Jump to content

New (lady) member - Considering an M20G


Recommended Posts

Hi Sophie,

Everyone on this board will tell you that I'm overly fixated on the panel's. But in my experience, it's the bit that's "in your face" every time you fly, and it can make the difference of how relaxing it is to fly.

The panel in the C (#1) is much better than the F (#2).  A question was asked before if the 430 in the C is a WAAS unit or not? If it is, then I think the C is a possible candidate. I do think it's over priced at $49. I can't see paying more than $42 for it.

The F just doesn't have the panel. It's the shotgun layout, I don't like the 300XL, nor do I like the throttle quadrant. I wouldn't give $50 for it.

But that's just me...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After owning a carborated engine (PA28-235) and ending up in some weather/inadvertent ice ....I **Really** like the thought of fuel injection and alternate air. For that reason carbonated engines were a deal breaker for me. Just my $.02

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They both will need shoulder harness added.  I happen to really like the throttle quadrant. I can move all the levers with my big yetti paw without mistaking a knob for the wrong things.  I wanted a FI engine so as not to deal with icing.

 

Edited by Yetti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

400 hours in a C in all kinds of weather, and never once had to use carb heat. I think most who own C's, would agree on here that the Lycoming O360 in the M20C is just not susceptible to carb icing. Certainly it could happen, but is extremely unlikely. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

400 hours in a C in all kinds of weather, and never once had to use carb heat. I think most who own C's, would agree on here that the Lycoming O360 in the M20C is just not susceptible to carb icing. Certainly it could happen, but is extremely unlikely. 

My reference was perhaps a piper thing, but not so much around carb icing, rather  I ended up in mod-heavy  un-forcasted icing in IMC during instrument training and picked up  major airframe icing in a couple of minutes....had everything pushed fwd and was falling at 300FPM and blew below the MEA's and had KC Center wanting me to declare (that 235 with the top prop climbed REALLY well, I had that much ice on). Major complicating problem was that the Intake was plugged with ice and in addition to all the other performance compromises I think the engine was really starving for air and horsepower, and because it was carbonated had no "ALT AIR" option. For that and many other reasons I am a big fan of FI over Carbs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

Yeah, In 35 years we have never gotten carb ice in our C. That having been said if planning to fly in serious weather it sure would be a nice thing not to have to worry about. I am a big fan of the injected birds generally because they allow for LOP operation, which is both more efficient and easier than flying ROP once you know how.  But you pay a price for it in the form of cylinders that cost twice as much come overhaul time. Thankfully both are some of the best engines available to GA, so you can't go wrong either way from an engine perspective in my opinion. 

I know that you're referring to the increased expense of new angle valve cylinders verses new parallel valve cylinders.  Someone who didn't know better might infer that you were suggesting LOP make cylinders unusable at overhaul. 

I think it sucks that Lyc is the only cylinder option, but if they're treated kindly, they will easily give 4000hrs TT and perhaps more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

400 hours in a C in all kinds of weather, and never once had to use carb heat. I think most who own C's, would agree on here that the Lycoming O360 in the M20C is just not susceptible to carb icing. Certainly it could happen, but is extremely unlikely. 

I have well over 600 hours in my C, never had carb icing, don't use carb heat to land. Make sure you get a Carb Temp gage, they really make life simple. I've used partial carb heat in IMC maybe three times since starting training in 2009 (just to keep the needle out of the orange "warning" zone).

A well maintained C is quite the ride. Since working on my doghouse (rather a lot), my engine will now run smoothly to about 25°LOP, but without an engine monitor I'm reluctant to to cruise there. Don't dilly dally too much, a good plane will get snapped up.

As far as storage without full tanks, that is now routine for me, based at a field without fuel. In the past, I would often refuel after coming home from a trip, unless weather was bad, it was late or I was in a hurry. After a short local flight, usually but not always top off. It is good, though, to keep the tanks half full so the sealant doesn't dry out.

My 3-blade prop climbs well, and the speed penalty? My supposed-to-be 140 knot C turns in 148 KTAS, so I'm not complaining. And I rather like the quadrant, it's easy to reach everything, and I can hold the throttle at idle, reach out a finger and raise the flaps after touchdown. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All things being equal, I'd take a fuel injected engine over a carby, but all other things would have to be equal. I'd toss this F to the curb and go look for something else to compare against this C. Having said that, I'm not crazy about this particular C as I bet the 430 isn't a W, and there aren't any upgrades/speed mods. But I'd take it for $40K assuming it passed a solid PPI.

On a related note, once I learned how to properly operate the carb, I was able to run my C LOP consistently, resulting in some amazing range. 

IMG_0468.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All things being equal, I'd take a fuel injected engine over a carby, but all other things would have to be equal. I'd toss this F to the curb and go look for something else to compare against this C. Having said that, I'm not crazy about this particular C as I bet the 430 isn't a W, and there aren't any upgrades/speed mods. But I'd take it for $40K assuming it passed a solid PPI.

On a related note, once I learned how to properly operate the carb, I was able to run my C LOP consistently, resulting in some amazing range. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It turns out to not be WAAS. I'm reading up about the benefits of WAAS and the cost of the upgrade. Based on what you see on the instrument panel for it to NOT need an annunciator the left edge of the 430W can be no more than 11.8" from the pilot's primary view centerline. It that just a matter of measuring from the center line of the control column. 

For this of you that have WAAS ... it does seem to be a pretty nice feature ... is this mainly future proofing ? The FAA documentation makes it compelling in reality are the benefits that obvious (although I will pay through the nose for safety). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You sit close enough in a Mooney that if the GPS is in the center stack, there's no need for the annunciator light.  Here is my case for WAAS.

  1. It increases the IFR capability of the GPS. You can fly approaches to lower minimums. Your usage of this will be rare if ever, but it's nice to know it's there when you are flying IFR. You have the GPS, why not have the tuned up one.
  2. It lowers the cost of ADSB compliance. ADSB requires a WAAS source. You can always do ADSB with an internal WAAS source, but it's double the cost and you don't get #1 above. If your GPS is WAAS, then you get the Approaches AND it can be the WAAS source for ADSB.
  3. Increases or will maintain the value of the airplane. Planes with a WAAS GPS are just worth more than those without. Therefore if I was to put an offer on the table for this one, it would be heavily discounted for the lack of WAAS, and if the owner balks and tries to say how easy it would be to add it, then tell him to go ahead and do it.

I know it can be added, but it involves sending the unit back to Garmin AND installing antenna's. So the labor isn't insignificant.

All in all, I'd ding the seller for it as hard as I could, or go look for one that's already got it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It turns out to not be WAAS. I'm reading up about the benefits of WAAS and the cost of the upgrade. Based on what you see on the instrument panel for it to NOT need an annunciator the left edge of the 430W can be no more than 11.8" from the pilot's primary view centerline. It that just a matter of measuring from the center line of the control column. 

For this of you that have WAAS ... it does seem to be a pretty nice feature ... is this mainly future proofing ? The FAA documentation makes it compelling in reality are the benefits that obvious (although I will pay through the nose for safety). 

 

WAAS gives you a glideslope to follow on GPS instrument approaches and minimums that are essentially the same as an ILS. With the hundreds of LPV approaches now available, and far fewer ILS approaches a WAAS GPS gives good added function. Plus it makes ADS-B compliance much cheaper.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Garmin used to charge $3000 for the WAAS upgrade. To replace my antenna, I needed ne coaxial cable, which ran down the left side, up between the windows and across the roof. So I had to remove the ceiling (2 large pieces) and the left side panel (really, really long); getting the panel out required removing the back seat and the left front seat. The front seat is easy to get out; the back seat was a little more difficult. What enlarged my vocabulary was putting the back seat backrest in . . .

I'd knock off 5AMU for the non-WAAS 430. Garmin charged another $1500 or so to "refurb" the radio while it was being upgraded. At least I had time to patch and repaint the interior while waiting for the radio to come back. It's not called "sweat equity" for nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if the 430 in the C was upgraded you still have a transponder to deal with as far as ads-b is concerned. Waas upgrade, new transponder and install labor can get you near $10K pretty quick, if not over.

On the other hand if you can live without LPV approaches a GTX 345 will meet the mandate, $5K plus antennae and labor. LNAV approaches still provide a lot of capability. Plus you can still do the waas upgrade later if you change your mind.

Mission and wallet will help you decide how much and how fast to spend your $$.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

All things being equal, I'd take a fuel injected engine over a carby, but all other things would have to be equal. I'd toss this F to the curb and go look for something else to compare against this C. Having said that, I'm not crazy about this particular C as I bet the 430 isn't a W, and there aren't any upgrades/speed mods. But I'd take it for $40K assuming it passed a solid PPI.

On a related note, once I learned how to properly operate the carb, I was able to run my C LOP consistently, resulting in some amazing range. 

IMG_0468.jpg

Paul, at what altitude was this taken at? Anything less than 7k, a >1300*F EGT on my single-probe puts me in the red box. I have to run >125*F ROP down low (<1250* EGT) to keep out of the red.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carbureted Mooney engines (O360s) have an alternate air source by design...

They do not open automatically like newer air intakes do. (Magnetically closed door)

They come open with the air valve for carb heat.  Make sure this is working properly on your plane. A couple of broken or loose control wires is all it takes to keep the valve from opening properly.

Having snow and ice collecting on the forward facing airfilter can be disastrous. The alt air intake is inside the cowl, out of the way from snow and ice.

Somebody around here gave an example of having a blocked air filter over the North Sea a while back.

That pilot has really gotten to know the finest detail of his bird since then.  :)

Best regards,

-a-

Edited by carusoam
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Raptor05121 said:

Paul, at what altitude was this taken at? Anything less than 7k, a >1300*F EGT on my single-probe puts me in the red box. I have to run >125*F ROP down low (<1250* EGT) to keep out of the red.

I'm not sure, it's been awhile. But I'm sure it was over 10K. On long cross countries I always prefer to go high.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to hope that vintage pricing has gone up enough to make the C worth $49k. 5 years ago I paid only slightly more than that for a '66E that had a low time engine, all speed mods (cowl closure, 201 windshield, one piece belly, gap seals), STEC 50 autopilot, HSI, IFR GPS, shoulder belts, speed brakes, and O&N bladders. I'm pretty sure prices took a dip after that and it seems to have firmed a little lately. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have noticed a few planes being bought by pilots awaiting for the new medical procedures to take effect.

My local EAA chapter is hosting a rusty pilots seminar with emphasis on the new medical rules and we are getting a few pilots already showing interest in the seminar.
 

Maybe the rise of pilots will soften the blow when it comes time for my bird and me to separate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Sophie said:

Great idea and feedback is very welcome. Here are the two "current" candidates 

1. M20 C - http://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?category_level1=Single+Engine+Piston&make=MOONEY&model=M20C+MARK+21&listing_id=2243241&s-type=aircraft

 

I don't know much about F's, but this C seems like a really solid basic plane assuming engine is in good shape and it's corrosion free.  I am a little put off by a pre-'69 C where the venerable Johnson Bar is "upgraded" to electric gear, but others may have very good reasons to prefer the latter.  The plane may be a tad overpriced, but not wildly - It has a decent A/P, GNS430, updated panel layout, which are certainly pluses. If maintenance history is top notch, it might even be worth it at full price. Only glaring deficiency is an engine monitor.  Having WAAS GPS and ADS-b compliance would be much better of course, but you'll never find exactly the plane you want. What's important is that it seems like a solid foundation to make it into the plane you want over time and not a needy bird that will make you hemmorhage money from the outset.

Not sure why some folks like fuel injection so much more - it seems like you hear of scary moments related to clogged injectors and other fuel system problems here on IO-360s fairly often, but few if any comparably scary induction/carb ice encounters on Mooneys with O-360s - and judicious carb heat use would take care of the issue. BTW a carb temp gauge is a great and inexpensive thing - I use it to turn on partial carb heat pretty routinely though it may be overkill.  Of course the O-360 is less efficient than an IO360 with balanced injectors running LOP, but that benefit is offset at least partly by the higher overhaul cost.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Raptor05121 said:

Paul, at what altitude was this taken at? Anything less than 7k, a >1300*F EGT on my single-probe puts me in the red box. I have to run >125*F ROP down low (<1250* EGT) to keep out of the red.

The thing to remember is that the value of the EGT is meaningless, all that matters is distance from peak. Moving the sensor an inch in the exhaust pipe can make large changes, so what they read will vary as the exact sensor placement varies between planes. As proof, my C peaks at altitude around 1500-1525°F, so I fly 1450-1475. If I climb to altitude and forget to lean, by the time I hit 8000 msl or higher, sometimes it is down to 1250 or so, but as I pull the red lever back, EGT and IAS both rise nicely.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/10/2017 at 1:00 PM, Sophie said:

1. M20C - 1965 high $40s  Electric gear with virtually no speed mods 

2. M20F - 1972 mid $50's - Electric gear with limited (belly pan) speed mods 

I would have a really hard time buying a "C" or "F" with electric gear. Those airplanes beg for manual gear. If there were an STC to convert my electric gear 231 to manual gear I would do it in a minute !!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KLRDMD said:

I would have a really hard time buying a "C" or "F" with electric gear. Those airplanes beg for manual gear. If there were an STC to convert my electric gear 231 to manual gear I would do it in a minute !!

I couldn't agree more! The only thing I don't like about my M20K 252 TSE is the electric gear :-)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Hank said:

The thing to remember is that the value of the EGT is meaningless, all that matters is distance from peak. Moving the sensor an inch in the exhaust pipe can make large changes, so what they read will vary as the exact sensor placement varies between planes. As proof, my C peaks at altitude around 1500-1525°F, so I fly 1450-1475. If I climb to altitude and forget to lean, by the time I hit 8000 msl or higher, sometimes it is down to 1250 or so, but as I pull the red lever back, EGT and IAS both rise nicely.

I'm aware, the numbers given are in respect to peak operation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.