Eddie Mooney

jlunseth, wow, thanks a lot for all the thoughts. There's a lot to unpack there, but the weather radar advice resonated: definitely want to get that in the cockpit. The nice thing about the F is that I would have some cash left over to make the plane the safest it can be (though the redundancy would be nice).

ZWaustin, wow, ok. It seems I should definitely check out it then. Thanks.

Hi Raptor, actually I have no reason to think it needs an overhaul; my concern is that I am just unable to *confirm* that it works where oxygen is needed. Anyway, we'll see. Thanks again.

Thanks to both Raptor and John for their great responses. I see what you're saying about making sure the system works, which can easily be done at 11,000 feet. My concern is that I want to make sure it works *as high* as it's supposed to. If I am unable to ensure this, should I walk? Sounds like if I can ensure that it *works* and other things are in good order than it's not an excessive risk to assume it works at higher altitudes as well. I am concerned about this only because I remember some folks saying on these message boards a few years back that it's important to "test the turbo up to critical altitude," but I could be over-emphasizing the importance of that advice. Other things seem to check out. Seller sent log book entries to me in the form of photos of the pages, and he's willing to let me take it to any mechanic I want for a PPI (and is offering a free annual on top of that) so long as the mechanic is not too far away.

Any thoughts on how important it is during the test flight to take the TN into the flight levels to ensure proper turbo functioning? Or can I pretty much ensure its proper functioning from taking it up to, say, 11,000 feet and checking the logs? I ask because the plane's O2 bottle is apparently empty.

Thanks John! Just sent you a PM. I'd love to have more opinions, especially comments on the options the specific planes offer.

Thanks. Can any of the above folks or others weigh in on my tentative assumption that once you get the Rajay up high the performance of a TN M20F is close to that of a 231? There seems to be some disagreement about this . . . .

Alex, thanks! That's really nice of you! No need to do that just yet but I might take you up on it later. Heck I might even ask you to ride along on a test flight if I go see it so that you can give me your impressions afterwards. Have you flown a 231?

Thanks to all for the responses! And by all means, readers feel free to keep them coming. Mission: mostly long distances (>300NM, and often much farther than that). I anticipate crossing the Rockies frequently. A lot of night flying. I will almost never have more than one passenger, though I would like to lay flat the right seats to create a make-shift bed for the wife (assuming it's possible). What draws me to the F is that the Rajay is manually controlled, so no need to have it wear when I'm down low. It's also manual gear and the benefits of that should be obvious (though not all will consider them benefits per se). And not dealing with the 231 engine and 1800 TBO are attractive. But the 231 is a lot newer. And my understanding is that it's a bit larger than the F. Further, as Carusoam importantly notes, it's a known quantity given how much more common they are. And the ability to upgrade to the -MB engine for 252-esque performance is nice too.

Hi all, I’ve really appreciated this community and its advice so far. Over the past week I almost decided to break with my years-long expectation and go Bonanza, but that proved to be a momentary lapse of reason. So back to Mooney I have come. Here are three planes I am interested in: one 231 and two M20F Rajays. I was hoping to get thoughts. As for the 231, any idea what “starting annual at 2014” means? Sorry if it should be obvious but it seems like a funny choice of words. As for the 20F, I really like the Rayjay, as my understanding is that it should provide almost 231-like speeds at higher altitudes. What I’m primarily seeking are thoughts about (1) the comparative benefits of each and (2) things in the ads that stand out to the experienced eye. Thanks! M20K 231: http://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?category_level1=Single+Engine+Piston&make=MOONEY&model=M20K+231+MODIFIED&listing_id=2046308&s-type=aircraft M20F Rajay (1): http://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/1355845/1967-mooney-m20f-exec-21 M20F Rajay (2): http://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?category_level1=Single+Engine+Piston&make=MOONEY&model=M20F+EXEC+21&listing_id=2162039&s-type=aircraft

KSMooniac, thanks! I'll give that a shot.

Hi all. I will likely need to get a PPI performed in the Memphis area soon and I was hoping the folks here can make recommendations about who to take it to. Any thoughts? Thanks!

Hello all. I've been trying to find an answer to this and I haven't been able to. My understanding is that one can still add a Rayjay turbo to an F. I realize they don't make the Rayjay turbo anymore but that one can still find them used and rebuilt. Is this done frequently and, if so, what cost can I expect to incur? Thanks!

This is not at all a comment on the OP or anyone else here. But in my experience many (not all by any means) pilots have a self-image of being “no nonsense” types who pride themselves on their (perceived) competence rather than their interpersonal skills. So they devote their energy to reinforcing the former at the expense of the latter. And they often overestimate their own relative competence, stridently assuming that their way is the “right” way. Both of these dynamics combine to inspire a prioritization of feeling like the/an alpha in the room (or cockpit) even if it means they rub people the wrong way. Most pilots who ARE like this aren’t blatant about it, mind you; they smooth the edges of it a bit but the tendency is still obvious. I avoid flying with these people. Sure, they may teach me something, but that comes with the cost of bad energy in the cockpit; and why tolerate that when I can fly with people who can teach me things (and who are willing to learn from me at the same time) while doing it in a measured and humble way? Energy in the cockpit matters, notwithstanding the fact that many pilots with the aforementioned personality type would like to dismiss such concerns as too touchy-feely.

Thanks to all who have responded. Very helpful!

Hi all. I'm in the market for a 231. I've noticed that a few out there have engines with very low time but with major overhauls that were performed a number of years ago. My question: if an engine has 60 hours on it since a MO 8 years ago should I view this with great suspicion or as a plus?

Oh, that would be VERY cool. Thanks for the offer! I messaged you . . . .

Thanks! They have a few planes I am very interested in and from what I read going to Maxwell for a PPI would be a good idea . . . .

Hi Carusoam, yes I've read a lot about them. I actually plan on going down to San Antonio in mid-May so it will be a perfect time to fly one or two of their inventory (assuming they give test flights--I've never bought a plane before). But I'd like to get some Mooney time before doing that . . . .

Hello all! Long time lurker, first time poster. Wow, what a great community! Ok, I’ve been flying for a few years and I’m ready to buy a Mooney. There’s one small thing I need to do before I decide for sure: actually fly one. I’ve never so much as been within 50 feet of a Mooney. Almost all of my hours are on Pipers— Tomahawk, Warrior, Archer, Arrow—but I also have some Cessna Cutlass and Duchess time. Of course, the problem that folks like myself find themselves in is that there aren’t a lot of Mooneys around relative to Pipers and Cessna. So here’s my first of many questions: might there be someone in Kansas City who can take me up for about an hour (or more) in return for a reasonable fee for their time? I am pretty sure I want to get either a 231 or 252, so a ride in a turbo would be nice, but barring that, perhaps a 201? Thanks to all for any input. -E