manoflamancha Posted December 1, 2014 Report Posted December 1, 2014 Well I have choice to buy either a used Porsche or a used Mooney for same price. Mooney wins! Besides I already have a good fast car. Looking at a few with decent AP, IFR Garmin GPS now key is finding decent engine and airframe that will not a 50K replacement right away so I can put $ into engine fund. 1 Quote
bonal Posted December 1, 2014 Report Posted December 1, 2014 Mooney is a much better choice. Never have to worry about getting a ticket at 150 plus knots and once you get it and take care of all the squaks there are plenty of Porsches for sale. Besides how much fun can you have stuck on I 80 unless your planning on going to Thunder hill for some track days. Quote
carusoam Posted December 2, 2014 Report Posted December 2, 2014 1) buy the car, it relieves pressure to fly dangerous planes... Makes sense when you're 20... 2) buy the plane, because speeding tickets cause your insurance to rise outrageously... Makes sense when you're 30... 3) buy a nice plane, because the old worn trashy looking one won't be comfortable enough for your finance administrator... Makes sense when you're 40... 4) get indoor storage facilities for your entire collection... Makes a lot of sense when your 50... Fun logic for the younger crowd? Best regards, -a- 3 Quote
WheelBuster Posted December 15, 2014 Report Posted December 15, 2014 N4048H sn 24-1019 has original paint and original panel no GPS but it does have an A/P and HSI listed 400 days ago @ $79,900 N4067H sn 24-1049 has new paint and all Garmin GPS panel listed 3 days ago @ $130,000 which one do you think will sell first? Spot on Cruiser. New guy here and hopefully soon to be buyer. I could not agree more with the flood of poorly maintained aircraft on the market, the smaller group out there that are impeccably maintained and updated and selling for a premium (and understandably), and then the perfect buy that pops up here and there. While the panel is a good discussion, basic upkeep seems to be lacking in so many of the ac listed. When I see a plane for sale that desperately needs a paint job and interior for 30k, and find another for 40-45k that looks like an 8 in and out, with even slightly better avionics and newly sealed tanks, it is a no brainer. Me having to update the paint and interior are not something I want to undertake unless I am getting such a good deal on the plane it makes it worth the time and effort. If that plane would be worth 40k in top shape, and if paint and interior is 10-12k like I am hearing from a few owners I have spoken with, I wont look at it for more than the low 20s tops. It's not just the cost to get it up to par, but the time, effort, downtime, and headache to do so. I don't think many buyers want to go through the extra effort to break even. Even more importantly for me, a poorly maintained exterior and interior on a vessel of any kind makes me doubt, fairly or not, the quality of maintenance and upkeep mechanically. Guys that do top notch Mx usually keep the visual aspect just as clean and up to date. So in the meantime I am doing my homework, narrowing down what ac I feel fits out mission best (with Mooney still probably in the top spot), but am almost to the point where if or when that rare deal pops up I can jump on it without hesitation. Quote
ryoder Posted December 17, 2014 Report Posted December 17, 2014 you get what you pay for..... I worry about overpaying and not getting what I overpaid for. Mid time engines are the worst imho. You pay a decent premium for 800 smoh that was done 15 years ago in another state. I think I'm happier buying one at tbo and then overhauling it myself so that I know what I have. Or I would buy one that is basically a fresh overhaul. I also don't want to pay for outdated gps technology. Vor indicators are cheap to replace and so are basic nav coms. Quote
ryoder Posted December 17, 2014 Report Posted December 17, 2014 Yes, you are right. While the newer avionics are nice they are just not necessary to me to enjoy my airplane so i don't get it and probably never will unless there is something that changes to make pricing lower and more similar to what is in experimental aircraft. I had a radio go out in my citabria and put a new Garmin radio in it. Call me crazy if you want but I like my KX170B's in my Mooney better than my new Garmin in my Citabria. Had one of the KX170B's go out in my Mooney and i just bought a new one off of Ebay for $400 and swapped it out. I totally agree. In my case I installed a MX170C which weighs a bit less has flip flop and is more reliable with a warranty. It's also a slide in replacement. I get around just fine with the basic panel and my iPad and garmin D2 watch. Quote
rbridges Posted December 17, 2014 Report Posted December 17, 2014 I worry about overpaying and not getting what I overpaid for. Mid time engines are the worst imho. You pay a decent premium for 800 smoh that was done 15 years ago in another state. I think I'm happier buying one at tbo and then overhauling it myself so that I know what I have. Or I would buy one that is basically a fresh overhaul. I also don't want to pay for outdated gps technology. Vor indicators are cheap to replace and so are basic nav coms. many people like getting one near TBO. If the engine keeps going, it's like free time. If it gives, you control where and who does the OH. A newly OH engine i.e. less than 200 hrs can be risky. It's nice to have a near "new" engine, but the early hours are statistically more likely to be problematic. Quote
bonal Posted December 17, 2014 Report Posted December 17, 2014 many people like getting one near TBO. If the engine keeps going, it's like free time. If it gives, you control where and who does the OH. A newly OH engine i.e. less than 200 hrs can be risky. It's nice to have a near "new" engine, but the early hours are statistically more likely to be problematic. You stole my thunder I was about to say statistically highest percentage of engine failures come at under 200 hours. Mid time motors are statistically the most reliable Quote
aaronk25 Posted December 17, 2014 Report Posted December 17, 2014 many people like getting one near TBO. If the engine keeps going, it's like free time. If it gives, you control where and who does the OH. A newly OH engine i.e. less than 200 hrs can be risky. It's nice to have a near "new" engine, but the early hours are statistically more likely to be problematic. I agree a run out engine is safer than a new engine, but I'm not saying I wouldn't run it but unless the previous owner had oil analysis and other supporting evidence I'd be on the edge of me seat. However after a couple oil changes with no metal and acceptable oil analysis and carefully inspecting cylinders and cased for cracks I would probably be fine with running it. I have 40 hours on my overhaul and am very confident in the engine, but i also have decowled and inspected the engine externally and internally about 8 times now. Everything seems to be torqued correctly and my confidence is back up. How the heck to instructors not have blood pressure though the roof? I've seen some of the crap you have to fly in! Quote
ryoder Posted December 17, 2014 Report Posted December 17, 2014 Many instructors have the perfect mix of ability, arrogance, poverty, and youthful invincibility so they dont sweat flying these old birds as much. Imho. 2 Quote
Parker_Woodruff Posted December 17, 2014 Report Posted December 17, 2014 I have 40 hours on my overhaul and am very confident in the engine, but i also have decowled and inspected the engine externally and internally about 8 times now. How the heck to instructors not have blood pressure though the roof? I've seen some of the crap you have to fly in! I just finished a coast to coast flight (FL to CA) in a 1978 M20J and for probably the 2nd delivery flight this year something bad DIDN'T happen. I've learned over the past several years how to tell people "No" and leave a plane parked in some other state. Even if it means losing time/money for me. It's a shame that aircraft owners have gotten so lax about maint and that airplanes are flying so little now. Also, setting my rate a bit higher ($50/hr or $400/day) has weeded out some of the bad stuff. 3 Quote
ArtVandelay Posted December 17, 2014 Report Posted December 17, 2014 I just finished a coast to coast flight (FL to CA) in a 1978 M20J and for probably the 2nd delivery flight this year something bad DIDN'T happen. I've learned over the past several years how to tell people "No" and leave a plane parked in some other state. Even if it means losing time/money for me. It's a shame that aircraft owners have gotten so lax about maint and that airplanes are flying so little now. Also, setting my rate a bit higher ($50/hr or $400/day) has weeded out some of the bad stuff. I'm considering doing this as well, did you go through Phoenix then T306? Any issues with turbulence? Any pro pointers? Quote
Parker_Woodruff Posted December 18, 2014 Report Posted December 18, 2014 I'm considering doing this as well, did you go through Phoenix then T306? Any issues with turbulence? Any pro pointers? For wind and weather and airspace, this was the best route: KMLB MAI KCEW KMSY KACT KELP ELP T306 ANIMA V16 SSO V16 TUS KTUS TUS V66 MZB OCN V23 SLI KHHR 1 Quote
manoflamancha Posted December 31, 2014 Report Posted December 31, 2014 Parker, How long did it take you to fly the 201J from FL to CA? Quote
fantom Posted December 31, 2014 Report Posted December 31, 2014 Parker, How long did it take you to fly the 201J from FL to CA? About 21 hours from what he told me. Don't know if he was bragging or complaining Quote
Parker_Woodruff Posted January 1, 2015 Report Posted January 1, 2015 Yeah it was 20 or 21 hours, mostly into headwinds. Including taxi time. And a couple short hops because of scattered storms added some time. Quote
manoflamancha Posted January 2, 2015 Report Posted January 2, 2015 Not bad compared to how long it would take to drive the same distance I wonder if a Bravo or Rocket could do the trip in 12-15 hours? Quote
ArtVandelay Posted January 2, 2015 Report Posted January 2, 2015 Not bad compared to how long it would take to drive the same distance I wonder if a Bravo or Rocket could do the trip in 12-15 hours? Having just done this, by car was 40 hrs, was going to fly but winds where 40-50 knots in the western US so I went to plan B, good news is gas prices were $2.25 give or take. Quote
ryoder Posted January 10, 2015 Report Posted January 10, 2015 I think if legislators bump interstate speeds to 80mph the desire to fly GA will take a big hit as people will be able to drive 90mph all day long without fear of being pulled over. I fly for fun and if I really wanted to go somewhere I'd probably do the math and fly commercialy or take the Corvette so I could stop at Hooters when I got hungry. No eight hours bottle to Corvett throttle mans I get to enjoy a single beer with my wings breasts and legs. 1 Quote
manoflamancha Posted January 11, 2015 Report Posted January 11, 2015 Agree I fly for fun and it's relaxing compared to driving. For trips farther than 1000nm each way like international flights, I travel business class commercial so that I can eat drink and relax. I've known pilots who fly their Mooney from Europe to the USA and back but that's a long trip in a small plane. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.