Ashe Posted November 10, 2010 Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 I'm still shopping planes, and being sure I can afford to keep/own the plane is very high on my list. I'd been looking at M20C's thinking I'd save money by going manual gear/hydraulic flaps/O-360. A couple articles dub the C the more economical model, and three of the well known MSC's agree that a C/G is a cheaper Mooney to own. I've even considered the M20B because of it's manual mechanical flaps, though everyone says not to buy a B-model. So, these were my initial assumptions:Manual gear/flaps = cheaper to own than electric (no motors to inspect, rebuild)O-360 = cheaper to inspect, maintain, and overhaul; more likely to go well past TBO; marginally more fuel efficientShort body = less drag than long bodyHowever, after talking to several more shops, reading through the discussion boards, and based on the responses to my first two postings here, I think I'm simply wrong on all counts. To use the same points:Gear/Flaps = It might cost $50-$75 more a year (on average) to own than an electric gear model. A gear motor rebuild might run $1000, but that's maybe once every 15 years. The electric flaps are actually preferable to hydraulic as the hyd. pumps haven't been made for a long time and are costly used/salvage (if you can find one)Engine = The IO-360 does indeed cost several thousand more to overhaul, but that is more than offset by fuel savings through LOP operations which the carb motor cannot do. The O-360 might have been the more efficient motor 20 or 30 years ago, but GAMI has changed that. Both engines are equally likely to meet/exceed TBO if treated properly and flown frequently.Fuselage = The cross sectional and interference drag is the same on both planes, the frictional drag from 10" more fuselage is negligible. The only thing that works in favor of the short body is weight.So, I guess I'd just like some input and opinions. Are my conclusions correct, that if I ignore purchase price, does it really not cost any more to own a late-seventies J than a mid-sixties C?Ashe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flight2000 Posted November 10, 2010 Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 Honestly, any aircraft of the vintage your looking at is going to have things that break. I've had the alternator and starter go out in the first couple of months, but those are minor things that can break on any airframe. I love the hydraulic flap/manual gear combo personally, but the electrics prove to be just as reliable. Again, anything can break. Even the new ones... For the IO-360, you have a lot of flexibility on how much fuel you want to burn. Pull the power back to 19 squared and you'll burn a paltry 6 gph at roughly 125 knots. Need to go fast, firewall it at 2550 RPM and you'll sail along at 155 knots TAS at 7,000 feet. I have no experience with the O-360's so I'll defer to others. This is based on my experience flying a 1967 E. I think your almost starting to become paralyzed by over-analyzing the issues. At some point, you just have to say you want to or you don't. I think I'm in the neighborhood of $95 an hour to fly and that includes fuel and setting money aside for the eventual overhaul and maintenance. Just my $.02 for today... Brian P.S. and yes, it has been cheaper to own for me (by a long shot) since I was flying up to 20 hours per month. The piece of mind knowing my baby wasn't being roughed up by some other ham fisted pilot is also priceless. Saw the rentals from the club get abused by guys that simply didn't care... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Posted November 10, 2010 Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 Ashe-- Just a quick reminder: C's were made up through 1978, and all of them had electric gear and flaps starting in 69, I think. My '70 has both, and I really like the fast gear movement. "Affordability" of maintenance will vary more by individual aircraft than by model or engine type unless you go turbo [at least for B-J models]. The key is to find a plane in good shape with a solid maintenance history that has been taken care of and is still being flown. Search through the older topics here, there are some good threads about the pros and cons of various models, and some general and specific items to look for and avoid when considering a Vintage Mooney. It does seem, though, that if you buy a Mooney in good shape, that you will really enjoy it regardless of which model it is. Be advised, though, that back seat passengers are happier flying in anything other than a short body, although they do seem to run ~3 knots slower. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottfromiowa Posted November 10, 2010 Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 Ashe: You are buying at the PERFECT time. If a J is within your budget BUY ONE. The reason to buy a Mooney is efficient speed...with a J you get that plus additional room in the back for passengers...stuff. Find a model that has been flown regularly. DON'T fall for the low hours on an airframe. If the plane has been flown regularly and maintained the initial costs...stuff breaking...major engine issues should NOT be a factor. I would rather have a J than my E, but a J with the avionics, engine time and maintenance that I have completed is a TOUGH thing to find for under $100k. What is your budget? if your budget is $60k I would submit that you CAN'T get a J that is NOT going to require a LOT of maintenance expense...but you can get a C or E. I value the additional performance that the IO-360 engine provides over the O-360. I just saw a flap pump go for about $50 on ebay...they are simple and effective...same with the gear. Try and find a '67 F that has been taken care of if you are on a budget...Good luck. P.S. GET OFF THE FENCE ALREADY ;<) or I'll start calling you Brian. Take that flight2000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flight2000 Posted November 10, 2010 Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 Quote: scottfromiowa P.S. GET OFF THE FENCE ALREADY ;<) or I'll start calling you Brian. Take that flight2000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottfromiowa Posted November 10, 2010 Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 Ashe, Brian...Brian, Ashe. Buyer meet seller. Seller meet buyer. Let's make a deal... Git 'er done... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbridges Posted November 10, 2010 Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 you can debate forever about it. It's not like you go to the local car dealer and order it the way you want it. My best advice would be to know what your budget is, and find a good, clean plane that is spec'd out the way you like. You'll always have people argue both sides of any decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jax88 Posted November 10, 2010 Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 Here's my advice. Consider any Mooney model that meets your mission and budget. When you find one that is well taken care of, jump on it quick. Chances are the good ones will not stay on the market long. By considering multiple models, you increases your chances of finding that "perfect" aircraft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted November 10, 2010 Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 A good clean M20C will get you where you want to go quickly and efficiently. You can always step up from there. Tight comparisons between models probably won't help. Surprise broken things cost more than the differences in models. -a- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSMooniac Posted November 10, 2010 Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 I can't disagree about anything written above. Bottom line is to buy the best airplane you can on your budget that has been flying and maintained/improved along the way. Differences in MX cost between manual/electric or carb/fuel injection are negligible and should take a backseat to finding the best plane you can. For the record, I'd rather have a J-bar and pump-down flaps in my J, but I value the aero improvements and back seat room more than the manual gear/flaps. LOP options with the IO-360 are also more valuable to me than the cheaper O-360, so I ruled out C and G models when I started looking. I wanted an updated/modified E or F initially, but go tempted by the J that became mine when it came up locally right when I was looking... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KLRDMD Posted November 10, 2010 Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 Quote: scottfromiowa Try and find a '67 F that has been taken care of if you are on a budget. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry 5TJ Posted November 24, 2010 Report Share Posted November 24, 2010 I believe condition is everything in planes more than a few years old -- and our pre-J Mooneys are all 30+ years old. The median pre-J Mooney is probably about 44 years old because Kerrville made so many in the 1960s. By now, after all those annuals, modifications and passage of time, each one is a unique example. Set your price limit and buy the best Mooney you can get for that many AMUs. I'd pick the best pre-J on the market based on maintenance, history and equipment before I'd worry about it being a "C" or an "F" or whatnot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KLRDMD Posted November 25, 2010 Report Share Posted November 25, 2010 Quote: jerry-N5911Q I'd pick the best pre-J on the market based on maintenance, history and equipment before I'd worry about it being a "C" or an "F" or whatnot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.