Advice needed on Mooney Purchase

[74657]

First post, any replies would be greatly appreciated.

If you had 150K-ish to play with, what Mooney would you buy?  Most of my flying will be "intermediate" distance flying - 350-400 miles.  I do however wish to take several "mini-vacations" in the coming years with my family (wife, 2 small children).  I live in Michigan and would love to be able to efficiently fly to see Mickey Mouse every year.

I was originally looking at Rockets but the fuel burn and long term costs scared me away.  After looking at 231's I see that for a little more money I could get into a 252.  Most of my flying has always been done at 10K (I am not yet Instrument Rated).

Do I pony up and get into a 252 or look at perhaps a loaded 201??  What would the difference in maintenance and annual costs be with a 201 vs. a 252?

My small business will be indirectly paying for this project but given the state of the economy I need to make the smartest decision for my family.

Thanks guys!!

[Theo]

Quote: 74657

If you had 150K-ish to play with, what Mooney would you buy? 

[roundout]

If you buy a J you can keep 50% of your budget in your pocket. Being VFR only you don't have to worry about needing ice protection, so that makes shopping easier. 

[74657]

I will pick up my IR within the next year.  I have looked at Missile's but I haven't seen much around lately.  I will want a good autopilot and a 430W at a minimum.  At 40K for an overhaul I am going to want something with lower hours or at least a fresh top if half way to TBO...

Thanks for the feedback.  Any idea on the fixed costs of a 201/missile/252?  Im assuming the Missile would be easier on the wallet vs. a 252 due to the lack of a turbo?

 

[carusoam]

Missile, M20R, M20S, - Six Cyllinders, No Turbo, room for 4 - Often under 150k

Speed / efficiency compromise - somewhere between M20J and M20M (or rocket, M20M, turbo)

-a-

[roundout]

I don't know that buying a 150k Eagle or Ovation is a good idea. Many don't even come close to that price point. What does spending 100% of your purchase budget do to your maintenance budget? 252 is a good airplane. 231 and Bravo are slow down low and the 252 isn't a ton better. The turbo doesn't do much for you down low except cost you more money. It's a nice option to have (going high if you need to) but it is expensive to lug around if you're not using it. 

[74657]

As long as I know the anticipated maintenance costs I am going to be OK....  Im more concerned with getting it right the first time.  I learned how to fly in a Grumman Tiger (what I currently own) and like the plane but want more speed.  My daughter is 2 and my son is 2 weeks, in the next few years we can put them on oxygen and get up there....if that is what I need (which I don't know.)  For the next 2 years AT LEAST my flying will be done under 12,500 with the family.

 

 

[mooneygirl]

What we decided to do was purchase an Ovation that had been used for a business machine.  It had a lot of hours on it.  With what we saved on the purchase cost, we were able to put into a kitty for overhaul when needed.  After attending Mike Bush's workshop on TBO being a state of mind.  We felt more comfortable. Mike says if it has a bolt on it, it is an accessory. If you need to replace an accessory you do it. Otherwise keep the bottom end happy.

The Ovation is our business machine and allows us more payload.  Don't let a higher amount of engine hours freak you out it all other indicators are strong: LOP, oil analysis, wobble test, borescope.

For our needs, we decided the Bravo or the Ovation. The only Eagle we were comfortable looking at was a Screaming Eagle and there were none in our price point, which is very similiar to what yours is.

 

[GeorgePerry]

With $150K, I'd look really hard at a nice new-ish 201 MSE.  Missle conversions are cool for sure, but many aftermarket changes come with their own set of unique issues.  My personal opinion is if your getting into aircraft ownership for the "first" time, get a factory stock unmolested airframe that's been well cared for.  The performance / fuel burn / effieciency equation of a late model "J"  can not be beat.

http://www.controller.com/list/list.aspx?ETID=1&catid=6&Manu=MOONEY&Mdltxt=M20J+MSE&mdlx=exact&setype=1

Also, if your flying is primarily east coast, then don't go with a turbo.  The efficiencies and speed with a turbo come at higher altitudes that require O2.  You might not mind it but Mom and the kids won't be big fans of putting on masks or sticking things up their noses.  All things being equal Turbo's will cost more to maintain as well. (lots of posts about turbo v/s non turbo ownership costs on the forum)

My only other recomendation if you really want a "big" motor Mooney would be an Eagle (M20S) w/out the screaming eagle conversion.  You might be able to find a motivated seller willing to come down to $150K but I wouldn't hold my breath.  Realistic market on a nice, well sorted Eagle is closer to $175K.

 

Good luck...

[KSMooniac]

IMO you're right in a spot where many Mooneys overlap, and $150k purchase price will give you a lot of flexibility.  Only you can assign weighting factors to your priorities relative to trip distance, cruise altitude, O2 use for the family, and operating costs.  You'll definitely need the IR to get maximum utility out of any Mooney, so that is great you're already planning on it.

I have a 201 and it was a bit of a reach for me to get into that originally.  I stretched my budget and got an upgraded, turn-key plane and have been extremely happy.  I fly 90% XC with nominal trips of 300-400 NM.  I've been to both coasts and my longest leg flown thus far has been 900 NM.  I *love* my plane, but I do long for a turbo since I fly distances where it would make sense, even in the flatlands.  Quite a few of my trips go to CO and it would really be a nice safety enhancement there, too.  My dream would be a turbo-normalizer on my existing J.

I agree that 150K likely won't let you get into a decent M20S or M20R, but you might get lucky.  Rockets and Missile are cheap relative to their performance, but there might be a concern with aftermarket support and especially operating costs on the Rockets IMO.  I have no experience with either, but believe them to be a pretty good product.

The factory turbo planes are less efficient below ~10,000 feet, so if you have no plans to fly higher than that (with O2) then you should not consider them IMO.  If you are willing to deal with O2 and cruise in the mid- to high-teens then an M20K would be a great plane for you and the family.  You'll have to compare useful loads of candidate planes and bounce that off of your anticipated vacation loads, though.  With small kids you should be able to get many, many years of use before you outgrow the utility of a Mooney.  (FYI, I grew up in the back seat of an M20C with my younger brother...we took family trips that way for many years!)  The M20K comes with 6 cylinders and a turbo vs. 4 on the J or earlier...so you'll have higher costs.

Planes on the market vary all over the place in terms of price and installed equipment, so you might have to consider a $100k plane and plan to put $20-$30k into the panel to get what you want.  I have seen one or two small shops selling turn-key modernized K's recently with ads at $140-$150k...above market but likely a good deal.  Another alternative is the 262 conversion of an earlier K, which replaces the firewall-forward bits with stock 252 parts.  These are priced much lower than regular 252s and are a good value IMO.

You might consider playing with some trip planning on www.fltplan.com (free) or similar.  That site has very accurate "stock" aircraft profiles so you could set up a J and a K (and others) and do some sample flight planning for your typical trips.  See how much time you could save and then you'll have a better idea if paying for a turbo would make sense for you.  Generally you'll have more useful load in a J vs. a K, so you trade speed for payload a bit.

It is a good problem to have!  You can't really go wrong with any of the options either. 

[jlunseth]

I bought a 231 with a specific mission in mind.  I wanted a plane that would not cost an arm and a leg to purchase, would not be overly costly to operate, and if I bunged it up I would not be losing a large amount of money.  My intention was to move on to something else after a couple of years of learning to fly it.  It has been the perfect plane for that mission, so take my comments with that mission in mind.

The other part of the mission was that I intended to fly on occasion with family members on board, so I needed a good useful load, and I thought that to take kids or ladies up, I needed to be able to get out of the bumps.  The bumps are the area from ground up to about 8,000, and sometimes as high as 12, where you are going to get some turbulence on every flight you make. 

My other reason for buying a turbo, besides getting out of "the bumps" and being able to cruise at higher speeds, was safety.  In a single, where you could possibly lose an engine, altitude is your friend.  At 18k you have roughly 35 miles of glide to an airport and a safe landing.  There is very little margin at 7 or 8k, and when you are cruising to a distant destination, you will find yourself going direct alot, and further from an airport than you would be on a shorter flight or one designed to keep an airport within distance at all times.

We just had an engine issue this weekend, not a complete failure but failure was possible.  We were at 19k and had to lose the altitude fairly fast, to a safe landing.  I would rather be in that position any day than at 7k and not enough range to get to the closest airport.

I would look very closely at the Rockets and Missiles, the ones I looked at on line had very poor useful loads and were basicaly one person airplanes.  75 gallons of fuel is about 450 lbs., so if you have a useful load of 900 or less there is room in the plane for two people and baggage regardless of the number of seats.  I would also insist on weighing the aircraft before purchase, because lots of planes pick up weight not reported in a calculated weight and balance. 

Having flown my lady friend around in the teens, and then lately in "the bumps," the choice to be able to go to the teens is an absolute no brainer for a 350 mile trip. 

I have no regrets about the turbo at all and wouldn't trade it for anything.  I would tell you, though, that if you are intending this to be a permanent plane, and not a transition plane like mine is, I would get the 252.  The set up of the turbos and intercoolers is much better in the '52, and you can get FIKI deicing.  You can get deicing in a 231, but not FIKI.

[FlyDave]

There was a great article by David Trinidad in Mooney Pilot magazine comparing a number of mission profiles of 201's vs. 231's. It's very interesting reading!!

I can't find it on the internet but I have a PDF version of the article. PM me with your email address and I'll send it to you.

[glbtrottr]

I was looking for a 201 when I started. 

Due to a lack of availability at the time, and a great acquisition price at the time, I ended up with the 231 Modworks demonstrator that got converted to the 262 "Trophy" or a 252 with a 14v system.  It came with Long Range gas tanks, a one piece belly mod, speed brakes, hot prop, Intercooler, Wastegate, MB engine, etc.

At the time prices were high, I got it for a lot less than 150k.

Right now, plenty of airplanes on ASO.  

201 J's are from 59k to 195k. 

231's from 70k to 185k. 

252's from 149k to 189k. 

Seriously?  Your mission profile doesn't seem to be as demanding as you may think.  Between you and I, I'd get a 201 - half the cost of overhaul (minimum), plenty of getup and go, infinitely less expensive in overall airframe cost, and for the differential in price, you can certainly upgrade your radio panel every way you want...and still have money in your pocket. 

[Immelman]

Quote: 74657

First post, any replies would be greatly appreciated.

If you had 150K-ish to play with, what Mooney would you buy?  Most of my flying will be "intermediate" distance flying - 350-400 miles.  I do however wish to take several "mini-vacations" in the coming years with my family (wife, 2 small children).  I live in Michigan and would love to be able to efficiently fly to see Mickey Mouse every year.

[Skywarrior]

Finally... a subject I know something about...

Your avg. mission profile sounds very "J"-ish. I wouldn't even look at a turboed Mooney. Put the extra money toward your maintenance fund.

As I just discovered, a Mooney has so much more performance than supposed competitors that you can easily over-buy, thinking that you *need* to.

But, if you're determined to get a turbo model, get a 252 or a TLS Bravo. The automatic wastegate in either of those planes is a great feature that a "K" does not have.

 

Chuck M.

[fantom]

You can pick up a relatively new 201 in excellent condition, keep some $ in reserve for upgrades or maintenace, save a bundle on future expenses to a model you don't need for your mission profile,  and enjoy the J ride.

[Parker_Woodruff]

Quote: fantom

You can pick up a relatively new 201 in excellent condition, keep some $ in reserve for upgrades or maintenace, save a bundle on future expenses to a model you don't need for your mission profile,  and enjoy the J ride.

[jlunseth]

The automatic wastegate in either of those planes is a great feature that a "K" does not have.

Many do have the Merlyn, mine does, but I would not quarrel that the 252 is the better plane.

[Jeff_S]

Having just bought a J within the last year, I will say that it performs the mission as others above have described very well and I would agree based on your mission profile that it would seem to be a good fit. The only thing that gives me pause is when you say you want to take along the 2 kids during the next few years.  One thing I know about kids is that they don't stay small for long, so it's just a consideration for how long you expect to keep this plane before you may need something with more passenger capacity.

[danb35]

Quote: Skywarrior

But, if you're determined to get a turbo model, get a 252 or a TLS Bravo. The automatic wastegate in either of those planes is a great feature that a "K" does not have.

[jackn]

Earlier this year I bought my first Mooney, 252. My mission is Colorado and i love watching the altimeter wind up while climbing in the teens. I would advise that if you go the turbo route, get TKS known ice and the best avionics you can. These will cost you more in time & $$ later.

[FlyFstr]

My suggestion is to buy an airplane that has most or all of the avionics you'll need for IFR flying. Then get your instrument rating. Then use it. VFR has too many limitations for cross country flying. 

Consider your mission profile for the majority of your flights and purchase the airplane that fits your mission profile.

I loved flying a turbo (in the past) but IMO you don't need a turbo if most of your flights are at 8000 ft. And you will never need TKS as a VFR pilot unless you are looking to break the rules (and endanger yourself and others).

You'll find that on board weather information is very important while IMC and/or on an IFR FP.

Lastly, if you fly in high traffic areas I strongly recommend traffic information (TIS or other).

   

[KLRDMD]

Quote: roundout

The turbo doesn't do much for you down low except cost you more money. It's a nice option to have (going high if you need to) but it is expensive to lug around if you're not using it. 

[KLRDMD]

Quote: Skywarrior

But, if you're determined to get a turbo model, get a 252 or a TLS Bravo. The automatic wastegate in either of those planes is a great feature that a "K" does not have.

[Piloto]

Overall the M20J model is the most cost effective and reliable. Mine (82 M20J) can do 155kts at 8gph/2400rpm/LOP at 10,000 feet. That's 22mpg, better than many cars running at 60mph. A 4 cylinder engine is obviously more reliable than a 6 cylinder one just because there are less cylinders to fail. An M20J will never have turbo issues or failures because it does not has one. I feel very comfortable and safer in mine than on any piston twin when flying over water. A typical twin has 12 cylinders, thus having three times the chance of a cylinder failure. A three blade prop has higher possibility of blade separation than one with just two blades. To me the added performace of a turbo or bigger engine is not worth the added risk of failure on a single piston (neither twin piston). Not to mention dispachability, added maintenance cost and added operating cost (fuel).

José