This forum could be a good place to advertise personal aircraft for sale. I've just decided to put mine on the market.
1980 Mooney 231 (N231LU)
$119,900.00
See specs and photos (from a Sep 2002 listing - add about 50 hours of total flight time) at:
http://www.mooneypilots.com/
Craig Morris
410 414 9975 (home: after 7:00 pm ET)
703 606 9308 (cell)
202 366 5533 (work: 8:00 am - 5:00 pm ET)
All Comments
What would satisfy my concerns isn't flying today - yet. When it is flying, I won't have to worry about being vectored by preoccupied controllers head on into other traffic, having to remember which lever to pull and pedal to push when an engine quits, etc. All that will be handled by simple computer routines capable of far more exact and reliable performance than any general purpose human being. Also, my dream plane will be pressurized, will make at least 250 knots on 2/3 the fuel burn of today's typical light twin, will be far more reliable, will have a reliable ballistic recovery system, and will cost no more than a good used Mooney does now. Hey, that's about what the Japanese auto industry did in the 1970's in the face of an archaic American industry, so why not in aviation, and not necessarily by the Japanese? Yeah, Mooney's are pretty sweet and I'm sure Barons are too, but by today's standards they're both too slow and expensive. Anyone who wants to question anything is free to do so - the bottom line is this: stay the xxxx out of the NTSB reports and you're doing fine.
I'm a big believer in the saftey, flying, and just the fun of flying multi engine, but from a pratical standpoint, a twin doesn't make much sense unless you really need to move 5+ people and a significant weight. For a smaller twin you get massive drag from two props, you got two nacells out there that are also causing drag apart from the fuselage, so you got to have big high-horsepower engines that are expensive to overhaul and that suck copious amounts of fuel.
A good single engine on the other hand, like an old 200hp mooney will require a LOT less horsepower to make the same airspeed, suck down a lot less gas, and require a LOT less money to overhaul or rebiuld the engines.
For most people, a clean-single makes a LOT more sense. If I had money to burn I'd have a baron for sure :D
Twin vs Single....the argument has been going on as long as there have been twin engine aircraft. You won't resolve the mystery here.
Just for grins, treat yourself to a trip to Lycoming or Continental (tear down facility), I'll make you think about your next IFR flight and night over the mountains in your Mooney.
JW
No doubt I've worried some in those situations, even more than when over the middle of lake Michigan, which I've crossed about 4 times in a Cherokee 180 and once or twice in the Mooney - but only in midsummer and radar contact. Guess I'm confident in my swimming skills, too. But night/IFR over mountains, in low weather? Too risky for single-engine family flying on a regular basis, for my family anyway.
C. Craig - I learned to fly at Waukegan, IL (UGN), which is right on the lake. The water, in July, is about 60-65 degrees, so you're not going to last terribly long in it. It isn't that far to Gary to turn the corner, and the Chicago skyline is neat to look at. I always put "no single engine over water" in the remarks of my flight plan when I cross - RVM.
Not a bad idea. Oh, and I also cross at the top nonoxygen levels, too, 11-12K, and would glide to the nearest boat to ditch, should it be necessary. Always carry lifevests and, when crossing big water, an inflatable raft. But, I definitely wouldn't do it at night, either, or in bad weather, or in an unknown or unreliable aircraft. It's a rush crossing the lake, and really happens pretty fast even in a Cherokee 180.
Top Rated
Tip of the Week
brought to you by
Take extra care to avoid activities that might detract from flying.
Partner Pages
