KLRDMD

I'm not sure it is possible to get what you want for the price you want to in pay today's market. A couple of years ago, yes. Now, probably not.

https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/52583833/1969-mooney-m20c-ranger?dlr=1&pcid=17527&crmid=614667&if=1

The major reason I have a Bonanza today is the same. The useful load of my 231 just didn't let me do what I wanted to do. I loved the 231 in all other respects.

If you call 40ºC a cold day, what do you consider a hot day ???

That's very reasonable.

I can tell you with 100% certainty that there was no training whatsoever (not even an hour) on airplane purchasing and ownership when I did my CFI, CFII, MEI or ATP training. A flight instructor is taught to teach flying, not buy airplanes. How many airplanes has your CFI owned ?

It doesn't have to be on company letterhead but it must be notarized. I have letter from two LLCs allowing me to fly the plane to Mexico and neither are on letterhead and Mexico has never had an issue.

1950 x 75 ft, dirt.

I have no idea who put those pictures on the web site but the green grass out the back door is a giveaway it isn't Tucson.

I would seriously look at a P337 if you can stay at 20k ft or under. It is a very nice pressurized twin that will be the cheapest to buy, own and fly. I had one and wouldn't hesitate to buy another if it met my vision. Mine did 182 KTAS at 17,500 ft on 11.5 GPH per engine.

I don't fly much in July and August since it is over 100º every day and sometimes over 115º. That's when I do my major maintenance. I just took my airplane in for paint Monday. The problems with newer engines is infant mortality. There is good data showing most engine failures occur in the first 200 hours after overhaul. Someone on BT recently posted: "In the 6 engine failures I've had in over 30,000 hours of flying, THE HIGHEST TIME ENGINE THAT FAILED HAD 660 HOURS SINCE OVERHAUL. "Infant failures" due to bad parts or impropper assembly are more of a worry than worn-out parts. Most of the non-failure engine "issues" have been after someone has recently been into the engine."

I can only speak to the B55 Baron, which seems as though it would suit you well if you do go to a twin. You'll hear stories of them burning 32 GPH in cruise, and they will if you don't manage the engine well. LOP, they burn no more than 24 GPH and can be run as little as 16 GPH but that's pretty lean. 20 GPH seems to be the "sweet spot" at least for me. In the 8,000-12,000 ft cruise range that should get you about 180 KTAS with a useful load of 1,700+ lb, nose baggage in addition to a baggage area in the cabin and six seats if you want them. Most fly it as a four seater. I've outlined on this site previously comparing cost of ownership of my 231 versus B55 which I owned back to back. The executive summary is it costs about 50% more to own and fly a twin. I have been consistent with that value among the many singles and twins I have owned. If you think flying a Bravo is like flying a Porsche, flying a B55 would be a Ferrari.

Buy an airplane with the engine at TBO. Fly the "free" hours and overhaul it when it needs to be done. I have an S35 Bonanza now that I bought in January. It has over 2,000 hours on a 1,700 TBO but runs well. It uses one quart of oil about every 10 hours and if you only looked at compressions and oil analysis it appears to be a newly broken in engine. I'll fly it until something tells me it is time to overhaul it. Likewise my friend has a P210 that I regularly fly. He also has over 2,000 hours on his 1,600 TBO engine and it too looks close to perfect in all parameters. Today the value is in buying an airplane with an engine at least 80% to TBO, or even over TBO. You'll get some "free" hours and when you overhaul the engine you get to make the choices. Jewell has a great reputation. You're looking at +/- $17,500 to overhaul an O-360 or IO-360 with R&R.

There are a lot of experimentals that disprove that theory.

A Baron will fit in the same hangar as a Bravo. I've owned both types and had them in the same hangar. I've gone back and forth on the single-twin thing. Of the 16 airplanes I've owned, 5 were twins. I believe twins are safer, others believe otherwise. I also believe that a well maintained single is (reasonably) safe. I paid significantly less for my Barons (I've had two) than I paid for my Bravo and that comes with lower insurance premiums. Most of the time I flew my Baron at 10 GPH per side for about 185 KTAS. I flew the Bravo at 19.4 GPH for 195 KTAS. BUT . . . I only have to climb for 3-5 minutes to get to a typical Baron cruise altitude where I had to climb 15-20 minutes in the Bravo to get to an efficient cruising altitude. Single - twin - turbo - normally aspirated. They're all good and they each have different advantages and disadvantages.