New (lady) member - Considering an M20G

[MyNameIsNobody]

1 hour ago, Sophie said:

Just checking a couple of other questions across the group. Can I get some opinions

1. Someone told me that the most common speed mods the upgraded single windshield on the "F" (remove the center bar)  would effect the structural integrity of the plane. I'm having a bit of trouble believing it ... so I thought I'd get some opinions. I can't imagine the modification being allowed if there is a structural issue.

2. If I find a highly speed modified "E" or "F"... does that mean that you've got to very careful that I'm not pushing the structural integrity of the plane by being in the yellow on a frequent basis.

3. Non hangared M20J that still looks pretty good (bit at a lower price point) vs M20F or M20E that have been hangared. My inclination is the later ... the budget just won't stretch any further :-) for a perfect J. 

4. This is definitely a naive question ... there are some less expensive M20K's out there with reasonably high time on them. Based on the research I've done ... the cost of running a M20K seems MUCH higher and although it's a beautiful bird, it just seems to be asking for trouble especially as a newbie. Do I have this correct ?

MyNameisNobody asked why did I put (lady) in my title. Great question ! I've worked in technology for years and I've been lucky to develop a lot of skills working with many highly competent men and women. I appreciate and respect the different ways that men and women look and approach things. I guess it's my strange way of showing respect for the group, so that people providing advice so graciously, may know better where my question is coming from ... hopefully it wasn't inappropriate. 

 

 

 

 

Works for me.  Just found it curious.  I am not much of a "grouper".  Thank you for response Sophie.

[KLRDMD]

1 hour ago, Sophie said:

there are some less expensive M20K's out there with reasonably high time on them. Based on the research I've done ... the cost of running a M20K seems MUCH higher and although it's a beautiful bird, it just seems to be asking for trouble especially as a newbie. Do I have this correct ?

The K will cost more to own and operate than a normally aspirated Mooney for most people, no doubt. But it also has significantly more versatility and if you run it properly, it doesn't cost much more than a J. Do not run ROP and do not run 75% power with any version of a TSIO-360 (I'm running my 5th TSIO-360 now) and you'll find the cost over a J model to be pretty negligible. Other than the engine it is a J model after all. And turbos are easier to run than normally aspirated engines, in my opinion - especially for newbies. You can pretty much pick one conservative power setting and use it for all flight regimens. It would be difficult for me to go back to a normally aspirated single engine piston airplane today.

[Browncbr1]

1 hour ago, Sophie said:

Just checking a couple of other questions across the group. Can I get some opinions

1. Someone told me that the most common speed mods the upgraded single windshield on the "F" (remove the center bar)  would effect the structural integrity of the plane. I'm having a bit of trouble believing it ... so I thought I'd get some opinions. I can't imagine the modification being allowed if there is a structural issue.

2. If I find a highly speed modified "E" or "F"... does that mean that you've got to very careful that I'm not pushing the structural integrity of the plane by being in the yellow on a frequent basis.

3. Non hangared M20J that still looks pretty good (bit at a lower price point) vs M20F or M20E that have been hangared. My inclination is the later ... the budget just won't stretch any further :-) for a perfect J. 

4. This is definitely a naive question ... there are some less expensive M20K's out there with reasonably high time on them. Based on the research I've done ... the cost of running a M20K seems MUCH higher and although it's a beautiful bird, it just seems to be asking for trouble especially as a newbie. Do I have this correct ?

MyNameisNobody asked why did I put (lady) in my title. Great question ! I've worked in technology for years and I've been lucky to develop a lot of skills working with many highly competent men and women. I appreciate and respect the different ways that men and women look and approach things. I guess it's my strange way of showing respect for the group, so that people providing advice so graciously, may know better where my question is coming from ... hopefully it wasn't inappropriate. 

 

 

 

 

The 201 windshield makes the inside FEEL more roomy and also provides a dash board to put things enroute.. It improves visibility a little bit as well.  As for speed, I tend to believe it probably improves cruise by about 5 knts.. some will say more, some will say less, but I think they might be comparing different models, power settings, DA, props, LOP/ROP, etc...  I think it is largely an aesthetic improvement inside and outside..  There is no structural change.  There is only a steel roll cage bar that remains there either way...what is removed is a strip of sheet aluminum skin...    I do know that work between the yoke and the firewall is much more difficult with the 201 windshield.  I don't think I would want the 201 windshield unless it was done as the SWTA STC that retains small removable cowl deck inspection panels on both sides.  Some conversions don't have this, which would be problematic if it comes time to repair/replace a vacuum regulator, hydraulic master cylinder and a few other things that are difficult to access otherwise..     I know at least one person who fried a 430W because his stock cowl deck was not properly reinstalled with water tight silicone, etc.. , For this person, the cost of water damaged avionics were greater than the cost of added labor dealing with a 201 windshield..    Because of this, I am extremely anal about reinstalling the cowl deck panel on my own in a particular way to be sure about maintaining a water tight panel.       I tell myself that one day, once my panel is just how i want it, I'll do the windshield... but that is many AMUs away.. 

I wouldn't worry about exceeding structural speed too much regardless of what you end up with... The reason is because you will learn uniquely how to stay ahead of whatever plane you buy...  

K models are pretty awesome, but I think the utility is not really realized unless your mission is high DA operations and/or +600nm..  The K, or a Rayjay modded F would be good for this type of mission, otherwise NA is probably the best way to go, economically..   

If you feel that you need to "stretch" for a J, then you may have answered your own question... in aviation, it is "pay now, or pay later" ...  It is probably not unreasonable to believe that the price delta between median and lower priced Js tells you how much first year costs there will be.. maybe more.  Also, have a look at your mission.. If your mission is only 200nm, then are the couple minutes worth the extra $30-40k, higher insurance premium, and typically lower useful load?  if you don't need the back seat room, is that cost worth the 10"? (An E is nearly the same TAS as a J)  For me, even though I could have afforded a J, it was too difficult to justify in several respects.. 

I think it's great that you call yourself out as a woman...  Maybe it helps inspire other women to jump in the game..  I think women are naturally good for aviation, as generally being more detail and safety oriented, as well as usually having less ego; which is often a big factor in aviation safety..   The ATC ladies at my home drone have saved my life at least three times that I know of with very clear timely communication regarding crazy 1200 traffic..   The ATC men at the same field have nearly caused me 2 midair collisions by providing incorrect information...  they have also tried to vector me directly into an antenna tower..   I know this is all anecdotal, but I trust the KTYS ladies with my life..   

 

[KLRDMD]

17 minutes ago, Browncbr1 said:

K models are pretty awesome, but I think the utility is not really realized unless your mission is high DA operations and/or +600nm..  The K, or a Rayjay modded F would be good for this type of mission, otherwise NA is probably the best way to go, economically.

I've owned a turbo F and own a 231. They are different airplanes. The RayJay turbo helps, but MP still must be limited to less than turbonormalizing. The F is 200 HP and the K is 210 HP so they burn essentially the same fuel, theoretically. I actually burn less fuel in my K than I did in my F since my K runs better LOP than my F did. And with the aerodynamic cleanup of the K, it is significantly faster. So, the K is significantly faster on somewhat less fuel than the turbo F.  But the F model had greater useful load and has the ability to run normally aspirated (the turbo is manual).

K models will typically be MUCH better equipped than F models too, especially in the autopilot department. But the average selling price is higher too.

A manual gear, hydraulic flap turbo F model Mooney is very nice indeed. That's the one I had.

If you routinely fly below 10,000 ft, stay normally aspirated, it is cheaper. I generally fly 10,000 - 15,000 ft though so a turbo really makes a nice difference. I just set the autopilot to 800 fpm, 120 KIAS and motor on up as high as I want to go.

[DonMuncy]

They don't remove the center structural bar. They replace the two piece windshield with a single piece windshield, but leave the bar in place (just like all Mooneys).

A K model is some more expensive, but not a lot. Two extra cylinders and a turbocharger, none of which fail very often, but have to be maintained and overhauled, etc. at overhaul time. They do burn a little more fuel, but if you fly high, you get some of that back.

 

[Sophie]

Hey Browncbr1 we have a really great lady ATC here at KRNT, her annunciation is super clear and she does a great job at keeping everyone organized. I'm glad your controllers have kept you safe ! Aviation even here in the big city (Seattle- KRNT) sure has a great community feeling. It 's very welcoming and as well being an incredibly fun sport I am personally thrilled that my tax dollars support a fantastic infrastructure that I get to enjoy on a regular basis. The advice on the J's and the K's has been great ... maybe that's my next jump in a few years. For the time being, I think I'll have my hands full with my first Mooney (C, E or F).   

[KLRDMD]

18 minutes ago, Sophie said:

For the time being, I think I'll have my hands full with my first Mooney (C, E or F).   

Do you need the space of the back seat ? If not, eliminate the F as primary (but don't pass up a good one that falls in your lap).

Do you need fuel injection ?

Based on the answers to those two questions you should know what you're primarily looking for, but stay open to the others.

Now that you've had a number of replies and discussion, what are you looking for today ?

[gsxrpilot]

Hi Sophie,  You're getting some really good advice on this thread. 

If I can assume that you intend to use the Mooney to travel, which most of us do. And if I can assume you intend to get the Instrument rating, also a common path...

Then... I would council against stretching for any of the Mooneys.  In other words, I'd be looking for the absolute top of the line C, E, G, or F.  Of these the C or G will be the cheapest to acquire and might also be the cheapest to maintain, but not by much.  My first Mooney was an M20C, but the best equipped M20C almost anyone had ever seen. That was absolutely the best decision for me and my wife and I flew that C all over the country.

Don't get a cheap J, get the best C or E you can find.

BTW I sold the C and bought a K. My experience is that it's quite a bit more expensive to maintain, and that doesn't include the spar issue I'm dealing with now which is very expensive.

[Sophie]

Hi KLRDMD and Rocket 

Based on all of the great advice I've received it's a hard decision that is probably dependent on the planes available (C, E or F ... I'm shying away from the G since it really is a bit slower) . I'm leaning towards the "F" because it just gives you more options with friends and family. I'm haven't found a plane ... yet ... that has it all, which is not surprising because they are treasured friends for their pilot owners. Due to this forum I'm equipped with the right questions to reduce the number of wild goose chases and make more educated decisions and I thank you all from my newbie heart for that. I've organized to kick off my IFR rating in April and it would be much more economic ... and fun to do it in my own plane .. my CFI thinks so too (he fly's a mooney (E) as well). It will be really neat to get the endorsement(s) associated with the model of plane at the same time as I do my IFR. As I've discovered, you'll never save money by being an aviator but you can certainly find ways to spend it less voraciously :-).   

Sophie

[KLRDMD]

15 minutes ago, Sophie said:

I'm leaning towards the "F" because it just gives you more options with friends and family. I'm haven't found a plane ... yet ... that has it all, which is not surprising because they are treasured friends for their pilot owners.

Now, what are your minimum *requirements*, then what would you *really* like, then what *would be nice to have* in this airplane ?

[Sophie]

Hi Ken, 

Based on all of the advice I've received and my own research, here goes:-

1. Must have been a loved aircraft and not have any deferred maintenance. Ensure fuel tanks, landing gear/pucks, glass, prop have been attended to and any engine work is done properly. Ideally a minimal set of AD’s so that inspections are lower cost and not too frequent. If possible an engine and prop at mid time or less, along with the "B" hub to remove the prop AD. I'd prefer a two blade prop I think (lighter) as well as a light weight starter

 

2. Must have been hangared and have minimal corrosion and a well maintained paint job.

 

3. Although I’ll have to start lifting at the gym again … hahaha … I think I’d still prefer the J-Bar (removes the duke motor AD) and it's just simpler all round. 

 

4. Must have some decent avionics with a useable/sensible panel for someone doing their IFR rating. Also serviceable and useful for someone who wants to fly around her home airport to explore the Pacific North West (4 - 5 hour trips) . This includes (somewhat in order) :-

• Autopilot (ideal if it has altitude hold) 
• A good 6 pack instrument layout
• A solid GPS (430W or 530W) …and after reading about WAAS that would be awesome !
• Good audio panel and high quality radios with a 4 place intercom
• ADS-B or an easy path to upgrade to ADS-B. I currently have a Stratus 2 and an iPad so I’d be leaning towards an Appareo.
• An engine monitor – but I could add that 
• An HSI would also be great
• Not much need for a storm scope in Seattle ... it's just always cloudy and/or raining :-) .. but for cross country it might be nice 

5. It would be great if it had some of the speed mods. Especially if they looked good and also give a noticeable improvement in performance, after all who doesn’t want to be in a great looking mooney that flies fast.

 

6. A tanks block/engine heater, it gets cold here in Seattle 

 

7. It would be great if it had a fold down rear seat (especially if it’s an “C” or “E”) and over the shoulder belts/harness, an interior that is neat and tidy with very clear glass all around 

 

8. It would be nice if it had upgraded insulation, together with a noise cancelling headset the ride would be lovely

 

Thanks to everyone who helped me to figure out this list, hopefully it's evolved the right way.

 

Sophie 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[KLRDMD]

3 minutes ago, Sophie said:

Based on all of the advice I've received and my own research, here goes:-

1. Must have been a loved aircraft and not have any deferred maintenance. Ensure fuel tanks, landing gear/pucks, glass, prop have been attended to and any engine work is done properly. Ideally a minimal set of AD’s so that inspections are lower cost and not too frequent. If possible an engine and prop at mid time or less, along with the "B" hub to remove the prop AD. I'd prefer a two blade prop I think (lighter) as well as a light weight starter

 

2. Must have been hangared and have minimal corrosion and a well maintained paint job.

 

3. Although I’ll have to start lifting at the gym again … hahaha … I think I’d still prefer the J-Bar (removes the duke motor AD) and it's just simpler all round. 

 

4. Must have some decent avionics with a useable/sensible panel for someone doing their IFR rating. Also serviceable and useful for someone who wants to fly around her home airport to explore the Pacific North West (4 - 5 hour trips) . This includes (somewhat in order) :-

• Autopilot (ideal if it has altitude hold) 
• A good 6 pack instrument layout
• A solid GPS (430W or 530W) …and after reading about WAAS that would be awesome !
• Good audio panel and high quality radios with a 4 place intercom
• ADS-B or an easy path to upgrade to ADS-B. I currently have a Stratus 2 and an iPad so I’d be leaning towards an Appareo.
• An engine monitor – but I could add that 
• An HSI would also be great
• Not much need for a storm scope in Seattle ... it's just always cloudy and/or raining :-) .. but for cross country it might be nice 

5. It would be great if it had some of the speed mods. Especially if they looked good and also give a noticeable improvement in performance, after all who doesn’t want to be in a great looking mooney that flies fast.

 

6. A tanks block/engine heater, it gets cold here in Seattle 

 

7. It would be great if it had a fold down rear seat (especially if it’s an “C” or “E”) and over the shoulder belts/harness, an interior that is neat and tidy with very clear glass all around 

 

8. It would be nice if it had upgraded insulation, together with a noise cancelling headset the ride would be lovely

 

Thanks to everyone who helped me to figure out this list, hopefully it's evolved the right way.

And what's your budget for all of the above ? I feel a bit like Chip Gaines or Drew Scott. We may need to start with a fixer-upper and add those items necessary that the airplane doesn't currently have  

[gsxrpilot]

5 hours ago, Sophie said:

Hi Ken, 

Based on all of the advice I've received and my own research, here goes:-

1. Must have been a loved aircraft and not have any deferred maintenance. Ensure fuel tanks, landing gear/pucks, glass, prop have been attended to and any engine work is done properly. Ideally a minimal set of AD’s so that inspections are lower cost and not too frequent. If possible an engine and prop at mid time or less, along with the "B" hub to remove the prop AD. I'd prefer a two blade prop I think (lighter) as well as a light weight starter

 

2. Must have been hangared and have minimal corrosion and a well maintained paint job.

 

3. Although I’ll have to start lifting at the gym again … hahaha … I think I’d still prefer the J-Bar (removes the duke motor AD) and it's just simpler all round. 

 

4. Must have some decent avionics with a useable/sensible panel for someone doing their IFR rating. Also serviceable and useful for someone who wants to fly around her home airport to explore the Pacific North West (4 - 5 hour trips) . This includes (somewhat in order) :-

• Autopilot (ideal if it has altitude hold) 
• A good 6 pack instrument layout
• A solid GPS (430W or 530W) …and after reading about WAAS that would be awesome !
• Good audio panel and high quality radios with a 4 place intercom
• ADS-B or an easy path to upgrade to ADS-B. I currently have a Stratus 2 and an iPad so I’d be leaning towards an Appareo.
• An engine monitor – but I could add that 
• An HSI would also be great
• Not much need for a storm scope in Seattle ... it's just always cloudy and/or raining :-) .. but for cross country it might be nice 

5. It would be great if it had some of the speed mods. Especially if they looked good and also give a noticeable improvement in performance, after all who doesn’t want to be in a great looking mooney that flies fast.

 

6. A tanks block/engine heater, it gets cold here in Seattle 

 

7. It would be great if it had a fold down rear seat (especially if it’s an “C” or “E”) and over the shoulder belts/harness, an interior that is neat and tidy with very clear glass all around 

 

8. It would be nice if it had upgraded insulation, together with a noise cancelling headset the ride would be lovely

This is an excellent, well thought out list.  I believe you can get probably 80% of the way down the list in a C for $50K or less and an E at about $65K.  You'll just have to wait for one to come up for sale.

You might organize it a bit based on the expense involved to add certain items later. For example if you get a bird with WAAS, then adding ADSB Out isn't all that expensive. Also, an engine monitor is relatively inexpensive to add, whereas adding the autopilot would be very expensive.

I bought a C that had everything on your list except for ADSB, engine monitor, storm scope, and number 8. I gave $48K for it.  They are out there.

You can also get on the waiting list for @Bob_Belville's E. But the list is pretty long. 

[Hank]

Many (most?) Vintage Mooneys with electric gear don't have the Dukes actuator. Mine, for instance, is ITT.

Looks like a good list. Happy hunting!

[carusoam]

Sophie,

We have an MSer that might be able to give you some insight from an interesting perspective.

@Amelia has been piloting a K for several years.  I believe she is in between planes currently, looking for the next one...

There are no bad Mooney models.  Anyone can learn to manage the finest details of any of them.

some of the non-mooney advice from other pilots you are going to get will be funny.  Modifications to factory built Mooney's follow the STC process to ensure the mod doesn't weaken the plane. The ultimate speed mod is a Missile or Rocket built by Rocket engineering.  We have a few around here.

If you like technical engine operation details, the Turbo charged Mooney people write some interesting threads.  You can get to know about TCs, manifold pressure controllers, and intercoolers. You can read up on why TCs don't need to be cooled for very long after landing.  They also have discussions regarding LOP for their engines...

If you like all manual mooneys, the M20C is my favorite. J bar gear, hydraulic flaps, and manual trim wheel.  No great physical strength required.  It does give another reason to keep up the gym membership. 

If you like all automatic stuff, electric gear, electric flaps, and electric trim, are the way to go.  We have one member that has even automated the leaning process.  

1) Choose your engine.  Carb, fuel injection, TC or TN...

2) Choose your airframe length, short mid, or Long Body...

3) Choose your instrument panel, basic VFR with steam gauges to full IFR with lots of glass screens...

4) get some training Transition Training for your newbird...

Your typical flight mission can usually help define these details.  Think of this as triage for the plane search... 

Will your plane be a...

1) weekend flyer, on a budget...

2) traveler, with a family...

3) IFR, mountain crosser...

4) Retired couple flyer, IR traveler, living the dream...

5) Work commuter, serious IFR flying tool.

All fun things to consider. Getting past this part of the process, starts the next part... the search...

want to see some Mooneys up close?  Attend a Mooney fly-in...

Thoughts for the day... 

Best regards,

-a-

 

Edited March 14, 2017 by carusoam

[Bob - S50]

Sophie,

Just to muddy the waters, have you considered looking for a partner?  If you can find one or two (we have 4 in our group) it gives you more money to buy a nicer plane with the equipment you like, lower fixed costs/person, more money to spend on gas, and at least in our case, very little difference in availability.

Bob

[Sophie]

Hi , 

Great points on mission and sharing the cost, it would be nice to have partners in the enterprise. I was going to advertise after getting the aircraft to do just that ... probably after I have my IFR rating so I'm a bit more experienced. 

I'm looking at an aircraft closely right now and I'm trying to figure out the difference between normal wear and tear and "deferred maintenance". I was wondering if anyone had a reference or could share their views on the frequency of rebuild/replacement in years or hours  that should have or will take place on the following:-

1. Landing gear rebuild including pucks, bearings and replaceable parts 

2. Brake master cylinders 

3. Brake calipers and hoses 

4. Starter 

5. Fuel pump 

6. Battery 

7. Alternator 

8. Exhaust system (i'm assuming this isn't done at TSMOH)

9. Air intake  

10. Control rods and couplings for rear stabiliser and rudder 

11. Fuel tank re-sealing 

12. Aileron cables and bearings 

13. Windscreen 

14. Rear step vacuum unit 

Updating the avionics,over hauling the engine and hub/prop are pretty well tracked and managed but as I'm finding these additional items are REALLY important, potentially expensive but are subject to normal wear and tear. After all most of these are 40 to 60 year old aircraft. 

Is there a reference point for this list ? 

S

 

 

[KLRDMD]

Pretty much, everything you list is done "on condition.

[Bob_Belville]

9 minutes ago, Sophie said:

Hi , 

Great points on mission and sharing the cost, it would be nice to have partners in the enterprise. I was going to advertise after getting the aircraft to do just that ... probably after I have my IFR rating so I'm a bit more experienced. 

I'm looking at an aircraft closely right now and I'm trying to figure out the difference between normal wear and tear and "deferred maintenance". I was wondering if anyone had a reference or could share their views on the frequency of rebuild/replacement in years or hours  that should have or will take place on the following:-

Sophie, I will share my experience with a '66E over the 5 years I have owned it. I have fixed or replaced everything that was needed and several items that would have been acceptable to my A&P and many owners:

9 minutes ago, Sophie said:

1. Landing gear rebuild including pucks, bearings and replaceable parts: I have had to replace the "walking beams" but nothing else has needed service

2. Brake master cylinders: I have not have to work on the hydraulic components of the braking system. 

3. Brake calipers and hoses: I have replaced the brake calipers. 

4. Starter: I have a light weight starter, no service has been needed. 

5. Fuel pump: No problem.

6. Battery: I replaced a Gill with an Corcorde 

7. Alternator: Jasco alternator failed and I replaced with a 70a Plane Power & VR 

8. Exhaust system (i'm assuming this isn't done at TSMOH): Muffler failed and I replaced it with a PowerFlow System

9. Air intake: I replaced the air filter with the Challenger type at the same time I added the PFS.    

10. Control rods and couplings for rear stabiliser and rudder: No problem 

11. Fuel tank re-sealing: My plane has had O&N bladders since 1997 with no issues at all 

12. Aileron cables and bearings: Mooney ailerons are push pull rods with Heim bearings, no issues 

13. Windscreen: I replaced all the windows last year 'cause I wanted to. 

14. Rear step vacuum unit: The servo (rubber boot) failed after 48 years of faithful service. Replacement cost under $100.

Your experience will no doubt vary. None of the necessary or optional expenses I've incurred were very great in the overall scheme of things. Knock on wood! 

Updating the avionics,over hauling the engine and hub/prop are pretty well tracked and managed but as I'm finding these additional items are REALLY important, potentially expensive but are subject to normal wear and tear. After all most of these are 40 to 60 year old aircraft. 

Is there a reference point for this list ? 

S

 

 

 

[Vance Harral]

6 minutes ago, Sophie said:

Great points on mission and sharing the cost, it would be nice to have partners in the enterprise. I was going to advertise after getting the aircraft to do just that ... probably after I have my IFR rating so I'm a bit more experienced.

If you're serious about having a partner, recommend you find the partner first and buy the aircraft together, vs. the other way around.  In addition to having more resources with which to purchase, there are other compelling reasons.

First, the process of choosing a specific aircraft, traveling to see it, inspecting it, agreeing on a price, and deciding how much to immediately invest in upgrades upon purchase, touches all the stress points that tend to make partnerships go bad.  If you make it through that process with another person, odds are good you've found a compatible partner.  If the relationship goes south while you're looking, you can bail out before anyone invests equity that must be reconciled in a possibly adversarial manner.

Second, partnerships work best when all partners feel equally attached to and emotionally invested in the aircraft.  The danger in acquiring the aircraft yourself first and finding a partner afterward, is that you'll think of the airplane as "your" baby, that you're merely letting someone else "borrow".  That's not healthy for the partnership.

I appreciate that you may just want to do one thing at a time, and you're excited about buying an airplane so you want to do that first.  Not suggesting any malicious intent.  But as a person who has participated in aircraft partnerships, a partnership ad from a person who acquired the aircraft less than a year ago is a bit of a red flag.  It gives off a vibe like, "Now that I've chosen the airplane, the tie-down/hangar spot, the upgrades, gotten used to it, and decided exactly how I think it should be operated, wouldn't you like to come share half the cost?"  Whether you feel that sentiment yourself or not, it does exist in the community.  Therefore, buying first reduces the pool of partners who might be interested.

Just my $0.02 on partnerships.  Whether you go that route or not, I'm excited for you - enjoy the search!

[Sophie]

1 hour ago, Bob_Belville said:

Sophie, I will share my experience with a '66E over the 5 years I have owned it. I have fixed or replaced everything that was needed and several items that would have been acceptable to my A&P and many owners:

 

Hey Bob, 

Thanks for the insights. I've heard and read that the rubber pucks and bushings in the landing gear need to be done about every 15 years. 

The fuel tanks leaking seem to come up all the time and it appears that they are expensive to repair. 

How many hours do you have on your plane ?

[cnoe]

Hi Sophie, 15 years on the pucks for the main gear is a long time. The nose gear pucks don't take the same beating. There are "specs" that allow them to remain in service based on condition so you may pass annual without replacement but they do harden over time.

 

Eventually all vintage tanks need a complete strip and reseal. Patching is a short-term fix only. That's typically an $8,000 hit though a couple of new players may reduce that cost a bit. IMO that item alone is a ~$5,000 +/- on sales price negotiations regardless of whether there are active leaks or not.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

 

 

[Cyril Gibb]

16 hours ago, Hank said:

Many (most?) Vintage Mooneys with electric gear don't have the Dukes actuator. Mine, for instance, is ITT.

Looks like a good list. Happy hunting!

I also have an ITT that, based on serial number, "technically" isn't covered by the Dukes AD.  However, they are essentially clones with the identical mechanical flaws and single points of failure.  I treat my ITT actuator as if it was a Dukes.  Use caution. YMMV 

[Bob_Belville]

5 hours ago, Sophie said:

Hey Bob, 

Thanks for the insights. I've heard and read that the rubber pucks and bushings in the landing gear need to be done about every 15 years. 

The fuel tanks leaking seem to come up all the time and it appears that they are expensive to repair. 

How many hours do you have on your plane ?

Sophie, my '66E is pretty low time with 3000 hours on it. But I do not suppose that the gear or the tanks care as much about hours flown as they do about years. The gear disks are not terribly expensive and last quite a long time on the lighter vintage models compared to the long bodies. A PPI should indicate whether the disks need changing. As far as other gear components the Mooney gear is pretty rugged and parts are not terribly expensive. This is not an area I'd worry much about if a PPI was done by someone Mooney savvy. The Mooney gear is different from Beech, Cessna, Piper and Mooneys that have been serviced an annualed by more "generic" A&P/IA shops may not have paid as much attention to the gear - lubrication and rigging - as a MSC. 

Fuel tanks are expensive if they have to be completely resealed. Small leaks, particularly in the top of the tank, are usually easily patched. But unless the tanks are really bad I suppose it is hard to know from a PPI what the condition of the sealing is. Folks look for recent complete resealing by someone like Weep No More but there still could be issues. If I were shopping a vintage plane with bladders would be worth several thousand more than one without.   

[Vance Harral]

I'm not sure I'd agree with the sentiment gear disks aren't terribly expensive.  Present-day pricing is about $115 each, and you need 4 on each main and 3 on the nose.  That's a $1265 hit if you do them all, and that doesn't include labor.  We just re-did the main gear pucks on our airplane, and the job actually cost more than our last fuel tank patch, which was more than 5 years ago.  I've also noticed the cost of the disks seems to rise at about double the inflation rate.  This is the second round of disks for us.  The first round was about 10 years ago and the disks were only about $85 apiece back then.  The price seems to go up about $5/disk every year.