doc_arcadia

It's got a known gear up landing in the 1970s, which is likely when the wing damage occurred. So, yes, it does have damage history. Would damage history for which repairs included replacement of the outboard section of the wing under the skin, assuming repair was done well, be a large resale-value hit above the fact of having had a gear up landing? (in your opinion)

I don't have pics. It's an M20G. There is no current known damage; the wingtip was simply replaced (and very professionally, as well). As above, I have no doubts as to the functionality of the wing at this point, just wonder if anyone has some thoughts regarding the resale hit such a repair might generate, as opposed to an equally functional but factory-original wingtip.

Hi, all. I'm in the process of buying my first airplane, a pre-j model Mooney. It's in good shape, clean, a few minor issues. One of those issues is an old wingtip replacement, probably due to a belly landing in the 1970s. There was no contemporary log entry of the replacement, but its recently had an inspection and a 337. The replacement is under the structure of the wing skins, and can only be seen if the wing inspection panel is removed to reveal the new wingtip section solidly riveted onto the inboard wing spar. I really have no doubt that this would not adversely affect the operational characteristics of the airplane ... but I have to wonder if it would affect resale value. Does anyone perhaps have any thoughts on a quality replacement, non-original, wingtip on an old Mooney and how such a replacement (if done well, and with a new FAA 337) might affect resale value? Thanks in advance for your thoughts!

When (what year) was the overhaul?

Looks nice ... and I want to know more. When (what year) was the rebuild? Are the logs complete? Where is the plane located? Do you have any more interior pics? Thanks!

The 94 UL should be cheaper than avgas (besides its inherent cheapness, county taxes in my county are also being waived on UL94), and, of course, better for the environment of people who hang around airports (including me). The unleaded fuel should be easier on the engine (no lead to foul the plugs). And, when LL goes away, I'll still be able to fly on a fuel which exists today. So, for me, the ability to fly on at least UL94 makes sense.

Efharisto Niko! (From the name, I'm assuming you might know what that means. If not ... it means "thank you!") That Mooney E sounds good ... except that there's no UL94, or other fuel STC that I know of, for it. Not a deal breaker, but I do think I would greatly prefer to use an unleaded fuel which exists today. But thanks again!

When you say the C may be the most expensive choice I can make ... what do you mean? Is the C likely to cost me a lot over the purchase price? Is the C the most expensive plane I can buy for a certain experience level?

OK, thanks for the advice!

I can certainly go to Texas ... but who is David? I'm guessing from the context that he's involved with AAA.

Noted and agreed. The 1981 231 is bit more than my mission requires.

Thanks to all the commentors. I still have problems accepting that the prices asked are quite correct. If I'm going to pay ~$65 for a 1966 carbureted M20C, then might as well buy this: https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/27310807/1981-mooney-m20k-231?dlr=1&pcid=17527&crmid=614667&if=1 From the same vendor. Yeah, there's a few more hours on the engine, and the engine rebuild is a bit more ... but, after paying ~$25K for an engine rebuild on the 231, I'd have a turbocharged, fuel injected, very fast aircraft. It doesn't seem quite realistic to me that the 1966 M20C has just about the same price.

At least half, and probably more, of my flights will be in or out of SQL, which will have UL94 available from Rabbit Aviation Services. In fact, most of my flights will be short enough that I will be able to fly out and back on one fillup, i.e. on 100% UL94. The distribution issues are already taken care of in my case (i.e. someone else is making the fuel available where I fly). The 94 UL should be cheaper than avgas (besides its inherent cheapness, county taxes are also being waived on UL94), and, of course, better for the environment of people who hang around airports (including me). The unleaded fuel should be easier on the engine. And, when LL goes away, I'll still be able to fly on a fuel which exists today. So, for me, the ability to fly on at least UL94 makes sense.

The thing that's keeping me out of experimentals for now is my perception that they are not such a good deal. In particular, while they may be fine aircraft, they are all fairly young, and still on the steep part of their depreciation curve. If I buy, say, a 5 year old experimental, and sell it in 10 years, it'll be 300% as old as when I got it, and I'll have lost a lot in depreciation. On the other hand, if I buy a 50 year old plane now, and sell in 10 years, it'll only be 120% as old as when I got it. If I had the time to do more of my own maintenance, as one may do with an experimental, then the maintenance costs would break in my favor. Unfortunately, I don't have the time, so I'll have to hire someone else to do the maintenance anyway, so the huge maintenance advantage of an experimental won't be there for me.