I thought I wanted a Mooney...

Oh yeah? I was in a Tiger yesterday and was cruising at 130 knots. I landed with more fuel than when I started.
 
WDD said:
Oh yeah? I was in a Tiger yesterday and was cruising at 130 knots. I landed with more fuel than when I started.
Click to expand...

You must have that aerial refueling STC I’ve been wanting to get.
 
tawood said:
I called on 3...must have been bad examples, because the best one was 15% less.
Click to expand...

My Tiger has a 915 pound UL (with a vacuum system). My friend's Arrow is 965. That is just about 6%. And it is much easier to work the CG on my Tiger than his Arrow, especially if you need to trade gas for payload.

Rcmutz said:
Sounds like Steingar might be butt hurt by a Tiger beating his Mooney. I know several Tiger owners with variable pitch prop and power flow who can probably beat out an older C or F model Mooney.
Click to expand...

Don't even need a constant speed prop. I regularly true between 143 and 148 knots in my fixed pitch, carburated, power flow Tiger. When Gary Vogt completes his IO360 STC, I wouldn't be surprised to see Tigers running with M20Js regularly.

steingar said:
Yup, all true. But for what you pay for those Tigers you could probably buy a 201 and beat them handily. Tigers have a significant price premium.
Click to expand...

LOL - before, and after, I bought the Tiger, I've definitely considered various Mooneys. I've never seen one, including a 201, that would have been a similar price with similar avionics to my Tiger.

MooneyDriver78 said:
Specs, Tiger vs 201
Cabin width: 41 vs 43.5
Range: 500 vs 1125nm
Service Ceiling: 13800 vs 18800
Climb: 850 vs 1030 fpm
Cruise speed: 139 vs 169kts
Click to expand...

There is not a 201 on earth that does 169 knots in level flight. There are many Tigers that exceed 139, including mine.

Range is largely a product of the fact that Mooney was able to fit a whole lot of gas in their wings.

UngaWunga said:
Hey, while you're in there, want to find me a solid Cardinal RG, or Comanche 250? Or even a Bo Deb? None of that v-tail silliness please....
Click to expand...

I have a 33 Bonanza for sale, with a full glass panel.
 
N1120A said:
Don't even need a constant speed prop. I regularly true between 143 and 148 knots in my fixed pitch, carburated, power flow Tiger.
Click to expand...

First, my Mooney has bladders, so it is a bit of a lightweight in the payload department. 983lbs, according to the W&B. You might be able to hang with my old C in cruise, might even beat it (no power flow here, don't want one) but I'll still beat you handily in climb. Your Tiger gets its speed from a cruise prop, and if its anything like the Tigers I've flown in or with, is a dog in climb.
 
Like the M20C is a rocket in the climb? I’ve got plenty of time in both and they’re not that much different.
 
N1120A said:
My Tiger has a 915 pound UL (with a vacuum system). My friend's Arrow is 965….
Click to expand...
Your friends arrow needs a diet, and is a poor example (although you seem to like the comparison to bolster your own bias, so there’s that).
And as far as this envelope problem you keep referring to, I plugged into my w&b myself plus three 200 lbs passengers, and I’m under gross and several inches within the envelope with gas to the tabs…then as a test, it took myself only in front, and 540 lbs in rear passengers in the back, to get .1” out of cg to the rear, or no one in back and a 399 lbs passenger with me in front, to get .1” forward out of cg. Not gonna happen.
I'm glad your tiger works for you, but in aviation you don't get something for nothing...all these planes are compromises, and the arrow for me = better load and comfort, but at a reduced speed. The tiger compromised by too much the useful load, and the mooney compromised my comfort.
 
Last edited:
Captain Sweet T said:
Some Pilots have some emotional opinions tied up in their planes...whew! We're blessed to have choices, glad everyone is not flying the same thing, that would be boring.
Click to expand...

Amen. I own a Mooney but I will fly anything. I've flown high wings, low wings, mid-wings, high + low wings (biplanes) and loved them all... To varying degrees and for different reasons, but get me in the sky one way or the other and I'll be happy. I loved flying that old pig of a 182 around before the Mooney too.

N1120A said:
Don't even need a constant speed prop. I regularly true between 143 and 148 knots in my fixed pitch, carburated, power flow Tiger. When Gary Vogt completes his IO360 STC, I wouldn't be surprised to see Tigers running with M20Js regularly.

There is not a 201 on earth that does 169 knots in level flight. There are many Tigers that exceed 139, including mine.
Click to expand...

:rofl:

Mooney owners are definitely proud of their airplanes, but Tiger owners take it to another level. And frankly, I went and tried one once because I'd heard all these glowing things about Tigers, and I was thoroughly unimpressed. It reminded me of an Archer, though it handled a little better and definitely had a better view. It was *maybe* 5 knots faster than an average Archer at equivalent power settings.

Range is largely a product of the fact that Mooney was able to fit a whole lot of gas in their wings.
Click to expand...

And their legendary efficiency. At 9000 feet I get over 14nm/gal.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
:rofl:

Mooney owners are definitely proud of their airplanes, but Tiger owners take it to another level. And frankly, I went and tried one once because I'd heard all these glowing things about Tigers, and I was thoroughly unimpressed. It reminded me of an Archer, though it handled a little better and definitely had a better view. It was *maybe* 5 knots faster than an average Archer at equivalent power settings.
Click to expand...

Lol. Must have been running on 2 cylinders. There's a flight school based at my home field with a huge Archer fleet. I also trained in an Archer. I'm generally 20-30 knots faster.

And the handling is unparalleled. As someone who also owns a Bonanza 33, there is NOTHING that handles like a Tiger.
 
Pilawt said:
...Once in, the low-slung posture, with legs forward in the style of a '67 Ford Mustang...
Click to expand...

Nope. Doubtful you've ever been in a '67 Mustang (which was actually a rebodied Falcon) but if we are to compare airplanes and automobiles then the Mooney is definitely a TR4.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
And their legendary efficiency. At 9000 feet I get over 14nm/gal.
Click to expand...
You must have a big Continental or running ROP, the smaller Lycomings will get 17nm/gal running LOP easy.

9fcc8a6c6e04ce04d3e7a3ae2efaaa32.jpg
 
Silvaire said:
Nope. Doubtful you've ever been in a '67 Mustang (which was actually a rebodied Falcon) but if we are to compare airplanes and automobiles then the Mooney is definitely a TR4.
Click to expand...

My first car was a 67 Mustang fastback. It shared some parts but definitely not a “rebodied Falcon”. Definitely a discussion for a different forum though.
 
Silvaire said:
Nope. Doubtful you've ever been in a '67 Mustang (which was actually a rebodied Falcon) but if we are to compare airplanes and automobiles then the Mooney is definitely a TR4.
Click to expand...

I was thinking more like an MGB.
 
Daleandee said:
I'm not in the food fight but if you want small, as in auto, think Miata (translated "me outta" bought a bigger car!)
Click to expand...

Over at APC they have instituted a corollary to Godwin's law that adds any time the someone brings up a Miata, the thread value is essentially over. :D
 
tawood said:
Your friends arrow needs a diet, and is a poor example (although you seem to like the comparison to bolster your own bias, so there’s that).
And as far as this envelope problem you keep referring to, I plugged into my w&b myself plus three 200 lbs passengers, and I’m under gross and several inches within the envelope with gas to the tabs…then as a test, it took myself only in front, and 540 lbs in rear passengers in the back, to get .1” out of cg to the rear, or no one in back and a 399 lbs passenger with me in front, to get .1” forward out of cg. Not gonna happen.
I'm glad your tiger works for you, but in aviation you don't get something for nothing...all these planes are compromises, and the arrow for me = better load and comfort, but at a reduced speed. The tiger compromised by too much the useful load, and the mooney compromised my comfort.
Click to expand...

He has 2 Arrows and both have similar ULs.

My full fuel UL is 600 pounds. That's 3 good sized dudes, or an easy 4 person plane with full fuel if people weigh less. Of course, you can always reduce fuel.
 
MooneyDriver78 said:
You must have a big Continental or running ROP, the smaller Lycomings will get 17nm/gal running LOP easy.
Click to expand...

Yup. Big Conti. IO-550 (M20R). 175 KTAS, 12 gph LOP. An M20J will definitely beat me on mpg efficiency, until there's like a 60-knot headwind. ;)
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Yup. Big Conti. IO-550 (M20R). 175 KTAS, 12 gph LOP. An M20J will definitely beat me on mpg efficiency, until there's like a 60-knot headwind. ;)
Click to expand...

Outright efficiency is one thing, but there is a lot to be said for flying that fast on that little bit of gas. As amazing as the Acclaim, 252 and Bravo are, I really think the Ovation is where Mooney knocked it out of the park.
 
N1120A said:
Outright efficiency is one thing, but there is a lot to be said for flying that fast on that little bit of gas. As amazing as the Acclaim, 252 and Bravo are, I really think the Ovation is where Mooney knocked it out of the park.
Click to expand...

Personally I don’t like the aesthetics of the air intakes in the Acclaim, too large, the Ovation got it right.
 
N1120A said:
Outright efficiency is one thing, but there is a lot to be said for flying that fast on that little bit of gas. As amazing as the Acclaim, 252 and Bravo are, I really think the Ovation is where Mooney knocked it out of the park.
Click to expand...

It's a damn good airplane for sure.

I'm realizing at this point that I'm probably going to need a bigger airplane for family trips in a few years - I'm reaching the point where we're at max gross with full fuel, and I think my son is getting bigger faster than I can pull out old heavy avionics. :rofl: So either we're gonna have to learn to pack lighter, or I'm gonna need to find a way to get use of a 310, TBM, or something that's higher performance even if it is more expensive. However, I also like the Mooney enough that I want to keep it for other flying, and I'm sure I'm going to want it back once we're empty nesters, so I really don't want to outright sell it.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
It's a damn good airplane for sure.

I'm realizing at this point that I'm probably going to need a bigger airplane for family trips in a few years - I'm reaching the point where we're at max gross with full fuel, and I think my son is getting bigger faster than I can pull out old heavy avionics. :rofl: So either we're gonna have to learn to pack lighter, or I'm gonna need to find a way to get use of a 310, TBM, or something that's higher performance even if it is more expensive. However, I also like the Mooney enough that I want to keep it for other flying, and I'm sure I'm going to want it back once we're empty nesters, so I really don't want to outright sell it.
Click to expand...

I'd certainly hang on to it. Right now, we're selling the Bonanza and looking to move to an Aerostar - me for speed, weather and distance and my partner for weights and speeds cause he has a wife and 3 kids. However, we're keeping the Tiger for the shorter stuff where it makes no sense to burn the extra fuel and maintenance. Your costs on the Mooney are so low, at this point, that it makes total sense to keep it while swinging a second, bigger, faster plane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top