5 ms·

Totally agree with you it's all about what you are looking for (range, payload, power, efficiency). The 172 is a fine trainer, but it really doesn't excel in se

by kitteh 6y ago

Totally agree with you it's all about what you are looking for (range, payload, power, efficiency). The 172 is a fine trainer, but it really doesn't excel in several dimensions. That may be fine for some folks missions, but for others you are going to have to spend a bit more if you want to be good in a few of those. When I got my private cert and started focusing on my instrument training and flying in hard IMC and potentially deal with icing, I had to step up my requirements. Disclaimer: A Mooney owner myself.

freerobby 6y ago
Does your Mooney have the TKS system, or are you saying there's a general benefit to a M20 over a 172 in terms of icing?
- sokoloff 6y ago
  Any turbocharged airplane with a hot prop will be better than a 172 in icing. Turbo gives you altitude flexibility and power to get out of the ice (rarely more than 4000’ thick vertically) and the hot prop will help you pull through it. (I have a turbo and TKS on my A36. Almost never need the TKS.)
  - freerobby 6y ago
    Thank you! (PPL student here, still lots to learn).
    - tjohns 6y ago
      It’s worth noting that single engine FIKI is a little controversial. Having TKS (or boots) is definitely a safety benefit in case you end up in inadvertent icing, but remember that the system can still get overwhelmed. Avoiding icing conditions is still a good idea, even with TKS. :)
      - VBprogrammer 6y ago
        At a certain point you can question the suitability of the traditional twin engine piston IFR types for true commercial level FIKI. Not least because most of the examples are well into their middle age, most types are somewhat marginal on one engine, and single engine mishandling is rarely survivable. In reality most people who can afford to run a piston twin are moving down to a Cirrus or moving up to a turbine single.
        sokoloff 6y ago
        I think the move up to a turbine single is driven by maintenance dispatch reliability ("will the airplane work when I show up to fly it?") more than weather dispatch reliability ("is the airplane equipped and powerful enough for the weather challenge I'll face today?"). Turbines give you much higher power reserves at low altitude, so they are better in icing on departure and approach, but that difference doesn't come up nearly as often as generalized maintenance issues. (Owning a 1976 piston twin was an overall negative experience. I loved the airplane, but it was a maintenance hog, mostly aging systems and aging design philosophy related.) I agree 100% that the piston twin is a dying breed, but I think it's almost never to do with FIKI (flight-into-known-icing) issues.
      - sokoloff 6y ago
        100% this! If I expect icing beyond trace/light, waiting or flying around it is my plan on anything with props. (I didn’t buy TKS to fly in ice; I bought TKS because it was already on the airplane that I otherwise wanted and having it was not a deal-breaker.)
- kitteh 6y ago
  Have TKS. I don't believe you can get that on a 172 (but a 182 you can). That said I've heard anecdotally a 172/182 can carry ice better than a lot of other aircraft (I've only been iced up in a 172, never on a Mooney). That shouldn't matter anyways since you should avoid ice as much as possible.

by kitteh 6y ago

freerobby 6y ago

Does your Mooney have the TKS system, or are you saying there's a general benefit to a M20 over a 172 in terms of icing?

sokoloff 6y ago
Any turbocharged airplane with a hot prop will be better than a 172 in icing. Turbo gives you altitude flexibility and power to get out of the ice (rarely more than 4000’ thick vertically) and the hot prop will help you pull through it. (I have a turbo and TKS on my A36. Almost never need the TKS.)
- freerobby 6y ago
  Thank you! (PPL student here, still lots to learn).
  - tjohns 6y ago
    It’s worth noting that single engine FIKI is a little controversial. Having TKS (or boots) is definitely a safety benefit in case you end up in inadvertent icing, but remember that the system can still get overwhelmed. Avoiding icing conditions is still a good idea, even with TKS. :)
    - VBprogrammer 6y ago
      At a certain point you can question the suitability of the traditional twin engine piston IFR types for true commercial level FIKI. Not least because most of the examples are well into their middle age, most types are somewhat marginal on one engine, and single engine mishandling is rarely survivable. In reality most people who can afford to run a piston twin are moving down to a Cirrus or moving up to a turbine single.
      - sokoloff 6y ago
        I think the move up to a turbine single is driven by maintenance dispatch reliability ("will the airplane work when I show up to fly it?") more than weather dispatch reliability ("is the airplane equipped and powerful enough for the weather challenge I'll face today?"). Turbines give you much higher power reserves at low altitude, so they are better in icing on departure and approach, but that difference doesn't come up nearly as often as generalized maintenance issues. (Owning a 1976 piston twin was an overall negative experience. I loved the airplane, but it was a maintenance hog, mostly aging systems and aging design philosophy related.) I agree 100% that the piston twin is a dying breed, but I think it's almost never to do with FIKI (flight-into-known-icing) issues.
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      100% this! If I expect icing beyond trace/light, waiting or flying around it is my plan on anything with props. (I didn’t buy TKS to fly in ice; I bought TKS because it was already on the airplane that I otherwise wanted and having it was not a deal-breaker.)
kitteh 6y ago
Have TKS. I don't believe you can get that on a 172 (but a 182 you can). That said I've heard anecdotally a 172/182 can carry ice better than a lot of other aircraft (I've only been iced up in a 172, never on a Mooney). That shouldn't matter anyways since you should avoid ice as much as possible.