I am one of the 40years + gang, that means the airplane is pretty close to my own age. But as far as bang for the buck goes.... I never thought I'd own something in this class ever nor would I be able to do some serious travelling for the cash I shell out per flight hour these days.
I've done what the thread starter here did but on a different level. I wanted a truely affordable traveller in both initial investment and sustainability. In short, an aircraft I could afford to buy AND to fly. And as I am not "loaded" in any sense, that seemed to be a pretty difficult thing to achieve.
I looked at Cherokees, Arrows (there were some which were cheaper on the market than pure Cherokees but I found out why when I saw the maintenance bills) Grumman Cheetah's or Tigers and looked longingly at things like the TB20, the Mooneys and Bonanzas. I've flown all of them, TB20 is still something I like a lot, especcially in terms of cabin size and comfort.
I came across a Bonanza and almost bought it. It was a V35C, 1959 V Bonanza, super Cockpit for a plane that age (HSI, 2 axis S-Tec AP, full IR) and it was comparatively cheap. BUT it only made 300 NM with full fuel and reserve and when I looked at the maintenance bill and was told that for the magnesium control surfaces a hangar is an absolute must, I had to quickly pull back.
Then I came across a Mooney and told the guy, yea, right, but I can't afford those, they are like Porsches, right? Wrong.
Looked at the maintenance bills this guy had for the last 5 years, less than some Cherokee 180'ties I'd seen. Price, below most other planes including the Cherokees. Range, 600-650 NM at 140 to 150 kts. Can carry non-IATA-Standard me and 2 passengers or just me and my wife and her baggage with full fuel (52 USG). Umm, yes, you were saying? If I were to put Monroy Tanks in, it would carry me 1200 NM plus reserve? Umm again. It had all the avionics safe a HSI but a GNS430? And all that for the few bucks I had set aside?
That is a 1965 Mooney M20C. Manual gear and manual flaps make for very few maintenace money, together with a standard off the shelf O360-A1D which just got zeroed. She's extremely sturdy in terms of stability, flies like on rails and does all I need to do and then some. 600 NM is quite sufficient for me at the time, sure I'd like to be able to do 1000 NM or even 700 NM, but then again, José Monroy has some tanks for sale. Maybe put a 201 style windshield on one day together with a cowl mod? And I still have an airplane for very few money. I am now shopping for an Aspen plus an S-Tec 30 or 55 (depending on budget) to get me up to speed and replace some stuff which is out dated, but that will be it.
What I have seen in recent discussions with fellow Mooneyacs really makes a very strong point for these airplanes. The 201 (M20J) will travel 150-160 kts at 9 gph and at 64 USG will take you further than you'll need. The Turbos will blow most of the competition out of the water speed/economy wise as well and the Ovation with the LR tanks are true transatlantic machines. I've come across an -E which has done two around the world tours with up to 15 hour flights.
If I ever would want to upgrade, it would either be to another Mooney (Ovation most likely for the range) or to a Twin Commanche which will do 1200-1600 NM at 170 kts and with a fuel flow of an Acclaim, but it is a twin.
Ah yes. the Diamonds. They are great airplanes but Expensive with a capital E, plus there is the Thielert engine. No need to recap that sorry chapter with regards of what happened after the bancruptcy, but what good does a low fuel bill do if you have to change most of the engine every 300 hours, have a 1000 hour TBO and then throw away the whole engine for a new one? I am tempted by the Austroengine, which seems to be the 1.15th generation of the Diesels and looks and sounds better in terms of how it does what, but again, it is a new and unproven design just yet.
The problem I see with our current fleet is that in many cases the 30-40 year old designs of Al Mooney and Piper as well as others are still the best there is for the money. Nobody I know of has outdone the Twin Comanche yet in that sector. Any recent airframe is so viciously expensive that most regular folks will have to forget them. They cost more than a house and not many of us can justify that kind of outlay. But one which costs less than a new car and still can play with the "big guys"?
Best regards
AN2 Driver