Mxracer56 Posted July 25, 2017 Report Share Posted July 25, 2017 I am looking at buying my first plane. I have mainly been looking at the c and e models. The other day I came across this j on trade a plane. https://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?category_level1=Single+Engine+Piston&make=MOONEY&model=M20J+201&listing_id=1589603&s-type=aircraft. The paint looks to faded but not chipped up. the interior looks to be in decent shape. I know that I could get a better equipped c/e for that price but I like the idea of the extra room. What type of thing should I look for on the j as far as trouble areas? I know corrosion is probably one of the biggest still. Thanks. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
75_M20F Posted July 25, 2017 Report Share Posted July 25, 2017 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted July 25, 2017 Report Share Posted July 25, 2017 Nothing different than what you would look for on the C, E, F, G or J... Every detail is important. PPI is the Best protection for your wallet. Best doesn't equal perfect.... Best regards, -a- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
75_M20F Posted July 25, 2017 Report Share Posted July 25, 2017 It appears to have been kept on a tiedown for years from what I can see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricJ Posted July 25, 2017 Report Share Posted July 25, 2017 All the above said, it's priced to have room to fix a lot of stuff. It's got some decent equipment and looks to be not horribly ratted out. Might be worth a close look. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
201er Posted July 25, 2017 Report Share Posted July 25, 2017 3 minutes ago, EricJ said: All the above said, it's priced to have room to fix a lot of stuff. It's got some decent equipment and looks to be not horribly ratted out. Might be worth a close look. A Fox is based out of Flying W. If there was a glimpse of a good deal, you can be sure he would have snatched it up already! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mxracer56 Posted July 26, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 26, 2017 Thanks for the response. I think I am going to keep looking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob - S50 Posted July 26, 2017 Report Share Posted July 26, 2017 10 hours ago, Mxracer56 said: Thanks for the response. I think I am going to keep looking. And ALWAYS ask about the useful load. We passed on several because the useful load was so low. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
201er Posted July 26, 2017 Report Share Posted July 26, 2017 3 hours ago, Bob - S50 said: And ALWAYS ask about the useful load. We passed on several because the useful load was so low. What's a really low useful on a J? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
201er Posted July 26, 2017 Report Share Posted July 26, 2017 Just now, bluehighwayflyer said: I have seem as low as 825 pounds. The mid 80s Js prior to the 2900 pound gross weight increase are the worst. YIkes!!! What could they possibly put in there to weigh it down nearly 200lbs!?!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldguy Posted July 26, 2017 Report Share Posted July 26, 2017 2 hours ago, 201er said: YIkes!!! What could they possibly put in there to weigh it down nearly 200lbs!?!? I am at 876 with stand-by vacuum, WSI AV-300, MX 20 and a couple of other items not initially on the plane. I am serial #24-1492 from 1984 and so wish I had the 2900 GTOW. The extra 160 would put me well into the 1000 UL area. My goal with new avionics and some updates is to get to 900#, but that may not be possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinw Posted July 26, 2017 Report Share Posted July 26, 2017 17 minutes ago, Oldguy said: I am at 876 with stand-by vacuum, WSI AV-300, MX 20 and a couple of other items not initially on the plane. I am serial #24-1492 from 1984 and so wish I had the 2900 GTOW. The extra 160 would put me well into the 1000 UL area. My goal with new avionics and some updates is to get to 900#, but that may not be possible. It's very possible; take it from someone who did it. I started with a UL in my '82 J of 875. Over the course of 3 years I updated my avionics and got rid of everything I didn't use like the ADF, KNS80, stormscope, etc. Along with that I made sure all the cables, wiring and antennas were removed as well. Then I pulled the vacuum system including the standby and lastly installed LED nav and recognition lights. I picked up 5 lbs from the lights alone! All that added up to 25 lbs. My new UL is 900.35 and that's with TKS. UL seems to be the Achilles heel in Mooney aircraft. Some day I'd like to step up to an Ovation but it will have to have a UL of 1000 or more. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldguy Posted July 26, 2017 Report Share Posted July 26, 2017 7 minutes ago, kevinw said: It's very possible; take it from someone who did it. I started with a UL in my '82 J of 875. Over the course of 3 years I updated my avionics and got rid of everything I didn't use like the ADF, KNS80, stormscope, etc. Along with that I made sure all the cables, wiring and antennas were removed as well. Then I pulled the vacuum system including the standby and lastly installed LED nav and recognition lights. I picked up 5 lbs from the lights alone! All that added up to 25 lbs. My new UL is 900.35 and that's with TKS. UL seems to be the Achilles heel in Mooney aircraft. Some day I'd like to step up to an Ovation but it will have to have a UL of 1000 or more. What did you have to do to pull the vacuum? Aspen/G500 and what for backup? Just the stand-by vac on mine is 12 lbs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinw Posted July 26, 2017 Report Share Posted July 26, 2017 6 minutes ago, Oldguy said: What did you have to do to pull the vacuum? Aspen/G500 and what for backup? Just the stand-by vac on mine is 12 lbs. I added an Aspen PFD when my HSI was on the fritz and later added the Sandia SAI340 as my backup, pulling the vacuum system at that time. That got it to 895 and installing the LEDs last year pushed me over the 900 mark that I was after. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob - S50 Posted July 27, 2017 Report Share Posted July 27, 2017 And you can save 8 pounds by switching to a Skytec starter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KLRDMD Posted July 29, 2017 Report Share Posted July 29, 2017 On 7/26/2017 at 1:06 PM, kevinw said: UL seems to be the Achilles heel in Mooney aircraft. That's the reason I'm kinda, sorta looking at twins again. The useful load limitations has been an issue too many times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted July 29, 2017 Report Share Posted July 29, 2017 Ken, Have you gone turbine anywheres along the way? Best regards, -a- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KLRDMD Posted July 29, 2017 Report Share Posted July 29, 2017 Just now, carusoam said: Have you gone turbine anywheres along the way? Not yet. I've looked at them but not sure I can handle the financial part of owning and flying one. On a piston, something bad may cost $10,000. On a turbine, something bad may cost $100,000. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted July 29, 2017 Report Share Posted July 29, 2017 I am thinking with your knowledge it isn't so bad... Staying single engine has its benefits... Your prolific writing style could be educational (for me)... I'll be following your report, whichever one you go with... Best regards, -a- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KLRDMD Posted July 29, 2017 Report Share Posted July 29, 2017 2 minutes ago, carusoam said: I am thinking with your knowledge it isn't so bad... Staying single engine has its benefits... Your prolific writing style could be educational (for me)... I'll be following your report, whichever one you go with... A twin runs about 30% more per year to own and operate than a somewhat similar single. It really isn't that bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
201er Posted July 29, 2017 Report Share Posted July 29, 2017 I just saw that plane yesterday. The paint is as bad as previously mentioned, but surprisingly it looked clean under the tanks. Either the leak was fixed or it leaked itself empty, got cleaned, and hasn't been fueled since. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Fox Posted July 30, 2017 Report Share Posted July 30, 2017 2 hours ago, KLRDMD said: A twin runs about 30% more per year to own and operate than a somewhat similar single. It really isn't that bad. Your engine , prop , and system reserves alone are EXACTLY TWICE that of a single , Your fuel burn , and powerplant maintenance are EXACTLY TWICE that of a single..... Your landing fees and ramp fees are usually twice that of a single , 30% is a naïve estimate .... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
201er Posted July 30, 2017 Report Share Posted July 30, 2017 Insurance is 3x+ as much even with loads of twin time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetdriven Posted July 30, 2017 Report Share Posted July 30, 2017 (edited) Bonanzas about 125$ per hour airplane but a Baron is more like 300$+ those are both with no breakdowns or upgrades There was a thread on BT a Cessna 421 owner flew it 300 hours a year I think he paid about 200k by the time it was all done. Per year. Edited July 30, 2017 by jetdriven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KLRDMD Posted July 30, 2017 Report Share Posted July 30, 2017 1 hour ago, Alan Fox said: Your engine , prop , and system reserves alone are EXACTLY TWICE that of a single , Your fuel burn , and powerplant maintenance are EXACTLY TWICE that of a single..... Your landing fees and ramp fees are usually twice that of a single , 30% is a naïve estimate .... No, they aren't. I've owned four twins and ten singles over 2,000+ hours and 20+ years of flying so I have more than a little direct, long term knowledge of the issue. I change oil at 25 hours on my turbo singles (almost all of my singles have been turbo, and will be turbos) and 50 hours on normally aspirated engines (most of my twins are normally aspirated). That's a wash. My twins fit in the same hangar as I've kept my singles. That's a wash. Insurance is based almost exclusively on hull value at this point in my flying career. That's a wash. Twins burn more fuel in climb and cruise, true, but they also climb at a MUCH greater rate and cruise faster so the fuel per given trip is about 30% more. Normally aspirated engines, even two of them aren't tremendously more to overhaul than one turbo single. I've never paid a landing fee in my life and while it may be true that overnight fees are 50% higher in a twin, we're talking $15/night versus $10/night - not breaking the bank there. Since I've actually been there and done that with both singles and twins, I feel confident in my 30% differential - at least for singles and twins that I've actually owned and flown. 1 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.