The Mooney is ANYTHING BUT well engineered.

In fact , it is the most archaic GA plane still in (well, almost) in production.

It inherited a welded steel tube frame that was far better adapted to wood and/or fabric covering of the day. Flimsy thin aluminum covering panels are a nightmare. The cabin has more gaps and leaks than a household sieve. Ever pulled the carpets back for a look-see ? You will find yards of duct tape trying to keep the elements out of the cabin ...

Then there's the landing gear: more welded tubes and what is supposed to be shock dampeners is in fact 1950's vintage truck engine mounts .

And then you've got the gear bolted to the spar right where the integral fuel cells are - no surprise that fuel bays leak just as much as that beforementioned kitchen sieve .

Don't get me wrong - I love flying the Mooney, but as an A&P/IA, I can tell you it is an out & out PITA to wrench on and a complete throw-back from the 50's !

It’s an obsolete design but it’s built hell for stout and a lot of people survived crashes in these things they wouldn’t have in other planes. There’s not a whole lot of evidence suggests that that railroad bridge spar bends v enough to make the tanks leak, but leaky tanks are a problem with these planes.
But it is the most efficient certified four seat single-engine airplane by a large margin and not terribly slow either. We cleaned ours up enough it’s ~160 knots on around 10 gallons an hour. But my buddy’s V35B is about 173 knots but between 15 and 17 gallons per hour depending on how you want to run it. It is larger and more comfortable but you gotta pay for that somewhere. You can also load the baggage compartment and the rear seat until you cube out with anything less than Bricks and get away with it, although the bonanza useful load is more but it has the burn more gas for a four hour trip so I think the pounds in the cabin aren’t probably as different as you think.
That said, if we could find a reasonably priced blown and de-iced A36 we will probably buy one

If you think about it, this is really funny. What design isn't obsolete? Other than the Cirrus being the youngster at 30 something, what GA airplane design isn't old enough to be a member of AARP? While the Aerostar is probably one of the most "modern" GA plane planes out there and it's been around 55 years!

People wonder why the Cirrus is outselling others by a magnitude, perhaps it's because the design is young by comparison to the positively geriatric designs others are selling! It's telling when I consider my 42 year old '80 C182 as a "late model". Definitely a different mind set to be sure. While I love my '58 pickup, I'm glad the one I drive every day isn't just a reincarnation of the old one with a fancy dash, nice interior, and air-conditioning. And let's not forget, less useful load...

Jeff

Lancair Columbia / Corvalis / Ttx is the most advanced and best engineered certified GA piston produced to date. Period.

Much better design than the Cirrus. How do I know this ? Simple: I buy Salvage aircraft from Insurance Companies, including both Columbia/Corvalis and Cirrus, not to mention most of the other brands. The Cirrus are fairly cheaply built compared to the Columbia/Corvalis and it shows post-accident.

Until you have taken a very close look, that means taken it completely apart, you cannot judge the true quality (or lack of) of the build or the design of any model acft., particularly following an accident. ( I'm sure you will second this Jeff )

Add in the impeccable flying qualities of the Columbia/Corvalis and you have the most modern AND best engineered GA piston built to date.

Why would you buy a new airplane from a company that is likely to go bankrupt.

After almost 50 years in aviation, 48 of them professionally, I bought a Mooney Ovation. Why?

I love Beechcrafts. I really do. I have worked for a Beech dealer, I have flown everything from a King Air 200 to a Skipper. My favorite? The F-90. I've even had dinner at Olive Ann's table. That said, I had zero, no experience in Mooney's. I flew a long body (Eagle) and was impressed. Is the fit and finish as good as Beech? No, few airplanes do. Is the Mooney strongly constructed? The paucity of airframe AD's over other brands speak to that fact. Is it cramped? Width wise about the same as a Bonanza, height wise not as much.

I looked at an A-36 but in reality cabin length after about the same after you load luggage in the A-36. Those wonderful doors on the A-36 are a winner, but my mission was really just my wife and I so it really was a moot point. We were both going to board through a single starboard door.

Is the Mooney hard to land? Not if you fly it precisely, it does not tolerate sloppy airmanship. Because of the laminar flow wing, the center of lift is further aft and that is less forgiving, but also pays dividends in efficiency.

As for it being "an old design" the reality is the Bonanza type certificate and the Mooney type certificate were issued in circa 1955/1956 within months of each other.

My Mooney is FIKI equipped, dual alternators, dual batteries. I fly it all kinds of weather and it delivers and is reliable. I fly 170 knots on 12.3 gph LOP. That kind of efficiency is hard to beat. In icing conditions the Mooney wing equipped with TKS is actually a better performer with its center of lift further aft. The "dog bone" effect is less pronounced. The adjustable stab creates a safer approach regime when iced.

I typically am able to annual the airplane for less than 3K with holding nothing from the maintenance regimen. Some will say "what about support?" The airplane is plainly made and most parts can be manufactured in the field. The recent issues of Bonanza tail feathers or Cessna C-210 center sections points that nothing is guaranteed in aging fleets even if the factory is still in business.

I have found bias against most airplanes comes from a failure to understand what the designer was trying to accomplish. When I went to Airbus from Boeing it took me over a year to appreciate what Airbus what trying to accomplish, once I did I found it to be a remarkable airplane. The same happened with my appreciation of Mooney. It achieves its design aims, efficiency and strength, solidly and without gimmicks.

When you look at the newest designs, the Panthera or the DA-50NG their performance does not surpass a Mooney, even though they cost 4 times as much as a good used Ovation or Acclaim. That speaks to good design.

Will you park with the Bonanzas at Oshkosh?

Mooneys need a swing out engine mount, like 50s 195 Cessna.
A simple oil filter change is not that simple...

Agreed but there are mousetraps that help direct the drips and drabs into the collector bucket. Gnarled and scrapped fingers of course. TN of the Acclaim makes that space even tighter but I gladly trade for the performance.

I find oil changes on my Ovation quite easy. Easier than my PA-18 Super Cub until I finally threw in the towel and changed to an AirWolf filter mount.

The other thing I like about the long body Mooneys is how easy it is to open it up for annual. Pop about 20 Cam-Locs on the belly and the two side panels and most the fuselage is open. There is no need to remove seats, carpets, side panels etc for an annual. From the belly you have access to the landing gear system, flap system, TKS system, fuel system. Open the left rear side panel and with a G1000 all the avionics, batteries, and oxygen are right there.

One large Mooney Service Center I know of has installed modified "service station" hydraulic lifts. They roll the airplane on, place mechanical hold downs on the gear, raise it up and work on everything through the belly at the mechanics eye level.

100%

The Bonanza door sucks by comparison. But the Mooney landing gear sucks. There's a new design developed that is waiting for investors to fund, which should add gross weight and useful load.

I prefer the Mooney seating position to the Bonanza's "chair" position.

It is a love/hate relationship with gear. While the "donuts" are very low maintenance and you never find them flat, they require a good landing to prevent rebound. They are not as forgiving as oleo struts.

The new high weight gear being engineered will be oleo although it my be a "closed system" with a replaceable cartridge (like an auto shock absorber). The main purpose is to soften the impact of the required drop test. I would prefer a replaceable cartridge to an oleo strut.

I have a few hours in Mooney's from the C to the 201. I never found them that hard to land and they were a pleasure to fly. I liked the manual gear, once I learned the best way to operate it. Thumb down to raise it. Thumb up to lower it but do not place your thumb too high on the handle or you will lose some skin.

Our Citation Ultra is hard to land smooth. I got this years ago about the Ultra/5.

"Greaser landings are 30% skill, 10% luck, 25% localized gravitational variance, 5% annual crop yield, and 30% lunar orbit pattern. If you figure out the "secret" please let me know."

We work on a lot of mooneys and the Ovation is one of the easiest ones to work on. The accessories on the back of the engine have tons of room whereas the older ones especially the ones with the doghouse cooling baffles can be quite hellish. But the worst one I think that we’ve worked on so far is the 231. There’s just a lot going on for a blown 210 hp engine

I dream of new landing gear also. Have no problem making greasers (knock on wood) with the current ones but if something different comes along and raises UL even a couple hundred pounds it would be an awesome improvement. The long body can handle it power/flying/CG wise. Factory just needs to make it happen. That and the 102 gallons useable and it’ll fly further than anyone riding will want to go without a stop except solo or my son/Gson along.