 

Attachments

  • DSCF1692.JPG
    DSCF1692.JPG
    470.4 KB · Views: 47
TheGolfPilot said:
This is bugging the heck out of me:mad: The 182RG trues out at 152 knots+ ALL DAY on 13GPH. Saying it only gets 140 is dumb. There are a lot of welded leg 182's that get only 140.

The mooney is going to go roughly the same speed, using 4 GPH less, with 200 pounds less of payload. That means it will probably cost about $20-$25 a hour more in fuel alone. If an extra 200 pounds of payload 600 vs 800 is worth 20 dollars more a hour to you, then the 182RG is a better plane. If you can get by with only 600 pounds of full fuel payload, because you don't need to carry full fuel or 4 people, then get the mooney.
Click to expand...

My M20C is tight in the back seat, but I have sat there myself for an hour and it's doable, I'm 5'10". And if the pilot isn't over 6' then the seat get's pulled forward and gives enough room. But I always felt that since the back seaters are riding for free, they shouldn't expect too much. Or the other way to look at it is for the 5% of the time I have 4 adults, I don't want to pay the performance penalty to haul around the extra leg room.

I get 150kts true on 8gph. And with full tanks, 52gal useable, I have 703lbs of payload. So you've got 97lbs of useful load and 2 kts at the cost of 5 gph, against my Mooney. But you do have the back seat leg room.

But like I said, I just don't fill the seats often enough to justify the extra cost and performance hit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top