IndyTim

I'll never forget how completely, nor how suddenly, our lifestyle changed once Kid 1 arrived. One day we were able to just jump in the car and go where we wanted, and then 3-4 days later, every trip was the logistical equivalent of climbing Mt Everest because of the planning and gear involved. And our time has not been our own, since. I'm not familiar with the World Traveler, although lots of folks at our tandem rallies have DaVinci's of one form or another. Does yours have the DaVinci crank system? I appreciate the offer for the pics, thank you, although I'm not sure whether it's a direct compare. The Co-Motion cases, of which there are two, are 25" x 25" x 10". Do you happen to know dimensions of yours? I think the Co-Motion cases will fit, with a little room left over. I think the key is getting them back there though since they won't go through the luggage door. I had been thinking I needed to focus on a post-'81 J (or maybe K) in my search, for the folding rear seat backs, but just discovered there is a bench seat replacement with a folding back available on the earlier Js! That opens up a much wider selection.

... so it looks like the very best M20 variant for my needs, which consist of 98% economy flatlands commuting and 2% flight into backcountry airstrips out west, would be a turbo-normalized J! Keep the weight down in the nose, get great fuel economy, yet still reach the higher elevation airports/air strips. A rare beast, I'm sure. Anyone have a nice one for sale?

I think I found the thread, thanks. I just discovered the "search by phrase" feature!

As I've been looking at J (and K) Mooneys, it's noteworthy how many have had engine teardowns because of prop strikes. I understand the requirement for well-controlled approach speeds, and that landing too fast is one of the primary causes of prop strikes due to the float/hop dynamics. And that this is both a function of the M20 aerodynamics, as well as its relatively short stature on the ground. Does this mean that landings on grass strips are too risky for an M20? Or are there some pilots who are able to use the right techniques, and who can consistently land on grass without endangering the prop? And is there anything that can be done to improve effectiveness/reduce risk on grass or soft fields? Going to a 3-blade, smaller diameter prop would help, no? Does the gear height compress with aged biscuits? Is this also a factor? I'm looking hard at M20's, but also considering a Debonair. In this category, methinks the Deb is the winner, and landing on grass strips out west is something that I'll want to do, occasionally. It's not a showstopper capability, but definitely up there on the list of nice-to-haves.

I think there is ample blame to go around in this incident. And it serves to reinforce the premise that, with any incident there are usually multiple factors and/or a chain of bad decisions that lead to an unfortunate outcome. I think the NTSB and FAA have done a pretty good job of analyzing incident data, identifying primary and contributing factors, and mandating changes where necessary. (This sometimes feels like they're squeezing the life out of GA, but I also see a lot of benefit.) In this case, I don't believe that we should lay all the blame at the pilot's feet. Yes, he was going to land in the displaced threshold so there is some blame there. But also, the road did have a STOP marking on it. The driver exhibited extremely poor situation awareness, and did not yield the right-of-way. Much easier (and therefore required I'd say) for a car to stop and let the airplane fly over, than for the airplane to hop over the car. I hope the judge/jury see it that way, when they make their decisions in about 3.7 years. But the biggest helping of blame goes to the arrangements of the road and runway to one another, and/or the road signage. Why a faded "STOP" painted on the road where it's easy to miss? Why not a large sign next to the road that says "STOP" and "Yield to Aircraft" or something like that? I don't understand the process for establishing signage around airports for messy property arrangements like this one. I assume the FAA regulates the airport, and mandated the 400' displaced threshold, because they could not control the road signage? By the way, I love the interchange on the video: Airport manager to driver: "Why'd you pull out in front of an airplane?" Driver: "We didn't pull out in front of an airplane!!"

Yes, 24" makes a lot more sense. I was misinterpreting the data. Whomever came up with the labels for the dimensions assumed a perspective of looking in through the baggage door.

Thanks. Great info. It looks like 1982 was the year Mooney went to the split seats. Fold down seats would definitely make it easier to get the bikes in there. Once they're broken down and in their padded cases, they are easy to get through a door.

Thanks Cabana. It looks like Baggage Space / Compartment Length is the dimension I'm after. The specs say 35 inches?! Wow, had no idea it was actually that much.

Does anyone have the luggage compartment dimensions for a J? I'm particularly interested in the dimension along the longitudinal axis, from seat back to rear cabin wall. I'm assuming that all J's have the same dimension here, ie there were no changes throughout the entire production series of Js? Are the rear seats moveable, fore/aft? We have a racing tandem in a break-down case, or two bicycles in cases, and I'm wondering if they'll fit in a J. I'm reasonably certain that the compartment side-to-side and height is fine, it's front-to-back dimension that I'm wondering about. I'm assuming I don't need to be concerned about W&B, as max weight for this gear would be about 80 lbs.

Great points, all. I really appreciate the feedback. If I could sum up my priorities into one statement, it would be this: avoiding costly surprises. I can deal with a planned avionics upgrade, or even an overhaul as long as the engine has gotten reasonably close to tbo. What I'm trying very hard to avoid are nasty surprises. The opinions on the dubious value of low-time engines are well taken. As an alternative I've been considering a run-out engine, so I could have my own overhaul or reman engine. That way I know its history.

Yes but the problem is in knowing for certain whether the plane has indeed been flown this way. I would trust a recent MSC overhaul long before I'd trust a seller saying he took good care of the engine.

I would buy newer if it was in budget. For roughly $80k post-buy, Js in good condition (exterior/interior) with at least 1000 hours left on TBO and a decent albeit non-WAAS panel turn out to be in the 78-82 MY range, generally. Just trying to bring some focus to the thread but if there is something I'm missing please share your thoughts.

Congratulations, Craig. Nice panel. I took a quick scan down through your blog, and it looks like there is some overlap in our interests. I'm also in the market for a J, and will use it to make the dreary task of commuting to work a bit more interesting, not to mention faster. Best of luck in getting the F ready to go!

Thanks all - I appreciate the input. I'll be using the plane an average of 5-8 hours per week, so I don't think it's the right setup for a partner. I do plan to have a pre-buy inspection done. Since I'm looking for 1978-1982 model year Js, are there any things in particular to watch for?

Happy Thanksgiving, all. I am currently in the market for a low engine time J to serve mostly as my personal commuter. If anyone has a lead on a nice plane with a good xc setup, I'd appreciate your forwarding the information to me. I'm regularly on Controller, Trade-a-plane, and Barnstomers, as well as the primary Mooney service center websites, looking for the right plane. I'm also wondering if anyone has a pre-buy checklist that they've used in making their purchase. I hope to soon be a more fully qualified member of the Mooney community!

All -- I really appreciate the thoughtful feedback. I'm still in the process of sorting through all available information. As far as my training, I'm working with my CFI-II instructor to move on to IFR as soon as possible. He has also suggested I work towards a commercial rating and as it stands right now I plan to do that. It would help in my extensive business travel. The immediate focus is on what is essentially a "commuter plane". I.e. Get me various destinations up to 500 or 600 miles away efficiently. And for the next 2-3 years and 300-400 hours of flying, also fly with my wife to various destinations. I have other flying-related goals, but they will wait while I gain experience. I have a lot of respect for the comments about operating a slippery plane like a Mooney, and do plan to get the right training and to keep the flight demands well within my personal limits. So thanks for those thoughts. It's a process... As far as plane selection, cost of ownership, efficiency, and speed are the priorities. Based on comments here and other sources, I'm beginning to think that a well-equipped M20J is going to be the best plane for my needs for the next 2-3 years. 4 cylinders rather than 6, and no turbo to worry about. 95% of my flight time will be alone, on routes from SW Missouri to Milwaukee, Florida, and San Antonio, TX.

Hi folks, Great site. I'm new here, and new to flying as well. New to flying from the left seat, that is, as I've been in planes as a passenger virtually my whole life. It's wonderful to finally realize a long-held dream of getting my ppl. I'll beginning the search for a plane and obviously I'm interested in Mooneys. I'll be using the plane to commute 1000 miles round-trip 2-4 times per month, in addition to doing some trips with the wife. Commuting to the Milwaukee area, mostly, plus my wife and I do various tandem rallies and haul in our bike, as well as trips to Santa Fe, Sedona, Colorado Springs, etc. (The bike breaks down, goes in a case, weighs 45 lbs w/ case, not worried about whether it will fit.) I'm looking for speed, efficiency, good performance at altitude, and reasonable cost of ownership. Reasonable for planes, I mean. I'm not sure I fully understand the engine lifecycle, particularly w/r/t Mooney 231s and was hoping someone could help clear things up. Questions - 1. It looks like most Mooney engines have a Mfr TBO of 1700 or 1800 hours. Yet I frequently see planes advertised with, say, 1200 TSOH, but also with a more recent top overhaul. Is it typical that a 231 will need the top end overhauled prior to major or is the frequency misrepresented in planes that happen to be for sale? 2. I note that a key improvement from 231 to 252 is the MB engine and improved cowling. While the 252 appeals, I don't think I can get the 252 I'd want for my budget of $120k or so. Does getting a well-equipped 231 and then planning for an eventual conversion to -MB and 252 cowling when the engine is run out sound like a good idea? Does anyone have an estimated price of that conversion? 3. Can an engine be majored more than once? If I get a plane with 1600 hours, then do a major on it and fly it for another 1800 hours, is that engine done? I know a lot depends upon condition, but just wondering if there are engines that get overhauled more than once, or if you should just assume you'll go to a reman or new engine. Gonna try to sneak in 1 more question: 4. Are there any special longevity/reliability issues for Rocket 305s vs 231s?