Grumman Tiger Vs Mooney M20C or E

Which plane should I choose

  • Total voters
    76
B

Ben Anderson

Pre-Flight
Joined
Apr 16, 2020
Messages
60
Display Name
Display name:
gringopilot
So I've been hunting for a plane for months now and I'm down to these. My mental debate right now is operating costs. The vintage Mooney M20 C or E with the manual johnson bar gear and constant speed prop...how much more do these factors add in maintenance costs versus a fixed gear Grumman Tiger without the cs prop?

Also, any insights into the M20C and E differences. Both planes I found have mid time engines, both have the manual gear, both seem well cared for. The E the local avionics guy told me it is an excellently maintained plane. It looked meticulously beautiful. Great paint. The only downside is the guy wants a fair bit for it and the panel has a 430 WAAS (nothing newer) and is a shotgun panel - not standard 6 pack...the owner doesn't fly IFR hardly at all and I plan to quite a bit - owner suggested I add a G5 if it's an issue. The M20C has slightly older paint job, but a superior panel. It has the Garmin Audio 345, Garmin GPS 355 WAAS and a standard 6 pack - ADS B IN/OUT. Both of these are priced exactly the same. The E model has fuel bladders, the C model was stripped and sealed in 2011. I am also concerned about the differences between the O 360 and the IO 360. I've heard the fuel injected you get better GPH, but that it is more expensive to overhaul and can hit overhaul sooner, whereas the bulletproof O 360 can often go past TBO and cost less to overhaul. What price difference for the overhauls? The E sounds like it gets about 155 knots versus 140/145 knots on the C but I really don't care that much about that sort of difference.

I did find a Grumman for mid 40s but EVERYTHING is outdated. Low engine hours (400) not flown much last few years but it's like original radios, VORS, everything. I'm thinking $20k probably to upgrade to a GPS WAAS and get an indicator and ADS B out/in transponder.
Any insights appreciated. I'm looking mostly to time build but can pay cash for the plane though ongoing costs are my biggest concern long term. My wife also really doesn't like turbulence and the Tigers seem "tinny?", small? The Mooneys just look like they'd be able to handle rough weather better they look like real planes. Don't be offended Tiger owners they just always look like thin metal or cheap to me. Though I do like to save money and they sound cheap to maintain.

Thanks everyone, getting close, getting excited, already have a hangar lined up!
-Ben
 
Tough choice. I don’t mean between Mooney and Grumman, that’s easy. I mean between C and E. Sounds like u like the panel in the C, go for that one. OR go for the E. Definitely either the C or E. Of course you could always go F or J. But definitely either the C, E, F or J. Glad I could help ;)
 
eman1200 said:
Tough choice. I don’t mean between Mooney and Grumman, that’s easy. I mean between C and E. Sounds like u like the panel in the C, go for that one. OR go for the E. Definitely either the C or E. Of course you could always go F or J. But definitely either the C, E, F or J. Glad I could help ;)
Click to expand...
Lol, I know I'm torn myself. The E looks like it was extremely well cared for. The panel looks clean, I just really hate not having standard 6 packs and like GTN650...I mean the 430W is 20 years old and these guys think the plane is up to date...I'm a millenial (barely) give me a break, I like my digital tools.
 
The wing loading on the M20C and M20E are both listed as 15.4 lb/sq.ft while the wing loading on the Grumman is listed as 15.9 (for comparison a Cessna 310 has a wing loading of 30.7). Not sure how accurate those numbers are, but that's what my search turned up, I'm sure someone else here can confirm. Higher wing loading is usually attributed to a better ride in turbulence.
 
You're looking at a pretty broad range. Personally, I'd determine the aircraft type I wanted, then search for the right example.

Other than "flying IFR" what is the real mission of the airplane? Local flights with the pilot and one passenger? Gonna take the kids along? Do you need to carry the kitchen sink?

Personally, if a Grumman fit my mission, I'd go that way. Probably a newer aircraft and certainly lower maintenance than CS/Retract types.
 
“Well cared for” is extremely important, at least to me. If u have the cash and don’t mind the downtime u can redo the panel the way u want it. E’s are 4 cylinder beasts. Either one have autopilot?
 
I would generally say Tiger in this comparison, but I probably wouldn’t say *this* Tiger in this comparison. Sounds like too much work. Having just been through it, budget $20k to get to an IFR and navigator as long as it’s one of the GNX series. $30k if you want to replace you #2 Comm and get a G5 and/or do GTN series.
 
I bought a Tiger three years ago. My reasoning was different. I wasn’t even a Student Pilot when I bought. I wanted to train in equipment that I would keep 5+ years. CS prop and retractable gear was an insurance and training cost I did not want. I have been very happy with my Tiger. I added ADSB in and out and electronic ignition. I’m fast but not ahead of my abilities. Your mileage may vary but I have easily cash flowed reg MX and such. I doubt I’ll ever sell my Tiger. It has become a member of the family: LOL! Would I
Iike 20kts faster, of course.

I agree with an earlier post. Decide. Then look at every plane that fits your decision. I think I bought the best Tiger available at the time. But I had already decided a Tiger was my plane. If I had multiple planes, that would be an impossible decision.
 
The two choices being a Tiger and a M20 seem odd to me. They're quite dissimilar in performance and mission capabilities.

And jeez, I just became one of those people that contributes nothing meaningful to the discussion. Sorry.
 
I own a Tiger. I love Mooneys. I'd get the Comanche, if it is a 250 or up. The UL and capability of that machine is off the charts.

I'd personally get a Tiger over an M20C any day. A well set up Tiger is just as fast as an M20C (like within a knot or two), usually has a better UL and is much more comfortable. They are also better to fly than literally anything (I also own a Bonanza).

Now, the M20E is definitely going to be faster, but the UL is going to stink and it is also not as comfortable.

The Comanche 250/260 will give you M20J speed with BE33 comfort and a great UL. You'll burn slightly more gas, but who cares?

3393RP said:
The two choices being a Tiger and a M20 seem odd to me. They're quite dissimilar in performance and mission capabilities.

And jeez, I just became one of those people that contributes nothing meaningful to the discussion. Sorry.
Click to expand...

The Tiger and M20 have much more in common than you think, and the Tiger's performance capability is not unlike the M20C. The E is a different story.

I mean, the M20C and Tiger hold within a gallon of each other, burn the same gas and go the same speed. The Tiger lifts better and is more comfortable. The M20E only does better for range because it is faster...by 10-15 knots.

Oh, and there are lots of ways to make a Tiger as fast or almost as fast as an M20E.
 
N1120A said:
The Comanche 250/260 will give you M20J speed with BE33 comfort and a great UL. You'll burn slightly more gas, but who cares?
.
Click to expand...

Extra 3 gallons per hour, that’s about $12/hour. All for an extra 100lbs of useful load (pre 1988 version, they increase
UL around 1987).
Extra cylinders, extra maintenance as well.


Tom
 
M20C has more useful load than a tiger, not less. Mine has 1003. Has a better climb rate also.
 
OP, do u have any time in any of the listed planes?

Question....is the tiger body the same size as the other Grumman’s, traveler etc...?
 
The C model will be easier to hot start than the E, and it’s a simpler system, so likely to have less issues, but not guaranteed. The constant speed prop will pay for itself in the end, unless it needs the 100 hour eddy current inspection. That’s not a huge deal, but it is a hassle and a regular expense. If the plane has the B hub already, then no need to worry. A Mooney with Johnson bar gear and hydraulic flaps is about as easy to maintain as they come. You will have to swing the gear every year at annual, so that can raise the cost of an annual a tiny bit, that’s a point in the tigers favor, but the manual gear on the Mooney is pretty foolproof if it’s rigged right, it just works and there’s not a lot that can go wrong with it.
 
But the one that represents the best value in your mind because everything else is nearly equal. Not a huge difference in speed or capability. The Grumman will have a larger more comfortable back seat and more flexible cargo carrying. No way around it, the Grumman will be cheaper to maintain. Provided it’s cared for in similar fashion. A Tiger is newer than a C or E so you are paying a premium for a newer airplane so you want get as nice of a panel.
 
I owned a Tiger (and before that a Traveler) and have always admired Mooney's. Lots of hours in both.

That said, I vote for the Tiger. The sliding canopy makes entry easy and visibility excellent, and the folding rear seats make loading bulky stuff through the canopy easy*. The handling on the Tiger is light and responsive and a joy, while Mooney’s tend to be much heavier. And, all things being equal, I’d expect maintenance to be easier and cheaper with the Tiger, with no constant speed prop or retractable gear to mess with. And from what I’ve heard over the years, Mooney’s don’t make some routine maintenance tasks especially easy.


*I’ve loaded and carried two full-sized bikes in the back of my Traveler. Not sure how one might do that in a Mooney.
 
Tiger...but keep looking, there are better ones out there. Follow grummangang discussion board, well appointed/maintained AA5s come up there from time to time, and its a great source of info in general.
 
Having a J, I'm partial to the E, which is quite the hot rod being a short body 200hp Mooney. As for TBO, the POH lists the OI-360 at 1600hrs recommended TBO, our engine went 2250 before replacement. But consider, the C/E is really a two person plane, or two people + child. If that suits your mission, then good. If hauling 3-4 real people is in the cards, then of the offered choices I'd look at the Comanche.
 
Share your mission / objectives. Might help me determine if my uniformed vote and subsequent pontification is even close to being useful :D
 
I'll note that these two mooney bodies look small and look smaller on the ramp. They sit low to the ground and look smaller compared to airplanes around them.

Of the three, I would choose the m20c, assuming the landing gear donuts are in good shape and no corrosion. The 430 is a perfectly serviceable unit and will work very well. Plus, it saves you the cost of avionics upgrades. Get enough of a discount to at least partially pay for a paint job down the road.
 
I'd also recommend checking out Mooney Space for Mooney specific information.

I own an M20C and have had no issues with it. I have the Johnson bar and hydraulic flaps and, as mentioned above, they are very easy to maintain and the maintenance costs are relatively low. The 430W is still a good unit and will work fine and is IFR certified. I have no experience with Tigers so I can't speak to them, but I average about 8GPH in the Mooney and have taken it on long distance trips several times.

Can you expand more on what asking a "fair bit" is for the C vs the E? Make sure you're comparing Mooney prices on the major websites and check out Mooney Space for specific things to look for on a pre-buy as well as known issues you may have to deal with. I haven't had any issues with mine and it's been normal maintenance since I've owned it.
 
I have lots of hours in a late 60's M20C and just a few hours in a Cheetah and took a ride once in a Commanche. The back seat on the C is a cruel joke but it can make a decent 2-person plane. If its between the M20C and the Tiger I'd say buy whichever one you find that ticks all the boxes for condition price and equipment. There are pros and cons to both (I don't miss the knuckle bruises that went along with changing the oil filter in that Mooney) but either one should perform close to the other and total cost to own will in the same ballpark.

If I were in the market I'd probably look at Commanches as well. Its that slick Mooney wing with a more comfortable cabin and a bigger fuel bill. The issue with the Commanche for me is the same issue I'd have with most M20C's. If you want decent radios and something that resembles a standard 6-pack panel, you're limited to finding something that's been upgraded or taking the loss on doing the upgrades yourself.
 
When I look up performance specs for the M20C I find cruise listed at 150kts (or that neighborhood) and the Tiger listed at 139kts. (Which given fixed gear and fixed propellor vs CS prop and retract seems reasonable.) Why do people keep saying the Tiger and the M-20C are the same performance?
 
jsstevens said:
When I look up performance specs for the M20C I find cruise listed at 150kts (or that neighborhood) and the Tiger listed at 139kts. (Which given fixed gear and fixed propellor vs CS prop and retract seems reasonable.) Why do people keep saying the Tiger and the M-20C are the same performance?
Click to expand...
Because real-world speeds are different from book speeds. I don't see 150kts in my M20C, but I do see ~140kts, which would make it more on par with the Tiger if the 139kts number is accurate.
 
I have a 65C... happy not having to deal with Hot Start issues... Engine starts Cold with 2 pumps on the throttle in Summer and 4 in winter... none thereafter once engine is warm... POH lists Elec fuel pump for starting but never needed it. I have electric gear and HYD flaps... Annual was still reasonable even with some small issues... came in around 2K. I would say the least favorable thing when doing a head to head comparison is the back seat on the C will be cramped for most adults.
 
First, I wouldn't be put off by a nonstandard panel. If it's your airplane you'll fly it all the time, you'll quickly get used to whatever is there. The C and E model Mooneys are identical except for the extra 20 ponies and the fuel injection in the E. If you ever have to buy cylinders the ones for the E are twice as much. I bought a C because there was a pretty steep increase for the E, and the difference for my average trip was less than ten minutes.

Second, who are you? I'm 5'7" and about 150 lbs, I easily fit in the Mooney. You'll fit fine if you're tall, not so good if you're wide in the beam. Do you have kids, or lots of good friends to put in the back? They'll not be your friends for long if you put them in the back of a vintage Mooney.

Tigers are not nearly as fast as Mooneys, despite everything said about them by their owners. They get their speed from a cruise prop, so they're dogs in climb. However, Tigers do have that nice canopy, and they do have a much bigger back seat. Some have a complex prop, but cost the equivalent of a Mooney J, which is faster still and has more rear room than the earlier Money models.

A Mooney M20c Ranger is the biggest bang for your buck in aviation. Serviceable ones can be had in the thirties, nicer do cost more. They'll lift nearly a half ton, do 140 knots all day long, and burn less than ten gallons of gas an hour doing it. They're complex aircraft and require the care and feeding of a complex aircraft. That said, there is far less to go wrong with manual gear and hydraulic flaps.

Me, I'm done flying trainers.
 
Ben Anderson said:
My mental debate right now is operating costs. The vintage Mooney M20 C or E with the manual johnson bar gear and constant speed prop...how much more do these factors add in maintenance costs versus a fixed gear Grumman Tiger without the cs prop?
Click to expand...
It that's at the forefront, get the Tiger. One could debate whether maintenance costs *should* be at the forefront, but that's a separate issue.
Ben Anderson said:
I'm thinking $20k probably to upgrade to a GPS WAAS and get an indicator and ADS B out/in transponder.
Click to expand...
I think you can do it for a lot less than that. A recent GNX375 install was $8k for the box and antennas plus 26 hours to rack and wire it to an existing indicator. That's LNAV/DME/LPV approaches and ADS-B in/out all in one shot. Call around.
 
I love my Tiger, but I'm not convinced the maintenance costs are necessarily lower. In three years I've never had an annual lower than $4,000. It completely depends on the plane, and if there's deferred maintenance (like mine had) you'll pay for it for a long time.

Then again, WHEN you have your gear up landing in the Mooney, you'll really pay then!
 
Go take a look at your yearly insurance cost (On-going cost) on the Mooney versus Tiger. Might surprise you.
 
Rcmutz said:
Go take a look at your yearly insurance cost (On-going cost) on the Mooney versus Tiger. Might surprise you.
Click to expand...

I don't know the tiger, but VFR, annual training, under 250 hrs, I got a quote of 2200.
 
bflynn said:
I don't know the tiger, but VFR, annual training, under 250 hrs, I got a quote of 2200.
Click to expand...
IFR, 20 hours in make/model, >300 hours total I got a quote of $700
 
Sorry...the 2200 quote was for a m20c. Just realized that wasn't clear.
 
In the grand scheme of aircraft ownership, a gallon or 3 an hour is a pittance. At least when compared to hangar, insurance, annuals, upgrades on a 50yr old airplane. I like the control feel and “sportyness” of the Tiger, for lack of a better word. But I agree with the poster who mentioned the 250/260 Comanche, that is, if you can’t have an S or later Bonanza. But if you want true economy, a fixed-pitch, fixed gear airplane is way cheaper. Have considered an RV-6? Carries only two, but good for 180+mph with 160hp and fixed-pitch. In your price range, too.
 
For the quotes I got recently, the hull value makes the most difference. For those earlier quotes, what were the hull values?
 
From your choices, I'd pick the M20E...I've got a few thousand hours in Mooneys and a couple of hundred in Tigers including a few long distance ferry flights. The Tiger will be the cheapest to maintain and insure as well as the easiest to fly. Mooneys are a rock solid plane that's excellent in turbulence, faster, more fuel efficient, better range and a very strong airframe. I like the E over the C mainly for speed, climb, payload but also that you can always add avionics to the E somewhere down the road but it's much harder to add 20 hp and/or speed to the C. Bladders are a big plus also as the older Mooneys proseal is leak prone. Not sure what year the E is, but the short body Mooneys have a sports car like control feel where the stretched models feel more like a 182 in pitch. Also, the manual gear is a dirt simple system. There's a lower cowling mod that's reasonably cheap and adds about 7 knots to any stock, large opening, older Mooney. It's a plus if one has but easy mod to do and actually works and cools better. Good luck with your choice, don't think you could go wrong with any of those three. I've only flown a single engine Comanche once so I left that out.
 
Last edited:
Tantalum said:
Wow.. not much love for the Mooney based on the poll.
Click to expand...
I honestly don't know why Mooney are so undervalued. I want a 6 place plane, but I just can't justify getting rid of my C. It's too good a plane for the money. Anything bigger is going to cost a LOT more, and go no faster or even slower in some cases. My only complaint with my C now is lack of a modern auto-pilot. Someday.

That said, I didn't vote because I honestly don't know what I'd do in the OP's shoes. I don't think he can go wrong with any of them. Unless the specific plane he gets has some sort of problem, they all have their good points.
 
@Tantalum - Yes, and you bring up a good point: When purchasing a high-dollar luxury item like an airplane or boat, buy one you think you can sell later! 10 minutes poking around TAP or Barnstormers you can see scores of airplanes that have no buyers—some for years! If ever extra money is well-spent, it’s when it’s used to buy an excellent example of a popular airplane, rather than a mediocre example of a bigger or better-equipped but less popular model. Check out the fan base (owners club or association). The only exception might be if one is really handy at fixing up, refurbishing a popular model. Just one man’s opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top