why NOT vintage?

[eman1200]

10 hours ago, 3914N said:

Okay, I'll take the plunge.

(Unmodified) vintage Mooneys are not ergonomic airplanes.  My head is close to the windshield, there is no storage for anything up-front, and the engine controls are too high for my hand to use comfortably.  The cowl is poorly designed and the engine runs hot.  

But I love my '68.  It's not the most comfortable I've flown, its not the fastest (I have a G-model), but it's the all-around best.  I think it offers the best balance of capability and cost of any airplane on the market.  My vintage Mooney is distinctive and it's a blast to fly.  In my mind, it's way better designed than the Cessna and Pipers of the day, and it will do 25 knots better on the same operational cost.

...If you're comparing vintage Mooney's to the newer ones, of course there's a capability difference.  They don't do 200 ktas, they don't have A/C, they don't do FIKI, and they don't have that new airplane smell.  But, they also don't need a mortgage

which in reality, I don't need any of those for my flight mission.  nice to have?  sure.  but not needed.

[steingar]

You need a newer Mooney if you want to go that much faster and need more of a back seat.  If you don't need those things, you can enjoy the best gear retraction system ever invented, the Johnson bar.

[Hank]

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

What is it with you guys and the hot start thing? An O360 is a wonderful engine, but is designed to only deliver a "close enough" mixture to all of the cylinders. Someone had misled you into believeing that port fuel injection is somehow less optimal for starting under certain conditions. It's not, it is superior. It does makes it easier for a ham fisted pilot to flood the engine.  

. . . .

Hot start issues with an IO are due to poor system MX or poor technique.

I don't know the reasons or the cause, as I don't have an IO- engine. But I've read an awful lot of discussion, rather frequently, here and on the MAPA boards, about figuring out how to hot start all of the Mooney IO- engines. Seems like there are a couple of dozen preferred methods, none of which I need to learn--all I do is open the throttle, push the red lever forward, then turn and push the key.

[Hank]

9 minutes ago, steingar said:

You need a newer Mooney if you want to go that much faster and need more of a back seat.  If you don't need those things, you can enjoy the best gear retraction system ever invented, the Johnson bar.

My shoulder greatly prefers the electric gear. Timed it at annual in January, 3 seconds Down, 5 seconds Up. 

[Shadrach]

There is really no reason not to go vintage unless an aircraft is priced wrong.  Look at some of the vintage plane that are modded to "modern" standards.  There is no difference in performance, interior fit and finish can be brought up to modern standards very easily if not inexpensively.  I've read posts where people scoff at folks that are considering Js models and F models modded into J clones with comments like "it's still just an F" or "at the end of the day it might look like a 201, but it's not"... It is my opinion that when it comes to operations, only a fool would care. In terms of pricing just identify what suites your mission and then negotiate the best deal possible based on the market.  The F and J are most often compared because they are nearly the same aircraft save for a few details that are modifiable.  Setting aside for a moment that I own an old un-modded F model: All other things being equal, what is the premium one should attach to a 35 yr old airframe over a 45 yr old airframe?   What are the advantages? 5-8kts at best? What does that translate to beyond bragging rights? Then you've got vintage birds (albeit few) like John Breda's, which is a 68 model that was essentially remanufactured 10 years ago into a 201. I don't know how you'd price that, but it's far more desirable than most of the J models I've seen.

My point is that it is wise to eliminate aircraft from your search for the following reasons:  

Not mission compatible 

neglect/abuse

Lack of equipment you want/need.

Damage

Over priced

 

Passing on a perfectly good aircraft based on age alone does not make financial sense.

The above assumes a savvy buyer that will negotiate without emotion.

[Shadrach]

34 minutes ago, Hank said:

I don't know the reasons or the cause, as I don't have an IO- engine. But I've read an awful lot of discussion, rather frequently, here and on the MAPA boards, about figuring out how to hot start all of the Mooney IO- engines. Seems like there are a couple of dozen preferred methods, none of which I need to learn--all I do is open the throttle, push the red lever forward, then turn and push the key.

Here's an explanation for all of those who are having trouble.  When ready to shut down, set your engine for 1000 RPM (it's not really crucial, but it's what I use for taxi) and pull the mixture to idle cut off.  If the engine is still warm when you are ready to leave, the complex starting procedure is as follows:

1) master on

2) turn ignition switch to "start" position.

3) when the engine fires, feed in the mixture....

 

If that fails (and it almost never does):

1) Prime for 3-5 secs at full rich then go to idle cut off.

2) Turn ignition to start.

3) Feed in mixture when it fires.

 

Anyone who tells you it is more complicated than this either does not understand their engine very well or is intentionally trying to add mystique to the process...

Hot Injected engines "pre-prime" themselves for the next start because, some of the fuel will boil out of the injector lines (which run along the top of the hot cylinders) and into the intake manifold. That "prime" will dissipate over time (varies with temp) as the engine cools necessitating a shot from the boost pump. Typically no prime is needed for the next hour to hour and a half after shutdown depending on conditions. If an operator understands what is happening under the cowl, hot or cold, these engines are pussy cats to start.

[Andy95W]

14 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Here's an explanation for all of those who are having trouble.  When ready to shut down, set your engine for 1000 RPM (it's not really crucial, but it's what I use for taxi) and pull the mixture to idle cut off.  If the engine is still warm when you are ready to leave, the complex starting procedure is as follows:

1) master on

2) turn ignition switch to "start" position.

3) when the engine fires, feed in the mixture....

 

If that fails (and it almost never does):

1) Prime for 3-5 secs at full rich then go to idle cut off.

2) Turn ignition to start.

3) Feed in mixture when it fires.

 

51 minutes ago, Hank said:

all I do is open the throttle, push the red lever forward, then turn and push the key.

Ross- It sure seems like Hank's method is simpler, easier, and shorter to me.

[Marauder]

There is really no reason not to go vintage unless an aircraft is priced wrong.  Look at some of the vintage plane that are modded to "modern" standards.  There is no difference in performance, interior fit and finish can be brought up to modern standards very easily if not inexpensively.  I've read posts where people scoff at folks that are considering Js models and F models modded into J clones with comments like "it's still just an F" or "at the end of the day it might look like a 201, but it's not"... It is my opinion that when it comes to operations, only a fool would care. In terms of pricing just identify what suites your mission and then negotiate the best deal possible based on the market.  The F and J are most often compared because they are nearly the same aircraft save for a few details that are modifiable.  Setting aside for a moment that I own an old un-modded F model: All other things being equal, what is the premium one should attach to a 35 yr old airframe over a 45 yr old airframe?   What ware the advantages? 5-8kts at best? What does that translate to beyond bragging rights? Then you've got vintage birds (albeit few) like John Breda's which is a 68 model that was essentially remanufactured 10 years ago. I don't know how you'd price that, but it's far more desirable than most of the J models I've seen.

My point is that it is wise to eliminate aircraft from your search for the following reasons:  

Not mission compatible 

neglect/abuse

Lack of equipment you want/need.

Damage

Over priced

 

Passing on a perfectly good aircraft based on age alone does not make financial sense.

The above assumes a savvy buyer that will negotiate without emotion.

In 2012 I was at that crossroad of deciding whether or not to upgrade from my F to a newer platform or upgrade what I had. I chose the latter. The first factor I considered was whether my flying had changed. It hadn't. Although high altitude capability would have been nice, my flying is 99% east coast. The second factor was whether a faster plane would make a lot of difference. It would, if I got into the 180+ KTAS bracket and if my flights routinely were in the 300+ range. 15 or 20 minutes on a 300 mile flight wasn't enough.

Going through the process I began looking at the offerings. Unless I stepped up to a fairly new model, most of the avionics were dated. I looked at late 80s through mid 90s and saw a number of planes with a single 430 and the rest of the panel had 20 year old radios. There were exceptions, but not many when I was looking. It wasn't until I got to the late 90s and the 2000+ planes that I saw newer stuff.

When I started doing the math I realized that I had a clean, known airframe. It is a true 150 KTAS plane. I had already upgraded the autopilot to a full 60-2 with autotrim. I knew I could drop $30k to $40k in modern avionics and have a more capable plane than many I was looking at.

When the decision was done, I upgraded. To this:

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Shadrach]

6 minutes ago, N1395W said:

 

Ross- It sure seems like Hank's method is simpler, easier, and shorter to me.

If that seems more complicated to you than you have the right airplane! 

[Ron McBride]

I have a 69F and have upgraded it also.  Not as far as Shadrack's though.   Vintage Mooney's have a greater useful load than many newer ones.  Over the last 8 years I have installed a 430W, new audio panel, new transponder, S-tec 30 auto pilot with altitude hold, gpss, and an engine monitor. completed a top overhaul, and this year, resealed the tanks, new leather interior and new paint, covered the yokes.   As I say, I have a new 45 year old plane.  I do not plan on selling for many years.   I probably have $130,000 in mine, but what could I buy for a $130,000 and not need to make improvements.

Yes I still have a list of improvements I would to do, but they can wait.   They are wants, not needs.

Ron

 

[Mooneymite]

When we talk vintage Mooney, we're really not talking "Vintage"...as in classic, or really old.  Planes built since 1960 are still pretty easy to find parts for and mechanics that understand how they're put together.  However flash forward 30 years where parts may have dried up and the young mechanics are more comfortable with composites than aluminum and there will be a whole new dimension to to OP question.

When I owned my Mooneymite, finding A&P's comfortable with wood and 60 year old glue was problematical.  Is it possible that a rivet will become a mysterious fastener? 

Our classic M20's may be headed there, but the fact that the M20 is still being built is a huge plus in the aging aircraft continuum.

[Shadrach]

51 minutes ago, N803RM said:

I have a 69F and have upgraded it also.  Not as far as Shadrack's though.   Vintage Mooney's have a greater useful load than many newer ones.  Over the last 8 years I have installed a 430W, new audio panel, new transponder, S-tec 30 auto pilot with altitude hold, gpss, and an engine monitor. completed a top overhaul, and this year, resealed the tanks, new leather interior and new paint, covered the yokes.   As I say, I have a new 45 year old plane.  I do not plan on selling for many years.   I probably have $130,000 in mine, but what could I buy for a $130,000 and not need to make improvements.

Yes I still have a list of improvements I would to do, but they can wait.   They are wants, not needs.

Ron

 

You're thinking of Chris's (Marauder) plane! Mine is a time capsule. Original paint, subtle interior upgrades and a King Silver Crown upgrade in the late 80s.

[steingar]

4 hours ago, Hank said:

My shoulder greatly prefers the electric gear. 

You need more physical exercise.  I'm a tiny little man and I can work the thing.  There are women who can do it.  Nothing like knowing you can loose the alternator and still work the gear.  Especially when your alternator belt is on it last legs.

Then biggest issue in going faster is often not in getting a faster airplane.  The differences between fast and slow airplanes for a trip can often be measured in minutes.  What really takes up time are fuel stops.  If an aircraft can get you to your destination without one, it is far faster than one that cannot.

[Hank]

1 hour ago, steingar said:

You need more physical exercise.  I'm a tiny little man and I can work the thing.  There are women who can do it.  Nothing like knowing you can loose the alternator and still work the gear.  

I've had surgery on my right shoulder already (before reaching 40), and have been exercising, massaging and visiting the chiropractor to stave off surgery on the left shoulder too.

If my alternator dies, there's always the hand crank by my left knee, but I don't have to use it very much (once a year max, versus twice per flight). Aging is hell, but it beats the alternative, plus allows additional Mooney flying time. 

[steingar]

Just now, Hank said:

I've had surgery on my right shoulder already (before reaching 40), and have been exercising, massaging and visiting the chiropractor to stave off surgery on the left shoulder too.

If my alternator dies, there's always the hand crank by my left knee, but I don't have to use it very much (once a year max, versus twice per flight). Aging is hell, but it beats the alternative, plus allows additional Mooney flying time. 

Yeah, I guess if you have a  bum shoulder the J-bar would be a pretty big issue.  But I don't, so I am happy to have it.  To each their own.  Hope you get to fly the wings off your bird.