Fat Dude (well, maybe not FAT, but bigger than I'd like to be) and a Mooney M20C

labbadabba

labbadabba

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Aug 12, 2014
Messages
2,391
Location
Lawrence, KS
Display Name
Display name:
labbadabba
Airplane window shopping again. Looking at short-body Mooneys because many can be had in the mid-$40k range and seem to be very capable and actually have a higher useful load than I thought. (Many around 950lbs)

The only issue, is I'm not small. Neither is the wife. I'm 6' 240, she's 5'4" 210. We've got two little ones that we can throw in the back. (we'll upgrade when they're teenagers) So with kids and bags and car seats and God know what else, I'm looking at a payload of 650lbs. Which should give me about 4 hours/560nm range plus IFR reserves.

Sounds like a perfect fit for my mission. The only issue is, boy those short-body Mooneys do look tiny.

Any other Mooniacs out there who are above FAA standard have an issue getting themselves and their larger than life spouse in for a ride in a C or E model M20?
 
I got my commercial in a M20C. I'm about 6' tall and I was over 250lbs at the time. It's "snug," but certainly doable. I had no issue getting in and out (though I was like 18 or 19 at the time).
 
If you are looking for a bit more room, you can also look at a Comanche or Older Bonanza. Both are not as efficient, but offer more room side to side. Also you sit more upright in both, which makes getting in and out easier.

If you can find a Comanche 250 with Tip tanks you will get 1200 lbs of useful load which will save you the upgrade cost after the kids are bigger.

Flav
 
If width is a problem, you can stagger the seats, the only way to know for sure is to sit in one. You sit low so you may find getting out is an issue depending on how athletic you are. Its not leg room or head room (at least for front seat), it's width, particularly shoulder width.
 
My C has a useful load of 970 lb. Full fuel is 312 lb, leaving 658 lb. for me, passengers and baggage. Only been close when flying four husky guys, which limited me to 34 gals fuel (good for almost 4 hours; we flew 1-1/2, so not a problem). Full fuel will take me 5:30; my longest leg to date was 4:40, and I landed with 12 gals or 1:15 in the tanks. That was plenty long enough. At 148 KTAS, that takes me a long way, or a normal distance into stiff headwinds.

In the last nine years, I've seen steady groundspeeds in level cruise ranging from 68-186 knots. Did I say crazy headwinds?? But sometimes you just gotta go home. At least I was faster than the cars on the ground, but at 10,000 msl just southeast of Knoxville, there is no ground traffic! My wife did comment at that time, "glad we aren't in a Cessna!"

Good luck with your search. Ignore most of what you hear about Mooneys from those who don't have much (or any!) time in them. My C is a versatile plane, comfortable at 2000' grass strips and 12,000 commercial fields. I was based the first seven years at a 3000' long paved field with trees at both ends. And it's a great IFR platform, which I used for Instrument training. Flew from WV to WY on vacation and back VFR, too. The Mooney will do an awful lot, if you get good transition training from a knowledgable Mooney instructor.
 
Last edited:
I've never actually measured a cabin to see how close they are, but I've always perceived the short body Mooneys to have a similar cabin size to a Cherokee. Can you fit into one of those?

The one difference between the Cherokee and the Mooney cabin is the tunnel for the nosewheel to retract. It comes up in the center, under the instrument panel, and provides more of a divide between the left and right seat areas than you have in the Cherokee. Another thing to think about is if the manual landing gear would work out for you and your wife, there might not be enough room between you to swing the bar. In a case like that you might want to stick to the newer electric gear models.
 
Hank S said:
In the last nine years, I've seen steady airspeeds in level cruise ranging from 68-186 knots. Did I say crazy headwinds?? But sometimes you just gotta go home. At least I was faster than the cars on the ground, but at 10,000 msl just southeast of Knoxville, there is no ground traffic! My wife did comment at that time, "glad we aren't in a Cessna!"
Click to expand...

That sounds more like groundspeed, not airspeed?
 
The mooney is a great airplane ,flying long country flights. Build more for long legged pilots as opposed to stout or wide pilots.
 
Mooney cabins are 43" wide, bigger than Cherokees and Bonanzas. But you domain close to the floor with your feet out in front. "Sports car" seating position, not SUV style.

Electric gear was an option beginning in the mid-60s, and became standard on all models in 1969.

Remember what I said about Mooney myths from those with no time in them?
 
mondtster said:
That sounds more like groundspeed, not airspeed?
Click to expand...

Oops, you're right. Better go fix that . . . I consistently get 147-149 KTAS at 8000-10,000 msl. Haven't cruised above 11,000 yet, and did a slow familiarization step-climb to 15,000 msl one August; later did the math and that was 18,800 DA. Not bad for 180 hp with a carburetor!
 
Hello,

Do what I did! Go on https://mooneyspace.com/ and create an account and a profile. Post your question there and someone will probably offer you a ride. The people there are amazing and they love Mooney's it's VERY habit forming. I'm really starting to love Mooney's too.
 
Hank S said:
Oops, you're right. Better go fix that . . . I consistently get 147-149 KTAS at 8000-10,000 msl. Haven't cruised above 11,000 yet, and did a slow familiarization step-climb to 15,000 msl one August; later did the math and that was 18,800 DA. Not bad for 180 hp with a carburetor!
Click to expand...

Is there built in oxygen in the C
 
FloridaPilot said:
Is there built in oxygen in the C
Click to expand...

No, that's only in the turbo models. The instructor brought a bottle, hoses, etc. We flew a long racetrack pattern going up, and practiced emergency descents coming back down. Pretty fun seeing 2500 fpm descent at normal cruise speed.
 
Look at Comanches before you pull the trigger. I am 6'3', 205. Didn't like rubbing shoulders in the Mooneys, and my head hit the ceiling in the Bo's. Comanche has room to spare. Great planes, too. I have a 260B. Fly predominantly in the Southwest (lots of tall rocks). Non-turbo, no problem. I have built-in O2. Good luck.
 
Flavius Renatus said:
If you are looking for a bit more room, you can also look at a Comanche.
Click to expand...

ActiveAir said:
Look at Comanches before you pull the trigger.
Click to expand...

I think Comanches have the sexiest wing in GA and many 250s can be had in the $50k range. That said, one of the things I REALLY like about the C/E model Mooneys is that they are stone simple. Pushrod controls, manual flaps and gear, etc. The Comanche as far as I understand can be a complicated machine to maintain with lots of extra parts that can break. Plus a much more expensive motor up front. My yearly flying budget is about $13,000 so I'm concerned about a potential money pit.

I'll try and get a seat in a Mooney but if it's too cramped at the shoulder for both my wife and me, the Comanche or a 182 will be the next thing I look at.
 
mondtster said:
Another thing to think about is if the manual landing gear would work out for you and your wife.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes, that is a good point. Was planning on having my 4 y/o manage the gear handle just to give her something unimportant to do.
 
Hank S said:
Mooney cabins are 43" wide, bigger than Cherokees and Bonanzas. But you domain close to the floor with your feet out in front. "Sports car" seating position, not SUV style.
Click to expand...

I fly a DA40 and a C162 quite a bit which is similar I think to what you're describing. You sit low with your legs forward
 
labbadabba said:
I think Comanches have the sexiest wing in GA and many 250s can be had in the $50k range. That said, one of the things I REALLY like about the C/E model Mooneys is that they are stone simple. Pushrod controls, manual flaps and gear, etc. The Comanche as far as I understand can be a complicated machine to maintain with lots of extra parts that can break. Plus a much more expensive motor up front. My yearly flying budget is about $13,000 so I'm concerned about a potential money pit.

I'll try and get a seat in a Mooney but if it's too cramped at the shoulder for both my wife and me, the Comanche or a 182 will be the next thing I look at.
Click to expand...

If you want room, the only (well, maybe "best") solution is a Twin Bonanza. They can be had in the $50-75k range. Basically a flying motorhome.
 
bradg33 said:
If you want room, the only (well, maybe "best") solution is a Twin Bonanza. They can be had in the $50-75k range. Basically a flying motorhome.
Click to expand...

Sort of blows a hole in my $13,000 flying budget pretty quick.
 
He's not maintaining and flying a twin bonanza for 13k a year. Not a realistic suggestion.
 
labbadabba said:
Sort of blows a hole in my $13,000 flying budget pretty quick.
Click to expand...

You can own an older Mooney for that a year assuming the engine doesn't quite on you and it's in good shape.

I'd consider the F model over the C. The acquisition costs are not that much different but the F is stretched and has much more usable room in the back. The F is still just a 200hp O-360. As cheap and easy to maintain as any engine.

If you find them too narrow, then Bonanzas and Cherokees will be too narrow as well. That leaves you with a 182 or Comanche space wise. A Comanche might be pushing it on 13k a year because it is more expensive to maintain and it burns a lot more gas than the Mooney but a 182 should be doable at that amount.
 
Bonchie said:
You can own an older Mooney for that a year assuming the engine doesn't quite on you and it's in good shape.

I'd consider the F model over the C. The acquisition costs are not that much different but the F is stretched and has much more usable room in the back. The F is still just a 200hp O-360. As cheap and easy to maintain as any engine.

If you find them too narrow, then Bonanzas and Cherokees will be too narrow as well. That leaves you with a 182 or Comanche space wise. A Comanche might be pushing it on 13k a year because it is more expensive to maintain and it burns a lot more gas than the Mooney but a 182 should be doable at that amount.
Click to expand...

$13k/year is a reasonably healthy budget, though perhaps a little less so if that has to include note payments. Even on a Bonanza or a Comanche, that should provide a lot of money left for gas. Of course, there's quite a bit of "luck" that goes into this whole adventure, as it doesn't take much to blow through a bunch of maintenance dollars and sometimes you just can't predict that, even with the best preventive maintenance. Here's what a budget probably looks like on a $50k Bonanza or Comanche:

Insurance: $1500/yr (assuming a reasonable amount of experience)
Annual: $1500/yr (inspection only, no squawks)
Routine Maintenance: $2500/yr (whether done at or between annuals)
Database updates: $400/yr
Hangar rental: $3000/yr ($250/mo)
Total Fixed Costs: $8900/yr

That leaves roughly $4100/yr for fuel. At 14 gallons per hour, and lets say $5 gallon (that's $70/hr in fuel), plus $20/hr for engine and prop reserves ($90/hr total), that leaves money for 45 hours of flying per year. A Mooney isn't going to be substantially cheaper (roughly $15/hr cheaper, resulting in money for an extra 10 hours per year, though 10-15kts slower, so that shrinks the gap if many flights are cross-country).
 
bradg33 said:
$13k/year is a reasonably healthy budget, though perhaps a little less so if that has to include note payments. Even on a Bonanza or a Comanche, that should provide a lot of money left for gas. Of course, there's quite a bit of "luck" that goes into this whole adventure, as it doesn't take much to blow through a bunch of maintenance dollars and sometimes you just can't predict that, even with the best preventive maintenance. Here's what a budget probably looks like on a $50k Bonanza or Comanche:

Insurance: $1500/yr (assuming a reasonable amount of experience)
Annual: $1500/yr (inspection only, no squawks)
Routine Maintenance: $2500/yr (whether done at or between annuals)
Database updates: $400/yr
Hangar rental: $3000/yr ($250/mo)
Total Fixed Costs: $8900/yr

That leaves roughly $4100/yr for fuel. At 14 gallons per hour, and lets say $5 gallon (that's $70/hr in fuel), plus $20/hr for engine and prop reserves ($90/hr total), that leaves money for 45 hours of flying per year. A Mooney isn't going to be substantially cheaper (roughly $15/hr cheaper, resulting in money for an extra 10 hours per year, though 10-15kts slower, so that shrinks the gap if many flights are cross-country).
Click to expand...

All things equal, the Mooney will be cheaper to maintain than the 6 cylinder Bonanzas and Comanches, so that's another cost savings over just the lower fuel burn. 0-360 Lycoming and dead simple gear system in the C and F models.

All things to think about.

If he can afford a Comanche, then buy one. They are excellent planes that do so many things well.
 
Last edited:
Not to steal the OP post but if you were to compare the Comanche 250 and the Mooney M20C would it just come down to fuel economy and size? Never been in a Comanche I should check it out....I have a LOT of planes to get into. (I love it) :)
 
Bonchie said:
All things equal, the Mooney will be cheaper to maintain than the 6 cylinder Bonanzas and Comanches, so that's another cost savings over just the lower fuel burn. 0-360 Lycoming and dead simple gear system in the C and F models.

All things to think about.

If he can afford a Comanche, then buy one. They are excellent planes that do so many things well.
Click to expand...

The Mooney "might" be cheaper. So much of it's the particular airframe you get. When I was involved in a flying club, our 172 and 177 cost a good deal more to maintain than our Debonair. There's certainly a little more maintenance "risk" with a Bonanza/Comanche, but I don't think it's fair to unequivocally say they WILL cost more to maintain.
 
Bonchie said:
I'd consider the F model over the C. The acquisition costs are not that much different but the F is stretched and has much more usable room in the back. The F is still just a 200hp O-360. As cheap and easy to maintain as any engine.
Click to expand...

Since the long bodies are heavier but with the same O-360, I would suspect they have a reduced useful load compared to the short bodies, yes?
 
These threads entertain me. I think they all turn into a sales pitch from owners of various aircraft types about why their plane would be best for the OP, followed by defending their preferred marque when the next person suggests something different might be the best fit.

Having owned an M20C for several years and also having owned a Bonanza for several years, I think the average costs per year to own and operate the two was nearly identical. Insurance on the Mooney was about 1.5 times what the Bonanza was, hangar costs the same, annual inspection and maintenance costs pretty much the same. The Mooney burned a little less gas, but I had to run 100LL in that where I could run Mogas in the Bonanza. I preferred the more upright seating position of the Bonanza over the Mooney but neither was a major problem.

I really don't think there is an appreciable difference in operating and maintenance costs with most of the non-deice, non-pressurized complex singles. Pick which one you like and fits your budget.

So far it looks like the Bonanza, Comanche, and Mooney have been mentioned, but there are more. How about one of the following?

Comanche 180
Arrow 1
Cardinal RG
172RG
Beech Sierra

I can't think of any other common 4 cylinder complex airplanes off the top of my head, but I've probably missed a couple. There are more that are higher on the food chain that I don't think would cost too much more to own and might be a bit faster, but that might be outside of the scope of what the OP desires in an airplane.
 
mondtster said:
Comanche 180
Arrow 1
Cardinal RG
172RG
Beech Sierra
Click to expand...

What has really intrigued me about the C/D/E model M20's is their low acquisition cost compared to the capability of the airplane. The long body Mooneys seem to have made the short bodies less desirable and thus seem to have suppressed the market on them. The planes you've mentioned I love, particularly the C177. But finding one in the same range where I'm seeing the short M20s is tricky. I've looked at 172RGs, they come with the Cessna premium (I think Cessna trainers all tend to be over-priced due to their popularity as a trainer) and most have 10,000 TTAF as a trainer. Also really love the Sierras but C24s are quite a bit slower, but definitely roomy. They are on my list if the M20 is too uncomfortable.

I guess going back to my question is whether or not two largish people can sit comfortably in a short M20? That plane seems to fit my mission more than any other plane in my price range.
 
labbadabba said:
What has really intrigued me about the C/D/E model M20's is their low acquisition cost compared to the capability of the airplane. The long body Mooneys seem to have made the short bodies less desirable and thus seem to have suppressed the market on them. The planes you've mentioned I love, particularly the C177. But finding one in the same range where I'm seeing the short M20s is tricky. I've looked at 172RGs, they come with the Cessna premium (I think Cessna trainers all tend to be over-priced due to their popularity as a trainer) and most have 10,000 TTAF as a trainer. Also really love the Sierras but C24s are quite a bit slower, but definitely roomy. They are on my list if the M20 is too uncomfortable.

I guess going back to my question is whether or not two largish people can sit comfortably in a short M20? That plane seems to fit my mission more than any other plane in my price range.
Click to expand...

a) "comfort" is relative. You will be shoulder-to-shoulder, for sure. Anyone in the back will be shoulder-to-shoulder with limited leg room. At 6' tall, the back of your seat will be very close to the front of the seat behind you.

b) there are no "cheap" airplanes. Having shopped for a Mooney, as you may be finding, many (though not all) of the inexpensive M20s are some combination of poorly equipped, poorly maintained or with sellers who refuse to participate in the sales process (sending logs, etc.). Of course, the same can be said for pretty much any make/model, but in my experience it's particularly prevalent with the M20Cs, etc. Leaky fuel tanks and expensive gear pucks are things to watch out for. As mondster pointed out, any airplane in this class (4 seat, non-pressurized retract) is going to cost roughly the same to own and operate. You'll have cheap years and expensive years with all of them, but they'll likely average out in the same ballpark.
 
A buddy has a 180 Comanche that has an added turbo. I've only flown it a couple times, but it flys really nice. For a budget get somewhere faster than PA28/C172 speeds, I would be all over one.

He does most of his own maintenance and has a good A&P sign off. We were talking about gear stuff a couple months ago and he was showing me some of the parts he's replaced recently at annual on the gear. Seems like that gear can be a pain, but if you can swap out parts yourself its a pretty cheap way to go.

Good luck in your search.
 
ChemGuy said:
He does most of his own maintenance and has a good A&P sign off.
Click to expand...

IMHO, this is the key to "affordable" aircraft ownership, way more so than picking a "cheap to operate" make/model. Maybe not doing "all" of your own maintenance, but owner-assisted wherever possible. There are so many relatively easy, but labor-intensive, tasks that an owner can perform and save maintenance dollars. For a semi-handy (or willing to learn), finding a reasonably priced A&P that's open to owner-maintenance is the equivalent of hitting the lottery. On my partnership plane, we take everything apart before the annual (interior out, inspection covers off, cowls off, etc.), our A&P does the inspection, and we put it all back together. Same with other repairs whenever possible (we diagnose, disassemble, in some cases replace the part, he inspects, and we re-assemble). We also source almost all of our own parts. Paying a shop to do all of that gets outrageously expensive and is, among other things, what can make ownership prohibitively expensive for some.
 
You can minimize the shoulder to shoulder feel by staggering the seat positions.
 
ChemGuy said:
A buddy has a 180 Comanche that has an added turbo. I've only flown it a couple times, but it flys really nice. For a budget get somewhere faster than PA28/C172 speeds, I would be all over one.

He does most of his own maintenance and has a good A&P sign off. We were talking about gear stuff a couple months ago and he was showing me some of the parts he's replaced recently at annual on the gear. Seems like that gear can be a pain, but if you can swap out parts yourself its a pretty cheap way to go.

Good luck in your search.
Click to expand...

I'd love a 250/260 Comanche with a Turbo...
 
labbadabba said:
Since the long bodies are heavier but with the same O-360, I would suspect they have a reduced useful load compared to the short bodies, yes?
Click to expand...

No, no, no!,

M20-C & D use the venerable, stone-simple O-360. 180 hp, carbureted.
M20-E through J use the Lycoming IO-360. 200 hp, a few more pounds, fuel injected. Many competing theories on how to make a consistent hot start.

M20-A through E = short body
M20-F through K = mid body (added 6" back seat leg room and 6" baggage space)
M20-L through V = long body (additional length for 6-cylinder engine, more sliding room for front seats, more baggage space).

Everything through the J should cruise around 9-10 gph; the IO planes can run LOP at slightly reduced speed (150-155 knots) on less than 9 gph.

Annuals range around $1200-1500 +/- 500 up through J, plus whatever needs to be repaired / replaced, plus your wish list of things to do. With a couple hundred hours in type and Instrument rating, insurance is easy to get in the $1000 ballpark; mine is well below that.
 

Attachments

  • 20161028_101340.jpg
    20161028_101340.jpg
    185.1 KB · Views: 27
I have a c model. Two decent size guys can get sit in the plane but you will want to offset the seats. Otherwise you are rubbing shoulders. I recommend an F model if you plan to carry larger kids later but for me and the wife, the C is perfect. I hate to argue with hank, but I thought the F gave 5 inches in front of the firewall and 5 inches of rear passenger leg room. You may want to consider ingress/egress. my wife always says there's no lady like way to get out of the plane. Lol.
 
Last edited:
Mooney's L-V is my primary focus. It is snug when you get in the Ovation but it's not uncomfortable. Can't wait to see how it flies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top