KSMooniac

I think the answers above pretty much cover your questions. Your intended use sounds perfect for a Mooney in my opinion too. You should easily get 140 KTAS at 9 GPH or less flying LOP and give you enough range for the 550 NM trip without sweating. If you add a JPI engine analyzer (or similar) I'd highly recommend getting the fuel flow add-on to make much better use of your useful load for long trips like that. It makes it easier to do partial-fuel trips with lots of people/bags and confidence you won't run out of fuel. Corrosion generally isn't problematic unless the plane has been near a coast all it's life, or perhaps had leaky windows plus the original insulation while being stored outside for a long time. The PPI/annual should check the steel cage for rust, and the rest of the airframe for internal corrosion. Finding signficant rust in the cage is likely to not be economical to repair, so run away. Fuel tanks are a Mooney weakness in that the wet wing sealant will eventually decay and require some attention. Search up Willmar Air Service and read about their process for stripping and re-sealing...they are the best in the business. There may or may not be a shop in Europe that is licensed to do their process. It is expensive, but worth it. Your candidate Mooney may or may not need it, so get the tanks inspected, and look/smell for leak evidence inside the cabin, in the wheel wells, belly, etc. If you're lucky, a previous owner will have had this done recently! I got to do my tanks in year two of ownership. As mentioned above, things like the Johnson bar socket, control rod ends, etc. are subject to wear, but easily replaced. I'm in the camp that believes metal 3-blade props do not belong on 4-cylinder airplanes. In the case of the Mooney, they offer the advantages of (a) ramp appeal, ( higher weight, © no additional ground clearance, (d) reduced top speed, (e) marginally better climb, (f) potential vibration problems. None of those reasons are compelling enough to put one on IMO, but lots of people do. If/when I upgrade my propeller I will very likely go with an MT because it is lighter and smoother and should give me better climb and perhaps top speed over my older OEM McCauley. You might consider an MT since it originates in Europe and might be more reasonably priced over there for you. The weight savings are very significant too, so if you have a payload problem that would be a good place to start. Good luck!

My '77 is pretty close to Cruiser's numbers...perhaps 1-2 knots slower but that is right in the ballpark. Keep in mind that all Mooneys are hand-made, and let's just say some are straighter than others, better rigged, etc. There will be a range of speeds. I believe the later models are a little bit faster, but not more than 5 knots on average.

You can most definitely install one of their systems into your Mooney.

I agree with Brian. That seller has a vintage plane and hasn't kept it up with the times, and is trying to fetch a price he might have gotten 3+ years ago, but not today. I'd also recommend joining MAPA and AOPA...both are nominal fees that will open up all kinds of benefits while shopping/owning, plus two great magazines each month.

I think GPSS is somewhere around $1500-$2500 installed, but I'm not too sure since my plane came with it. The HSI trade-in would put the out-the-door Aspen price in the neighborhood of $5-6k, so the cost delta is $3-4k vs. just the GPSS alone. I'd say your resale value as well as desirability (ie quick sale when the time comes) would easily be worth the additional 3 or 4 AMU, which you could easily blow next month if you have to service the King HSI... I think the idea is worth serious consideration and a discussion with your avionics installer.

I agree about the high price, otherwise it looks very, very nice to me except for the 3-blade prop, which is a deduction in my book.

Buster, AMU = Aviation Monetary Unit. You might know it as $1000 today, but after you become an owner you'll fully understand AMU. Sometimes each AMU must be offset by a JMU if your finance committee is chaired by a female...

I agree with Don and think that GPSS coupled to a WAAS GPS and a/p is one of the best bang-for-the-buck item you can add to your airplane. An engine monitor is the first thing I would add if you don't already have one. One other idea you might consider...you could ditch the King HSI and go for an Aspen PFD. I recommend that for two reasons... the King HSI will eventually require some expensive maintenance whereas (presumably) the solid-state Aspen should run without wearing out. Right now, the King HSI still has some residual value on trade-in or the used market if you choose to sell it yourself, but that value will diminish as more people install Aspens or Garmin PFDs. The Aspen includes GPSS, so you wouldn't have to pay for that twice. You might want to get a quote for an Aspen installed (including trade-in or re-sale value of the King system) in addition to just adding the GPSS to what you have now. You also might get some overhaul quotes on the HSI, and then see if you wish to roll the dice and hope you don't get to do that before trading airplanes...

Jim, I concur with your items from memory too. Jeff, Wichita has grown and changed quite a bit (for the better!) in the 12 years I've been here. I hangar at Jabara, too. Your purchase budget will obviously be the biggest factor in which J you can get, but the good news is that there are several parameters that you can "trade" within a given budget to find one that meets your wish list. For instance, if you want one of the later models (say 88+) you might be able to find one with higher airframe time that costs the same as an early model with lower airframe time, so you end up buying "more" features on the same budget. I and many others are of the opinion that high airframe time is no problem on a Mooney as long as the MX was good. (There are some threads here on the subject) The last of the models (mid 90s+) are still priced much higher and I expect they are still depreciating, so that may or may not bother you. They don't really do anything "better" than the earlier ones, but they will likely look nicer and have more OEM equipment. If your budget will support it, I would aim for an 84+ and place a priority on good airframe history/MX, modernized panel with 430W or better, good autopilot, and then good cosmetics in that priority order. I agree with Dave's post above...once you get a good one it will be *extremely* satisfying! There is no finer personal ship than a Mooney for fast & efficient transportation at minimal cost! Mine has been a dream for almost 3 years now.

Jeff, There are some articles scattered about, but I don't have the links handy right now unfortunately. For a pure valuation estimate of the different years, you should look up Jimmy Garrison's articles in the MAPA Log. The airframes are common all the way through the lineage, so there are no major differences with wing style, engines, etc. Somewhere around the 1988 timeframe (I think) the gross weight was eligible to be increased to 2900 lbs from 2740 lbs, which helped recover some lost useful load from years of weight gain. That is perhaps the biggest difference. Otherwise, there are some minor changes over the years. First year was 1977, and it had a throttle quadrant, different landing gear motor & backup system, and square-tipped McCauley prop. 1978 went to push-pull/vernier engine controls and a round-tipped McCauley prop, which was an improvement. In the 82-84 timeframe most of the rest of the "niceties" were added, such as the one-piece fiberglass belly pan, fiberglass wing tips, better dorsal fin & ventilation, and split/folding/removable rear seats, etc. Around 87 or 88 the rounded windows were used, which are purely cosmetic. I think in the mid 90s the IO-360-A3B6D engine with the infamous dual mag went to the -A3B6 with independent mags. Generally speaking, 84+ have most of the desirable features. Later models also got fully articulating front seats vs. the simple sliders/recliners of the earlier models. The non-D engine can be substituted to any M20J airframe but it usually has an up-charge on the exchange. All of the later model aero features can be retrofitted as well. Avionics-wise, by now many/most have gone through panel changes. The later the airframe, the more likely it is to have a full King stack including HSI, autopilot and perhaps a flight director AI as part of the system from the factory. Earlier models were simpler. You should look for one configured like you want IMO vs. planning to upgrade since upgrades only return ~50% of the cost at resale. At a minimum you should aim for one with a Garmin 430W and/or 530W or a 480. Generally speaking, I would not get hung up on airframe year and buy the best example you can afford. Once you look at a bunch of ads, you'll end up with your own feature/priority wish list and how much each feature is worth to you. I originally went hunting for a modified M20E or F, but stretched to get my '77 J and couldn't entertain a later model at the time due to budget. I would love to have the split/removable rear seats and a one-piece belly, and plan to add those to my plane. I got an STEC-30 autopilot that I think is cheaper, simpler, and more reliable than the fancier King autopilots of the 80s/90s so that was a bonus for me. I would prefer the 78+ engine controls vs. my throttle quadrant, but it wasn't a show-stopper either. I would also prefer the later McCauley prop, but might upgrade to an MT instead. I would also avoid any plane with a 3-blade metal prop as they are heavier, slower, and often have unsolvable vibration issues with 4-cyl Lycoming engines. You should also pay close attention to the actual useful load of each candidate airplane, as they can vary quite a bit, so figure out your mission requirements and see how much payload & fuel you'll need. That is about all I can think of off the top of my head, so I hope that helps. Fire away with any more questions too. Scott

Your only safe answer is to engage an aircraft tax specialist in your state, which might be a CPA and/or attorney. The rules vary by state, and the costs are significant enough to get professional advice in my opinion. Some states allow for a "casual sale" between two individuals to be tax-free, but others will not and demand either a sales tax or a use tax. Buying from a broker may or may not trigger tax. Buying from an FBO or dealer usually will.

You are correct, Dan. If the non-A&P owner did the work and there is no supporting log entry with an A&P signature, then he broke the rules. Even if he did good work, I would still run away from that plane b/c he has demonstrated a bad attitude with regard to maintenance and following the rules, and there is no telling what else has been done without documentation. He could have done some other work on the airframe that a savvy A&P/IA might find as an un-airworthy item that could cost a lot to undo and/or fix correctly down the road. This spring I had to do cylinder work on my 1650 SMOH engine. I did the vast majority of the work, under supervision, to remove & reinstall the cylinders. A local shop put in new valve guides and seats, honed the cylinders, and gave me new pistons/rings/pins. I had low compression on 2 cylinders and opted to go this route (not a full TOH) and that *should* get me many hundreds of hours down the road. My cam and crank looked good, and oil analysis had been good prior to this work, so I plan to keep running past 2000 SMOH as long as everything continues to check out and perform well. All that aside, I would not buy an airplane with an engine past 2000 SMOH and expect it to continue running since I wouldn't know how it was treated. If such a plane is a candidate, price it as a complete runout and be prepared to OH at any time, and if you keep flying it, just consider those hours as a bonus.

Very nice upgrade! That sure is a nice way to modernize the shotgun panel.

Thanks, guys. I'm pretty happy for our first attempt at some serious photos. We had a perfect evening on top of a overcast at 10k' feet while the sun was going down. Too bad I didn't have Paul Bowen in his B-25 nearby. We didn't get very close either since we're not officially trained-up on formation flying and I didn't want to take any risks.

Finally got one re-touched from my buddy to remove the dust on the lens...

Bodie, I got some generic "aircraft stripper" from Lowes or Home Depot. I've seen it in auto body paint shops as well (or auto parts store). It brushes on, sits a bit, and then the paint will bubble off a bit. It took a few applications with some scraping/brushing in between but overall went fairly quickly.

I'd say it is a decent hypothesis. Historically (to my knowledge anyway), Mooneys have not had what is considered "fatigue" issues with high-time examples. Fatigue damage is typically small cracks that originate around fastener holes, and can link up over time and lead to structural failure of a major component. Planes like T-34s, some 400-series Cessna twins, etc. have these issues today, and it will be interesting to see if other GA planes start to have some of the same problems in the future. Having said that, I don't think there is a ticking time bomb concern with Mooney airframes in terms of sudden structural failure. We all know they are hell-for-stout due to the steel cage and very strong wing. That leaves the "consumable" items that should be checked on any Mooney such as rod-ends, rubber biscuits, engine mount rubber, cowling fasteners and cowl flaps, engine control cables, etc. It is quite possible that one could find a 7000 or 8000 hour Mooney that is better shape than a 3000 hour one if the high-time plane has had all of these items changed or repaired over the years vs. the lower time one that might still be on the originals.

Your procedure is almost perfect in my opinion. I would add the "Target EGT" leaning method for takeoff and climb to your bag of tricks...it is very simple and will give you a slightly faster climb on less fuel. You have the instrumentation to do it...now you just need to read a little more and convince yourself it is optimal. 8.5 GPH = 63% power when you're LOP. No charts needed...simply multiply fuel flow by 14.9 to get HP. 8.5 * 14.9 = 126.7 HP, or 63% of 200 HP. No reason to reduce MP for descent IMO either....just nose it over and re-trim! Stay out of the yellow arc if it is bumpy, but otherwise you might as well keep the engine operating at maximum efficiency. No need to enrichen either in the descent since your engine seems to run fine LOP...it will go slightly leaner as you descend if you don't touch anything, and that is a good thing. Dave's comment above is spot-on...keep WOT as long as you can to maximize efficiency. I only reduce MP when setting up for an approach or loafing along on a local sight-seeing excursion. There is no such thing as shock cooling. Otherwise we would have problems from shock heating every time we applied take off power, or shock cooling when flying through rain. It is an old wives tale. Carry on!

The interior and windows were done by the previous owner in tan/neutral colors, which is why I went with gold accents on the exterior. One of these days I'll add some pics of the interior and panel...

Jolie, I think there is an option to make Facebook albums publically-visible somehow...you might dig around a little more and try to find that.

I'll add that I only have the 530W/430W in my plane and no legacy nav/coms. The only "old" box I have is the KT76 xponder. My 496 has not lost reception, even with the attached antenna, during my episodes so it is most likely not a RAIM issue. I thought perhaps monitoring 121.5 on com2 might be part of the problem, but my last few flights I've not done that and still occasionally lost signals.

David, I haven't contacted them yet, and I think I'm on 3.0 or 3.1 software but am not sure. I think there is a 3.3 out now, but I've been holding off on the update until more is known about the lost reception.

David, I've had random outages on my 530W/430W combo over the last few months and have not been able to correlate anything. I got the WAAS upgrade done 26 months ago and never experienced anything until this summer. Usually it is just a minute or two with both units going out, but occasionally just one will go out. Never for more than 5 minutes, though. Traffic on the AOPA board indicates that it might be related to recent software upgrades, but I haven't upgraded mine this year. I really have no idea what is happening, and fortunately it has not happened during an approach, yet.

Nice work! Where/when are you going for paint?

Major bummer indeed! Sorry you're *that* close on this trip, George. Do you have a fuel flow/totalizer system?