Grumman Tiger Vs Mooney M20C or E

[wrbix]

Ben,
Happy to see you’re on GrummanGang....it’ll be a biased opinion there but a wealth of info nonetheless...might even find an AA5 for sale.
They don’t show up much on TradeAPlane or Barnstormers much...always people on the lookout for sales...the fellow who sold me mine has contacted me regularly to see if I’d like to sell back, and my CFI wants me to give him first dibs if I ever decide to sell (unlikely unless I lose my Medical, etc)

 

[Tantalum]

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.

There are some seriously nice -J out there that are very low on price. They're a fantastic value for what you can get. In comparison, 172/182 (imho) are remarkably over priced. The Comanche was the leading vote for the OP, and it's basically a Mooney that feels a little bigger on the inside (to me at least). Fantastic plane, sucks Piper lost that plant.

 

[chemgeek]

If a Tiger meets your useful load requirements, it will almost certainly be cheaper to insure and maintain than a Mooney. A Tiger is 3 plus luggage UL with IFR reserves. An AA-5 or -5A is 2 plus luggage in practice.

Personally, if I needed more performance or load than a Tiger, I'd be looking past any older model Mooney.

 

[MarkH]

In a hypothetical list, based upon your cost concerns I would steer you toward a Tiger, based upon the story you told, I would steer you away from that Tiger.

As someone who purchased a lightly flown Grumman, if it was parked before you bought it there will be some issues and deferred maintenance.

Insurance will be higher for the Mooney, if you have a few hundred hours and an IR, it may be worth it. If the ink is still wet on your certificate, the difference is way more significant. I was quoted more than double for first year insurance on a Mooney vs my Yankee (it's not a Tiger, but I would expect insurance prices would be closer to it than the Mooney).

If you really want to fly, and are narrowed to those three planes, buy the best maintained plane of the three. Likely it will be the cheapest option long term, but no matter how cheap or expensive repairs are, you will never get back the 2 week here, one week there waiting for shop time, parts, and shipping.

My greatest regret about my airplane purchase is not the cost or model, it is the flying time lost while the plane sits in the shop. (Full disclosure, my plane is currently in the shop so I am a little more sour about lost flying time than usual.)

 

[Ben Anderson]

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.

Mostly it will be semi local about 300 nm trips to relatives with wife and a toddler. Probably a #2 in the future. Occasionally (possibly frequently like 2 or 3x a month) I may have to fly long x country trips from Nebraska to NY for work as I travel on the airlines currently but would prefer to build hours towards my commercial and ATP minimums while working this job. I probably won't be able to do this much in winter in the northeast due to icing but the rest of the year I'm hoping I can build time this way. Or I may instruct. I'm a bit all over the map as the pay for instructing is about 1/4 of what I make at work BUT my goal long term is to get to the airlines and it may be faster to just become a CFI.

 

[Ben Anderson]

“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?

The E model Mooney has an STEC 20 or 30 autopilot and an engine monitor. Downside is the shotgun panel at that older 430 WAAS.

 

[Ben Anderson]

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.

I'm truly between the E model Mooney and the Grumman Tiger. The Tigers are very difficult to find though. Any that come up for sale are gone within a day or two and I haven't spotted any very close to me. One I found had logbooks for the first 20 years from Venezuela. So I shied away from it...too many unknowns.

 

[Ben Anderson]

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?



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.

I am very curious on the Bonanza, is it significantly higher in mx costs? Everyone on the interwebs seems to indicate so...but Bonanza is probably my top choice if I could afford it.

 

[Ben Anderson]

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...?

I have no real time in the listed planes unfortunately. I'm working on the Mooney owner to go up with me...and I did do a short flight in a Grumman Cheetah about 6 months ago that an owner kindly took me up in.

 

[Ben Anderson]

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...?

Oh and from what I understand the tiger body and cheetah body are the same size...I think even the 1975 Traveler is the same size but the early Travelers had a different tail stabilizer size. Not sure the body. Generally the AA5 series is the same size though. I think the Tigers have a stronger wing spar though. If you upgrade a Cheetah to the O360 you have to upgrade the wing spar I heard.

 

[Ben Anderson]

Go take a look at your yearly insurance cost (On-going cost) on the Mooney versus Tiger. Might surprise you.

Yeah I already checked into that. I am instrument rated so it's about a $1200 to $1400 a year difference starting out. Not really a factor for me. Hangars are super cheap here in the midwest and I'm paying for the plane in cash so an extra $100 a month won't be a factor. I'd rather get the right plane for the needs!

 

[Ben Anderson]

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.

My mission is me, wife and one toddler. In the next couple years, 2nd child should be also in the mix. I think it will be enough for at least awhile (into early teens for the kids)

 

[Ben Anderson]

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.

The Mooney C that I'm looking at actually does have a very upgraded panel. Standard 6 pack, Garmin 345 audio panel, Garmin 355 WAAS GPS, ADSB IN/OUT transponder. The paint in the pictures looks like it's getting up there but it's not terrible. Interior, standard cloth seats from long ago. He is wanting to go no lower than $56k. I am not sure on which autopilot he has or if it's just a wing leveler. The E has the shotgun panel and the 430 waas, but it does have an STEC 20 or 30 autopilot and the fuel bladders.

 

[Ben Anderson]

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?

Ive done a fair bit of research as I'm doing here...and it seems the Mooney M20C owners rarely see 150 kts. (The E owner told me he sees 155 kts, definitely 150 kts). Most Tiger owners seem to report actual airspeed of about 130 to 135 kts. Overall it seems the Mooney M20C's are about 5 to 10 knots faster so it's not too significant. Hard to find Tigers though and they go for a premium for what they are imo.

 

[Ben Anderson]

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.

I like this summary, I'm done with 172s. I barely beat cars if there's a headwind around the midwest (often 30 knots from the west). I am 5 11 and about 220 lbs. I am a little wide but not terribly so. I sat in a C model and had plenty of leg and headroom, just the left shoulder against the side felt a bit tight. The right side the wife can adjust her seat back so I have plenty of space there. Mission is me, wife (she's pretty thin and tall), and a toddler, probably a 2nd baby in the next couple years. I also may fly often by myself for work on multi state trips and to build time.

 

[Ben Anderson]

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.

The E model is an earlier one, it has the manual johnson bar which I like the idea of due to simplicity and sounds like it's cheaper to maintain. I believe this E also does have that lower cowling mod already. Thank you for your insight.

 

[Ben Anderson]

If a Tiger meets your useful load requirements, it will almost certainly be cheaper to insure and maintain than a Mooney. A Tiger is 3 plus luggage UL with IFR reserves. An AA-5 or -5A is 2 plus luggage in practice.

Personally, if I needed more performance or load than a Tiger, I'd be looking past any older model Mooney.

I have looked at Travelers but I'd rather have more range (38 gallon tanks only) and speed. I've looked at the Cheetahs also but all the Grummans are about $10k more up front, though you probably make it up in the long run pretty quickly.

 

[C-1 PILOT]

Grumman Tiger was my first plane, followed by the twin Cougar, then a Diamond and now, going into retirement and LSA. All great aircraft, my LSA’s avionics are state of the art. All that said...I wish I never sold my tiger!

 

[steingar]

The E model is an earlier one, it has the manual johnson bar which I like the idea of due to simplicity and sounds like it's cheaper to maintain. I believe this E also does have that lower cowling mod already. Thank you for your insight.

You are most welcome. A modded E will handily outrun any Tiger. Put enough mods on an E and it will outrun a J. A short body Mooney should work with little kids, by the time they’re big enough for it to be an issue you might be ready for another aircraft anyway. You’ll love the J-bar. Not a whole lot to go wrong.

 

[MarkH]

I like this summary, I'm done with 172s. I barely beat cars if there's a headwind around the midwest (often 30 knots from the west). I am 5 11 and about 220 lbs. I am a little wide but not terribly so. I sat in a C model and had plenty of leg and headroom, just the left shoulder against the side felt a bit tight. The right side the wife can adjust her seat back so I have plenty of space there. Mission is me, wife (she's pretty thin and tall), and a toddler, probably a 2nd baby in the next couple years. I also may fly often by myself for work on multi state trips and to build time.

If the E is as good as your mechanic describes it, but the E. It will cost a little more to insure and maintain than the Tiger, but when you are dealing with a headwind, 20 knots makes a huge difference.

In addition to the better condition, more useful load, and autopilot. The IO-360 can have (and based on how you describe it likely has) GAMI injectors, with a good engine monitor (which I think you mentioned that it has), you can run lean of peak and get better range and efficiency. I am of the opinion that the 430W is an upgrade versus the 355. Not only does it have a built in Nav, but it also has slightly cheaper database updates. The built in Nav does not seem that major if the plane has another Nav Radio, but if that second Nav is not Garmin compatible (or just not hooked up), then the 430W has the added benefit of being able to search for frequencies and push them into the Nav radio (note: the 355 can do that too if its connected to an SL30 or newer Garmin Nav/com).

I still contend that condition matters more for a time builder than almost any of the other factors. But if all of the planes were in the same condition, I would still lean toward the E based upon how you describe it.

Edit: Formatting error

 

[Ben Anderson]

Grumman Tiger was my first plane, followed by the twin Cougar, then a Diamond and now, going into retirement and LSA. All great aircraft, my LSA’s avionics are state of the art. All that said...I wish I never sold my tiger!

I cant' do LSA at this point in life with the family - but what kind of LSA do you have? I like the idea of getting the LSA mechanic license in a matter of weeks and being able to save so much money.

 

[hindsight2020]

I cant' do LSA at this point in life with the family - but what kind of LSA do you have? I like the idea of getting the LSA mechanic license in a matter of weeks and being able to save so much money.

Increasing the scope of the definition of LSA would be real nice too.

 

[LevelWing]

Increasing the scope of the definition of LSA would be real nice too.

Let's include the Part 23 rewrite while we're at it.

 

[hindsight2020]

Let's include the Part 23 rewrite while we're at it.

That already happened. Swing and a miss Nothingburger. Part 21 re-write maybe.

 

[Rcmutz]

Yeah I already checked into that. I am instrument rated so it's about a $1200 to $1400 a year difference starting out. Not really a factor for me. Hangars are super cheap here in the midwest and I'm paying for the plane in cash so an extra $100 a month won't be a factor. I'd rather get the right plane for the needs!

where in the Midwest are you located.

 

[edo2000]

Had a Tiger for a while. Sold it 3 years ago to get an RV-9. Very little experience in Mooneys. Things I liked about the Tiger: very low maintenance costs in my experience, insurance was inexpensive, it was fairly fast and economical (over 130kts on 8-9 gal/hr-- would do 135kts if you burned more fuel), handled turbulence and crosswinds very well, very crisp and sporty handling qualities, super visibility in almost all directions, could open the canopy in flight for photography (used that feature a lot) and on the ground for cooling, easy access to engine bay(hinged cowlings on both sides), and the purchase price was quite low for mine (with original paint and old avionics). I'm instrument rated, but I didn't use my Tiger for IFR. It had pretty sad avionics.

Things I didn't like as much: limited climb performance and service ceiling for my region (my homebase is in the western Rockies at 6500 ft MSL, and most of the passes I fly through require 12-14k altitudes, the Tiger's service ceiling is 13,800, I believe). It was essentially a 2-seat aircraft in my area. If I was based closer to sea level, I probably would still have the Tiger. Cabin is snug, compared to the C185 I had before, but no worse than many other aircraft I have flown.

But, If I was looking at your planned missions: NE to NY, multiple times per month..., I would be going for every bit of speed I could get. The M20E sounds better. I would recommend an RV9, or 7, but you need more than 2 seats...

 

[bkspero]

One thing you might want to consider is how you will interact with a toddler, or a youngster and an infant/toddler in the airplane. The families I've seen fly this way have had one adult in the back with the younger child and the older child in the right front seat (or that seat empty if it is only the toddler). Apparently the infant/toddler needed enough attention in the air that it was best for an adult to be within close reach rather than try to attend to the child by reaching between or over the front seat backs.

If that is a consideration for you, then you might want to have your wife experience the back seats of the different choices before making a decision. Maybe even bring the toddler along so you can experience what it will be like to get them into and out of the back seat. That experience is, I think, likely to help focus your decision.

As for finding a Tiger, I suggest that you contact the handful of Grumman-centric shops around the country and ask them for leads on planes becoming available. The best planes seem to sell by word of mount before ever getting to the mass distribution channels, and those Grumman shops are the best source of that information. Fletchair in Texas, AuCountry in California, Excel in Indiana, Yankee in Ohio, and Yankee East in New Jersey. And call back periodically until the one you want shows up.

 

[Ben Anderson]

Okay, so I have some new info on the 1964 E model with the fuel bladders. I was able to look at it again yesterday and go through the logbooks a bit. This guy hasn't flown it much. It had 169 hours between 2012 and present. It's only flown about 15 hrs per year for 2017, 2018, and 2019. It was flown around 40 hrs per year from 2008 to 2012. It is at SMOH 1386. I think he said he used Camguard in the oil changes and he has been pretty meticulous about maintenance. (he leaves the doors open in the hangar so the rubber seals don't get damaged over time). How bad is all this? I didn't realize he had let it sit so much. He's also not budging much on price from $60k. Do you build in some sort of engine warranty in a deal like this? Like if it doesn't last to TBO (im hoping it lasts even to 1800 hrs) you cover 1/3 of the overhaul or something?

 

[Ben Anderson]

where in the Midwest are you located.

I am in Omaha, Nebraska

 

[Ben Anderson]

If the E is as good as your mechanic describes it, but the E. It will cost a little more to insure and maintain than the Tiger, but when you are dealing with a headwind, 20 knots makes a huge difference.

In addition to the better condition, more useful load, and autopilot. The IO-360 can have (and based on how you describe it likely has) GAMI injectors, with a good engine monitor (which I think you mentioned that it has), you can run lean of peak and get better range and efficiency. I am of the opinion that the 430W is an upgrade versus the 355. Not only does it have a built in Nav, but it also has slightly cheaper database updates. The built in Nav does not seem that major if the plane has another Nav Radio, but if that second Nav is not Garmin compatible (or just not hooked up), then the 430W has the added benefit of being able to search for frequencies and push them into the Nav radio (note: the 355 can do that too if its connected to an SL30 or newer Garmin Nav/com).

I still contend that condition matters more for a time builder than almost any of the other factors. But if all of the planes were in the same condition, I would still lean toward the E based upon how you describe it.

Edit: Formatting error

At this point I'd probably buy the E, except I just found out it hasn't flown a ton. Looking forward to the feedback on this. 30 hrs since 2017,. about 10 per year or slightly more. Hasn't flown since february this year. 169 hrs total between 2012 and now.

 

[Ben Anderson]

Had a Tiger for a while. Sold it 3 years ago to get an RV-9. Very little experience in Mooneys. Things I liked about the Tiger: very low maintenance costs in my experience, insurance was inexpensive, it was fairly fast and economical (over 130kts on 8-9 gal/hr-- would do 135kts if you burned more fuel), handled turbulence and crosswinds very well, very crisp and sporty handling qualities, super visibility in almost all directions, could open the canopy in flight for photography (used that feature a lot) and on the ground for cooling, easy access to engine bay(hinged cowlings on both sides), and the purchase price was quite low for mine (with original paint and old avionics). I'm instrument rated, but I didn't use my Tiger for IFR. It had pretty sad avionics.

Things I didn't like as much: limited climb performance and service ceiling for my region (my homebase is in the western Rockies at 6500 ft MSL, and most of the passes I fly through require 12-14k altitudes, the Tiger's service ceiling is 13,800, I believe). It was essentially a 2-seat aircraft in my area. If I was based closer to sea level, I probably would still have the Tiger. Cabin is snug, compared to the C185 I had before, but no worse than many other aircraft I have flown.

But, If I was looking at your planned missions: NE to NY, multiple times per month..., I would be going for every bit of speed I could get. The M20E sounds better. I would recommend an RV9, or 7, but you need more than 2 seats...

What I could do if I only needed 2 seats. I was looking at Lancairs speed and they seemed incredibly fast but only 2 seaters. I'd like to consider the RV10 but I don't want to build (no time im young w fam), and theyd be outta budget also.

 

[LevelWing]

Okay, so I have some new info on the 1964 E model with the fuel bladders. I was able to look at it again yesterday and go through the logbooks a bit. This guy hasn't flown it much. It had 169 hours between 2012 and present. It's only flown about 15 hrs per year for 2017, 2018, and 2019. It was flown around 40 hrs per year from 2008 to 2012. It is at SMOH 1386. I think he said he used Camguard in the oil changes and he has been pretty meticulous about maintenance. (he leaves the doors open in the hangar so the rubber seals don't get damaged over time). How bad is all this? I didn't realize he had let it sit so much. He's also not budging much on price from $60k. Do you build in some sort of engine warranty in a deal like this? Like if it doesn't last to TBO (im hoping it lasts even to 1800 hrs) you cover 1/3 of the overhaul or something?

You'll likely get varying opinions on this, but mine has sat, for various reasons, for several years now. When I go get it I won't be concerned about it at all since I've had it maintained during this time. A thorough pre-buy will determine the state of the engine and what work needs to be done on it.

If the engine is in good shape it should last to TBO. You aren't likely to find a seller willing to cover any of the cost of an overhaul, especially after you've bought it. This is something you can negotiate if you think his selling price is too high. You should be factoring in an engine reserve fund as part of your cost of ownership. Depending on how much you plan to fly per year, you can estimate how long you expect the engine to last, assuming it makes it to TBO. Make a list of everything you're concerned about and everything that should be checked out on Mooneys during a pre-buy.

 

[MarkH]

At this point I'd probably buy the E, except I just found out it hasn't flown a ton. Looking forward to the feedback on this. 30 hrs since 2017,. about 10 per year or slightly more. Hasn't flown since february this year. 169 hrs total between 2012 and now.

Damage from sitting can vary by location. Talk to a local A&P that you trust, someone who knows piston planes, knows the area, and can tell you what to look for. Make sure what they suggest is addressed in the prebuy. Worst case, you can get permission to have your mechanic pull a cylinder and inspect the camshaft to know exactly how much damage sitting has done.

 

[hindsight2020]

That little flying? Not for 60k.

 

[Juliet Hotel]

How bad is all this?

That's for you and you only to decide. There are lots of folks who would not touch any plane that hasn't flown x hours per month without interruption. Those folks tend to be very vocal in letting people know how they feel about the topic. There are also lots of foiks who will look at all the details (where was it located, how was it maintained, has oil analysis been done etc) before deciding to pass on it or not.

I would also strongly suspect that there are lots of airplane owners out there who bought their plane with the perspective that they would not touch a plane that flew less than X hours per month and now own a plane that they themselves have to come to fly much less than X hours per month yet are still feel perfectly fine owning and flying said airplane. Probably a little bit of devil you know vs devil you don't at work there I suppose.

I didn't realize he had let it sit so much. He's also not budging much on price from $60k. Do you build in some sort of engine warranty in a deal like this? Like if it doesn't last to TBO (im hoping it lasts even to 1800 hrs) you cover 1/3 of the overhaul or something?

You can take a perfectly healthy mid-time engine and run it into the ground in 100 hours if you mis-manage its operation bad enough. Since there would be no way to monitor or verify how you were managing the engine operation, I would not expect any owner to be open to such a deal. Buying used means rolling the dice. If you're not comfortable with that, buy something run out and do an overhaul on day one.

 

[steingar]

Get a prebuy from a Mooney savvy mechanic, or better yet an MSC. Mine flew 10 hours a year for the 6 years before I owned it. It was fine and has been flying 50 hours a year since. So long as it’s flown regularly someplace away from the coast (salt). 60k for an E with bladders and decent avionics sounds about right. The E’s carry a premium.

 

[AA5Bman]

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.

I feel like you must be either fixing broken stuff that should have been fixed long ago, or you’re doing your annuals at a place with an epoxy-floored hangar. FWIW, my annuals on my Tiger were $450-1200 affairs.

 

[N1120A]

If a Tiger meets your useful load requirements, it will almost certainly be cheaper to insure and maintain than a Mooney. A Tiger is 3 plus luggage UL with IFR reserves. An AA-5 or -5A is 2 plus luggage in practice.

Personally, if I needed more performance or load than a Tiger, I'd be looking past any older model Mooney.

That's pretty much true. Basically, an E is only worth owning over a Tiger if 100% of your missions are 1 or 2 people and you need the extra speed. Also, you can usually find an equally equipped E for less than a Tiger - though my experience is that M20Es are nearly always inferior from an avionics standpoint than a Tiger. A C is never worth owning over a Tiger, though some will disagree, except that the cost of purchase will nearly always be less for a C - a not insignificant factor.

I'm truly between the E model Mooney and the Grumman Tiger. The Tigers are very difficult to find though. Any that come up for sale are gone within a day or two and I haven't spotted any very close to me. One I found had logbooks for the first 20 years from Venezuela. So I shied away from it...too many unknowns.

Tigers come up regularly, but sparingly.

I am very curious on the Bonanza, is it significantly higher in mx costs? Everyone on the interwebs seems to indicate so...but Bonanza is probably my top choice if I could afford it.

Let me put it this way - little stuff tends to come up more on a Bonanza than a Tiger. That said, I think Bonanzas are easy to get good work done on, but you need to go to someone who is Grumman savvy to really take care of one (not that said mechanics are more). Also, crap Continental cylinders are always more of a factor than anything on an O-360..

The Mooney C that I'm looking at actually does have a very upgraded panel. Standard 6 pack, Garmin 345 audio panel, Garmin 355 WAAS GPS, ADSB IN/OUT transponder. The paint in the pictures looks like it's getting up there but it's not terrible. Interior, standard cloth seats from long ago. He is wanting to go no lower than $56k. I am not sure on which autopilot he has or if it's just a wing leveler. The E has the shotgun panel and the 430 waas, but it does have an STEC 20 or 30 autopilot and the fuel bladders.

The 430W is fine, and you can still sell them for good money to offset an upgrade. If it has an STEC30, especially with GPSS, you have quite a good, if simple, 2 axis AP.

Ive done a fair bit of research as I'm doing here...and it seems the Mooney M20C owners rarely see 150 kts. (The E owner told me he sees 155 kts, definitely 150 kts). Most Tiger owners seem to report actual airspeed of about 130 to 135 kts. Overall it seems the Mooney M20C's are about 5 to 10 knots faster so it's not too significant. Hard to find Tigers though and they go for a premium for what they are imo.

Tigers very easily become 140+ knot airplanes, with very minor upgrades. M20Cs really aren't faster.

I have looked at Travelers but I'd rather have more range (38 gallon tanks only) and speed. I've looked at the Cheetahs also but all the Grummans are about $10k more up front, though you probably make it up in the long run pretty quickly.

Travellers only burn 7-8 GPH at WOT. That isn't bad range.

Grumman Tiger was my first plane, followed by the twin Cougar, then a Diamond and now, going into retirement and LSA. All great aircraft, my LSA’s avionics are state of the art. All that said...I wish I never sold my tiger!

Diamonds are basically Tiger clones with bad ergonomics, an inferior wing and crap climb.

You are most welcome. A modded E will handily outrun any Tiger. Put enough mods on an E and it will outrun a J. A short body Mooney should work with little kids, by the time they’re big enough for it to be an issue you might be ready for another aircraft anyway. You’ll love the J-bar. Not a whole lot to go wrong.

Even a standard E is going to outrun all but the very most modded Tiger, and even then it will be an issue. An E is basically just an uncomfortable J. Still, their ULs suck and the comfort level is not there..

 

[zaitcev]

I flight planned 132 kts @ 10 gph for my Tiger.

132 knots is exactly what I get over NM, UT, CO, NV in M20E at 10 gph. I can go faster only when over the plains in TX, AR, NE. The fuel burn goes up though.

 

[Glen R]

I owned a Tiger for five years. I loved the plane. Maintenance costs were minimal but it was a good example. I did fly with four people on occasion but not on short fields or super hot days. Visibility was great as was handling. Got my IFR in it. Don't know about the Mooney. When I got back into flying 3 years ago I searched for a decent Tiger for some time. Only thing out there were beaters in the 40K range. Once you got them up to speed with avionics etc you were in the 80 plus range. Those few with all the bells and whistles were close to 100K. I bought a Bonanza. Annuals run around 4K or so depending on those Continental cylinders.