Cessna 172 vs. Mooney vs. ?

Although I'm a way off, I'm beginning to consider planes for my commute.


You'll want to make a realistic estimate of how much flying you'll be doing.
Airplanes like Mooneys are 'slippery' as well as complex. It's more likely to
bite you than is a 172.

If you expect to take longer trips, or do a reasonable amount of actual IFR,
the M20 series has the legs to be useful. In the esatern seaboard at least the
C172s range had been a problem for me w/r/t IFR alternates. I think with equal
flying experience -- take that to mean pilot prudence - 172s are probably
safer.

But it terms of flying pleasure (I'd better get flame proof pants on here) it's
pretty hard to wipe the smile off most Mooney jock's faces. They are a
responsive airplane, you think the thought and the airplane does it, just like
that.

But man, checking for water in the gas when it's been raining is a PITA, in
addition to smiles you can tell a Mooney pilot because his suit pants sometimes
have dirty knees.

Oh yeah -- the route you'll be most often flying -- be sure to get a handle on
what winds aloft are likely to be. 150 kts TASmaakes is a lot more difference
than 110 kts than you might think.

Ajw,

But man, checking for water in the gas when it's been raining is a PITA,


Tucson, Flagstaff, rain - which of the three doesn't belong? ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)