Is ownership worth it?

I like the TB20 a lot and I like Mooneys. In fact I have just been offered a 50% share in a Mooney M20K, in beautiful condition and full IFR capable. The other 50% has been owned by a guy who flies with his wife and 2 sons from LFFK to Ireland. It is his second Mooney M20K.
There are no downsides and it is always hangared and the maintenance guy is a one man band in another part of the same hangar. Hangarage does not depend on using the maintenance. The guy is building a good reputation here. I know and get on well with both the guy who is selling his 50% and the guy who I would be sharing with and I have known them for years. No availability problems. Finally, the price is good.
So why am I not going to take up the offer?
First it means getting back into the certified world with all the problems and possible costs that brings. Not so much the maintenance, but AVGAS, handlers, parking fees etc. Because you end up going to airports which with an RV or a ULM you just don’t go to.
Secondly, it would mean the annual Class 2 medical, which I have already given my opinion on in several threads.
Thirdly, returning to fuel. Whilst Avgas was available at many if not most small airfields, even those smaller than LFFK, that is no longer the case.
Fourth do I really want to fly over large extents of water in an SEP with no parachute? Well not having got used to a twin and I am not so sure of the value of the parachute either.
Lastly, I have come to enjoy flying ULs. My wife is happy, she likes the parachute. The one I fly has a range of around 450nm, I can land it in a 150m field and take off again. I can use fuel from a local supermarket and I don’t need a medical, no control test every year maintenance is easy and I can do it myself or pay someone else. I don’t need annuals or a regular C of A.
I shall miss not being able fly IFR but only for getting above and below the cloud layer without needing a hole to do so.
I stay clear of ice anyway. After all, this is a hobby.
Travelling along at around 100kts I get to see more and my wife likes the idea of just dropping in to a small field with a restaurant or staying overnight in some nice town rather than hacking on to the destination. Even in the car I have just got round to breaking up a long journey.
On top of that there is the UL and homebuilt community, generally friendly, hospitable and helpful.
Yes there are downsides. I need a class 2 medical to fly to Spain and for some countries I need permission to fly there. But this is no longer an onerous process for most countries and is usually for 6months or a year.
Not many small fields have Mogas on site and so you need to get to the local petrol station with empty canisters and bring them back again full. Thankfully the Super Guépard does not need one to climb on the wing to refuel.
And lastly my wife can no longer take everything including the kitchen sink with her. But perhaps that is a good thing. The SG has a useful load of around 240kg minus around 42kg for fuel if one wants to remain legal.
Just the 2cts of a happy bunny who enjoys his hobby.🙂

hazek wrote:

So I really don’t understand what would stop people with a Mooney from travelling??

What I meant was that a Mooney (or similar) will probably be the best choice of aircraft. That’s what they are designed to do. This doesn’t mean that you cannot do it in an UL. There are lots modern ULs that will do the same, at the same speed (more or less), and with sometimes longer endurance. You have a choice:

• Mooney (or similar): Designed for the job, but with all the added cost and nonsense for a certified aircraft.
• A modern UL (a Shark for instance): Does the job perfectly well, but not as good as a Mooney. But with the fraction of the yearly cost and nonsense due to certification.

When I say a fraction of the cost and nonsense. It’s about 1/10 to 1/5 of the running cost, and all the certified “problems” will be gone. In practice this translates to a much higher uptime of your aircraft, the fraction of the cost, and a lot less headaches caused by bureaucracy.

Is the Mooney worth it? It’s a personal choice. For some people taking a longer trip once a year in their own “Mooney” is what flying is all about, and that’s the end of discussion. However, objectively speaking, it will never ever be worth it. You will get orders of magnitude more bang for the buck by choosing a lesser capable, yet more than adequate UL. Most people will choose bang for the buck rather than a super specific niche, but for the few only interested in that super specific niche, nothing else is worth while.

Mooney_Driver wrote:

And most people who do this do so IFR.

Complete nonsense. At least 9 out of 10 who fly longer trips do so VFR and in much less capable aircraft. That’s the reality. The reason to fly IFR in a “hot rod” has all to do about an affection for – ta da – flying IFR in a hot rod. Nothing wrong with that, but it’s a niche that most pilots find uninteresting or simply not worth the effort.

Dan wrote:

the standard Mooney is a 2 seater. It is a good, reasonably fast IFR reliable airplane for 2 up. More than that will have cramped pax with folded knees and no space/view longing to stretch their legs and take their golf clubs along iso the toothbrush with no paste.
Yes, if I had to fly/file IFR legally, a Mooney would probably top my list

The “folded knee” myth stems from the short body Mooneys such as mine. Since the F/J/K models the legroom in the back is no different to a PA28 and in the long body ones (Ovation/Acclaim) it is considerably bigger. The main problem with most Mooneys is weight to carry 4, but that is a problem with almost all 4 seaters. (Even though the “funny” bit is, the models which do the weight bit best were the C/E’s, so the short body versions. I have carried 4 on 2-3 hour endurance trips before and it was not a problem.)

I compare Mooneys with Porsche’s or similar. Most of those sports cars have no creature comforts in the rear but are fast and usually 2 seaters (most are not economical though…). If you need to transport lots of stuff and people, go for a 182 or 210.

dutch_flyer wrote:

But even though it’s not cheap, to say it’s not worth it to fly an EASA reg is a bridge too far IMHO. I go on real trips (Stavanger, Copenhagen, Switzerland, etc) with four adults/teens and baggage. This can be done by managing fuel and sometimes adding a stop, which is not a huge deal.

Exactly.

LeSving wrote:

A modern UL (a Shark for instance): Does the job perfectly well, but not as good as a Mooney. But with the fraction of the yearly cost and nonsense due to certification.

I could pull the same cheap shot and say in Switzerland UL’s are banned and therefore what is the discussion. Or that for my personal situation, I can’t even sit in most UL’s because they will break because I am one of many who has too much weight. For me, UL’s are as totally useless as for you certified airplanes are. This discussion is pointless.

LeSving wrote:

Complete nonsense. At least 9 out of 10 who fly longer trips do so VFR and in much less capable aircraft. That’s the reality. The reason to fly IFR in a “hot rod” has all to do about an affection for – ta da – flying IFR in a hot rod. Nothing wrong with that, but it’s a niche that most pilots find uninteresting or simply not worth the effort.

Most people fly IFR because they live in areas where VFR gives them a b.s. despatch rate and because they wish to have a quiet flight rather than dodging airspace all the time. Again, in the paradise of Norway that may not be a problem, but it sure as hell is here. Do you think a trip like the terbangs have done or what Peter does regularly would be possible or desirable to do VFR?

The attitude you display is unfortunately one which is quite popular in GA and leads to the fact that the IR is poh-pohed by many, some of which would still be alive had they done the trouble to do it. That and the fact that outpricing and anti GA sentiments (they should fly UL’s or not at all) leads to bans a lot of airports which have IFR capability.

What is right for one guy may well be simply impossible for the other. I don’t have any issue with you enjoying your UL but if UL’s were the only way I’d be grounded permanently and quite a lot of people with me.

Fact of the matter is: What people see in flying is hugely different. Me, I have little to no interest at all in flying “for fun”. It’s travel, it’s going places and it’s flying with airliner style precision and schedule. But I would not dream to tell you or Dan that you are wrong in what you want.

The other difference is that a pilot based in NO is probably going to be flying mostly or entirely in NO, whereas a pilot based in CH will definitely want to be able to fly abroad unrestricted.

Plus CH is going to have way more flyable days in a year than NO. I have never flown to NO but planned to go there many times over the years and almost every time I looked at the wx it was not just bad; it was lethal Both countries have great scenery but CH can quite clearly be enjoyed a lot more days of the year.

I love having a big aircraft available, because we do as much touring flying as we can, and in addition to the old joke of the wife bringing the kitchen sink, I do the same.
When we travel we love to have stuff with us. Cameras, gadgets, laptop. Nearly always 2x folding bikes. It’s not uncommon for us to remove a seat for ultimate loading convenience.
I think for a 3 or 4 night trip, we’d probably take enough stuff and fuel for 2 of us that a PA28 wouldn’t get airborne. Twice a year we go for 10 days and take even more gear.
At the drop of a hat it may even be a 4 person trip with the same junk.
Couldn’t really do that if hiring.

Most people fly IFR because they live in areas where VFR gives them a b.s. despatch rate and because they wish to have a quiet flight rather than dodging airspace all the time. Again, in the paradise of Norway that may not be a problem, but it sure as hell is here. Do you think a trip like the terbangs have done or what Peter does regularly would be possible or desirable to do VFR?

People in Europe and in the third world fly IFR because there is so much chaotic airspace and government BS on their route that they couldn’t fly the route without constant ATC communication and IFR. Regardless of weather being appropriate for IFR or not, they have no choice but to accept the lesser of two evils and submit to the BS to take a given route.

Everybody has their way to cope with unnecessary BS, and we all face it somewhere in our lives, but personally my choice in that circumstance would be not to fly that route, up to and including not flying at all if I were surrounded by such nonsense, or traveling elsewhere to fly on vacation trips instead.

Silvaire wrote:

People in Europe and in the third world fly IFR because there is so much chaotic airspace and government BS their route that they couldn’t fly the route without IFR.

Well, last time I looked Scandinavia was in Europe and it does not have the “chaotic airspace” and “government BS their route” that you can find in some parts of continental Europe. Still I do almost all “travel” flights IFR. That’s primarily because then I have to worry a lot less about the weather.