22 Oct 2025, 19:11 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Mooney Posted: 05 Aug 2025, 19:28 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 05/01/14 Posts: 9667 Post Likes: +16514 Location: Операционный офис КГБ
Aircraft: TU-104
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Unlike Beechcraft, when they stretched it, they moved the fuselage forward on the wing too...
Uh, have you seen a 36 and 33/35 next to each other? The front of the plane is moved forward about 10 inches.
_________________ Be kinder than I am. It’s a low bar. Flight suits = superior knowledge
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Mooney Posted: 05 Aug 2025, 21:26 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 06/30/22 Posts: 2572 Post Likes: +1516 Location: 0W3
Aircraft: Mooney 252/Encore
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The long body Mooney’s were made so in order to have enough arm on the horizontal stab to offset the heavy TIO540 engine in the Bravo and subsequent Ovation and Acclaim Continentals.
For your 2+bags mission, they (mid body) are a great choice, just choose your adventure: turbo or not. -dan The first Long Body was the Porsche powered M20L. I agree that a mid body is great for 2 people and bags. As has been mentioned, the M20K Encore is the ultimate mid body with speed and UL. The nice thing is, a 252 can be converted to an Encore and gain 230 pound GW increase. My 252/Encore is 1060 UL. I have the Monroy extended tanks, so 104 gallons of fuel. Still enough to fit 2 people and weekend luggage. So a lot of flexibility as to range and how much you need to carry.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Mooney Posted: 06 Aug 2025, 08:48 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 06/30/22 Posts: 2572 Post Likes: +1516 Location: 0W3
Aircraft: Mooney 252/Encore
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Those were the days. Hard to beat that Mooney panel. Back in about 1985 or so, I stopped by Freeway Airport in MD. Back when aircraft dealers actually had new aircraft sitting on the ramp. I sat in a 201 for about an hour, thinking how great it would be to have a plane that well equipped. I mean it had DME, RNAV (rho-theta), an HSI, autopilot. What more could anyone wish for. Well, now there is the panel in my 252. 
Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Mooney Posted: 01 Sep 2025, 09:14 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 09/26/14 Posts: 67 Post Likes: +54
Aircraft: 777
|
|
Getting closer to the goal. Couple of questions:
A buddy has a 201, said he flight plans 150 its and 10 gals per hr. Then I see ads saying 160 at 10 gals per hr. Any thoughts?
Op difference for a 201 vs a rocket, 231/252, ovation or bravo? Would love a bravo, but that big lycoming scares me if anything breaks. Ovation makes most sense because I think air conditioning is a must have item per the wife and the 550’s are everywhere. Rocket and 252 looks like a blast and the 201 is definitely the most cost effective way to go.
Also, seems like there’s a growing supply in the market for everything single engine (400+ cirrus’s, over 800 Cessna’s, 100+ Mooney’s, 500+ pipers and almost 300 beech’s per trade-a-plane). What are your thoughts on the market and where it will be in 3-6 months? Is 100ll a problem?
Thanks. I really appreciate it.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Mooney Posted: 01 Sep 2025, 09:50 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 02/10/24 Posts: 38 Post Likes: +17
Aircraft: M20J
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Getting closer to the goal. Couple of questions:
A buddy has a 201, said he flight plans 150 its and 10 gals per hr. Then I see ads saying 160 at 10 gals per hr. Any thoughts?
Op difference for a 201 vs a rocket, 231/252, ovation or bravo? Would love a bravo, but that big lycoming scares me if anything breaks. Ovation makes most sense because I think air conditioning is a must have item per the wife and the 550’s are everywhere. Rocket and 252 looks like a blast and the 201 is definitely the most cost effective way to go.
Also, seems like there’s a growing supply in the market for everything single engine (400+ cirrus’s, over 800 Cessna’s, 100+ Mooney’s, 500+ pipers and almost 300 beech’s per trade-a-plane). What are your thoughts on the market and where it will be in 3-6 months? Is 100ll a problem?
Thanks. I really appreciate it. Airplanes that are set up correctly will do 160/10, Byron being one of them. I have a J and I've never seen 160 but I don't have the lower gear doors which are worth about 5 knots. (I need to flight a right lower gear door; I think I have two left ones). People say 150/10 because it's easy math and there is a safety margin in there.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Mooney Posted: 01 Sep 2025, 21:11 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 01/07/21 Posts: 421 Post Likes: +411
Aircraft: M20J/R, Sr22, SR20
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I really want a Mooney. Use to fly an F model a long time ago, but I have a need now for a good 2 person (wife, me and 2 small dogs) and economical plane and I think a Mooney would be perfect. Main mission is from Sarasota area to Tallahassee and Charlotte.
Been looking at 201's as they seem in the price range. There's a local 231 for sale or partnership, but I can't really use the turbo due to the dogs. Would love an acclaim, but thats not as economical as a 201.
Is there much of a difference cabin wise between an acclaim or 201? Is the 231 comparable maintenance wise to the 201? Are there any other differences between the 201 and 231 (Mx, etc)?
Thanks I've owned both a 201J and an Ovation. Ovation was a great XCtry airplane, fast, economoical, could climb high if needed and just a solid flying airplane. The 201J was great, slower but more economical. Flew mostly just two of us and once you knew how to climb in, was actually very comfortable in both airplanes. I would buy another 201 in a second as a good local and XCtry machine. I flew that 201 to Texas and Iowa/Chicago from NY enough to know that it's a very good airplane.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Mooney Posted: 01 Sep 2025, 21:15 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 01/07/21 Posts: 421 Post Likes: +411
Aircraft: M20J/R, Sr22, SR20
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Getting closer to the goal. Couple of questions:
A buddy has a 201, said he flight plans 150 its and 10 gals per hr. Then I see ads saying 160 at 10 gals per hr. Any thoughts?
Op difference for a 201 vs a rocket, 231/252, ovation or bravo? Would love a bravo, but that big lycoming scares me if anything breaks. Ovation makes most sense because I think air conditioning is a must have item per the wife and the 550’s are everywhere. Rocket and 252 looks like a blast and the 201 is definitely the most cost effective way to go.
Also, seems like there’s a growing supply in the market for everything single engine (400+ cirrus’s, over 800 Cessna’s, 100+ Mooney’s, 500+ pipers and almost 300 beech’s per trade-a-plane). What are your thoughts on the market and where it will be in 3-6 months? Is 100ll a problem?
Thanks. I really appreciate it. I used to get 155Kts TAS at about 10.3 (avg) day in day out.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Mooney Posted: 01 Sep 2025, 23:16 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 11/30/17 Posts: 1404 Post Likes: +1612 Location: KARR
Aircraft: J3, Twin Commander
|
|
Flew all over the country in a 79 J model. I always figured 153/12, unless I was at or above 9,000. If I end up with another one it will have the split rear seat, and will not have a dual mag.
_________________ What are you optimizing for?
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Mooney Posted: 02 Sep 2025, 08:36 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 01/09/11 Posts: 195 Post Likes: +204 Location: KBKT
Aircraft: Mooney, T-Bone
|
|
Flew an F with the J-210 windshield and front end for many years. Great useful load, 64 gallons of fuel, and 146-148 kts on 8.8 GPH LOP all day long. Never should of sold it.
My current ride is a Bravo. 175 kts at 10K 17-18 GPH. An additional 2 kts per thousand up into the teens.
_________________ joe A&P IA I can't but I know a guy.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Mooney Posted: 02 Sep 2025, 09:12 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 05/13/14 Posts: 9104 Post Likes: +7629 Location: Central Texas (KTPL)
Aircraft: PA-46-310P
|
|
Username Protected wrote: A buddy has a 201, said he flight plans 150 its and 10 gals per hr. Then I see ads saying 160 at 10 gals per hr. Any thoughts? That's a slow 201. 160@10 should be possible with the majority of properly rigged 201s. Quote: Op difference for a 201 vs a rocket, 231/252, ovation or bravo? Would love a bravo, but that big lycoming scares me if anything breaks. Ovation makes most sense because I think air conditioning is a must have item per the wife and the 550’s are everywhere. Rocket and 252 looks like a blast and the 201 is definitely the most cost effective way to go. I have a lot of hours in the long body Ovation (Eagle) with air conditioning. It's fast, comfortable, and very capable. It's a definite performance upgrade from the 201 and if you can swing an ovation, skip the 201.
|
|
Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2025
|
|
|
|