Please Help Me Choose My First Mooney! (advise on specific planes sought)

[Eddie Mooney]

Hi all, 

 

I’ve really appreciated this community and its advice so far. Over the past week I almost decided to break with my years-long expectation and go Bonanza, but that proved to be a momentary lapse of reason. So back to Mooney I have come. 

 

Here are three planes I am interested in: one 231 and two M20F Rajays. I was hoping to get thoughts. 

 

As for the 231, any idea what “starting annual at 2014” means? Sorry if it should be obvious but it seems like a funny choice of words. 

 

As for the 20F, I really like the Rayjay, as my understanding is that it should provide almost 231-like speeds at higher altitudes. 

 

What I’m primarily seeking are thoughts about (1) the comparative benefits of each and (2) things in the ads that stand out to the experienced eye.

 

Thanks!

 

M20K 231: 

 

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?category_level1=Single+Engine+Piston&make=MOONEY&model=M20K+231+MODIFIED&listing_id=2046308&s-type=aircraft

 

M20F Rajay (1):

 

http://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/1355845/1967-mooney-m20f-exec-21

 

M20F Rajay (2):

 

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?category_level1=Single+Engine+Piston&make=MOONEY&model=M20F+EXEC+21&listing_id=2162039&s-type=aircraft

[TWinter]

The way I read the "Starting Annual"..The seller posted the ad prior and it was scheduled to go for annual on 12/14?.

 

 

-Tom

 

[Zwaustin]

I cannot say enough good things about my '79 231 K model. Very efficient LOP with gami's, sometimes as low as ~8 GPH. Up high we see about 165-170 TAS and have seen 200 plus over the ground on many occasions. Down low it is more like 140 TAS with ground speeds of 150-170 in good conditions. I have an Aspen and a 430W and love them both. The KI256 is a weak point since it drives the auto pilot but this is pretty standard on legacy high performance set ups. If it has the KFC200 or better along with the Aspen and 430W you will have a nice A/P platform for IFR use. If you have specific questions let me know. Definitely a solid plane for the money. You can negotiate pretty favorably on them as well. Mine was listed at 140 and went down to 114 and I paid well below these original asking prices on a fairly fresh engine (120 SMOH) by Western Skyways with 40K in recent avionic upgrades.

[carusoam]

The factory built TC'd 231 has more knowns than unknowns.  There is a clear upgrade path up towards the 252.  The collective knowledge of al 231 owners is quite large. An F with an aftermarket TC isn't horrible. It just isn't the same.  You would want to know more about it to see how it fits your mission.

The first plane on the list has endured several panel upgrades culminating with a WAAS GPS driving an Aspen display.

The price range is important, 53 AMU to 88 AMU...  

You probably have to start eliminating something based on your personal wants and needs...

There is a benchmark that has been recently posted (JClemmens) of a K that has been refreshed for sale.

My favorite question: What's your mission?  (The question itself means something different to each pilot)

Best regards,

-a-

[Eddie Mooney]

Thanks to all for the responses! And by all means, readers feel free to keep them coming.

Mission: mostly long distances (>300NM, and often much farther than that). I anticipate crossing the Rockies frequently. A lot of night flying. I will almost never have more than one passenger, though I would like to lay flat the right seats to create a make-shift bed for the wife (assuming it's possible).

What draws me to the F is that the Rajay is manually controlled, so no need to have it wear when I'm down low. It's also manual gear and the benefits of that should be obvious (though not all will consider them benefits per se). And not dealing with the 231 engine and 1800 TBO are attractive.

But the 231 is a lot newer. And my understanding is that it's a bit larger than the F. Further, as Carusoam importantly notes, it's a known quantity given how much more common they are. And the ability to upgrade to the -MB engine for 252-esque performance is nice too.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Eddie Mooney

[Raptor05121]

I'd rule out the first M20F just because of the instruments. #2 and the K look like awesome nighttime IFR platforms. The F has a simpler engine, with two less cylinders, and a manual wastegate. The F has a Johnson bar landing gear, the K is electric. And preference to the electric on your end? I can't speak for a K, but I'd feel as if the F is more "bulletproof", and will run a few dollars cheaper on annual. And $30k will buy you A LOT of 100LL. What you need to do is further refine your mission to exclude one. OR go ahead and get a prebuy done on both. Who knows, the K might have corrosion or a bad cylinder.

I'm 20 mins from GNV if you want me to go out there and check out the K, assuming its outside. I'm not an A&P, but I can grab some photos and talk to the guy.

[Eddie Mooney]

Alex, thanks! That's really nice of you! No need to do that just yet but I might take you up on it later. Heck I might even ask you to ride along on a test flight if I go see it so that you can give me your impressions afterwards. Have you flown a 231?

[Jerry 5TJ]

2 hours ago, Eddie Mooney said:

Mission: mostly long distances (>300NM, and often much farther than that). I anticipate crossing the Rockies frequently. A lot of night flying....

Given my Ovation and (a) Night (b) Rockies (c) IMC -- I'd say, "Pick any one." 

In my P46T  I'd say, "Pick any two."  

If all three simultaneously, I'd go SouthWest.

 

[rbridges]

the turbos are not something I know well, and for that reason, I'd go with something that left the factory with it.  I could be wrong, but familiarity and parts support may be better for something designed by the factory.  

[Raptor05121]

Just now, Eddie Mooney said:

Alex, thanks! That's really nice of you! No need to do that just yet but I might take you up on it later. Heck I might even ask you to ride along on a test flight if I go see it so that you can give me your impressions afterwards. Have you flown a 231?

I have not. I'm a young and fairly new Mooney owner with very limited experience. Let me know if you need me to go take a peek.

Just now, rbridges said:

the turbos are not something I know well, and for that reason, I'd go with something that left the factory with it.  I could be wrong, but familiarity and parts support may be better for something designed by the factory.  

The Rajays are a very common aftermarket option to the E, F, and Js. I'm pretty sure most, if not all, of us have our annuals and maintenace done by Mooney-familiar A&Ps. And if thats the case, they should be familiar with the Rajay system as well.

[Eddie Mooney]

Thanks. Can any of the above folks or others weigh in on my tentative assumption that once you get the Rajay up high the performance of a TN M20F is close to that of a 231? There seems to be some disagreement about this . . . .

[rbridges]

I was thinking the same thing when I typed it because I have seen multiple planes advertised with that turbo.  For some reason, I thought I read about a part or two that would need to be fabricated if they needed replacement.  I could be remembering that being said about a different system.

[Raptor05121]

The F is going to be slower, assuming its stock. Aerodynamics, the K is in the lead. By how much? You're measuring with a caliper and cutting with an axe. If both of those planes took off at the same time and landed at the same airport 300 miles away, I'd wager the difference would be less than 15 minutes.

Another thing to note- The K was made for flying high (I see it also has a built-in O2 supply). If you're only 2 people and plan on going over the Rockies, the O2 will come in handy. But again, built in O2 is going to make your annuals go up in price.

[M20F-1968]

I have a turbo normalized F with manual gear and manual flaps.  It is highly modified in other ways however with speed mods, modern interior and modern instruments. 

I get 231 speeds with a less complex engine and turbonormalizing instead of turboboosting.  The turbonormalized is a simpler way to achieve similar speeds with less maintenance. 

The manual gear and hydraulic flaps are a plus.  Simpler systems yields more reliability and less maintenance costs.  Manual gear is as quick in operation and cycling as the electric gear.  It will also leave you money for avionics upgrades to the stuff you want, not what is just there.

John Breda

[mooniac15u]

2 minutes ago, M20F-1968 said:

The manual gear and hydraulic flaps are a plus.  Simpler systems yields more reliability and less maintenance costs.  Manual gear is as quick in operation and cycling as the electric gear.  It will also leave you money for avionics upgrades to the stuff you want, not what is just there.

Manual flaps may not always be cheaper to maintain:

 

[Eddie Mooney]

Thanks John! Just sent you a PM. I'd love to have more opinions, especially comments on the options the specific planes offer.

[Eddie Mooney]

Any thoughts on how important it is during the test flight to take the TN into the flight levels to ensure proper turbo functioning? Or can I pretty much ensure its proper functioning from taking it up to, say, 11,000 feet and checking the logs? I ask because the plane's O2 bottle is apparently empty.

[Raptor05121]

Are you referring to the M20F? Its been years since I've flown in a turbo-normalized M20F (grandpa had one years ago, crashed before I got my license) so I don't remember too much on the operation but it seems like they should be pretty robust systems, with the ability to engage partial boost to bring power back up to sea-level power instead of overboosting. Wait for some -F drivers to chime in here. But by all means, do a test flight, and if you like it do a very thorough pre-buy with the option to take it into annual if you like it. Have the owner cover the cost of any airworthiness items and you cover all the little extras. Should come out to a helluva performer.

If both are clean and good to go, I'd go with the -F. Cheaper annual, cheaper purchase price, simpler turbo, simpler landing gear. Bulletproof engine, and pocket the $30k for maintenance and upgrades. I'm willing to bet its got a higher useful as well. Yeah the newer bird looks cooler (I've always had my eyes on the slippery M20J), but the older birds make up for the looks in terms of value. Just my $0.02

[M20F-1968]

You can test the turbo normalizer above 8,000.  Once the throttle is full forward and you start to loose manifold pressure, you turn in the wastegate which will restore your manifold pressure to sea level manifold pressure.  That will tell you that the system is working. Take it up to 12,000.

John Breda

[Eddie Mooney]

Thanks to both Raptor and John for their great responses. I see what you're saying about making sure the system works, which can easily be done at 11,000 feet. My concern is that I want to make sure it works *as high* as it's supposed to. If I am unable to ensure this, should I walk? Sounds like if I can ensure that it *works* and other things are in good order than it's not an excessive risk to assume it works at higher altitudes as well. I am concerned about this only because I remember some folks saying on these message boards a few years back that it's important to "test the turbo up to critical altitude," but I could be over-emphasizing the importance of that advice. 

Other things seem to check out. Seller sent log book entries to me in the form of photos of the pages, and he's willing to let me take it to any mechanic I want for a PPI (and is offering a free annual on top of that) so long as the mechanic is not too far away. 

[Raptor05121]

It sounds like things are shaping up for you. I don't know how much a turbo is to overhaul or IRAN, but if its a solid airplane, it might be worth a check to see if the owner will split the bill 50/50 to get is squared away. Let us know how it goes.

[Eddie Mooney]

Hi Raptor, actually I have no reason to think it needs an overhaul; my concern is that I am just unable to *confirm* that it works where oxygen is needed. Anyway, we'll see. Thanks again. 

[Zwaustin]

When i had an leak on the intercooler elbow i had to use full power to get to 10,000 feet whereas normally i would have more than an inch and a half of throttle left at cruise climb setting. It will be very apparent if the turbo is not working as it will run just like a NA plane. The leak i mention here was very small (less than a cm tear in the rubberized elbow) and thats all it took to lose the turbo function. 

[Eddie Mooney]

ZWaustin, wow, ok. It seems I should definitely check out it then. Thanks. 

[jlunseth]

Well, I don't know anything about the TN'd F from personal experience, I fly a 231.  My general impression from stuff I have read on here is that you are not going to get as high with the F as with a 231, if that means anything to you.  Take all that stuff about operating at high altitude with a grain of salt anyway.  Cooling gets fairly poor up there.  Some 231 owners on here say they can operate LOP up in the flight levels, I have never been able to in the summer, the temps are all just too high.  I have flown quite a lot at FL210 and 220 but generally don't go higher unless there is a specific reason.  I have had it to FL240, which is the service ceiling.  Did it once, and never have had the need since. 

The built in O2 is a necessity, I think, if you are going to spend much time up there.  There are quite a few places where you are going to want to cross the Rockies at FL200.  Although MEA's may be lower if you take an airway, OROCA's are higher and that is what you will need to make to cross on a Direct routing. 

As I said, I am no expert on the F, but I don't think the F will give you those altitudes.  My impression is that because of cooling and the nature of the turbo, you will maybe get 18,000.  Perhaps someone with more turboF experience can tell you otherwise.  I would want to take the F up high and see how high it can actually go, what heat problems you have got, and what kind of climb rate you can get out of it above 18k.  I think you will find it does not do any of those things well, and if you are flying the mountains at this altitudes you need an aircraft that can do them well.

Do any of them have speedbrakes?  You will  be thankful for those if you fly the Rockies and cross in the low flight levels.  KGPI, for example, is not far from the eastern ridge.  The first time I did it, we were in the pattern at 9,000 and the field elevation is about 3,000.  Long downwind and speedbrakes made the landing.

If you want my opinion though, having been in the Rockies several times, good pilot judgment is a must if you are going to do that with either the F or the K.  Dumb to try it unless you can be VFR.  You will have an aircraft that can do it, but not with much margin of error.  You don't have enough redundancy in any of those aircraft.  For example, the alternator coupler is a weak spot in the 231.  That goes, and you lose electrical.  Lose electrical and you have less than a half hour on the Aspen, your AP, and quite a lot of other stuff on your panel including the engine gauges.  Ever flown with the Master switched off?  I have.  Surprising how dark the panel gets.  If you are crossing from GTF to GPI, you need about an hour and you are not going to get it.  Dual alternators, dual batteries, backup vacuum are things I did not realize were that important when I originally bought my 231.  You need to get into a 252 or better to find them.  A 231 with an upgraded engine does not get you there.  And by the way, check the SN on the 231.  Below a certain SN and it cannot be upgraded.

The 231 also comes from the factory, or was retrofitted with an automatic alt air door and if you fly in the flight levels you are going to need it.  You will get into stuff up there you don't see in the lower altitudes, mostly ice crystal clouds.  I have been in them several times.  That plugs the air filter and unless you know what is going on you won't think to close the alt air door until you are losing altitude, if then.  Nice to have a door that thinks for you before you need it.

Last but not least I would not even think about doing what you are planning on doing without satellite weather on the panel.  Yes, you can get a Stratus and if you have an ADS-B Out transponder and Foreflight on your iPad you might get weather.  I have them and they are hit or miss.  I have SatWX on a moving map and it is an absolute lifesaver when it comes to flying high and anywhere around any weather.

Edited April 19, 2016 by jlunseth