All Activity

I've grown exceedingly pessimistic over the years. I had to develop cost estimates at work before I retired; materials, labor, travel, etc. After a while I learned that if you didn't triple whatever you thought it should take you'd come up short; everyone around me joked and agreed; triple it and you'll be about right. I've found aircraft maintenance to be very similar. Even if you're lucky enough to be billed 10 hours, you'll get the plane back together in a week; maybe three days minimum. Based on Mooneyspace recommendations, I pulled the aft two inspection plates behind the stub spar during my last annual. Apparently they hadn't been removed for years; screws were frozen. By the time we got the plates off, and vacuumed out all of the carpet residue and debris that had accumulated in the area behind the spar, that alone was at least a two hour task. Whatever you touch seems to lead to more work. I'm not saying don't do it, I'm just suggesting folks plan on more work than they expect. I guess you'll know if you'll buy it and have a chance to do the work before you put it back together. I've wondered what it would be like to inspect and buy a plane that's only a few years old; that would be a joy; thin log books; squeaky clean airframes. I've also thought how great it would be to buy a solid airframe, gut it, and restore it ground up. That too would be a joy. Everything in the middle feels like a compromise.

Very cool list to see this in one short list. As an avid J follower, I'm sure every (dare I say) first-gen J driver/owner is thrilled to see their machines lumped in together with the (dare I say) later-gen Js. Though tempting, I try not to automatically consider a later model J any better, per se, than an earlier iteration, or for that matter an earlier iteration any worse, per se, than a later one. There are marked differences in the type (dual/single mags, split rear seats/single-back bench seat, airframe mods galore, etc). I find it interesting that Mooney actually got away with type certifying the M20J through as many iterations as they did, even though the gross weight and power plant(s) were distinctly different (see Cessna 172 and Piper PA-28 Arrow series as good examples of different type certificates and altogether different airplanes, but similar in market designation. That said, an Arrow is not an Arrow II is not an Arrow III, etc.). Yet an M20J is an M20J. Perhaps those far better versed in the type can set my confusion straight? Is it because the number of seats and actual horsepower remained the same throughout the production run? Not much else did remain the same from 1977 to ~1998. I'd be crazy to assume that a later model Allegro should be priced similar to a 1978 M20J and vice versa, an earlier 1978 M20J shouldn't be priced similar to a later Allegro. Thus these averages are a bit tough to analyze from a value standpoint. This really does boil down to the "eye of the beholder". I'm sure there are absolute 1977 beauties out there that are every bit worth $200K and some later model turds that shouldn't bring half of that. For many more reasons than this current chat about this, I sure wish Roy LoPresti was still around to ask him why and how Mooney got away with this--there has to be a fascinating back story to the moniker (other than the 201 mph top design speed at the time). Maybe the most telling of this list of averages is the fluctuation of numbers available from month to month (albeit in this small sample from Controller listings). Low appears to be 18 and the high appears to be 27, all within ~8 months of each other.

The 201 windshield is riveted flush to my best recollection, not sure about round head screws on bottom of wing, my airplane does not have them, there are people that can add up such drag counts, never got that far, if the cowl closure is done next simple thing are flap gap and aileron gap seals, should get you 1-2 kt, see how that feels, windshield is time consuming and better done by somebody who has done a lot of them, tie down rings can be replaced with Lasar combo jack points

According to AIN Online, the first Meridian (2001) was severely limited when it rolled out of Vero Beach: "With full fuel, the typical Meridian could carry 350 pounds in the cockpit and cabin–sufficient for little more than a couple and their weekend bags." https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2007-10-08/vortex-generators-boost-meridians-useful-load Apparently, they stuck on a bunch of vortex generators to help get the stall speed down, and open the door for gross weight increases.

New panel cut! Hardware and wiring about done! Waiting for the Carbon Fiber overlay and hook up! -Don

It is very easy to overload if you put in 4+ people and try to fly 800nm. Baggage area is max 100lbs too. It’s a very nice 4 seater, but yes, i bet a lot of people overload them, 500hp turbine on the front really makes it go.

One other quick question. Is there any mod that would replace the infinite number of round head exposed screws on the underside of the wings and/or around the windshield with something flatter and less exposed? Would that make a difference?

You have a full-blown case of ‘Mooney-itis.’ You might get to the 155 number with all the speed mods on your E… including wing root and stab fairings besides the 201 windscreen and maybe a new J/Lopresti/Sabremech cowl. There’s a C on our ramp with inner gear doors. But, Mooney-itis is insidious. Once you get to that 155 number, either with your highly modified E or a new-to-you J, you’ll be looking for more. My advice, start looking for your Rocket…

You would get an extra 10 knots in a J, so that’s an extra 30 nm over a 3 hour trip. You also would be able to carry more fuel, more range. If you want to take 5-6 hour trips without stopping, having plenty of fuel leftover, a J would save you a lot of time.

I had all the mods available in 99 including the low profile gear doors, one piece belly, 201 windshield, the whole works, hindsight the flap hinge covers did not help, everything else did, most of the stuff is still on the Lasar website, did not have scimitar prop, after it was all done airplane got painted which probably helped, the E with the short body is the fastest 4 banger, least amount of wetted surface, controls more responsive than the mid body, that might be the determining factor whether to soup up or not soup up if the airframe and the engine are solid

The biggest improvements will be the J windscreen and cowling, or as close to that as you can get. Neither are trivial efforts. The LASAR cowl closure helps a bit, the ARI cowl mod (no longer available, I believe) helps a bit more, and a true J cowl or better yet, the LoPresti cowl (also no longer available) would be the biggest help. @Sabremech's cowl mod might be available at some point and would be the best choice IMO. The 3 blade McCaulley prop is likely costing you a few knots as well. It's also pretty heavy, but I'm not sure if your E would benefit from getting weight off the nose or not. On my J, my CG is biased forward so removing 12 lbs off the nose when I upgraded to the MT composite prop vs. the original 2-blade McCaulley helped me. But if you are biased aft, then going to a lighter 2-blade prop might not help you. The rest of the speed mods are fractional and should only be added if you have nothing left to do and have a lot of pride in your bird, and after you've thoroughly checked the rigging with the travel boards, checked all of the gear door fits when retracted, step retraction (for your plane, if applicable), etc. If you're really obsessive about it, then look at further drag reduction with antennas and scoops. I've been going down this trail for pretty much my entire ownership period because it fascinates me as an aerospace engineer, but at the end of the day, if my plane were 5 knots faster in cruise it really would not change how I fly at all, but I would be happier just because I've optimized my plane. Having said all that, these planes were all hand-built, and there are variations from tail to tail that are hard to explicitly measure. Some are just faster than others, and I suspect that variation might be in the fuselage/wing alignment, or other similar variations. I've been saying for years now that one of these days I'm going to jack and level my plane, and take careful measurements of wing skew/tilt/alignment, etc. and see how "square" my particular J is. Maybe this winter since I finally have a dream hangar with a nice floor and lights, and insulation.

Or airplanes that wound up being parted out due to corrosion.

It was my pleasure, thank you for your kind words Nick! You made my job easy as a very sharp student and great pilot, I enjoyed flying with you and sharing my knowledge about these amazing machines . Looking forward to following your future adventures in your new bird!

I used the Electroaire ignition panel, and put white "OFF" labels on the top of the mag switches that are only visible when the switch is off (you push the top of the rocker switch in to turn it on). The switches DO feel cheap and cheesy, definitely not a mil-spec feel, but I like them and so far they work fine.

I know it's stupid. I did all the calculations, and on my longest flights I would save like 15-20 minutes. No idea why this is obsessing me, but it does -- I want to see those book numbers of 155kts or so at 10000 feet.

The one I was partners in had pretty much all that except leather floors from the factory. At the altitudes that it flys at you definitely want the factory wool carpet with the insulation to keep it warm enough for the passengers. I loved the pressurization but the range on the original Meridian (with gross weight increase) made it slower in many "from destination to destination" scenarios than what I have in my Acclaim, since the Meridian needed a fuel stop.

No more than 10 hrs for everything The most time consuming part of the job is reading the log books and removing the interior If you find stuff unairworthy you have negotiating power to reduce the sale price OR just walk away. Even if you drop $1500 on the pre-buy and walk away you have saved lots of money in the long run. There have been several cases right here on Mooneyspace of quick or no pre-buy and the first annual winds up costing $10-$20,000 or more Words to remember- If every one did the proper maintenance per the book we would not need any pre-buy inspections.

If old man Jose were still around, he’d tell you extended range fuel tanks and a piss hose. It’s nice to have the plane be faster, but let’s face it, unless you fly 10 hours straight or fly hundreds of hours a year, how much time are you really saving with a few knots difference?

Interior Photos

WARNING: Blasphemy follows! Ok, so maybe not blasphemy, but I got your attention. Please see the humor Bottom line up front - I generally don't use more than T/O flaps for landing, and I bring the gear up first on a go-around after I've established a positive rate of climb. I fly a long body (TLS/Bravo) with electric trim and continuously variable flaps with no T/O "notch" switch position. The center of the T/O flap range on the indicator is 10º flaps. The semi-blasphemous part is not using full flaps for most landings. Blasphemous in the sense of not following the POH guidance, and not having published data for landing performance with T/O flaps. Or for no-flap landings for that matter, which I also prefer over full flap landings. And I also may not always observe the flap speed limit when using T/O flaps, especially if things get busy on a go-around. One of the main drivers for finding a way to make the GEAR - UP, FLAPS - UP go-around sequence work in my Mooney is that for 33 years I primarily flew in airplanes that used that sequence. "Gear - Up, Flaps - Up, Good hydraulics" was my mantra. Now it's "Gear - Up, Flaps - Up, good RPM and manifold pressure , cowl flaps open". A secondary driver has to do with landing attitude and my penchant for landing flat with full flaps. While practicing formation landings for the Mooney Caravan I was briefed that we would all land with a 90KIAS Vref with no flaps except the long bodies could use T/O flaps. My first formation landing rivaled the best landings I had made in my Mooney. It was easier for me to hold a nose-high attitude on touchdown and roll-out with T/O flaps or no flaps. Yes, I know it is all in my head. It's probably some hidden subconscious transference of feel or sight picture from other flying experience. I stopped trying to figure it out and just went with what works for me. In the end I improved my full flap landing consistency as well. I've suggested the technique to folks who have lost their landing Mojo and it has helped everyone I've worked with so far. But I still only use T/O flaps for most landings, and almost every landing out of an instrument approach. The reason I choose to do this is to reduce the flight dynamics of configuration changes required in the event of a missed approach or go-around/balked landing. And with the way my flap switch is set up, holding it down for "one potato" puts the flaps consistently at the same place within the T/O bracket on the indicator, requiring only a quick crosscheck of the indicator. Otherwise it's about 6 potatos on the switch for full flaps from zero, which is a long time. That would probably be broken into two separate flap adjustments, but it's 5 extra seconds I don't need to be using my hand and brain for flaps. Looking at the stall speed numbers in the book, I discovered that 1.3 Vs at full flaps was the same as 1.2 Vs at 10º flaps. So what that allows me to do is use the 30º flap landing data computed in Foreflight and execute what would be considered a short field approach Vref at 10º flaps and get essentially the same results. It works for me, and it's the way I practice.

What does the LASAR cowl closure look like? I may have that one already, is it the one that closes the guppy mouth half way, at the bottom? I'll call LASAR to ask about the flap gap seals. What else did you have on your bird @Fritz1?

sounds like the bird is doing just fine, I had a G-model in the late 90s, stock it would do about 135 kt TAS, with all the speed mods it did about 155 Kt TAS, everything but powerflow exhaust and Lopresti cowl. The best bang for the buck are the Lasar cowl closure and the flap gap seals. Call Lasar and see if they currently make them, can't imagine not making the flap gap seals. It all really depends how attached you are to the current airframe, buying a modded airplane is certainly less expensive than doing it yourself, however no airplane flies as well as the one you have souped up yourself, the journey may be the destination

I thought this was only a 210 thing?

Well, you know how pilots exaggerate. Although the airplane in question had a leather interior -- seats, headliner, glare shield, panel, side-walls, and the floor. Not sure what that might weigh, but it could be quite a bit. Maybe he meant "his dirty little secret"?

pre-purchase should be more thorough than an annual, focus is different though and directed to identifying show stoppers, if you find one early, stop the pre-buy, if things keep looking promising complete the prebuy and have it signed off as an annual after you bought the airplane, this is your one and only chance to get to the bottom of the story without having to pay for somebody else's sins, annual on a short body is typically 25-30h, pay for the prebuy, selling price then gets negotiated in view of the findings, if no deal you are much better prepared for the next pre-buy, an E built new today would probably cost in excess of $500k, the maintenance responsibility you are getting into is commensurate with that amount, caveat emptor = buyer beware