Seeking an M20F

[neonbjb]

Hi all,

With the birth of my daughter and the sale of my 2-place, I'm looking to join the Mooney club. I really have my heart set on a stretched fuselage, but my budget is too tight for an M20J at sub $55k. Therefore I'm looking for an F. I'm talking to a few guys who have their planes listed on Barnstormers/Trade-a-plane/Controller etc but figured I'd put this up here in case anyone is on the fence about selling.

Knowing my price is low, I'm not too picky. I'm mostly looking for a functional plane with a decent engine. Must haves are:

- Sub 1000 SMOH on engine with overhaul in the last 15 years.
- No recent fuel leak history or tanks recently resealed / bladders.
- No corrosion or airworthiness issues.
- IFR panel (e.g. 2xVOR, 2xCOM, Loc/GS required at a minimum)

Nice to haves:

- T-panel
- Electric retracts (not sure if manual is even an option on the F?)
- Autopilot with alt hold and tracking

You can reply / PM me here, or e-mail me at jbetker -at- gmail.com

[Raptor05121]

Are you locked into the 200hp IO-360? If not, you can also expand your search to a -G model with the O-360 180hp. Just a bit slower, same fuselage.

[gsxrpilot]

I'm always a bit baffled by the requirement of the extra 10" of legroom in the back seat. It might be worth getting a ride in the back seat of a C/E. It might allow you to get into a much nicer airplane for your $55K.

I've had many adults in the back of my C and there were never any complaints. Of course when you're riding along for free, it would be in bad form to complain.

The short body Mooney's are still good four place airplanes, especially for kids.

[neonbjb]

I've flown in a C and found it plenty comfortable up front, but I'm a tall guy and needed to slide the seats back into the rear bench to be truly comfortable. My (probably naive) thought on this plane would be that I keep it for 5-10 years so I need at least a little space for the kids to hang their legs out on.

That being said, I would compromise with a C but the value proposition just doesn't seem to be there anymore - the asking prices for the decent C's currently on the market aren't a whole lot less than comparable F's that have listed in the last year or so that I've been lurking on the market. That being said, if I had been looking to buy a few months ago when you sold your C, Paul, I would have jumped on it in a second.

If anyone has a statesman they are pondering selling I would be interested in hearing about that as well. They are just so rare I neglected to mention them.

Edited November 10, 2016 by neonbjb

[kpaul]

It's not $55k but seems like it might be a good choice

[chrisk]

17 hours ago, neonbjb said:

- No recent fuel leak history or tanks recently resealed / bladders.
-

I'm baffled on the "No tanks recently resealed".   If the plane had a full strip and re-seal from Weep no More, or Wet Wingologist, it is a very positive thing.  The tanks should last 20+ years.    A patch on 50 year old tanks is another matter.   Bladders are ok too, but may have some loss of capacity or useful load in a "F".

Also, I would not shy away from the manual gear.  It's really not a big deal to operate.  I'd be happy to have it on my plane.  In fact, it is often considered more desirable, as there is no motor/gears to wear out / maintain.  The only thing to watch for on manual gear is where it latches up.  If the metal latch part is worn, it should be replaced.  There have been cases where old latches have let go.  (More likely not fully engaged due to some wear.)   --And yes, manual gear is an option on a "F".  I know  the 1967 "F" that I flew had manual gear. 

[geoffb]

I can see where the extra length is nice, but as a data point, I've flown my 20E with my wife and daughter who are both about 5 ft 6.  They're not on the forum so I can say that my wife goes about 130 in street clothes and the daughter about 135.  They fit just fine and with full fuel I've still got useful load for some baggage.  Need to watch the CG as you add weight in the baggage.  I've also done a couple cross countries with two friends on board, men, not tall, but not light and they fit well enough for a 2-hour trip each way.  The big thing is how tall the pilot/front passenger are.  If you've got two long-legged people in front, the rear leg room is non-existent.

I am toying with the idea of selling my E and getting in the hunt for a 231.  I'd be well under your $55k number.

[geoffb]

67 F models came with manual gear and flaps as standard.  Not sure about 68s and I think 69 on were all electric.  67 is the sweet spot with manual gear, flaps and clean wing.

[Bob_Belville]

7 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

I'm always a bit baffled by the requirement of the extra 10" of legroom in the back seat. It might be worth getting a ride in the back seat of a C/E. It might allow you to get into a much nicer airplane for your $55K.

I've had many adults in the back of my C and there were never any complaints. Of course when you're riding along for free, it would be in bad form to complain.

The short body Mooney's are still good four place airplanes, especially for kids.

+1 for short bodies. This is my M20E. 

[neonbjb]

I'm baffled on the "No tanks recently resealed".   If the plane had a full strip and re-seal from Weep no More, or Wet Wingologist, it is a very positive thing.  The tanks should last 20+ years.    A patch on 50 year old tanks is another matter.   Bladders are ok too, but may have some loss of capacity or useful load in a "F".
Also, I would not shy away from the manual gear.  It's really not a big deal to operate.  I'd be happy to have it on my plane.  In fact, it is often considered more desirable, as there is no motor/gears to wear out / maintain.  The only thing to watch for on manual gear is where it latches up.  If the metal latch part is worn, it should be replaced.  There have been cases where old latches have let go.  (More likely not fully engaged due to some wear.)   --And yes, manual gear is an option on a "F".  I know  the 1967 "F" that I flew had manual gear. 

I miswrote the fuel tank statement. I meant to say no recent leaks or the tank was resealed if it had been leaking. Ideally I'm looking for a plane that was recently resealed.

The electric gear is for my wife who is also a pilot. She had some problems extending the gear in certain situations in the Mooney we have rented. I have no problem with the manual gear.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[geoffb]

And as Bob has demonstrated, E models attract the ladies...

[neonbjb]

Truth. 

Thanks for the perspective gents, it does open up my willingness to look closer at the e models.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Ron McBride]

Does a car seat for the kids fit in the back seat of a C or E.  Check the F/G also.  The extra room may help with all of the supplies needed for toddlers. 

1969 is the first year of the electric gear and flaps, also a standard 6 pack instrument panel.  Manual gear and flaps was standard in 67 and 68, electric gear was an option then.

The 10 inches that the fuselage is longer, 5 " is in front of the spar.  The other 5", I don't remember where it is.   Could be the baggage compartment.   Also Baggage is limited to size by the baggage door, unless you put some in the bask seat.

In 1968 our family of 4, went from coast to coast in a C model, it can be done.  I was about 14 then.

Ron

[Bob_Belville]

46 minutes ago, geoffb said:

And as Bob has demonstrated, E models attract the ladies...

I'm old but I'm not dead.

[par]

2 hours ago, N803RM said:

Does a car seat for the kids fit in the back seat of a C or E.  Check the F/G also.  The extra room may help with all of the supplies needed for toddlers. 

1969 is the first year of the electric gear and flaps, also a standard 6 pack instrument panel.  Manual gear and flaps was standard in 67 and 68, electric gear was an option then.

The 10 inches that the fuselage is longer, 5 " is in front of the spar.  The other 5", I don't remember where it is.   Could be the baggage compartment.   Also Baggage is limited to size by the baggage door, unless you put some in the bask seat.

In 1968 our family of 4, went from coast to coast in a C model, it can be done.  I was about 14 then.

Ron

Yes, a car seat will fit without issue in the back of a C. I bought a very lightweight and inexpensive seat for mooney use and it has been working very well.

[Marauder]

7 hours ago, geoffb said:

And as Bob has demonstrated, E models attract the ladies...

They look too skinny to me.

[Marauder]

6 hours ago, Bob_Belville said:

I'm old but I'm not dead.

One thing about being old, you have more money. Just ask Hugh Hefner what money does to help attract women. Bob Hefner does have a nice ring to it.

[mike_elliott]

12 hours ago, geoffb said:

And as Bob has demonstrated, E models attract the ladies...

Well, you should see what the extra 10" a good F can attract!

[Bob_Belville]

1 hour ago, mike_elliott said:

Well, you should see what the extra 10" a good F can attract!

I'm afraid you're visualizing Marauder's chicks. I'll think I'll stick with girls who fit comfortably in Al Mooney's original back seat.

[mike_elliott]

38 minutes ago, Bob_Belville said:

I'll think I'll stick with girls who fit comfortably in Al Mooney's original back seat.

There are statutory laws still, Bob

 

39 minutes ago, Bob_Belville said:

'm afraid you're visualizing Marauder's chicks

Nobody said anything about a C5

[mooniac15u]

The available room in the back seat has more to do with the height of the front seat occupants.  Our M20D worked fine while the kids were in car seats.  Once they needed some legroom nobody wanted to sit behind me (I'm 6'5").  A few inches make a big difference in the back seat when the front seat is all the way back.  Everyone is happier now in our M20J.

The OP said he is tall and needs the seat all the way back. How tall are you @gsxrpilot and @Bob_Belville?  It would help put those photos in context.

[gsxrpilot]

@mooniac15u you are correct. The OP replied after my post stating that he's tall enough to require the seat all the way back. That's certainly unusual, but would certainly warrant the additional space of a mid-body.  I'm of average height (5'10") as is Bob.

[Bob_Belville]

Just now, mooniac15u said:

 

The OP said he is tall and needs the seat all the way back. How tall are you @gsxrpilot and @Bob_Belville?  It would help put those photos in context.

* Based on height to weight standard charts I guess I'm about 6'8". 

* Al Mooney was tall (6'4"?).  

I would point out that there were more "short" Mooneys built than "mid bodies". 

M20 prior to 1962: 819

M20C (1962-78): 2564

M20D (1963-66): 160

M20E (1964-75): 1478

Total "short" : 5021

M20F (1966-77): 1246

M20G (1968-70): 175

M20J (1977-98): 2135

Total "mid body", NA: 3556

M20K (1979-90): 1155 (mid body, turbo)

http://www.mooneyevents.com/chrono.htm

[TTaylor]

On 11/9/2016 at 8:40 PM, neonbjb said:

Hi all,

With the birth of my daughter and the sale of my 2-place, I'm looking to join the Mooney club. I really have my heart set on a stretched fuselage, but my budget is too tight for an M20J at sub $55k. Therefore I'm looking for an F. I'm talking to a few guys who have their planes listed on Barnstormers/Trade-a-plane/Controller etc but figured I'd put this up here in case anyone is on the fence about selling.

Knowing my price is low, I'm not too picky. I'm mostly looking for a functional plane with a decent engine. Must haves are:

- Sub 1000 SMOH on engine with overhaul in the last 15 years.
- No recent fuel leak history or tanks recently resealed / bladders.
- No corrosion or airworthiness issues.
- IFR panel (e.g. 2xVOR, 2xCOM, Loc/GS required at a minimum)

Nice to haves:

- T-panel
- Electric retracts (not sure if manual is even an option on the F?)
- Autopilot with alt hold and tracking

You can reply / PM me here, or e-mail me at jbetker -at- gmail.com

The list looks reasonable.  I have owned a C and an F.  I prefer the F by a great deal.  The extra 10 inches makes a great difference in comfort and stability of the aircraft.  The IO is much nicer to lean and run efficiently and the extra hp is nice for the west. I cruise at about 8.5 to 9.0 gph on most flights. 

One thing to seriously consider is a partnership. You can have up to 5 partners before the insurance companies considers it a club.  We have five partners and have never had an issue with use of the plane.  We run about $150 per month to cover the basic costs (insurance, hangar, annual) and $35 per hour plus fuel for flight time.  Some people have trouble sharing a plane but if it is more of a tool for you it might make sense to look into a partnership.  It is nice to pay 1/5 the cost when something needs to be upgraded.  I have friends that bought a plane by themselves and most sit in the hangar 99% of the time.  You can also buy much more airplane than you can by yourself if that is your dream.

 

[neonbjb]

1 hour ago, TTaylor said:

The list looks reasonable.  I have owned a C and an F.  I prefer the F by a great deal.  The extra 10 inches makes a great difference in comfort and stability of the aircraft.  The IO is much nicer to lean and run efficiently and the extra hp is nice for the west. I cruise at about 8.5 to 9.0 gph on most flights. 

One thing to seriously consider is a partnership. You can have up to 5 partners before the insurance companies considers it a club.  We have five partners and have never had an issue with use of the plane.  We run about $150 per month to cover the basic costs (insurance, hangar, annual) and $35 per hour plus fuel for flight time.  Some people have trouble sharing a plane but if it is more of a tool for you it might make sense to look into a partnership.  It is nice to pay 1/5 the cost when something needs to be upgraded.  I have friends that bought a plane by themselves and most sit in the hangar 99% of the time.  You can also buy much more airplane than you can by yourself if that is your dream.

 

I would love to get in on a partnership but have two problems:

1) I currently live in a pretty rural town of ~15,000 people with 1 airport and the next closest is 30+ minutes away. I need an airplane close by because I use it to commute.
2) My family isn't permanently situated and will likely move in the next 5 years.