Thoughts on this Mooney

[rdman]

I may go look at this aircraft next weekend.https://www.barnstormers.com/classified_887905_1966+Mooney+M20E.html  It is located north of Edmonton and I am in Red Deer.  It is just a short 50 minute flight in the mooney!  I have no intentions of paying him what he is asking.  After reading about a member here with the corrosion in his M20C I will be sure to really check it out.  What I am really interested in is the engine but with sitting for so many years it may be worthless too.  It is sad to see aircraft like this just sitting and basically rotting away. 

[Hank]

Abandoned planes like this are sad. It would be great to bring it back, but that is not a project for the faint of heart. Surprisingly, the tires seem to hold air! Is it just me, or is the antenna on the roof backwards?

[N6758N]

The VOR antenna in my C points the same way as well.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[carusoam]

Why would you not pay what he is asking?

Isn't that a true statement for all second hand machines that are for sale?

Until a second potential buyer shows up. Then competition drives the price.

Looks like a nice project if it were near buy...

12k to own the hulk...

10k to refurb inside and out...

10k tank reseal..

10k to add some used nav/com devices...

20k to OH the engine...

60k and it's a long way from flying...

Just showing that there is a lot involved with an old plane that has been well used and sitting.

Even when your negotiating skills are sharp, the plane could be free and the improvements would still be $50k.

Turning a hulk into a fine M20E is expensive.

Many known things are wrong with a hulk. A PPI is still a good idea to identify any other issues that you should be aware of...

Economics of these things don't make sense.

Sorry for the bad news,

-a-

Go here....

http://mooneyspace.com/topic/11962-1966-mooney-m20-e-201-conversion-with-speed-mods/#entry149623

M20E ready to fly with paint and nav coms. $50k

Or here...

http://mooneyspace.com/topic/12012-1967-m20e-for-sale/#entry149572

For much less....

[SkyPilot]

This thing has been sitting for 30 years. $12 K is high. At least it is hangered. We have a 1950 V-tail bonanza on the field here, that hasn't moved in 10 years, and isn't tied down. The tires are flat, and the last time it moved was about 4' in a windstorm last fall.

 

If you do buy it let me know what spares are for sale. The woodgrain panels are in nice shape I might be interested.

Or you can buy my F. It's on controller. I was going to list it for sale here but there is no way to compete with the US aircraft for avionics and low pricing. Wow.

 

I just dropped my price to $55K CDN (with $70K) into it now.  I'm possibly getting out of flying. Fuel keeps going up, and avgas is on its way out. I'll just fly somebody else's bird and get paid to get my kicks

 

PK

[rdman]

I currently am flying a 65 M20E so this is more of a project if the price was right.  But I don't think it will be.  The engine is "low time" but if it hasn't been run in a few years then it will most likely have to be gone right through.  I was going to start at 5K but even that may be too much.  I doubt I would be able to fly it back to my home field so I would have to factor in trucking it back. 

 

I think I am just going to save up a bit more and move into a 201.  There is lots of nice ones out there with all the goodies.  When I do find one I will make sure that it hasn't been a hanger queen.

[NotarPilot]

 

I think I am just going to save up a bit more and move into a 201.  There is lots of nice ones out there with all the goodies.  When I do find one I will make sure that it hasn't been a hanger queen.

[aaronk25]

Time to call the scrap yard and see how much they will pay.....

I know some one who has beech V35 that has been sitting for 20 years and he honestly believes it just needs a annual and battery......

[scottfromiowa]

THAT LOOKS LIKE A PARTS PLANE. THE VINTAGE FLEET NEEDS TO HAVE SOME PARTS AVAILABLE TOO. EITHER GET 'EM FLYING OR GET 'EM SOLD TO SOMEONE THAT WILL...OR SOMEONE THAT WILL GET THE PARTS OUT THERE FOR THOSE THAT NEED 'EM. THERE ARE MANY CURRENTLY FLYING PLANES (AS STATED) THAT ARE UTIMATELY A WAY BETTER VALUE/GAMBLE THAN A DUSTY HANGER SPACE TAKER. AT LEAST MY HANGER QUEEN LOOKED THE PART. THIS ONE LOOKS LIKE THE STEPMOTHER MADE HER WASH SOME OTHER HANGER FLOOR...IT HAS BEEN A LONG TIME SINCE SHE HAS BEEN TO THE BALL...

[1964-M20E]

I hate to see these fine planes sit unused and neglected.  Unfortunately you would probably spend $4k to $5k just to get it to a point to ferry it somewhere.  Trucking it somewhere especially far would cost more IMHO.

 

If you are close to it and do not have to bring it far it might be worth a closer look to evaluate what it would take to ferry it to your home port and make it a project especially if you have an A&P/IA willing to work with you i.e. you do the work he inspects and guides.

 

Get it home in a hangar address:

1. The mechanicals engine, controls clean and lube everything corrosion X it etc,
2. Get a used nav com and XPNDR and get it flying if only short VFR hops close to home
3. Then start working on cosmetics.

Offer him $5k for it if the above works out and you are willing for a big project.

[KSMooniac]

I too am afraid that it is just a parts plane.  If it has been hangared the whole time, then perhaps the wing is valuable to one of the corrosion victims.  The control surfaces should be in demand as well as landing gear doors and bungees to fix a gear-up plane.  I doubt the engine is worth much if it is original to the plane, although it might still have some value with a good crankshaft, assuming it isn't rusted.  The panel and interior look to be awful IMO, and you can't expect any of the gyros to be functional.  

[Cruiser]

Planes and boats.......... Eager hard working "do it yourselfers" see opportunity in putting a lot of labor an effort into rebuilding these things in hopes of making money when it is finished.

 

My son has a 29' Scarab he bought off the junk pile, It is beautiful now, but he has $45k in a $30K boat. Anyone looking for an offshore power boat, it is NOW a really good deal.

 

If you buy this plane and fix it up, the next guy that buys it from you will be getting a great deal.

[rbridges]

Planes and boats.......... Eager hard working "do it yourselfers" see opportunity in putting a lot of labor an effort into rebuilding these things in hopes of making money when it is finished.

 

My son has a 29' Scarab he bought off the junk pile, It is beautiful now, but he has $45k in a $30K boat. Anyone looking for an offshore power boat, it is NOW a really good deal.

 

If you buy this plane and fix it up, the next guy that buys it from you will be getting a great deal.

 

 

I think planes are even worse.  The parts are expensive, the engines require stringent OH requirements and avionics are crazy expensive.  The money you may save in labor is only a small portion of what the potential expenses are.

[SkyPilot]

Time to call the scrap yard and see how much they will pay.....

I know some one who has beech V35 that has been sitting for 20 years and he honestly believes it just needs a annual and battery......

 

He's probably correct. It's just that the annual will cost $75,000

[SkyPilot]

I think planes are even worse.  The parts are expensive, the engines require stringent OH requirements and avionics are crazy expensive.  The money you may save in labor is only a small portion of what the potential expenses are.

 

Yeah I bought my airplane just over 3 years ago. It's previous owner had passed away.  The airplane had been well maintained until then, and just before his death, he told his wife to put on a new prop and sell it. It took her 3 years to sell. I paid too much but she financed at zero percent. Since then, I've put over $10,000 worth of radios and minor mech upgrades into it. I have more then $70,000 into it not including annuals, hanger, etc. At the time I bought it, the US dollar was at par, and prices were better. Now, the US dollar is climbing, and my Canadian airplane's buyers market is shrinking badly. I just dropped my price another $5000 so I'll see what happens. I am considering donating it to a museum for a tax receipt.

[DaV8or]

Planes like this could be projects for people that want to do all the work themselves, but you would really have to love the '66 M20E to do it. It's certified, so all the parts cost a fortune and the work must be inspected. For the years of labor involved and the amount of money needed, you are far better off building an RV-7 or something. You'll end up with new plane with better resale value.

 

I hate to keep coming back to this, but if we just had an E/FB (experimental/factory built) category where the restorer could have the same freedoms and cost savings that kit builders have, a project like this might be more worth while.

[carusoam]

Dave, that is quite sensible.

What is the value/reason of the 51% rule.

Best regards,

-a-

[kerry]

12K sounds like a good price if you can do the work yourself.  My current plane sat 20 years in a hangar with 250 hrs SMOH.  I filled each cylinder up with marvelous mystery oil and let it sit for 4 hours on each cylinder.  I now have 600 SMOH and its a great engine.  Unless there's something major wrong with the plane I would say someone is going to pick it up for 12K.  I'd say its worth a look.

[scottfromiowa]

Maybe a Barnum & Bailey customer. Is that a Pitot tube or a hollowed out Civil War bayonet?

[Marauder]

The only concern I would have is the immediate need to deal with the avionics. Can't tell exactly from the pictures, but they sure look like 360s.

Sent using Tapatalk

[DaV8or]

Dave, that is quite sensible.

What is the value/reason of the 51% rule.

Best regards,

-a-

 

Once upon a time, if you built your own airplane, it could only be granted one of three experimental airworthiness certificates. 

1. Research and production prototype.
2. Exhibition only.
3. Air racer.

All of these have significant limitations on their use. Back in the 1950's the members of the fledgling EAA approached the CAA and the government with the crazy idea that if you allow full, unrestricted use of a builder's creation after completion, that it would encourage more people to take up aircraft design and construction. At the time during the cold war, the general thinking was, more pilots, more people with aircraft knowledge and skills in the general public was a good thing. Promoting aviation to kids was a good thing. So, the CAA created the Experimental / Amateur Built airworthiness certificate. This allowed home builders to actually get real utility out of their creations.

 

To your question, the original intent was education. Building your own airplane was to be a means for you to educate yourself in aircraft design, construction, maintenance and operation. It was never really intended to be a means to serialized production, or a way to circumvent certified aircraft. The Vans RV and the Lancair Evolution would have been unimaginable to the folks drafting these new regs. Back in those days a home builder typically either designed his own airplane, or he bought somebody's plans. Everything was made from scratch and the planes tended to be low powered, single seat tube and fabric type deals.

 

In time, home building became more popular, but people started asking for kits to assemble rather than plans that required you to start from raw materials. The EAA went back to the Feds and made another pitch. From this, the 51% rule was born. The foundation was the original principle of education, so the requirement was made to have the builder do the majority of the work rather than the kit provider. In addition, a variety of tasks were specified to be accomplished by the builder so that they would learn most of the different skills needed to build this airplane.

 

How all this relates to my suggestion of a Experimental / Factory Built category has to be again on the principle of education. Of course there would be details to work out, but I think something along the lines of a basic "workman's certificate" or something like that would have to earned to allow an airplane in this category to be worked on legally. A basic course both in book as well as hands on instruction perhaps to learn the basics of standards and practices in the aviation maintenance world. I'm not talking the whole A & P course, but rather just the cliff notes. Maybe an online written test and a couple of weeks hands on instruction. Something like that.

 

Just as is now the case with people that buy used experimentals, you would not be allowed to perform your annuals by yourself. You would still require an IA sign off. Significant major modifications like, hanging a LS-7 Corvette motor on the end of an old Mooney would still require a DER sign off to make sure you've done your homework, used acceptable practices and you're not going to kill somebody with it on the first flight. Just as it is today for the folks working on STCs. It would also require the big "EXPERIMENTAL" placards inside and out on the airframe to remind passengers they are about to become part of the experiment. An avenue back to certified status would be possible with a detailed (likely expensive) inspection to verify that the aircraft complies with it's original type certificate with allowances for certified STCs. It would not have to be a one way road.

 

This is my vision to attempt to salvage GA as we once knew it. Lower the cost of ownership, get more DIYers involved, inspire the creativity ordinary people possess and make use of the thousands of rotting ramp queens like the subject of this thread. Unfortunately, I have been told that this is way too much for the FAA to ever consider. That hell would freeze over first. Flat out impossible.

 

However, and act of congress... well, you never know.

[DaV8or]

The only concern I would have is the immediate need to deal with the avionics. Can't tell exactly from the pictures, but they sure look like 360s.

Sent using Tapatalk

 

Remember, to get use out of the plane and enjoy it, you don't have to have brand new, you don't have to have all glass, you don't have to have IFR capability and you don't have to have redundancy. A used KX-155, a used KT-76 and a Gizmo mount with a used 696 and you're good to go have fun!

[carusoam]

Dave,

I was seeing it under the same light. A basically good and nearly functional aircraft can be brought up to speed as defined by the experimental world.

It would need to get a new definition. And homebuilt or experimental labels would be part of the honor.

Wonder how the EAA guys would real about this.

Best regards,

-a-

[DaV8or]

Dave,

I was seeing it under the same light. A basically good and nearly functional aircraft can be brought up to speed as defined by the experimental world.

It would need to get a new definition. And homebuilt or experimental labels would be part of the honor.

Wonder how the EAA guys would real about this.

Best regards,

-a-

 

I imagine the EAA would absolutely LOVE this new category. Their ranks and coffers would swell! I actually imagine the EAA organizing and starting the programs to award these new "Workman's Certificates". Remember the EAA has always been about the restoration and revitalization of vintage aircraft, including certified types. This would be huge for them.

 

The AOPA would love it too. More Aircraft Owners and Pilots to Associate with. More pilots, more owners = more power on capitol hill. More money for their coffers too. I would hope that they would lead the charge along with the EAA.

 

Even MooneySpace would have to add a new forum. "Experimental Mooney" If my hunch is correct, this forum would quickly become the most popular on MooneySpace.

[kerry]

Just as is now the case with people that buy used experimentals, you would not be allowed to perform your annuals by yourself. You would still require an IA sign off.

 

An A&P can sign off the annual on any experimental.  It does not require an IA sign off.