I’m 193 lbs, my spouse is 213 lbs. I have two dogs (23 lbs and 25 lbs). I’d probably be carrying around 75 lbs of luggage. I would be flying anywhere from 50 nm (almost every weekend) to 2000 nm (stops included (once or twice a year)). I’d most likely be stopping at concrete strips, or larger airports. Looking for something in the 50 to 300k range.
Currently working on VFR, Will then immediately work on IFR. Training for a single engine plane (I’m in an Arrow currently). I live in Southern California.
182, Bonanza, Mooney.
The 182 is the ideal first airplane to own, especially if you aren't 100% sure of your mission. It's not the best at anything, but it's pretty damn good at everything. Comfortable, hauls a pretty good load, reasonably fast (a step up from the trainer class at least), easy and forgiving to fly, will let you get a taste of things like backcountry flying, grass strips, etc. It's easy to work on and hard to find a mechanic that hasn't worked on one, and once you have gotten a taste of various parts of aviation and have defined your mission a little better, it's easy to sell.
The Bo and Mooney are going to be better at getting places, but won't be as good at some of the other things the 182 can do. There's also a wide variety of both! The Bonanza came out in 1947 and Mooney in the early 50s, and both have had significant changes since then and come in several fuselage and engine sizes, so you'll need to do your homework to further refine which particular model of those would be right for you.
I have a Mooney M20R Ovation. It's speedy and ridiculously efficient. 175 KTAS on 12 gph. I'm 6'4" and 315# so don't let the old wives' tales about Mooneys being "small and cramped" dissuade you from trying them. The Bonanzas are slightly narrower (and I bump my head on the "corner" of the semicircular upper cross section) but they do have a more upright seating position similar to a 172 or 182 vs. the lower seating position of the Cherokee line. If you don't mind flying the Arrow for hours on end, you'll love the Mooneys.
In that price range for that mission, bonanza, cirrus SR22, saratoga, turbo arrow, 182/206/210, lot of choices up to 500K. 2000 nm and you probably want 180-200 knots at least. Usually going to mean a turbo something. The short trips more options.
For just one trip a year over an hour away, a turbo is a TERRIBLE idea. It means you'll generally be going slower the rest of the year (the turbos aren't faster until you get up into the teens), and paying a lot more $$$ for fuel, maintenance, and overhaul.
I've tried to talk myself into a turbo many times. However, if I compare my normally aspirated Mooney Ovation to a Mooney Bravo or Acclaim which are essentially identical but turbocharged, my plane is faster below 10,000 feet, can climb to 10,000 feet nearly as quickly, and I have a speed advantage on any trip less than 200nm. It takes me at least 2 miles of forward distance per thousand feet for the climb (120-140 KIAS, so higher KTAS as I climb), and at least 6 miles of forward distance per thousand feet on the descent. That's at least 8 miles traveled per thousand feet, maybe even 10, of climb and descent alone.
Considering speed and time to climb will still be pretty close to even at 10,000 feet between the turbo and non-turbo, that means that having a reasonable amount (half) of the trip spent in cruise flight will result in a 200nm leg being pretty much a wash between turbo and normally aspirated. It's not until you take the turbo to at least 15,000 (aka, 300nm leg or farther) that it starts to have a significant speed advantage, and that 242-knot cruise on the Acclaim is only going to happen up at 25,000 feet, which you'll only get to on a 500-nm leg. And that 500-nm leg is still going to take 2.5 hours on the Acclaim while I can complete it in 3 on the Ovation.
So, it's really hard to justify even though I fly probably 20+ 500-nm legs in a normal year because I still fly plenty of 50-150nm legs as well. The OP is looking at a balance that is much more skewed toward the shorter legs, so the turbo is going to cost him a lot of money to save a couple hours on one trip a year. And as another practical matter, now that I'm flying the TBM in the flight levels I really appreciate the ability of the Mooney to get places fast down low, because the flight levels are boring. You can hardly see anything on the ground. The view is much better down low!
Mooney's are fast but man they are tight. 2 people 200lbs with 43.5 inches of space.
... which is wider than the Bonanza that nobody says is tight, and only 2.5 inches narrower than the 182 that nobody ever complains about. Again, I'm 6'4" and 315#. The legroom on the Mooney is fantastic, and the other dimensions are average.
Most Mooney models are really close to the same. Some engines were better than others. Further down the alphabet you go the more modern you get.
Disagree that they're "close to the same." The original M20 model was a short, 150 hp, wood-winged antique. The U is a 310hp, long-body, all-metal airplane and the V is the fastest piston-powered certified aircraft produced in the last 30 years, including twins.
The main differences are the fuselage length, engine power, and turbo vs normally aspirated.
The "short body" Mooneys are the M20 through M20E, "mid body" are the M20F through M20K, and "long body" are M20L through M20V.
The K, M, TN, and V are turbocharged, the others are normally aspirated.
The original M20 was 150hp.
The A-D and G were 180hp.
The E, F, and J were 200hp.
The K was 210hp generally (I think the Encore may have gotten a boost, so to speak.)
The L had a 217hp Porsche PFM engine.
The S was 244hp, the M was 270hp.
The R, TN, U, and V are all 280hp but the R (and the S) can be upgraded to 310hp via STC (same engine, new prop governor). The STC was applied at the factory on the "Ovation 3" R models.
The most popular models:
M20C ("Ranger"), 180hp normally aspirated short body (1962-1978)
M20E ("Super 21"/"Chaparral"), 200hp normally aspirated short body (1964-1975)
M20F ("Executive 21"), 200hp normally aspirated mid body (1966-1977)
M20J ("201"), 200hp normally aspirated mid body (1977-1987). This differs from the F by a significant aerodynamic cleanup, though the big-ticket items are also available as a retrofit to the F. The M20J is generally considered to be the "sweet spot" in the Mooney lineup, as a good one will do 160 knots on 10gph without beating up the engine.
M20K ("231"/"252"/"TSE"/"Encore"), 200hp turbocharged mid body (1979-1998). Basically a turbo J. 231s have an engine that is basically impossible to run LOP and has a fixed wastegate, and there were lots of engine troubles early on. This was solved with the 252 and later models.
M20M ("Bravo"), 270hp turbocharged long body (1989-2006)
M20R ("Ovation")/M20U ("Ovation Ultra"), 280hp normally aspirated long body (1994-present). This has had a few variants, the Ovation3 had 310hp from the factory and the Ovation Ultra has doors on both sides.
M20TN ("Acclaim")/M20V ("Acclaim Ultra"), 280hp turbocharged long body (2006-present). This replaced the Bravo, and has a Continental 280hp turbo engine instead of the Bravo's 270hp turbo Lycoming, as well as a few aerodynamic cleanups.
The "weird" models:
M20 and M20A had wooden wing spars and wooden tails. Wooden tails are no longer a thing, replacement is required by AD.
M20D "Master" was Mooney's idea of a trainer. It's basically an M20C with fixed gear and fixed-pitch prop. Most were later converted back to retracts, and only one flying fixed-gear Master survives to my knowledge.
The M20G "Statesman" is kinda like an F but with only 180hp so it did not sell well.
The M20L "PFM" had a Porsche engine. Sounds cool, but it had the least horsepower of any long body, and Porsche quickly dropped support for the engine so most have been converted to more traditional aviation engines.
The M20S "Eagle" had an even-more-derated IO-550 engine of only 244hp and lower gross weight than the Ovation, so it didn't sell particularly well either. It can be upgraded to the same 310hp configuration as the Ovation3 to become a "Screaming Eagle", but I don't think that ups the max gross weight any so your payload would be lower.
If you're rarely flying more than 200nm on a typical trip, having a retract-gear speed demon isn't going to cut much time off of the trip and it's good bit of extra expense to maintain and insure.
An excellent point, and the reason something like the 182 is well worth considering. However, retractable landing gear isn't inherently that expensive. The Mooney has a darn-near-bulletproof landing gear system, while the Cessna ones can be problematic. Cost per hour favors fixed gear anyway of course, but cost per mile usually favors a retract, all else being equal. More seats are a lot more expensive to insure than folding legs.
If anyone thinks a bonanza is narrow then you can forget a Mooney.
Mooney is wider.
Plus we can bring things on the small plane that we can't or would be challenging on a commercial flight; wine, alcohol, food, paintings and more.
Paintings???
Rick's wife was good with it until they had kids, then she didn't like the risk.
