Perhaps I should have been clearer.
The Mooneys (ies?!) I've flown were F through J models, the
Js getting 154kts TAS and the Fs escape me as it has been too long since I last flew that model. The 182RG claims 160kts TAS and we calculated 156kts while out over the WA nothingness using nomal cruise settings and at high weight. A nice new Bravo or Ovation would surely leave the RG for dead and I don't dispute that.
However, the RG has an extra 120kg+ of payload over the M20J, greater baggage capacity (90kg over zones A and B against 54kg+4kg on the "hat rack" if you have 3 or less POB), you can load four bodies in the 182RG, fill the tanks and still be below MTOW and within C of G limits. Try that in an M20J - it doesn't work.
I've always thought the same as gassed budgie: that if I wanted to own a 4 seat retract, the 182RG would be it. I does chew through an extra 14l/hr but bigger tanks give you an extra 10 odd minutes over the M20 with reserves intact. But the RG does have a very high dash though so you are looking out the side to judge the flare.
Now don't get me wrong, the M20s do have amazing performance on 200HP, but they are far more sport-car like in that fact that everything it does comes at a cost of something else. Relatively low power means low fuel consumption and decent performance lightly loaded but on a hot day with some weight it becomes a slug. Sleek design means it has high cruise performance but that comes at the cost of a very cosy cabin - don't forget the minties!
Too many compromises for my liking, the RG just does a better job. M20s look a lot more handsome, I'll admit.
justapplhere,
Sorry I don't but ACMS seems to have you covered.
One-eyed, me?
