I'll counter it a bit... the OP does have an instrument rating, so at least that hurdle as been crossed. And it is hard to turn into a 1000 hr pilot with lots of "real" XC time by flying 100 NM trips... so step one is to get the right plane for the mission. An M20K could be the right plane. Step two is to get a proper checkout with an experienced instructor in-type. Step three is using the plane! And a 1000 NM trip can be two 500 NM trips strung together...

A conservative approach/attitude coupled with the right plane and equipment is how you complete such trips safely. Sure, there will be some times when weather will prevent such a trip, or cause a diversion, but a lot of times a good plane, a cautious pilot, and some on-board weather (ADS-B, XM, etc., perhaps supplemented with a Stormscope) will mean a successful trip. At least that is how I turned into a 1000 hr pilot compared to 300 hrs when I purchased my plane. I live in a region with some of the most dynamic weather in the country, and have managed to fly to both coasts from here, as well as north and south, and gotten wet plenty of times. I've had to shoot approaches in weather. I've had to divert around big systems, and I've landed short and gotten stuck for two days. Each trip builds experience and leads to better judgment for the next one. I still have a lot to learn, but I know quite a bit more now after flying "real" trips for 7 years as an owner than I did as a non-owner!

The poster says that half of his mission will be solo business trips of 1000nm. Depends on the business, but I suspect most people (regardless of experience probably) would find it difficult to conduct business in an efficient, well-rested, predictable manner flying 1000nm legs in a 200hp airplane.

I agree you have to start getting experience somewhere, but part of getting experience is having realistic expectations that don't leave you frustrated and disappointed 6 months in. 400-600mile missions are a great start. 1000nm routinely is too much.

The idea is to gain experience, any business is a side benefit. It is hard to get into weather in illequiped rentals, and a 231 seems to be the cheapest airplane for the performance to get out, see, and get into weather.

Two posters ago pretty much nailed it.

I have owned both a 201 and a 231. Both were good planes and were sold only because of partnership issues. They usually have good panels and I thought were excellent instrument platforms. Although they have a rep for being tight inside, they had more leg room than my Baron.

Is your comment a judgement on $110K aircraft or 240 hours? I kind of agree that it will be hard to pull off on a $110K budget because one really needs to TKS and at least reliable way to get to about 20,000 feet but from my experience 240 hours can be plenty enough for many and on the other hand 24,000 for others is sheer dumb luck. With high enough of a risk tolerance it can be done for about $200K in a M20M. The risk is loosing your engine over rough terrain in low IFR and/or night time. Otherwise, a M20M is as capable as any piston out there.

John, I agree with most of the comments, especially the ones from those that have factual information by having owned or operated a 231. I've owned and operated a BE35, M201, M231, and an BE36. The 201's and 231 are wonderful traveling IFR machines if you can accept around 920 useful load. With full tanks the 231 is a 600NM or 700KM range aircraft depending on how high you fly. The 201, 231 and 252 are very similar airframes. Main differences are in front of the panel.
Key points are as follows:
- The 252 is one of the finest 4 seat turbocharged AC ever made (check resale values)
- A 231 can be upgraded to be very close to a 252 for much less than a 252.
- You must have a 231 with the LB upgraded engine, do not by the GB engine
- You need a 231 to have a wastegate, an intercooler, and other mods like gap seals, gear door mods and Gami injectors.
-you should have one with speed brakes or plan a longer arrival.
-Need a prebuy buy a Mooney expert shop, Willmar, Lake, and The one it TX and another in FL.
Watch for tube corrosion, leaks in wet wing fuel tanks, and other basic stuff common to other AC airframe, power, and av.

Plan on 155 low and 165-175Kts depending how high you want to fly.

I'm a flatlander so going east it was fantastic. Going west I had to go low and burned more gas to go 201 speeds. Point is... if you fly frequently above 8-10K and for sure up in the teens, then buy the 231. If lower, buy the 201, or NA Bonanza.

The Mooney, like the Bo is a great instrument and x-country platform. All AC have their flight design personalities, and for the Mooney....
-solid roll feel with push tube controls
-never practice a full power take off stall
-fly by the numbers on landing because they float long in ground effects. Most landing incidents are overshoots, rare to land short.
-unforgiving if you are fast in the landing transition. Fly fine, taxi fine, but not good to be fast on the short and narrow gear. Best to go around than a bounce and prop strike.
-Average X-wind component when flown slow at the numbers
The airframe is strong so they will find it with the wings attached and mostly in one part, but same result as other AC for the occupants.
Engine management and expense are more costly and complicated than the 201, but manageable and needed if you are +10K.

I purchased my 231 as a 300 hour VFR pilot. I wanted to get my IFR rating in the AC that I would be traveling in. It worked great for me with a Mooney specialized instructor. I wanted more speed and payload so I upgraded to an A36, but if I did not need 5 or 6 seats, I would still own the 231.

Good luck with your decision, and if you can swing it, go for the A36 TN flying in the peaks, or the A36NA for all other missions. Your next AC will be a turbine.

Best Mooney ever built is the 201J. Mooney is a great pilot plane (201J and newer). I'm 6'4" and my 201J is still the most comfortable plane I've flown. Huge leg room, articulating seats that go up and down, back and forth. Sips Avgas and with long range tanks can go 1800 miles non stop.

My hangar mate has a Rocket. Frigging fast, I mean really frigging fast. PM me if you need his contact info. He flies everywhere.

As for 1000 mile radius, I was a 200 hr pilot when I got my Mooney. I flew everywhere with that plane. People say that Delta may be more reliable, but I'm not so sure. They've cancelled on me, missed my connection (ATL sucks for that) and generally given me a hard time.

If you wait a day, weather will always turn in your favor. West may be different because of the Mountains/snow/weather, but here in the Southeast we wait an hour and the weather changes. Frankly never been an issue for more than 12 hours to a day.

Mooney's are awesome........if you've got kids.......well Baron's are better

In my experience Mooneys are a specialty commodity and a purchase should be approached methodically.

If I were looking for a Mooney today I would call the experts like Tim Lundquist at Strategic Aircraft, Bruce Jaeger in MN, Greg at Lapeer Aviation in MI, Jason Doscher in MN, Willmar in MN, All American Aircraft in TX, or your local MSC.

I would also check in on Mooneyspace.

Mooney pilots tend to be nice guys and the community can keep you from getting burned if you're new to the marque.

Best

Tim

Dave,
That looks good....one owner since new! 215 hour engine. Maybe need to swap a used 430 for the 251/351, someone will be happy with that plane.

John I have nothing to add that could be more informative than actual 231 owners have shared with you, but will pass along something I was told a couple of weeks ago at the Oceano Airport Celebration. There was a relatively large Mooney presence there and I spent a lot of time talking to the folks that love them. Wonderful people, all of them.

To my point... One couple that we met owns 4 airplanes, one of which is a 201 and another that is a Beech Debonair. We talked a lot about having the choice of which of these two he is going to fly on any particular day and he said that him and his wife like the Mooney better out of the two. I've met people before who have owned one type or another over time, but as an owner with both he chooses to fly the Mooney over the Beech. He was going to take me up for my first Mooney ride, but the logistics didn't work out.


BTW, I love the profile of the 231's. There's something about the cowl that just gets me.

Jeff,
It's a nice one and my friend Paul has owned it since new. He's a retired Doc and is having some medical issues which I think is forcing the sale. This bird is going to live in my new hangar starting next month until it's sold as the Rialto airport is slated for closure on June 30th. I'm tempted...

Dave

I own both , The Mooney takes more skill and attention to fly and land , The Beech is easy peasy as far as a piloting , and much more forgiving.....On short hops I prefer the Mooney because It feels more sporty , probably because of the seating position and the rod controls, on longer Hops or when I take 2 or 3 passengers I prefer the Beech because of speed , and payload......(I also like the fact that the Mooney burns 5 GPH less than the Beech)..

An easy way to think of a Mooney is it's 3/4 of a Bonanza. 3/4 of the payload, fuel burn, and range. The pilot' butt is also 3/4 as high off the ground when landing. Probably explains why so many Mooney pilots upgrade to a Beech.

In reply to William's query as to whether I consider the limitation the money or the pilot's time, it's both and more.

That budget will likely not get you a fully equipped aircraft for repetitive 1000 nm jaunts. As to pilot time, there is much to learn about long xc flying and good judgement comes from surviving bad judgement.

The true crux of my pessimism is simply that for business flying, with schedules to meet, the gentleman is going to be disappointed. 50% of my long trips this winter got switched to the airlines for either the weather going or the forecast weather on the return. Believing that a single engine, piston airplane is a reliable option for timely trips of that length is simply fantasy.

Jgreen

I would agree, but unless it's really bad frontal, I find I can reliably fly 70-80% of the time within the same time period (+/- 12 hrs)