Selling my 1994 Mooney M20J MSE

[thunberg]

I've thoroughly enjoyed my experience owning a Mooney (my first plane) but I've found myself doing more over water and mountain flying lately and have decided to move to a light twin which means it's time to find a new home for my M20J.

It's a 1994 M20J MSE with 1797 TTAF and 1797 SNEW for the engine, prop was overhauled 103 hours ago. No damage history, complete logs, hangared.

I'm asking $129,000 and it's priced (hopefully) for a relatively quick sale.

Controller: http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/1171839.htm
Barnstormers: http://www.barnstormers.com/Mooney,%20M20J%20Classifieds.htm

I'd be happy to answer any questions and would love to sell it to a fellow MAPA member if possible.

[Piloto]

A light twin will be no safer than your Mooney. But if you are looking for more seats the twin will give you that. Keep in mind that the chances of an engine failure on a twin are twice of that in a single. And if your light twin is loaded you are going down specially on take off. When I fly oceanic on my M20J I fly at over 12,000 feet. At these altitudes the power setting is less than 60% so there is no stress on the engine. It also provides a good glide distance and marine VHF communications range to coordinate ditching with a vessel in case I am not in range of shore. Some of the first attempt to cross the Atlantic were done in twins never to be found. But Lindberg and Amelia succeded in a single. Amelia later on disappeared flying her twin over the Pacific.   

[thunberg]

I appreciate your input, and while everyone has their own take on the single vs. twin debate, my own is that a twin is definitely safer as long as the pilot does their job with recurrent training. From pouring over NTSB data it seems the vast majority of the fatal light twin accidents for light twins, in particular a Baron 55 which is what I'm looking to buy, focus on pilot error or the usual continued VFR into IMC.

While your chances of an engine failure are definitely double in a twin, the simple fact remains that you've generally got one left to buy time with as opposed to a single where you've now been converted into a glider.

I definitely love my Mooney, and will continue to recommend and speak highly of them in regards to singles, but 2 more seats, improved climb, and additional redundancy of a second engine more than pushes me towards a light twin as the next step.

[FlyFstr]

Thunberg, I had a BE55 that I flew several years for our business and will hopefully be moving into a Mooney sometime this year. The sole reason from twin to single for me- cost of operation. Cost not considered and given the choice, I'd still be flying my BE55. Night, over water & rough terrain flights (at least to me) are much more comfortable in the Baron. 

Like you mentioned, an engine loss, even on take off is no problem provided your on top of your game-  which for me was engine out work every 90 days. Good luck with your new Baron. You will love the way that bird flys.

[thunberg]

Thanks for the encouragement. I agree on the costs aspect, making the jump from a single to a twin is going to sting even more due to the fact that I'm coming from a Mooney that gets me 160kts on 10gph. Good luck with your own Mooney transition!

[N33GG]

I used to fly for several years from Texas to California every week in a Baron B58TC, often at night, and I felt a lot safer with the extra engine, electrical system, etc., than in any single.  My mission has changed, so now I fly a Mooney and also feel safe.  But if I had to fly over water or mountains extensively again, the spare engine would be in my plans. 

WOW, good looking aircraft you are selling. 

Good luck!

[thinwing]

Thunberg,as another longtime d55 Baron owner that is now flying single engine...the fact of the second engine in most circumstances is undeniable.Not with standing Piloto statement of twice as much chance of engine failure(a statisical anomaly only)a big engine Baron (285hp to 300hp per side)has enough excess performance as to make the loss of an engine almost trivial.Flown full tanks (141 gal) single pilot ,say 4500 (5300 gross) a single engine go around is quite doable not mention a 120 kt cruise with one feathered.Service ceiling was over 24000 ft and that was on nonturboed io520s.The downside is your maintance expenses are going to triple,so is your insurance depending on experience.And the last point I can think of is getting a well  equipped comparable in age to your 1994 mooney is gonna require a lot more investment  assuming you are not buying a 40 yr old Baron.That is where a twin will eat you up in unexpected repair costs...or at least it did me...kpc.....the only thing that would make me feel safer at 19000 over the rockies at midnight in a twin...is another twin ...turbine that is...good luck

[thunberg]

Thanks for sharing your experiences with the D55. I'm actually specifically looking for a late 70's / early 80's E55 namely for the 166 gallon fuel option and the extended nose baggage area. As far as equiptment to match my M20J, I'm pretty bare bones as is and from the planes I'm looking at I'd only need to add a GEM / digital fuel flow and most likely a 430W to surpass what I have presently.

[Wistarmo]

I believe the mission should determine the airplane.  I originally owned a '93 M20J from 1993-97.  Flew several times over water to the Bahamas and Caymans.  Sold the Mooney and bought a 1978 Cessna 310R.  Fuel and maintenance costs tripled.  This was not a problem initiallly until the cost of AVGAS doubled.  Sold the 310 and bought my original M20J back.  I live in Florida and my family lives in North Carolina.  Here are some sample expenses of round trips over the last 18 years:

         1993, Mooney M20J, AVGAS $2.00/gal, round trip to N.C $140.00

         1998, Cessna 310, AVGAS $3.00/gal, round trip to N.C. $540.00

         2006, Cessna 310, AVGAS $5.00/gal, round trip to N.C. $1,000.00

My Mooney has a standby vacuum pump, back-up electric artificial horizon, and JPI engine monitor.  I believe with these and a well-maintained engine that reliability and safety are equivalent to the twin.  My wife and I do not have children; our usual mission then is usually two people and occasionally four people.  I almost never carried five or six people when I owned the Cessna 310.

The final economic decisions have to do with the expense of replacing two engines instead of one, future fuel costs, and resale value. If we are forced to move to an alternative fuel to 100LL, the cost of that fuel will likely far exceed $5-6.00/gallon.  And at some point, you will have to find a buyer for the twin; currently it is a buyer's market, and if fuel/maintenance costs continue to climb, it will be even more so.

 

 

 

[thunberg]

Interesting comparison, but I'll still respectfully disagree in regards to the two being exact equivalents in regards to the safety of a second engine. On the costs, I think anyone in personal aviation who tries to justify and or rationalize the money we all pay to do what we do (single or twin) is missing the point that if it was truly about money we'd fly commercial.

Lastly, I wouldn't be so sure that the 100LL replacement, when it comes, will cost more in that what we're putting in our airplanes is already an extremely small niche as far as the refining, storage, and delivery are concerned due to the lead. Any new solution should be at least less of a niche than the current solution which should naturally (hopefully) result in lower prices.

Even though this article is from 2006, it still is a very good explanation of the situation and potential solutions: http://www.kitplanes.com/magazine/pdfs/0606-2935.pdf

[Tom]

Just curious, have you considered a T or P337?  Regarding vintage twins, I believe the Skymaster is second only to the Commanche as having most mpg for a twin.  Despite frequent negative ramp chatter Skymaster owners are found of their unique birds (sound familiar?).  Safety-wise the push-pull has a lot going for it, if you remember to use checklists or have the BRL warning system installed (Big Red Light attached to rear alternator).

[thunberg]

To be honest, I hadn't until you mentioned it. The push pull is definitely attractive from a safety standpoint, but from some quick research, the cruise on the non-turbo is a bit low, plus you lose a bunch of baggage space (nose and tail due to engines being there) compared to conventional twins. Interesting option to consider though.

[jelswick]

As one of my friends says, "A twin?  Good grief that's doubling the chances of an engine failure!"  I guess if I'm going to lose an engine at altitude, I'd like to be in a twin.  But if the engine goes out near the ground, I'd rather be in my Mooney all day long.  My instructor's instructor was lost on an engine out on takeoff instructing in a twin and couldn't get it configured quickly enough before it torqued over on it's back.  I dont know that that is a normal outcome, but definitely a sad and scary one to me.  I'd rather just be a glider at that point looking for the softest thing around for my imminent landing.