M20C Valuation

[CJSmith]

For those that don't mind evaluations:

I've monitored this forum and the Mapalist for quite a while. A vintage Mooney has been one of my top four possible buys, but I have not been able to get my arms around Mooney prices. The link below has me totally baffled.

MAPA Log has detailed pricing published every once in a while, but higher than Vref.

This one seems high. Is that what a low SMOH engined C-model is going to cost to buy?

http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/MOONEY-M20C-RANGER/1968-MOONEY-M20C-RANGER/1170084.htm

I'm not loyal to any brand, but I 've learned a Mooney is quite efficient  with a Lyc 360.

Grumman Tiger, and PA28-180, are on the short list.

Cheers,

Chris

 

[Ron McBride]

0 SMOH engine and prop, Stec 30 autopilot, updated panel, Storm Scope, back up AI,  Looks like a nice plane.  Mooney's are worth more the a PA 28-180 or a Tiger.

Ron

 

[N6843N]

Well you could have bought mine last sept for $35K. Mine has less airframe time and few hundred more for the engine. I replaced the radio pakage in 2004 with all new UPSAT radios including an approach certified GPS. The older short body Mooneys just do not seem to comand the higher prices their longer brothers do, the Hartzell AD does not help on the price either. I have seen a lot of "C's" for 30-40K that were real nice. Glad I got my medical back and can once again fly.

[KSMooniac]

I'd say that particular C is fairly priced, perhaps a bit high since it has a Loran (useless) instead of a GPS, but otherwise it has a lot of nice upgrades and a new prop to terminate the latest Hartzell AD.  I would expect there is some negotiating room in that price too.  If you want to really compare, take any of the ~$40k M20C's on the market and add up how much it would take to get to 0 SMOH, new prop, 201 w/s, other speed mods, and especially the STEC-30 and Stormscope.  It is probably in the ballpark of $35-$40k in items right there, and if you use the traditional 50% value-loss on upgrades that would put the number around $55-60k IMO. 

If you buy one that has been upgraded and flown/maintained regularly, it is worth a bit of a premium IMO over others that are more vintage and have sat un-loved.  It will likely have far fewer nuiscance items to deal with, and thus be more reliable to own and especially use to travel.  My final bit of advice would be to put a very high value on an installed STEC-30 on any of these vintage planes!  If installed today, they might cost 25% of the entire hull value, so it is very, very nice to pay an extra $5k on a plane that already has it!  They are perfect for this class of plane, too.

[flight2000]

The last time it was listed it had over 1300 on the engine and prop (AA had the new hub on hand, just not installed).  Guess they figured it would move quicker with a new engine overhaul and the hub replaced (the AD is no longer relavent on this one).  It was listed at $47.5K if I remember correctly. 

Still, it has alot of nice stuff in it that you don't normally find.  Not sure I'd pay that much for it, but then again what I just had done to mine doesn't make much sense either...

Brian

[luv2fli]

Been looking at different Mooneys for a while - gut reaction is it's gonna sit for a while with that high of price in this market.

[KSMooniac]

it might very well sit, but it wouldn't hurt to make a lower offer, though.  There aren't many pre-J planes on the market with an STEC autopilot, and I would put a high value on it for that reason. 

[rlbowley]

I too am trying to get my brain around some of the prices.  I think that in general the prices I have seen are in line with the average for similar airplanes, but there are always a few oddballs.

An example, I went to look at a 64 E' with a "shotgun" panel, 3/10 paint, 3/10 interior, low time motor, and a 1991 gear up.  It did have a some mods to include 201 tips, flap gap seals as well as a 201 windshield, 3 blade prop and tail fairing.  Still, the price was pretty high (50K).  Maybe VREF is very misleading, but when I valued the aircraft, then considered the value of the mods by depreciating the original cost of the mods by 50% (maybe this was too much), subtracting ~6k for bad P&I and another ~5k for the gear up (maybe this was also too much, and even though it happend almost 20 years ago, its a stigma and I would guess it affects the value forever to some extent), I come up with a figure that is at least 10k lower than the asking price.  At some point, the offer becomes more of an insult, and it was the first airplane I looked at, so I never made an offer.  

I would be interested in other's opinions of my valuation process.  I'm still in the process of understanding the market as a whole, so my numbers may be way off.

[N6784N]

10k more and you can get into a 201. I have come to the conclusion that my m20c ranger will onlybe able to sell for a certain price especially since its had 2 ggear up although years ago. i plan on making mods but wont sink that much into it i would never be able to even come close to recouping later. very nice plane though, its the setup I will always dream about until i can upgrade to a 201 or 231.

[KSMooniac]

I think your thought process is pretty reasonable except for the deduction for the gear-up landing that happened 19 years ago.  Assuming good repairs, it isn't really a major downgrade, especially after such a long time.  I presume the prop and engine were replaced/overhauled sometime in the last 19 years too.  If the incident happened recently, then a deduction is in order in case there are unforeseen complications with the repairs, but by now I wouldn't worry one bit.  Finding a 40+ year old plane without any damage history might be too optimistic, IMO. 

Having said that, your subtraction of 6k for bad P&I might actually be too low!  Figure $8-12k for a quality paint job, and perhaps $3-6k for interior depending on how much is done and owner sweat equity, so that is potentially up to $9k of deduction/addition using the 50% valuation. 

Personally, I would value the speed mods (esp. 201 w/s) as high-value, but I would deduct for a 3-blade metal prop.  I would also like to know what is in the panel.  The shotgun layout is less desirable, certainly, but if it has a 430, autopilot, etc. then that is more important.  I also wouldn't mind getting bad P&I so I could renew those to my standards and not feel  bad about re-doing a recent paint job or just living with something ugly.    50k might be reasonable with a low-time engine and a fairly modernized IFR panel...

[CJSmith]

All comments have been very appreciated. Some more questions:

On the listing in question. How can a newly overhauled engine be 0 time? No test runs or test flights? And how long will it sit with 0 time advertised? I have to assume the airplane is not being flown regularly.

A lot of folks on this forum were around when a C-model sold for these prices. But in today's market? It's still a C-model. Does it really need a storm scope and S-Tec 30? 62k and no 430?

From what I've read this Broker gets PO'd if you offer what he considers too low.

90% of my flying will be within a 200 mile radius. 40% with the wife, 10% with wife and 5 year old Grandson. 5% to fly 600 miles to visit two sons. As you all know the mission tends to modify or evolve depending on the aircraft. No one can pinpoint a mission statement as accurately as he may think. Not at my ownership experience level.

The Tiger and 28-180 are good aircraft, but on my list purely because I've been told repeatedly they will cost half what a C-model costs to maintain per year. I don't have the experience to confirm or dispute this.

Cheers,

Chris

 

[Cruiser]

You will find that there are a few hours on the overhauled engine. The ad is just saying the engine is newly overhaulded.

So get him PO'd. The plane is only worth what you are willing to pay. He will sell or you will move on.

Besides looking really, really cool in a Mooney the biggest advantage to faster planes is the ability to fly INTO a head wind. When I owned my PA28 there were times the trucks on the freeway were faster than I was 3000' above them.

Complex aircraft are well, more complex than basic trainers. You certainly will pay more for annual inspections and maintenance.

 

 

[Ned Gravel]

Chris:

I am not certain why a listing would have zero as its time since overhaul, but my engine shop put at least five hours on it while mounted in their test stand at the end of the overhaul last year.  Did not count as logged airframe time however.  The first airframe hours on that engine were logged by me overhead the airfield and in the first hours of burn-in time.  If yours is a zero time engine, you are going to get stuck with its burn-in.

Does a C model need a Storm Scope?  Probably not if your mission profile is not hard IFR.  If it is, then the Stormscope is really there to tell you how good (or bad) your weather flight planning is.  I am not one of those that will try and duck in between CB cells based on the information that a Stormscope would provide.  Just not for me.  YMMV.

Does a C model need an STEC 30?  You bet.  That little puppy will fly the airplane for you when your hands are busy trying to do other things that need your attention in the "aviate - navigate - communicate" order of our business.  Great lifesaver.  Doesn't matter if its even the simple wing-leveller, Brittain A/P or up to the STEC and Bendix KAP models.  Very useful tool.

If you are dealing with a broker who pulls emotional tricks as you describe - save yourself the aggravation right now and consider walking away.  No one needs that when buying something upon which your life may depend.  JMO.

Maintaining a Mooney costs between half again and twice as much as a Cherokee (don't know about the Grumman).  The cost differential is based on "tight" versus "loose".  Our Mooneys are extremely efficient aircraft and that efficiency comes from its design.  When you open the cowl on a Cherokee, the baffling is open and the engine is not tightly cowled.  Not so on the Mooney.  Skinnier is faster.  Add the complexity of constant speed props (which only the Arrow has for the older model Cherokees) and RG (which only the Arrow has) and your price differential will drop considerably when compared to only an Arrow.  Compared to the others, maintaining the C model will cost much more.  In essence, your increased maintenance cost is what you pay for speed and efficiency.  

In the end, your decision should be one that you are very happy with.  The rest of us are somewhat biased.

Hope this helps.

 

[N6843N]

Quote: CJSmith

All comments have been very appreciated. Some more questions:

On the listing in question. How can a newly overhauled engine be 0 time? No test runs or test flights? And how long will it sit with 0 time advertised? I have to assume the airplane is not being flown regularly.

A lot of folks on this forum were around when a C-model sold for these prices. But in today's market? It's still a C-model. Does it really need a storm scope and S-Tec 30?

The Tiger and 28-180 are good aircraft, but on my list purely because I've been told repeatedly they will cost half what a C-model costs to maintain per year. I don't have the experience to confirm or dispute this.

Cheers,

Chris

 "0" time engine just means it has been VERY recently overhauled. I have over $70K in my airplane, but times change and you have to realize that. As I said before a good C is worth 30-40K today, that may change soon. Your stated mission is perfect for a C. Most folks on here do not understand what a C is really good at and unfortunately they use them as steping stones to other models. I think an autopilot and stormscope are overkill for almost any under 350HP single, all I see is  wasteing usful load. If you are willing to get involved, in a hands on way a C can be maintained for as little or less than your two examples, knowledge truly is power. Good luck with your quest for aircraft ownership, with what ever aircraft you chose.

[DaV8or]

Quote: CJSmith

90% of my flying will be within a 200 mile radius. 40% with the wife, 10% with wife and 5 year old Grandson. 5% to fly 600 miles to visit two sons. As you all know the mission tends to modify or evolve depending on the aircraft. No one can pinpoint a mission statement as accurately as he may think. Not at my ownership experience level.

The Tiger and 28-180 are good aircraft, but on my list purely because I've been told repeatedly they will cost half what a C-model costs to maintain per year. I don't have the experience to confirm or dispute this.

[Mooney65E]

Quote: DaV8or

[carusoam]

I don't think you can PO a broker if you are serious about negotiating the price of a specific machine with serious intent to buy.

I am pretty sure you can PO any machine salesman by trying to lower the price and not be sure if you really want to buy it yet....  That's why somebody invented the term "tire kicker"

Getting serious about the deal is usually shown by a visit to see the machine or having it taken for inspection.

All American typically purchases their inventory.  They will have a simple price=cost+margin model.

You can always call David at All American and ask how flexible his price is?

Either way, I recommend a visit to their shop in KSAT.  Just to see the inventory that is available.  For me, $60K seems like a lot to spend on an M20C, when you can get into an M20f for $60k.  Then while you are looking, nice M20Js are near $100K. Newer / nicer M20Js at $120k.  Ovations and Eagles are just slightly up the scale from there...

Now that you have nicely defined your mission (in the most practical sense).   Pick your budget, identify the best machine available in the range.  You are ready to negotiate / pre-purchase inspect.

All American is adult toy store... I have never been to a place with more machines with different varieties all for sale all at one spot.  Including all the advice of differences between models.

Don't be surprised if your wife says "get the mooney already," its what you want already, isn't it?

[KSMooniac]

I'll echo Jim's comments about ownership costs of the C versus the Piper or Grumman.  I don't think you'll do better in actual cost per *mile* than the Mooney.  The Grumman might be close, but not the Piper.  

There are a lot of myths/old wives tales floating around about Mooney cabin size/comfort, landing behavior, and maintenance.  Try not to let such perceptions cloud objective analysis during your shopping & evaluation period.

All-American has a stellar reputation in the Mooney community, so I wouldn't hesitate to call them or better yet take a trip to visit them in person if you're a serious buyer.  They can also do some panel changes in conjunction with the sale, so if you don't value a Stormscope for example, they might be willing to pull it and lower the price since they could put it another plane where someone might really want one.

[rob]

Regarding maintenance and upkeep of a Cherokee vs. a Mooney:

I had a 1981 Warrior prior to my 1965 M20C. Was the Warrior's annual cheaper? Yes, it was, but that was more than made up for in the amount of fuel I *don't* burn going the same places in my Mooney. The Cherokee is a very plain and simple airframe. A great trainer or weekend flyer. The Mooney, as All-American calls it is a "real" airplane. The gear retracts. It's fast and slick. Of course maintenance will be higher, but the value is also higher. My M20C has been relatively trouble free. There have been no Mooney-specific issues (ok, so maybe a bit of a fuel tank repatch, but no big deal) in the time I've owned it. I do expect to replace the landing gear springs at the next annual. A Warrior wouldn't have had that cost. But my Warrior had it's own issues, all airplanes do - new or old.

Get the Mooney. You'll not regret it. If you get the Piper or the Grumman you'll always wonder what it would have been like to be in a Mooney. If you get the Mooney, you'll not care about the other two.

[CJSmith]

By the way, I almost pulled the trigger on a Cheetah. It flew that well (owner is smaller than I, and the temps were only 10c). I hadn't been in a Grumman since the late 70's. Wife said no. She didn't want me committing to the wrong airplane just because of the market. She doesn't feel I've done enough comparison, and she doesn't want to have to put up with this nonsense again.

Her comments were something like this: "You've been flying the same helicopter at work for over 20 years. I'm still not sure you know what you're doing. What makes you think I'll jump in just any airplane you pick? You've got all summer to figure it out" she says. "Isn't Mooney a religion?"

So I made some more phone calls.

A good friend I only get to visit 2 or 3 times a year, owns a Commanche 180. Loves it, and does most of the grunt maintenance including owner assist annuals. However, he did his CFI training and checkride in an older M20. J-bar, Hyd flaps etc.

He is convinced it would cost no more, and probably less to maintain than his Commanche. His last few years have been well within my budget. I was hesitant because of fuel tanks, steel corrosion, and donut issues not found on some other makes.

He did warn, that I should fly one before settling on a vintage Mooney. (I havn't been in a J-model since 1995, and never in a C, E, or F)

Two things he mentioned:

1. Controls were quite stiff (pre 1964 maybe?. I wonder about rigging? It was a rental).

2. You sit low with a bit less outside vis, and resulting awkward throttle/prop control location. 

But, he also confirms a C would fit my mission and should be near the top of the list along with an Arrow 180. (We are both fans of carburated 0-360s (The difference in cylinder expense by almost half for one reason). Both he and my current CFI are religious carb heat users, no matter what carburated airplane.

I wish I could get even half you guys in one room. It's difficult out here, and I don't know what I don't know.

Chris

[DaV8or]

Quote: CJSmith

"Isn't Mooney a religion?"

[Parker_Woodruff]

Just a little personal preference to throw in here.

When I started looking at the Mooney and Grumman market a few years ago I was torn between the few of these:

 

Nice Grumman with a Garmin 430, autopilot, etc.

Average time M20C, E, F with decent equipment

High time M20J, K

 

Personally I'd rather have a newer airframe with less equipment then pull it as budget allows...but this was a bit unique because I ended up with one of the cheaper Js on the market...Don't know if that told you anything...

[mooneygirl]

Hi Chris

I like your wife!  HA  I think owning and loving a Mooney is something like religion!

Have her check out Mooney Ambassadors and watch some of our videos.  http://www.MooneyAmbassadors.com

 

Good luck in your search. 

[RJBrown]

 You can Piss off the guys at AAA they think all their planes are made of GOLD. Must be a hell of a bunch of salesmen to sell for the prices they say they do. I offered what I had seen similar planes sell for a year or so ago. They got real pissy and refused to even pass on the offer to the seller. I ended up buying a 90 MSE in line with MY observations not theirs. The Zero time is probably a in house to serviceable not a real OH. Worst people I talked to while I was looking. They have a vested interest in pushing up prices, if you bought from them you paid too much is the feeling I was left with.

 With cash in hand these guys would not even pass an offer on!!! After that if I left my name they just left me on hold. If you are not buying the BS they just blow you off.

[KSMooniac]

Since you brought up the Comanche comparison, you might get insurance quotes for a Comanche 180 vs. an M20C, and I expect you'll find the Comanche to be noticeably more...maybe 20-25%.  That is what I discovered a few years ago.  I had the (dis)pleasure of being a pax in a Comanche with a gear problem that is another long story...I'll take the Mooney system (especially a Johnson Bar) over that clap-trap any day!  Otherwise, they are fairly similar planes.  The Mooney fuel tanks are a potential cash-drainer and I have no idea how the tanks are configured on a Comanche.  Mooney controls are 100% pushrod+rod end bearings, so they are different than sloppy cables and pulleys of other planes.  They should feel "solid" and not "stiff" so I suspect the Mooney you recall needed lubrication...it is a dramatic difference from lubed to dry. 

Like Jim, I preferred the IO-360 engine and talked myself into an early J.  I'm hoping my increased performance and better fuel economy will offset the extra cost of the IO cylinders...time will tell.    I wish I had hydraulic flaps and manual gear too.

Randy's comment is the first negative I've read about AAA.  He is correct in that they would have an interest in pushing up prices, but I still think Jimmy's evaluations in the MAPA Log better represent reality than VREF or similar.