Looking to Purchase - M20E vs. M20F

[ssipilot]

Hello Mooniacs!

 

New to your fantastic MooneySpace and really learning so much.  I am addicted to all the posts and spend way too much time here! 

 

 

I have narrowed down two possible Mooneys and wanted to get comments about two concerns I have:

 

1)  1967 M20E - 5410 TT and 825 SMOH - should I be concerned with the high TT?

 

2)  1967 M20F Exec 21 - 3125 TT and 498 SMOH

      a)  New camshaft installed in 2013 due to failure of one of the lobes - is this indictive of some other problem? 

      b ) 4 cylinders yellow tagged - what does this mean?

 

Also, if there is anyone in the DC, MD, VA area with an E or F that would like to go for a "$100 hamburger", you fly and I'll buy!  Have yet to actually go up in a Mooney

 

Thanks in advance for your time.

 

Bill

ssipilot@yahoo.com

703-231-9475

[orionflt]

Bill, 

my friend Jack and I are in Pa, he owns an F, I own a C...E with only 180 HP.... Jack has a boat in MD maybe we can work something out to get you up. And yes I am volunteering  Jack and his plane with out talking to him first, but he loves to show off Matilda.  

 

Brian

[carusoam]

Welcome aboard, Bill.

If your back seat passengers pay your bills, get the F.

If your back seat passengers have small legs, get the E.

I stayed with a C until the back seat legs got too long...

Learning about engines is a little challenging. Use the search button at the top of the screen is helpful.

TT total time

TSMOH total time since Major over haul..

A plane that has set for too long, may need a new cam shaft. You see that in one of the selections. But it doesn't say that it has been overhauled.

Select a plane based on how your going to use it during your ownership period.

Then select the best quality machine that meets your budget.

Definitely study engine hours, overhauls and factory remans...

Best regards,

-a-

[KSMooniac]

HIgh TT is a non-issue unless there has been a lot of deferred maintenance items and/or corrosion.  A properly maintained Mooney should be able to fly on for tens of thousands of hours, and we have at least a couple of examples here with >10,000 TT to my knowledge.  There are consumables (like gear donuts, rod ends, fuel tank sealant, etc.) that need to be changed for all Mooneys...and with enough time you get to change them again.  There are no widespread metal fatigue issues at all with Mooneys, but corrosion can doom an airframe if it isn't stopped.

 

"Yellow-tagged" cylinders in that context either mean that the existing cylinders were inspected after they were removed and found to be serviceable and re-installed, or another set of serviceable cylinders were installed when the engine was taken apart for cam replacement.  Lycoming camshafts can fail easily if not flown enough, and that is probably what happened.

 

Make sure to check out Jimmy G's Mooney value calculator/tool at http://www.themooneyflyer.com/tool.html to evaluate your two candidates.

[rbridges]

the doctrine on this forum regarding plane purchases--get a very thorough prepurchase inspection.  although they aren't infallible, they can save you money in the long haul.  all things being equal, I would go for the F, but I'd look into the reason why the cam was replaced.  Was the overhaul done years ago, and the plane not flown much?

 

got any info on the avionics?

[SkyPilot]

My F is for sale with 3700 TT & 1075 SMOH. It's running nicely but I would like a faster machine. It seems to true out at 145kts now that I've checked it properly

[Guitarmaster]

Do the pre-buy WITH the mechanic.  Ask questions.  Search this forum for known problem areas (stub spar, tubular corrosion, nose truss).  Pull all the AD's from Mooney's website and become familiar.  They are a tough read, but you will learn LOTS!

I bought mine about a month and a half ago.  It was overhauled in 1997 and only flew 12 hours since.  It was a gamble, but after talking the the good folks at the local engine shop, i decided it was a low-risk purchase.  

Avionics are a big deal.  Mine are original to the plane.  One is weak, but the other works fine.  When they quit, it's about $5000 per radio.  GNS 430 is about $11000.

In 2020 (maybe) all planes will need to have Extended squitter transponders.  Of course with all things FAA, there is no way to make a 2020 deadline a reality.  Anyway, to upgrade to Aspen, GNS430W, additional Nav/Com, ES Transponder will be about $25,000….  of course she will have a nice rack (of radios) after all that! 

Go with eyes open, but don"t get paralyzed in the analysis.  Eventually you just have to plug your nose and jump in with both feet!  You will be glad you did!!

[SkyPilot]

Ok after reading that, anyone want to trade some nice ranch land for my 1967 M20F? Seriously...

[HRM]

Hello Mooniacs!

 

New to your fantastic MooneySpace and really learning so much.  I am addicted to all the posts and spend way too much time here! 

 

 

I have narrowed down two possible Mooneys and wanted to get comments about two concerns I have:

 

1)  1967 M20E - 5410 TT and 825 SMOH - should I be concerned with the high TT?

 

2)  1967 M20F Exec 21 - 3125 TT and 498 SMOH

      a)  New camshaft installed in 2013 due to failure of one of the lobes - is this indictive of some other problem? 

      b ) 4 cylinders yellow tagged - what does this mean?

 

Also, if there is anyone in the DC, MD, VA area with an E or F that would like to go for a "$100 hamburger", you fly and I'll buy!  Have yet to actually go up in a Mooney

 

Thanks in advance for your time.

 

Bill

ssipilot@yahoo.com

703-231-9475

 

Is it a Super 21? If so, you have your answer.

[rob]

Or you could buy a plane with modern radios and an Aspen already installed and save a bundle while the former owner eats his shirt!

[scottfromiowa]

All things equal buy the F over the E. The back seat room will be valued and F's sell for more than E's (if equipped the same).

If the engine has been sitting price it as "run out". You will likely have too put $28,000 into a new engine in a very short amount of time. A plane that has flown regulary since overhaul (only can see how much /year by logs) My plane was low airframe time and advertised as low engine time since major....The overhaul was NOT an overhaul. If it has sat for a year and NOT been flown Don't treat it as "golden" because low time...since overhaul. ALL overhauls are not equel. Who did it? When? New cylinders? Accessories (mags, oil cooler, muffler, hoses ALL refurbed? Be CAREFUL. What looks like a creampuff could be a moneypit. If you are prepared and pay for what you get...ALL IS WELL. If not, gulp...bend over.

[bonal]

I thought they were supposed to be money pits. we have no kids and I like the looks of the short body.  the F with the window conversion looks pretty nice and modern but sadly the double side windows look a little funky to me. And i think that speed not wistanding most would agree the short bodies are more fun to fly.

[scottfromiowa]

With the wheels up maybe...

[carusoam]

Definitely see Rob's C.

But, only if you like modern planes!

Best regards,

-a-

[oldn0tded]

Wow, if I get started, I'm gonna sound like I work in Mooney Sales. BUUUUT

I got my F a little over two years ago, and have not regretted the decision for a second. I feel I did get lucky in that, so far, the plane has done very well with few surprises. It had flown very little in the 10+ years prior to me getting it. I have flown about 200 hours so far and it produces book numbers consistently, and uses a quart of oil every 8 hours or so.

I wanted an F model from the beginning. For me it was pretty basic:

1. Six pack instrument layout was a requirement

2. The extra room is nice, REALLY nice

3. Big gas tanks are nice

4. Higher gross t/o weight is nice

5. Couldn't do a J model

That meant an F. It's the 201 prototype.

As to buying a used airplane, good luck. Take your "common sense" knob and turn it to 9.5, at least. My thoughts were (are), "you're buying the airframe" everything else can be fixed/replaced/repaired. AND keep a reserve account ready for the $hit that can't be predicted.

Suggestions:

If you're not mechanically inclined, find an A/P you can believe in

A prebuy is an opinion, it's better to have one than not

I agree with the poster that said buy as much airplane as you can, let the other guy put the 430 in. (Easy to say, hard to do)

After two years of ownership, the only thing I'm sorry about is that I didn't get one 20 years ago!

Old Knot Head

[Lrn2Fly]

The "E" model is a very fun plane to fly, and a great IFR platform.  Like the "C" model, it's very nimble, and is also very good at short field and/or grass field operations with the extra 20 HP over the "C".    If you only have you and your better half, the E has plenty of space to carry all the stuff you'll need for a long vacation.  Putting people in the rear seat is tight, but I've had 4 on board for up to 2 hour flights, with the ladies in the back, and plenty of fuel, and still had no problems.   I have 5+ hours of fuel on board, far more than my body can handle in one shot.  The "E" is a great choice for you.

 

Look for an "E" with the mods you want.  A previous post referenced the standard 6 pack, a must if you're flying IFR.  Manual gear is wonderfully simple, so don't shy away from it.  Flaps are hydraulic - simplicity.  You should get 145 kts at 7000' in cruise, easily. The more speed mods, the faster the plane will cruise.

 

Previous posts talk about engine times and total times, all good information!

 

JUMP IN AND SWIM IN THE DEEP END!

Sam, CFI/II/MEI

"Matilda" '66 E Model

[BigTex]

I have several hundred hours hand flying both C and J models and can honestly not tell a difference in how they fly, except that the J's higher gear and flap speeds are nice. With all due respect I think that this whole nimble thing is a bunch of crap. Let's face it, no Mooneys are nimble. They all have heavy controls.

Jim

 

It all depends on your baseline...

 

One thing I do love about Mooneys is that you can put them into a turn and they stay there.  It's like they're flying on rails.  You'll not get that with brand C and P trainers.  This one characteristic I really love when hand flying our machines.  But yes, the controls are heavy.

[jetdriven]

I have several hundred hours hand flying both C and J models and can honestly not tell a difference in how they fly, except that the J's higher gear and flap speeds are nice. With all due respect I think that this whole nimble thing is a bunch of crap. Let's face it, no Mooneys are nimble. They all have heavy controls.

Jim

Mooneys are only nimble to the pilot who has never flown a Bonanza. A huge step up from the Piper and Cessna airplanes, I swear you can turn the yoke and have time to light a cigarette before it responds.

 

My Bonanza S35-owning friend flew me up to retrieve his Bonanza from the paint shop. He remarked that it flew like a "dump truck" but when I showed him the fuel flow at 8.5 GPH he never said another bad thing.  Shortly thereafter his hangar mate (who was in the back seat) bought a highly modified M20F.

 

Interestingly, the AOPA safety report on Mooneys points out that it has half or less the fatal IFR accident rate than, say, a Bonanza. They attributed much of this to the inherent stability (dihedral), the PC system on older airplanes,  and heavy controls.  http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/1995/October/1/Mooney-Safety-Review

[KSMooniac]

Yes, they are heavier than a Bo and many other light planes...but the pushrod linkages make them much tighter IMO, compared to sloppy cables and pulleys that need some attention now and then to maintain a good "feel."  Mooneys are made to travel (in IMC if needed!) and a stable platform is a good thing for that mission.  

[jetdriven]

Especially good for pilots like me, who doubled their single-engine IFR time in one trip.  It did feel a little strange.

[bonal]

It's all about how much you can afford and finding the best craft for your mission that fits your budget from all I've heard and learned Bonanzas are going to cost a lot more over time to own as for the heavy controls I like the way they feel and the responsiveness is so quick to me they don't feel heavy they feel tight. I know that every type has its good and bad traits if I could I'd fly them all. And if role rates were that important to me I'd be flying a Pitts or an extra. I'd bet that most all of you don't rack your controls as fast as you can but rather fly your baby as smooth as you can.

[gsxrpilot]

As someone who went through this just a couple of months ago let me add my $0.02.  First of all, I bought the plane I wanted to fly and didn't pay much attention to resale value.  That might be naive, but it was my choice.  With that said the spectrum of used Mooney's for a given price will go from later model long body with poor avionics and run-out engines to older short bodies with better avionics and lower time engines.  I'm glad I decided to put engine/avionics ahead of rear leg room.

 

I bought a 1964 C with 825 SMOH and a great panel.  It's a solid IFR platform and recently did 2.5 hours of actual IMC and it was easy.

 

I just couldn't see buying a plane for my "possible" back seat passengers.  My C will hold two in the back seat just fine and since they're not buying the fuel, they won't be complaining about the room.

 

Paul

 

PS - Have a look at Rob's M20C.  

[scottfromiowa]

I thought they were supposed to be money pits. we have no kids and I like the looks of the short body.  the F with the window conversion looks pretty nice and modern but sadly the double side windows look a little funky to me. And i think that speed not wistanding most would agree the short bodies are more fun to fly.

Since we are talking "funky"...The old style windscreen's with the bar down the center look "funky" to me compared to a modified 201 style windscreen. I define "funky" as dated, which I agree the two-window F's look more "dated". The windscreen mod actually serves a purpose...It makes the plane faster. The side-window mod is for those that want the look of a J in a mid-body. No speed increase. Purely aesthetic. If I could have afforded an F-Model with extra mid-body length when I purchased my short body M20E...I would have as it is a no-brainer...unless that funky two-window thing is a deal-breaker. For you, it was. For many, it is not.

[bonal]

no the double window was not an issue. i like the look of a short body over the long in fact if I had tons of money i woud make a short body rocket as for the old style wind screen yes it looks dated kind of like the 2 piece wind screen on an SR71 looks dated.  and for me the most beautiful part of the mooney is the wings especially when viewed from inside at altitude.  and my wheels do go up. and i agree the 201 winscreen does look sweet.

[scottfromiowa]

Teasing about your legs. Knew you had the modification to retract. I think a 201 with split seats for function and wing tip fairing for looks as well as the 4-banger for speed is perfection...if $ is no object. SR71 HMMmmmm, maybe those two piece windscreen's are O.K. after-all. They are beautiful to me compared to brand C&P...Brand B, that is a different story. If I win the sweepstakes Deb I am "outa-here"...looking back fondly, but keeping it.