BKlott

If it were me, I would look for a different airplane as it appears that all of the "big bills" are likely to come due in the near future. Here is what I mean by the "big bills": engine / prop, avionics, paint and interior. A quality engine job is probably going to cost $25,000 to $28,000. A quality paint job will probably run from $10,000 to $15,000. A good interior job is probably $4,000 and up. As for avionics, at the very least you have ADS-B coming in the near future and that will probably run at least $3,000 installed to meet the minimum ADS-B out requirements. If you don't care how your airplane looks, than paint and interior work may not be a concern for you...but it will be to a whole lot of guys who you may eventually want to sell your airplane to. If you want your airplane to look sharp inside and out, add up the costs above and compare that to the price you are looking to pay for the airplane. I would guess that you will end up spending more fixing it up then you will spend in purchasing it. Am I right? You may find yourself in the not uncommon position of having far more money in that airplane then it is worth. If it were me, I would shop some more.

My Dad had a 1964 C Model that had a fresh engine, prop and paint job. That airplane moved right along. He told me that he used to flight plan using 150 mph and it always worked out real close. In later years I flew a 1968 C Model and a newer J model. Truthfully, I liked that C Model better as I had to adjust the seat all the way forward in the J just to reach the rudder pedals...and full extension was a real stretch. I'm 5' 10", no midget. The C Model has a longer TBO than the E. The E may be harder to start as it is fuel injected versus carbureted as on the C. I think the more important consideration is that corrosion proofing appears to be a bit inconsistent during the Mooney production run. From what I have been able to learn (do not accept this as fact, just hearsay) the 1964 era Mooneys had no factory corrosion proofing. Sometime later, starting in 1965 or 1966, there was some corrosion proofing in the fuselage. Later on, 1968 or so, they starting cutting costs with things like fixed boarding steps and cowl flaps and probably started cutting back on corrosion proofing as well. Some guys have told me that their airframes are zinc chromated and others, such as Dave's in "just learned my C is junk" had none. Corrosion can render your airplane worthless as it can cost more to repair it than it is worth. Just like if you purchase a C Model and end up spending a bunch on avionics, a propellor, paint, interior and engine job (or some combination of these big bills), you will have far more money in the airplane than you can sell it for. This is a common occurrence with many models of airplanes that you can purchase and is not unique to C Model Mooneys. The simple truth is that the cost of fixing up these airplanes far exceeds the airplanes value on the market. One school of thought is to purchase a plane that has had these big bills recently taken care of and then sell the airplane before you have to incur the big bills yourself. Easier said than done. You can find many ads for Mooneys that need some of the big bills. Do the math yourself and see that the owner is just wanting too much money to make it worth your while to buy and fix up the airplane. For example, there is a 1968 C Model that has been advertised at $29k+ with recent glass and interior. It has the original paint job from 1968 and an engine at or near TBO. it also will need ADS-B. Say you pay the $29k asking price (not my recommendation...just for example). What are you going to pay for the paint job? That is going to run $10k to $15k, right? What is the engine job going to cost you? A quality overhaul is going to cost $25k to $28k or more. You are already at $64k to $72k and you still need to put in ADS-B for about $8k or more. Your $29k C Model has now cost you $72k to $80k and that is before you have any surprises. Throw in some leaky tanks, the need for new donuts and where are you then? You are not going to get your money back out of that airplane for a very long time if ever. When you purchase the airplane and start down this road, you better be in it for the long haul and be willing to stick with that airplane until you are done flying or I am not sure that it is worth it. It certainly is not worth it financially. While I do not own a Mooney I have 18 years of aircraft ownership experience to draw from. I joined this site because I too was considering looking for a 1964 C Model like my Dad had but will probably not ever do that. He had his Mooney 45 years ago. I've reached the conclusion (hang on ... this is going to draw some fire) that if I am going to sell my corrosion free 172 for another airplane, it will only be for an airplane that was zinc chromated at the factory. That leaves, with rare exceptions, Comanches, Apaches and North American built Navions. I am not going to buy an Apache or a Navion. I hope this was helpful to you and wish you the very best in your Mooney search!

Another consideration is the airport that you are operating out of or into. I've flown into Stinson Field in San Antonio with a crosswind gusting up to 27 and similar gusty crosswinds into Cahokia, IL. last summer. These are big open fields with wide runways and it is much easier to handle the winds at that type of airport than at my home field, where there are trees bordering one side of a relatively narrow runway and houses and hangars along the other side of the runway. The wind tends to tumble over the trees and blow gusts between the buildings which makes every landing in windy conditions a very challenging and unpredictable event. So my personal limits on wind are far different and much more conservative at my home base than at a big open airport.

My Dad and I flew our 172 over to Winter Haven today as he had a 12:30 pm appointment to fly the Stearman at Preston Aviation. It looked like the Mooneys had a great turnout both on the ramp and in the restaurant where the reserved table was full. I'll have to admit that every Mooney that flew in was sharp looking! Not a dog in the bunch. Dad actually got to shoot a bunch of touch and goes in the Stearman and had a great time! This was his Christmas present and it sure beats getting a tie!

Whenever the cowling is off, I give mine a shot of silicon spray.

Flew a 1968 C Model while working on my Commercial ticket years ago. Had the good old Johnson Bar for the gear. On one approach I thought I had the gear down and locked but the green light that wasn't illuminated said otherwise. Jiggled the lever a bit and the light came on. The Johnson Bar was not quite seated properly but that was not clearly evident until I checked the light that you don't reference.

With a safety pilot on board and a hood or foggles you can do quite a lot. Your safety pilot can play the role of ATC and give you vectors to headings, climbs and descents to sharpen up your basic instrument flying skills. While remaining in VFR conditions you can then go to uncontrolled fields and shoot practice approaches, request approaches into controlled fields if you're comfortable with ATC communications and procedures and even practice missed approach procedures and holding patterns. As long as you have a qualified safety pilot on board and remain VFR, there is a lot that you can do.

I remember the first time that any of us had flown on an airliner was my Mom. She was going to fly from LA to Philadelphia First Class on American Airlines back in the mid 1960s. She received a call before her flight asking her what she wanted for dinner on the flight! I think she had a choice between a steak and chicken. Times have certainly changed!

Would you go through the expense to overhaul the engine and not check the prop that has sat unused for five years? So, if the engine had been overhauled five years ago and left to sit, unused for that time, would you think that the engine would still be good simply because it is zero time since overhaul? The TBO on new constant speed propellors is either five or six years per the manufacturers.

Lots of good feedback here already. You already know it needs paint and probably needs engine and prop after sitting for five years. You're not going to do that and not do the carb, oil cooler, mags, plugs, hoses, etc. That's two of the big four expenses right there. The other two are avionics and interior. With ADS-B coming, you will be spending money on your panel just getting the avionics squared away. Those instruments have been sitting too so I hope you know of a good instrument shop to get them working right. If the airframe has corrosion, well don't bother with any of the above. I saw this ad too and my first thought was "beyond economic repair"... For fun (and education) see if you can locate an old article in EAA Sport Aviation magazine archives titled "Dreams derailed". It was a two part story of a couple that purchased an early model Bonanza. They had a pre-buy done but still ended up spending into six figures to get the airplane squared away. That was a $20,000 early model Bonanza they purchased that they ended up having more than $100,000 into. Brian

Two wives???????? You didn't learn after the first one?!

Looks like a pretty darn nice airplane to me! Have fun with it. Brian

Fuel and oil hoses are two areas where it doesn't pay to push your luck. When you look at the big picture costs of aircraft ownership those hoses cost next to nothing but can sure ruin your day if one cuts loose. My IA told me a story of replacing a fuel hose on a Comanche during an Annual. The metal tag on the hose was dated 1970 something and as he removed the hose, it crumbled in his hands. Just think of the guy flying that airplane with the hose in that condition! Brian

Thanks for posting the pictures! I enjoyed seeing your Mooney. Brian

They do a pretty good job of annoying the Controllers!

Being an old fashioned, traditional kind of guy, I am partial to the windows that my Dad had in his 1964 C model, just the way they were when they left the factory. I also liked that blue tinted, curved window in the original Globe Swifts.

I'll take a different approach to answering your question. My Dad had a 1964 C Model with a fresh engine, prop and paint job. he had the seats re-done and it was prettier than new. That airplane was a great performing airplane. In fact, Mooneys are known for providing the most cruise performance per horsepower of any certified, production airplane. I was talking to my Dad about the various modifications that I see owners have done to make their Mooneys faster. None of these mods are cheap by any means. Dad asked if it was really necessary. The stock Mooneys performed great as they were originally made. Most guys would be pretty happy with that performance. You'll end up spending a lot more money for a relatively small increase in speed. You'll need to decide for yourself if it is really worth it. Maybe it would be better to reserve some of those funds for the numerous maintenance bills that come with aircraft ownership and active flying. Some modifications are driven by maintenance needs and are safety related items. Some you'll end up doing eventually if they haven't already been done to your airplane. It would be nice to purchase an airplane with the following modifications: 1) O & N fuel bladders versus tanks. More fuel capacity and less expensive future repairs. No more leaky integral wing tanks. 2) A no AD propellor hub. 3) Updated rubber shock doughnuts on the landing gear. Recent re-bushing of the gear is also a plus. 4) An airframe with zinc chromate versus one with no corrosion proofing. 5) ADS-B equipped. These are just some thoughts from someone else that is giving some thought to doing what you are doing. The manual gear is quick and easy to use. I've flown both a C Model and a J Model and I'd take a good C with the manual gear any day. Brian

Harrison Ford's wife has been quoted as saying that she wants him to give up flying. Harrison Ford's Ryan has been quoted as saying that he should give up the wife.

I read the teardown and inspection procedures that M20Doc posted links to. They seem to be very thorough and if done properly, without cutting any corners, you would think that you should be okay. My Dad sold his Mooney the next year, 1971. The guy he sold it to landed it in a crab and one of the main gears folded damaging one of the flaps as well. Many years and a move to Florida later we ran across her again down at Sebring Airport, a favorite destination for the $100 hamburger flights. We spoke with the owner at that time who filled us in on the more recent other interesting events in it's history. These included receiving empennage damage from the wingtip of a Lear Jet along with at least three gear up landings. Afterwords I would kid my Dad telling him "the Mooney was happy to see you". "You were one of the few who didn't damage the airplane". I often wondered if we could get the Mooney, strip it of all the paint and place it in a hangar with the special lights. Then we could magnaflux the entire airframe to see how many cracks there were from all the damage it had over the years. Might be a scary sight!

I sent off EMAILS to my Congressman and Senator Nelson today. Will also send one off to Senator Rubio even though he has yet to respond to any other correspondence that I have sent him. I guess he is too busy running for President to respond to a constituent. I am a big supporter of eliminating the Third Class Medical Certificate. It became even more important to me following my heart attack in March 2013. It is interesting to me that the week after I was released from the hospital, it would have been perfectly legal for me to operate a car, truck, sport utility vehicle, motor home or motorcycle on the Federal Interstate Highway system in close proximity to other citizens and their families and nobody anywhere is concerned about that. I could also operate an all terrain vehicle a jet ski or a power boat of any type, as long as I was doing it for personal pleasure purposes and no government official would care in the least. I could even fly sailplanes, since I have a Glider Rating, and that too would have been perfectly legal. BUT, because I own a Light Aircraft, I was subjected to a six month healing and recovery period, followed by special medical testing. Then I had to gather all of my medical records from the Hospital Admission Summary to the lab work and tracings from my Bruce Protocol Stress Test and submit this to some doctor in Oklahoma City who will never examine me in order to get my Medical Certificate and flying privileges restored. My Cardiologist had to write a complete Cardiovascular Report on me. The FAA required the images from one of my tests in both color and greyscale. They even required a DVD from each of the two Angioplasty procedures that I underwent in the hospital. so even with the Cardiologists written evaluation and all of the test results from the day of my heart attack forward, they actually wanted the DVD of the actual procedures to review. WE ARE ACTUALLY PAYING TAX DOLLARS FOR A DOCTOR IN OKLAHOMA CITY TO WATCH OUR SURGICAL PROCEDURES! What IRKS me is that American citizens may operate any motorized vehicle or conveyance for private use and personal pleasure purposes without meeting any medical standards (other than passing an eye test for a Drivers License) undergoing any medical testing or providing one piece of medical documentation to ANY government agency, Federal, State or Local, BUT when it comes to operating a Light Aircraft, well, the rights and privileges that all other citizens enjoy suddenly don't apply to us. That is just plain wrong and UNACCEPTABLE. My Dad had his Special Issuance Medical denied some ten years ago and he still flies with me. He can still handle the airplane safely and competently. He has not suffered any medical incapacity while flying. So are the FAA's standards even applicable to general aviation in the first place? All their standards did was deny him the ability to act as PIC. We're not fighter pilots engaging in high G aerial combat against MIGs, defending the homeland. Were not performing aerobatics. Most of us are going for airplane rides when the weather is nice and the wind isn't blowing too hard. The most strenuous part of my flying activity is pushing the plane in and out of the hangar. I need a Medical Certificate for that?! The biggest laugh is that I can fly sailplanes without a medical. Thermalling a sailplane in Florida during the hot and humid days we have down here is a far more physically demanding and strenuous activity than flying my airplane. Yet, the FAA does not require a medical for flying Gliders, just airplanes! Enough!

I'll share a real life example of hidden, un-discovered damage to an airplane that was involved in an accident. In fact, it was the 1964 C model Mooney that my Dad purchased in 1970. The story goes that the Mooney was on a trip down to Mexico and was operating off of a strip down there. The airplane ran off the end of the runway, through a fence incurring wing damage and front fuselage damage along with a collapsed nose gear. The airplane was transported back to California and was rebuilt at Norman Larson Beechcraft at Van Nuys Airport. The rebuild took some one and one half years. When my Dad and I spotted the Mooney for sale it had a brand new paint job, a zero time rebuilt Lycoming and an overhauled propellor. My Dad had the seats recovered and that Mooney looked better than new. Shortly after he purchased it he asked me to steer the plane while we were taxiing. I pushed on the right rudder pedal and it went full forward but didn't feel quite right. in fact, it was stuck in the full forward position as it had broken. The mechanic removed the entire rudder pedal assembly which I believe was a torque tube type assembly. He magna fluxed it and found several large stress cracks in the assembly. When he reported this to the FAA, they wanted to see the part. Subsequently there was either a Service Bulletin or Airworthiness Directive issued (or something, I was thirteen at the time so bear with me) that required this part be inspected on all Mooneys that had suffered a nose gear collapse. The airplane had undergone a year and a half rebuild and that damage from the stress had not been discovered. Either somebody cut a corner or didn't forsee all of the potential problems that the accident could have created. Or they did and did check that part, the testing wasn't up to snuff or no defects were uncovered at that point in time. The point is that when something like an accident or a prop strike occurs, the parts are subjected to stress and forces which they were not designed for. Consequently, the event introduces some unknown variables into the equation. How do any of us begin to quantify or mitigate the risks that these unknowns carry with them? I don't know the answer. My thinking on the prop strike issue is that if the engine was running then you better have a very thorough tear down and inspection by someone that you trust implicitly AND that has all of the testing equipment needed to thoroughly check / magna flux/ eddy current, whatever, all the parts. If your engine is mid-time or closer to TBO, maybe you are better off buying new. Emphasis on "maybe".

One aspect of this is how thorough the inspection is and is it even possible to determine all of the stress that was applied to the indiividual parts? There have been reports over the years that seemed to indicate a higher incidence of airframe structural failures involving aircraft that have had prior damage history. Now, supposedly, all of those aircraft were also inspected, had repairs done and were signed off as airworthy when they were returned to service. Yet, many years and hours later, the hidden damage reared it's ugly head and the airframe failed. I am not convinced that we have the capability (or if we do, that we take full advantage of those capabilities) to ascertain the true impact on metal parts caused by accidents. That is why damage history or prop strikes create some measure of doubt. Is it REALLY safe? If we are going to be totally honest with ourselves, we cannot be sure. Some pilots address the issue by avoiding aircraft with damage history of any kind or missing log books. That approach doesn't give you any guarantees either but it does eliminate some potential problems. Take it to the extreme and say, okay I've had a prop strike. Buy a new engine and propellor. You are then making the assumption that the parts in the new engine and the propellor assembly are all metalurgically sound and were properly assembled. Right?! So how do we determine that they are? No easy answer to this stuff.

Had to stop and watch the DVD of my favorite Star Trek episode, Shore Leave. May we all live long and prosper! Brian

You are lucky. My two power losses on takeoff in my Grumman Cheetah each occurred when I was at about 300 ft altitude with no runway left. I'll take yours any day of the week! Unfortunately you will now be facing a big bill but the good news is, you get to make the choices and you will KNOW what you are flying behind. That is worth something.

I don't have these problems.