I really like the Mooney airframe and believe they are little planes. My mechanic says that they are nice to work on, parts are not Beech expensive. That unique tail look is something that is well known, almost as sexy as a V-tail.

There are many more Mooneys around my local airports than Beechcraft, mostly because of their cost, efficiency, and speed.

Mooney's are too small for our needs. Period. If they can't haul the load (people, luggage, golf clubs, etc.) then they get scratched off the list of candidates.

A friend has a Mooney 231. It is maintained by a recognized shop of Mooney guru's.

It seems like he spends $10k every single year on the airplane. It eats alternators like they are M&M's.

It has other problems.

In 21+ years of Bonanza ownership I've never had a $10k annual.

Some mechanics I know say they are harder to work on because there's little room. I don't know. What I do know is I'm not interested in having one.

How about a "Crandall"?

I read in a Mooney thread somewhere in the past that Al Mooney designed the tail facing forward so that the rudder was the most effective when it was needed at low speeds with high angles of attack because it would be straight up and down in this configuration. This is the only explanation I've ever read on why it was designed this way.

As to the snicker: I'm going out on a limb here and given enough rope I'll probably hang myself. I think this starts with the typical Mooney guy. (Mooney guys please give me some wiggle room here to explain.) For some reason the design features and goals that made Mooney what they are which is fast and economical also brought compromises that are perceived as negatives to many involving comfort, etc. Therefore I find when talking to a Mooney guy that they usually don't speak to the strengths of the type, but end up apologizing and justifying the weaknesses in order to have the efficiency. In other words they usually start out acting as if they have the lessor product. It is amusing, but kind of sad to watch at the same time. So after seeing this countless times over decades now I don't look at Mooney's as great planes because it is rare that I have met an owner who isn't ashamed of them at some level to where they don't apologize and make excuses for their limitations. The conversations are usually taken in this direction by the Mooney owner. It is obvious that they want to love their airplanes, but realize that the world may not understand their choice. It appears that over time the Mooney guys have been pyched? out and believe they have settled. That is what I snicker at when they go by, not the plane.

But when a six cylinder Mooney goes by I take notice. They are sexy airplanes. The holy grail of the 4 cylinders is the 252. I did some math to see if one of those would meet my mission one time. With 4 170 people and baggage it would fly for under an hour with a legal fuel reserve. Owners adore these planes though and fly them as two or three place planes.

Well, he got a patent on it.

Piper wanted to buy the mooney design to compete with the bonanza but Al Mooney didn't want to, he made the Comanche for piper then and the rest is history.

Honestly, the Mooney is a great stable IFR platform. It flies like a fighter plane. I like the spar also.

I have a bit Mooney time. I liked them. I've also been in their Kerrville facility. It was ok, but not real impressive. It's looks pretty much like a typical company does when they're kinda struggling. But....that was back in the good times!

They've never been able to attract significant investment where they could develop Mooney into a premium brand, especially with any product depth. They've always been positioned as the "economical" single.....but they're not enough cheaper when buying new.

When I compared HBC's offer for my zero time G36 to their dealer demo Ovation 3, there wasn't much more than $50,000 difference after you paid for the WAAS upgrade. HBC included my WAAS. Buying the G36 was an easy decision.

Mooney may have to resort to being a parts company for used Mooneys.

I was in the same boat when I bought mine. My G36 was sitting right next to a brand new Ovation. They were both the same price. No brainer.

The biggest difference: BeechTalk uses much better forum software than Mooneyspace.

I finally logged 3.2 hours in an 1967 M20E this week. For a beginner, it's an unfriendly airplane. Not so much the vaunted slickness of it -- I was able to slow it down easily just by throtting down -- but the need to hit all the small windows was annoying. The emergency landing takes a while to learn, since Vbg is way outside the Vfe.

Also, it was somewhat intangible and personal, but the airplane feels like an outstanding core with a bunch of mediocre additions by competent, but ordinary engineers. Hydrolic flaps? Please. If I learn that Al Mooney designed them, my world may end.

Looking for a Bonanza rental now seriously.

I had a Mooney Ovation 3 for three years before I got the Bo. I loved my Mooney, but it no longer worked for my typical mission. I wanted more room and ability to haul more weight/people. I lost 10-20 knots (about 10 at the same ff). The Bo is easier to land and takes turbulence much better.

Saying all Mooney's leak fuel is like saying all Harley's leak oil. It just is not true. Most fuel leaks from the wings in Mooney's are due to hard/firm landings causing the wings to flex to much - resulting in the wings seeping fuel. Also, many of the "hard" landings are a direct result of the plane being somewhat over gross (If I topped off both tanks and had myself and another 200 lb. person in the plane with me, I was over gross). BTW, mine never leaked fuel.

Of course, this is just my opinion, and what the heck do I know anyway?

The Mooney 252 has a Continental TSIO-360-MB engine of six cylinders. It is widely regarded as the best Mooney ever manufactured.

The J model Mooney (aka 201) was the last of the four cylinder [Lycoming IO-360] Mooneys. Staring with the K model (aka 231) and beyond, they have all been six cylinders.

I've owned three Mooneys and absolutely love them. There's a good chance I'll own another at some point. The only reason I don't have one now is that they don't make a twin.

I was a 1/4 partner in a Mooney 252 ... my first ownership experience. And her she is!



A nice, solid instrument platform and easy to fly with lots of goodies in the panel and I have been spoiled ever since. The 252 had the KFC-150 autopilot/flight director with altitude and vertical speed pre-select, speed brakes, JPI700.... and that was 1997 in a 1987 model 252.

Ultimately it was just a little small. Controls were not nearly as light as the 55 Baron. Not a great airplane to be landing on grass since the propeller is pretty close to the ground.

I always admire a Mooney and think they are good airplanes. My 58 Baron is my favorite airplane to date for many good reasons.

Oh that's right. The 231's and the Piper Turbo Arrows had that terrible 6 cylinder Continental that would overheat and eat cylinders. This was fixed with the 252 and it made for a nice airplane. I had a friend with the Arrow and he couldn't run any real power without heat issues. I think Lycoming when thinking IO-360, probably where the confusion came from in my mind.

I was at Auburn yesterday and there is a TLS on the ramp for sale. Gotta say these get me hot!



The Mooney 252 has a Continental TSIO-360-MB engine of six cylinders. It is widely regarded as the best Mooney ever manufactured.

The J model Mooney (aka 201) was the last of the four cylinder [Lycoming IO-360] Mooneys. Staring with the K model (aka 231) and beyond, they have all been six cylinders.

I've owned three Mooneys and absolutely love them. There's a good chance I'll own another at some point. The only reason I don't have one now is that they don't make a twin.

I owned two 1977 Mooney 201s and loved them both. Consistent 155kts on 11/gal ROP block to block. Never needed a Top overhaul, and was about as easy to start hot or cold as a Bonanza. Seating was comfortable enough once settled in. Really a 3 person plane or lighter families. I didn't really find it hard to land as long as you were attentive and nailed the speeds. Solid feel, and sports car handling. IFR was easy, even without a nice GPS display. The Bonanza is better for many reasons, but if I were young and single, I'd probably go back to Mooney.

Keith, I forgot to say but I was talking about the Mooney with the long range tanks.

They just all leak after a while, it could be it has to do with the extra weight...

A 55 baron has lighter control forces than a mooney?