Willie

On 9/11/2018 at 8:16 PM, troyus said:

Hey thanks for the info! I'm in San Diego north county, I'm going to direct message you locals for more region specific knowledge and hope for the best!

 

-Troy

I’m in Encinitas shopping for a Mooney. Did you follow through on your license?

5 hours ago, Jourdan Urbach said:

Panel upgrade is the least of that TAP plane's problems. New partner as of a few years ago was a Kennedy fellow, posted here if I recall. Might be worth reaching out to him. As I understand from speaking with the broker, the plane has barely flown since he joined, and the original owner (I forget her name) barely flew it before that either.

Quite nice P&I, likely not much corrosion due to texas hangaring, but 50k minimum in the panel and God only knows what lies firewall forward.

The missiles on controller ... well, the red and white one Dave Slivka (good guy, go-to for MU2s) has been trying to get rid of since late 2019, and the blue and white one had a brutal collision with a stone mailbox before being re-built by Don Maxwell. Look at the thread on here for pictures. You'll need to decide if you're ok with that.

-J

Thank you. I’ll do some more digging around.

9 hours ago, rainman said:

Willie, I recently added the O2D2 demand oxygen system to the oxygen setup in my 231. It’s simple and works well, only delivering oxygen when you inspire, thus saving your tanks. In my case it has doubled my oxygen useful time per tank. Knowing I have plenty of oxygen for all legs of my trip has been great. I use a portable pulse oximeter (cheap, $40) to monitor my oxygen requirements and often start using oxygen at 10,000 ft. If set up initially with your O2 system it will be a bit neater than mine as an add-on. Ray

Good to know. I also can probably get free O2 from my work if I buy the correct adapter

13 hours ago, carusoam said:

Good Transition Training is everything...
 

What was the killer tax issue?

The good benefit used to require purchasing a brand new plane...

Which made a lot of sense for a few people running their own businesses...

Often, they start moving up their experience chain with a Long Body... for a couple of years, then Turbine... or twin Jets....

Best regards,

-a-

 

Regarding taxes: I thought I could buy a plane and depreciate the plane fully in year one.

1 hour ago, MooneyMike said:

Just a comment on flying so high;

why not fly the LAX class B through one of the VFR corridors (Coast Route, for example) then FIM RZS and file in flight for direct? 

There is lower terrain, plenty of airports and you avoid PXN ROM which are horrible for bumps in summer and ice in fall - spring?

Just a thought. 

Mike

That may be an option if it’s VFR but I’m more comfortable flying IFR. Maybe as I get more in the hang of being back in a small plane I will get more adventurous and do part VFR and part IFR. 
Thanks,

Will

On 9/20/2020 at 5:09 PM, Papogator24 said:

I'm a CPA. Section 1031 needs to be planned and coordinated through an intermediary. But this only applies if the plane is in a corp. The issue with the IRS s the verbiage, " if the asset is used in a trade or business.." I would have to research prior cases on what precedent has been set. 

 

Thanks for everyone’s help and suggestions. What I figured out through this thread and then further research and digging is that I would be happy with most Mooney’s for my mission. I also discovered the tax advantages are essentially non existent and I was totally wrong about what I could do or not do regarding taxes. So now I’ve decided I would rather have a partner . My schedule is flexible enough that I could make a partnership work because I have the ability to either fly commercial or the Mooney.

If anyone in KCRQ or KMYF has any interest in taking to me about a partnership please let me know. 
 

Thank you,

Will

1 minute ago, carusoam said:

This was a sales tax issue...

NJ has a sales tax of about 6%... and a rule that both the selling and buying of planes needs to occur within a year or so...

That is quite a chunk of change to come up with... and credit for the old plane certainly helps...

This is a decade old memory or so... it could be fuzzy...

so... check with your local tax accountant... 
 

Best regards,

-a-

I’m referring to federal only. I’m not familiar with any of the individual state rules 

5 minutes ago, Papogator24 said:

Are we talking from a standpoint of a plane being in a corp status and doing a Section 1031 exchange? 

Yes. Like kind exchange is gone. Google Search “tax changes airplanes 2017 “ and a bunch of info comes up.

Basically you can’t exchange anymore but you can bonus depreciate 100% in year one. 

On 9/15/2020 at 10:15 PM, JT said:

You'll need to vet the engine on the TAP Missile. It hasn't flown enough since the conversion. And look extra close at tube corrosion because of the age. Otherwise that could be a viable plan for your budget/needs.

Did you know that Jimmy lists his inventory here before it goes on the market?

https://mooneyspace.com/topic/35783-new-unadvertised-inventory/

 

Thanks for the link. Greg got me on Jimmys email list as well so I can see what’s coming up.

On 9/16/2020 at 1:05 AM, ArtVandelay said:

The longer you keep the plane, the more it makes sense to upgrade it. So, is this your forever plane or just a plane to fly for now?

I was told you can no longer roll proceeds from a plane sale into the next/more expensive plane. If this is true then I would be smart to spend more now and plan to keep it.

On 9/15/2020 at 9:59 PM, Bob - S50 said:

I generally agree that it is usually cheaper to buy an airplane equipped the way you like than it is to buy one that isn't and then do the upgrades.  However, if the equipment is not quite what you want, it's cheaper to do it yourself.  For example, if I was looking for an airplane I'd want a GTNxxx or Avidyne GPS.  If the airplane had a GNSxxx, that's an expensive piece of equipment that I would not personally be happy with.  While it is very capable, there are several features of the newer GPS units that make them much easier to use for IFR flights.  In that case, I'd rather the airplane did not have a GPS at all so I could install what I want.

Same with and engine monitor.  While a JPI 700 would work, I'd rather have a 730 or better.  I'd want ADS-B OUT and IN.  So if someone installed a unit that paired with a 40 year old mode C transponder that only got me OUT, I would rather have no ADS-B so I could yank the old transponder and replace it with a GTX345 or equivalent.

You have to know what your minimum standards are for your panel when looking at the installed equipment.

Understood. It’s like buying a house and paying more for the countertops they chose but don’t necessarily care for.

9 hours ago, Missile=Awesome said:

GMax has a Missile that was Don’s keeper plane for travel.  With negotiation this plane could be obtained below the current budget.  This checks normally aspirated box preference, useful load for family (>1000) and decent panel for IFR that is definitely upgradeable...

This one has my eye. There is another Missile on trade a plane for 90k that needs a panel upgrade big time . That one could be cool too.

9 hours ago, Bob - S50 said:

I think you would be happy with a J.  Looking at what's available on Controller, many of them cost more than you want to spend.  Some have horrible useful loads.  ALWAYS ask about the useful load.  I'm also not a fan of the '77 model because of the fuel selector location and the lever engine controls vs the push pull with vernier.  Of those available on the site today, I'd look at this one:

'78 J, $70k  That would leave you with $55,000 for upgrades.  Dual G5's and a 2 axis GFC500 autopilot should be less than $25,000.  Add a GTN650, PMA 7000BT audio panel, and GTX345 ADS-B IN/OUT and you should be pretty close to your budget with a well equipped airplane.  You might even be able to use dual GI275's instead but that would cost several thousand more.  Or you might be able to include electric trim for another $2500 or so.  Advertised as 1024lb useful load but I'd want to see the history of changes to the W&B sheets.  And if it's correct, the engine has been changed from an A3B6D to a dual magneto A3B6 engine which is a plus in my book.  That would make an upgrade to a SureFly electronic ignition possible when funds permit.

Forgot to include, you need to include a good engine monitor to the installation too.

 

Apparently Mooney’s are flying off the shelves. This J as well as the other 4 Mooney’s  they had for sale are all pending. All their planes were priced well so that makes sense.
 

The idea of buying something like that and doing the panel upgrade you mention is cool. However it does go against the traditional advice of not adding your own avionics. Maybe that advice is changing a bit with some of these more reasonably priced upgrades like the G5’s and GFC500.

52 minutes ago, Missile=Awesome said:

AOPA did a fantastic video on this tragedy...Perhaps since many are very interested in the well being of the original posters ADM he should provide a sworn statement...preferably signed in blood that he won’t be “that guy”...and by God at least we know he is solo when he is doing the commute so only he will perish from his getthereitis. May ALL Mooneyspacer’s have mercy on his soul.

That’s funny!

16 minutes ago, kortopates said:

Indeed- being sensitive to your earlier post and being clear its not directed to the OP - but show me one thread at 5 pages or more than EVER stuck to the original point of the thread. Sorry, but ALL topics here on MS take on their own life as they evolve with discussion. No one can control it and no one owns it. The only expectation, is we do our best to keep it civil, non-political and inviting for all to participate. 

Appreciate the thoughts on this fatal crash and I agree no Mooney or plane in my budget should have departed that day from Jackson on that route. Now let’s move this thread from sad to happy again..

I’m leaning towards normally aspirated models. I’m thinking a J with an updated panel and good autopilot would probably be good for me. It would be awesome to get the IO 550 Engine but I would have to increase my budget. But maybe it’s worth the increasing my budget not to deal with selling and buying again later. 
 

Or I get a partner and keep it in a hangar and get a more expensive newer plane...

On 9/11/2016 at 11:38 AM, Bob - S50 said:

There you go, forcing me to think again...  How much faster by moving 200 lb from the front seat to the back seat?

Short answer:

At higher speeds (75% power) about 0.25 knots.

At lower speeds (45% power) about 1 knot.

That makes sense since the weight distribution will have the biggest effect when induced drag is a bigger player.  As speed increases and parasite drag becomes the main factor, the distribution has less impact. So fly fast!

Long answer:

Using my J POH...

Assume 15 feet from CG to tail center of lift and also assuming an average weight of 2400 lbs.

Moving the CG 0.1' (1.2") will change the pitching moment by 240 #'.

Divide that by 15' to determine the change in tail lift required to offset the moment and you get 240/15 = 16 lbs for each 1.2" change in CG location at 2400#.

Looking at my particular airplane, moving 200 lbs from the front to the rear seat moves the CG about 3.6" (or close anyway, a little poetic license).

That means a change of 48 lbs change in tail lift with corresponding 48 lb change in required wing lift.  Call it the equivalent of 50 lbs less weight.

According to my POH, a 440 pound difference in weight makes (approximately) a 2 knot difference in speed at 75% power, about a 4 knot difference at 65% power and about an 8 knot difference at 45% power.

Since the CG shift resulted in about 1/9 th that amount, I can probably assume it have an a proportional effect on speed.

Now, back to football.

Bob

Bob,

You are the man. I’m not smart enough to know if what anything you are saying is accurate but it sure sounds legit! 

7 hours ago, Greg_D said:

PM me if you want to talk specifics about this plane.  I ferried it to TX from CA for Jimmy a little over a month ago.

Thank you Greg for over an hour of your time on the phone today. You educated me on many subjects! 

6 hours ago, MIm20c said:

No perfect plane out there, just do the best you can for your mission. Flying an Ovation and M20c back to back and side by side I’m amazed how capable even the lowly C is. For a 400 mile trip the block to block difference is around 20 mins depending on winds. Where the Ovation pays off is the 1000 mile hops in a day. So if your planning on marking the round trip in a day I’d go as much speed as you can afford. Otherwise, with as much flexibility you mentioned, any plane with a backward tail will work great. 

It wouldn’t be in a calendar day but it would be about 24hrs apart. I have a very regular Wednesday work trip that I would go up for Tuesday afternoon/evening. Then return about same time next day. 

1 hour ago, philiplane said:

why not move to the Oakland area, and then have more time for doing what you want, instead of traveling to go to work? Petaluma is nice. 

Then the airplane choices become simpler.

I did the commuting thing when the kids were younger. 1:15 by car or 20 minutes by plane. I used the plane to make it to school functions in the middle of the day, then go back to work. I was usually the only dad at those functions, and my kids would see me as I flew over on the way in. The school was literally on base leg for the airport, which was also only two miles from home. 

That was a short commute, especially by California standards. I gave up other longer commutes in order to have enough time at home.

Time is the one thing you can never get more of.

And!!  If I ever move from here it won’t be to a place even more expensive. I would go to someplace with low taxes. But thank you. I do hear where you are coming from. During Covid I’ve had nothing but time with the family so I’m good for a while. I’ve banked at least a couple years of family time in the last 6 months.

1 hour ago, philiplane said:

why not move to the Oakland area, and then have more time for doing what you want, instead of traveling to go to work? Petaluma is nice. 

Then the airplane choices become simpler.

I did the commuting thing when the kids were younger. 1:15 by car or 20 minutes by plane. I used the plane to make it to school functions in the middle of the day, then go back to work. I was usually the only dad at those functions, and my kids would see me as I flew over on the way in. The school was literally on base leg for the airport, which was also only two miles from home. 

That was a short commute, especially by California standards. I gave up other longer commutes in order to have enough time at home.

Time is the one thing you can never get more of.

That’s good living and cool stories of dad flying base over the school!
I love where I live now. I grew up in the Bay Area and I’m happy down here and my family is happy. Don’t mess with a good thing. 

1 hour ago, jlunseth said:

So much theory and not much reality.

I have a 231 that I fly a lot, but I very rarely fly it for work and don’t get myself in “gotta get there” scenarios. That includes making the outbound trip and then “gotta get home” by a schedule. My aircraft is not FIKI. We have lots of icing issues here in the midwest, they start about now and run through about April. Dispatchability in non-FIKI is always an issue during that period. Mooneys do not carry ice well, trust me on that, and you do not want to get into it without a very good, clear, out.

Yes, 252’s can be FIKI, but your budget was 125,000 and there are all of five or six FIKI 252’s out there in the world, when they do come on the market they are around 240,000 right now.  You can buy a non-FIKI and add FIKI, but adding FIKI is 75,000. 

About 8 or 9 years ago we lost a family here in Minneapolis in a J accident.  Went out west to go skiing, I think it was Jackson Hole but it has been awhile.  Sent mom home commercial when the weather was not cooperating.  Dad was a business executive.  Tried to out wait the weather for four days, but got impatient.  Decided the weather was good enough and he could make the climb out. Loaded himself and two young sons in the J. It did not have the weather capacity or climb rate to get through the winter weather, probably icing was a factor. At any rate, they impacted terrain in a CFIT. I have flown the mountains quite a bit. The J and Missile guys will hate me, but as far as I am concerned you have no business using a normally aspirated in those conditions if there is any chance you will find yourself pressured to get there.  If you have all the time in the world and can wait for CAVU with no mountain waves fine.

I like Don K’s recommendation of a FIKI Bravo for you alot.  Just understand the acquisition cost is going to be around a little less than double your budget.  When a FIKI Bravo comes on the market, and there have been very few lately, they are around 229,000 unless the engine is a run-out.

I hate hearing stories like that. Better pilots than that guy have done similar. I can’t spend that kind of money on a FIKI. I would need a partner for anything like that.

3 hours ago, Zane Williams said:

The 252s have a TSIO-360-MB or later TSIO-360-SB engine.  Ours is an MB.  The main difference is a fully automatic wastegate so there is no throttle management for the pilot.  Takeoffs and go-arounds are always full throttle with no worry of overboosting the engine.  They also all had dual alternators, allowing for FIKI on some planes, and an increased service ceiling of 28,000 feet.  Many of the 231s with intercoolers and Merlins added perform about the same but I believe you still have to manage the throttle to avoid overboosting the engine, resulting in higher pilot workload.

252's are hard to find for sale.  They are considered peak Mooney efficiency.  Later long-body models go faster and have more cargo room but burn significantly more fuel to do it, often resulting in decreased range.

There are lots of threads on this topic here and I'm sure a better Mooney historian than me can give more info if you want.

I see. So performance is similar but takes more care on takeoff power. That’s not a huge deal to me but I could see why that hurts resale. Thank you for explanation.

13 hours ago, Bob - S50 said:

Every model has a trade off distance for both time and fuel burn.

For time.  If I climb 1000', how long will it take me to do that and how much slower will I be going?  If it takes 1 minute and I'm going 30 knots slower I'll be 1/2 mile behind the plane that stayed at the lower altitude.  Can I make up that difference in the descent?  Depends on how smooth the air is and how much bouncing around I'm willing to put up with.  Let's say that yes I can.  Climbing 1000' will gain me about 2 or 3 knots in a K.  If I do that for 2 hours, I'll be 4 to 6 miles ahead at the end of 2 hours which will save me about 2 minutes.  That's about 1 minute/hour of cruise for each 1000' of climb assuming the winds are the same (which they rarely are).  Also, every 1000' I climb will increase the time/distance I spend climbing and descending and reduce the time I spend cruising.  Therefore there will be a diminishing return as I go higher and higher.  A 5 knot less favorable wind would wipe out any benefit of climbing.  On the other hand a 5 knot more favorable wind would add to the advantage.  So bottom line, I would pay more attention to wind direction and speed than planning on higher airspeed to save me time.

For fuel.  Each 1000' of climb cost you about .25 gallons.  You won't make much of that up in the descent because there is a much larger increase in burn rate during the climb than there is a decrease in burn rate during the descent.  How far can I fly on .25 gallons?  About 4 miles.  If my speed increases by 2 knots on the same burn by climbing, I'd need to spend 2 hours cruising to make up the difference.  I've found, that for fuel, the break even point is about 300 NM.  All other factors being equal, much less than 300 miles I want to stay as low as practical.  Much beyond 300 miles, I want to go high.

My commute is about 380 miles so seems I’m in between

14 hours ago, Bob - S50 said:

Think about it.  Up to about 5500 to 7500', depending on what RPM you use, both the J and K will have about the same cruise speed at a given power setting.  However, the J will have a lower fuel flow because of the higher compression ratio of the engine.  Above that, the J cruise speed will plateau and then slowly drop off.  It plateaus, up to a point, because the indicated is slowly dropping, but the TAS increases with altitude for a given IAS.  The K on the other hand will continue to gain another 2 or 3 knots for each 1000' climbed.  So by 12,000' the K will probably be 10 to 15 knots faster than the J but will be burning, I'm guessing, 1.5 to 2 GPH more.  In the climb the J will probably average 700 fpm to altitude while the K will maintain climb rate of 1100 fpm all the way up to 12,000'.

So the K will get up to cruise speed 5 or 6 minutes sooner than the J.  Since that's only about 30 or 40 knots faster than climb speed, it will only be about 3 or 4 miles ahead of the J when the J levels off.  By the time you subtract climb and descent distance, we are talking about something around 2 hours of cruising.  If the K is 15 knots faster it will have pulled away from the J by another 30 miles.  At top of descent, that puts the K about 35 miles or so ahead of the J.  It will take the J about 13 or 14 minutes to fly that far so that's all the time you save with the K.

But the K will have burned 18 GPH all the way up to cruise altitude and probably about 10.5 GPH at cruise for 2 hours.  The J will have burned an average of something closer to 15 GPH in the climb and 8.5 GPH at cruise.  So the K should burn about 2 or 3 gallons more than the J.  Your trade off is 2 or 3 gallons to save 13 or 14 minutes.

You’ve really thought about this!  Thanks for the analysis. Makes sense

17 hours ago, Zane Williams said:

We have a M20K 262, which means it is a 231 converted to the 252 engine by STC.

It cruises best at 11.5 gallons per hour, regardless of altitude.  With the turbo, altitude is chosen based on winds, clouds, and comfort / turbulence.  I use these numbers for real-world flight planning:

155 KTAS at 5,000 feet

165 KTAS at 9,000 feet

180 KTAS  at 15,000 feet

The plane has the same indicated airspeed all the way up and likes to settle in between 140 and 145 KIAS depending on load and smoothness of the air.

When there's a nice tailwind and oxygen in the tank we'll go high.  When there's a headwind, we climb just until smooth air usually and stay there.  Typical trip is high going east and low going west unless you get lucky.

Having flown both a naturally aspirated C Mooney and now the turbo K, I would not give the turbo up.  It's not about speed or fuel burn, but comfort and options.  Compared to overall cost of ownership the additional money is not that much.

You might keep an eye out for a 262 converted 231.  There are not many of them but they sometimes come up in your price range and are usually a little cheaper than a factory 252.  Most have the long range 105 gallon tanks which you can use to tanker a ridiculous amount of fuel when you're flying solo.

Appreciate the real world numbers. Thank you