New Member - Need Trusted Advice

[Oscar Avalle]

To add my two cents to an already very rich discussion. I believe that the key issue is the airplane you chose. Some Mooneys will be in better shape and require less maintenance than a 182 and others more if they have not been well maintained. I have owned my Mooney for now 16 years and my dispatch rate of the airplane has been good. Of course, there has been the occasion on which I wanted to fly somewhere and I arrived at the airport to notice that my battery was dead, or that something else was not working well. But these have been the exceptions. As a rule, I can rely on my Mooney , I believe as much as I could rely on a 182, or a Bonanza. The main issue is how much TLC you invest in our planes. Let's be clear on something they are 40 to 50 years old... If nobody invested in a plane for 10 years, you can not expect it to be in top shape, regardless of the brand and the chances of something not working well will be high. 

[Aviationinfo]

Lots of really good advice on this thread.

I would add that it’s important to try to find an airplane that hasn’t simply been sitting around.  There are too many airplanes that hardly fly at all between annual inspections.  Due to camshaft placement, these Lycomings will develop rust (after the oil drains into the sump after shutdown) which will cause problems down the road, and there’s no way to examine the cam without removing cylinders.  Most owners will probably not agree to such an invasive process simply for an inspection.  Lycoming has advice on how much an engine needs to be flown at a minimum in order to burn the moisture out of the oil.  It’s on the order of 45 minutes at normal operating oil temperature, at 10 day intervals—-or something like that.   The key takeaway is that ground running does not satisfy the requirement because the oil doesn’t get hot enough to burn the moisture out.  It simply circulates the existing moisture throughout the engine.  

I shoot for a minimum of 50 hours a year myself, but there are no hard numbers.  If a seller has taken steps to mitigate the effects of inactivity (using antirust storage oil/ Camguard/ an air circulation apparatus/or etc) then at least you have a fighting chance of some improved longevity.  

I completely agree that it’s cheaper to buy an airplane that has already  been modded with a panel and paint that you can tolerate, but if I had to prioritize I would place the relative activity of the airplane and preventive maintenance history  ahead of those. I would rather buy an engine with higher time that flew regularly than one with lower time that flew infrequently.  Part 91 owners are not required to overhaul their engines at TBO.

Are you planning to have partners, or are you buying it solo?  That will help you determine how much if anything you are willing to spend on the panel and paint, if necessary.  

PS:  A C-182 is a fine airplane, but it flies like a truck because it was designed for a different mission than the Mooney.  And there is an expensive AD out for some manufacturer’s cylinders on the O-470 IIRC.  There was a recent one on the O-360 as well, it seems it only applies to engines overhauled within a fairly small window during 2015/16.  I’ll try to look for it or hopefully someone else can remember.  (Once I discovered it didn't apply to my engine I stopped worrying about it.)

Enjoy your search! 

Edited April 9, 2018 by Aviationinfo

[MBDiagMan]

19 hours ago, Guitarmaster said:

J-bar chrome coming off... not a big deal

Fuel tank panel... looks like an ugly repair, but if not leaking.  I would want to know specifics.

The lack of time spent to mask the pucks when the gear was painted would bug me.  In my head, I would be thinking, what else was cheaped-out on?  

It's probably a fine airplane, but.... 

Some food for thought:

What kind of condition was the owner's car in?  How about the hanger?  It sounds silly, but our approach to aircraft maintenance largely mirrors our maintenance on our vehicles.  If I was in the market and the owner showed up in a dirty car with trash all over the interior, I would be questioning their meticulousness in the care of the airplane.  Not saying the two are always synonymous, but most of time they are.

Flip-side; if I was trying to sell my plane, I have it polished and vacuumed with all the logs at hand and organized. 

Are you looking at this one because of price, or because it fits your mission?  An airframe is just a container for the engine and avionics.  I wish I had spent more up front to get the panel I wanted.  

Do yourself a favor and look at several more before making a decision.   Get a feel for the different owners' pride of ownership.   You can tell a lot from a simple phone call.   Also, find all of the copies of the model you are looking at and run a spreadsheet of purchase cost of each.  Remove the high and the low then average the prices.  This is probably the best way to price an airplane.  Once you get the mean price, add or subtract for condition.

Good luck and welcome to Mooneyspace!

Although. I generally agree with this, the cleanliness of ones car or airplane does not necessarily indicate how well the airplane is maintained in ways that really count.  I will let a little clutter accumulate in the backseat and baggage hold and even sometimes have more bugs on my airplanes than other folks.  I do, however, watch things closely, see that everything works, oil and filter is changed regularly, watch for leaks and fix them ASAP, etc.,

When I grew up, my Dad owned and operated an independent auto repair facility and I ended up a knowledgeable car guy.  With that background I have observed lots of cars and how they are cared for.  I have seen MANY cars that are kept washed and waxed and cosmetically look wonderful, but when you see how they are mechanically maintained you realize that they are not a car you would want for your own.  Many airplanes and vehicles that are kept nice cosmetically are also tended to properly mechanically, but,.... not always.  Make sure you inspect closely beneath the skin.

Remember, beauty only goes skin deep.  That’s why there is lots of inspection on airplanes BENEATH the skin where it counts.

[ValkyrieRider]

21 hours ago, Guitarmaster said:

J-bar chrome coming off... not a big deal

Fuel tank panel... looks like an ugly repair, but if not leaking.  I would want to know specifics.

The lack of time spent to mask the pucks when the gear was painted would bug me.  In my head, I would be thinking, what else was cheaped-out on?  

It's probably a fine airplane, but.... 

Some food for thought:

What kind of condition was the owner's car in?  How about the hanger?  It sounds silly, but our approach to aircraft maintenance largely mirrors our maintenance on our vehicles.  If I was in the market and the owner showed up in a dirty car with trash all over the interior, I would be questioning their meticulousness in the care of the airplane.  Not saying the two are always synonymous, but most of time they are.

Flip-side; if I was trying to sell my plane, I have it polished and vacuumed with all the logs at hand and organized. 

Are you looking at this one because of price, or because it fits your mission?  An airframe is just a container for the engine and avionics.  I wish I had spent more up front to get the panel I wanted.  

Do yourself a favor and look at several more before making a decision.   Get a feel for the different owners' pride of ownership.   You can tell a lot from a simple phone call.   Also, find all of the copies of the model you are looking at and run a spreadsheet of purchase cost of each.  Remove the high and the low then average the prices.  This is probably the best way to price an airplane.  Once you get the mean price, add or subtract for condition.

Good luck and welcome to Mooneyspace!

 

Wow, I almost feel like I should be paying for this advise.  THANK YOU, I understand and agree with all.

[ValkyrieRider]

19 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

Just a couple of quick points. You've already gotten some great advice here.

I don't think you mentioned what your budget is? It might be counterintuitive but the best "deal" you'll find on a vintage airplane, will be the nicest one you can find. For example, the best financial deal you'll find on an M20C will be the best equipped, best cared for, and possibly the most expensive one listed for sale. If you're looking at an M20C because it's a "good price" you're probably looking at the wrong one.  I'd want to spend between $45K and $55K for an M20C. That should buy you the nicest one for sale anywhere in the country. Which over the course of the first year, will likely turn out to be the best financial deal.

Second... I agree you don't want to spend the money on a pre-buy for an obviously poor candidate. There are several Mooney owners on this forum that live in Phoenix. I'd ask them to go look at the plane with you. If you need a flight physical, go see Dr Chuck Crinnian in Scottsdale http://www.aviationdoc.net/about.html. He's a VERY knowledgeable and long time Mooney owner. He might be convinced to take a look at it with you.

 

Thank you for the advice, and my price range is adjusting as I am seeing that some of the lower cost Mooneys, and priced that way for a reason.  45K - 55K is within the range I believe will meet my needs.  Just completed medical with Dr. Dykama in Scottsdale - she is a pilot (not sure what she drives), she was outstanding but will keep Dr. Crinnian in mind.

[Cruiser]

Maybe you can find your way to becoming a supporter? This  site has many and varied backgrounds that offer their inputs, it may not be long before you can add to the wisdom of this group.

 

I just saw that this is my 2000th. post. Thank you MooneySpace .

[ValkyrieRider]

17 hours ago, SantosDumont said:

You didn't say what your price range was but I bought my Mooney 2 years ago for a very similar mission.  From what I've learned over the past 2 years is buy the nicest plane that you can afford.  Don't settle for flying junk around that is going to cost $$$ to fix, or think that you will upgrade it later.  It will cost 2x the price of the plane to upgrade it.

If you are planning to use the plane for IFR, then buy a plane that already has a WAAS GPS.  Extra points if it already has ADS-B.  The three things I was looking for my first airplane:

1. Johnson bar (don't want to have to deal with electric gear failure)
2. GPS
3. Autopilot

Those three things on a M20C you're probably looking at $50k, maybe $55 if its super nice and has been hangared all its life.

The other piece of advice I can give you is think of how much money you are planning on spending in maintenance per year on the plane.  Triple that number.  That is the real number and what it takes to fly a 50 year old plane around and keep it airworthy.

 

I am so IMPRESSED with the rapid and valuable responses that this group of Mooney flyers provides.  Thank you.  

[Guitarmaster]

Although. I generally agree with this, the cleanliness of ones car or airplane does not necessarily indicate how well the airplane is maintained in ways that really count.  I will let a little clutter accumulate in the backseat and baggage hold and even sometimes have more bugs on my airplanes than other folks.  I do, however, watch things closely, see that everything works, oil and filter is changed regularly, watch for leaks and fix them ASAP, etc.,
When I grew up, my Dad owned and operated an independent auto repair facility and I ended up a knowledgeable car guy.  With that background I have observed lots of cars and how they are cared for.  I have seen MANY cars that are kept washed and waxed and cosmetically look wonderful, but when you see how they are mechanically maintained you realize that they are not a car you would want for your own.  Many airplanes and vehicles that are kept nice cosmetically are also tended to properly mechanically, but,.... not always.  Make sure you inspect closely beneath the skin.
Remember, beauty only goes skin deep.  That’s why there is lots of inspection on airplanes BENEATH the skin where it counts.

Like I said, it's not a hard-and-fast rule, it's just another part of the equation.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[ValkyrieRider]

42 minutes ago, Cruiser said:

Maybe you can find your way to becoming a supporter? This  site has many and varied backgrounds that offer their inputs, it may not be long before you can add to the wisdom of this group.

 

I just saw that this is my 2000th. post. Thank you MooneySpace .

 

I will need to do that, as the responsiveness of this group, and more importantly, the tremendous advice is amazing.

[KLRDMD]

1 hour ago, ValkyrieRider said:

Just completed medical with Dr. Dykama in Scottsdale - she is a pilot (not sure what she drives), she was outstanding but will keep Dr. Crinnian in mind.

Chuck's a great guy, I've been going to him for years.

[bonal]

10 hours ago, MyNameIsNobody said:

Really Paul?  Really?  I understand you have a strong opinion on this but walking away from an otherwise solid airframe is not good advise.  You gave your opinion, I have given mine.  Nothing personal beyond a difference in opinion.

I think you both have a point and the OP did mention the IFR but in support of Scott's opinion as a VFR pilot with no intention or need for the ins rate the items that GXR considered essential don't fit my mission needs and you can always improve a solid airframe but a great panel is of little use when you find a corroded spar.  As is mentioned many times on similar threads it's all about a balance of mission and budget.  Good luck in your search.

[gsxrpilot]

6 hours ago, bonal said:

I think you both have a point and the OP did mention the IFR but in support of Scott's opinion as a VFR pilot with no intention or need for the ins rate the items that GXR considered essential don't fit my mission needs and you can always improve a solid airframe but a great panel is of little use when you find a corroded spar.  As is mentioned many times on similar threads it's all about a balance of mission and budget.  Good luck in your search.

Have I ever suggested an upgraded panel was preferential to a corroded spar? 

Corrosion is a deal breaker, full stop. No one intentionally buys a Mooney with corrosion. And anyone who buys a Mooney without doing all the due diligence possible on corrosion is a fool. Certainly shit happens. Ask me how I know. And a full and detailed pre-buy at the best MSC in the country is no iron clad guarantee of a corrosion free airplane. But please don't think I'm placing panel over corrosion. That is a gross mischaracterization and a bit insulting.

But assuming a clean and well maintained airframe, an WAAS moving map GPS and proper autopilot, (Stec30 or better), is a much better value than a plane without. Sure if you don't ever intend to fly IFR, you don't need it. But when you go to sell, you'll be looking for another pilot who's not interested in IFR flying. For Mooney customers, that's a small group. I've also spoken with plenty of Mooney pilots who initially thought they'd never fly IFR, but after getting an airplane that is such a great cross country machine, they've now changed their minds. 

The cost to add a WAAS GPS and Autopilot to a C, D, E, or F will cost 4x over the purchase of the same aircraft with the equipment already installed. 

 

[Guest]

Sounds like it’s time for a poll, how many members here are instrument rated and fly in actual IMC?  How many fly just VFR are happy doing so?

Clarence

[ArtVandelay]

Sounds like it’s time for a poll, how many members here are instrument rated and fly in actual IMC?  How many fly just VFR are happy doing so?
Clarence

Probably should note the models...I’d bet almost all turbo drivers fly IFR, and vintage would have the largest % of VFR.

[Hank]

3 hours ago, M20Doc said:

Sounds like it’s time for a poll, how many members here are instrument rated and fly in actual IMC?  How many fly just VFR are happy doing so?

Clarence

I fly my electric C in actual IMC, sometimes for the entire trip. G430W, Brittain AccuFlite & AccuTrak.

[Skates97]

12 hours ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

Mooneys make damn fine VFR cross country flyers, I might add. I’ve been doing it with my former USAF pilot and navigator dad since 1982 and as a PPL since 1991; coast to coast and always hand flown. Some folks’ personal minimum equipment lists are almost comical to me.  All it takes is a little scheduling flexibility and knowing when to say when. 

Mine has no autopilot and no GPS other than the tablet on the yoke, it is not IFR equipped either. But, it was what I was looking for as a VFR cross country flyer and has served me well so far. Hand flying these planes is a joy if they are rigged right, even on long trips. 

[ArtVandelay]

Amen!  Same here. 
Hand flying VFR in a minimally equipped plane frees you from the panel envy that the guys who fly instruments constantly struggle with, lets you focus on airmanship if that is your passion, and over time is a big money saver.

I can save you even more money...sell the airplane.

[KLRDMD]

1 hour ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

I’m not as convinced as some here are, either, that your typical 50 or 75 hour a year private pilot who flies instruments is any safer. 

I believe they are safer, but maybe not for the seasons some think. By virtue of obtaining an instrument rating they are safer (overall and generically speaking) simply because they've had formal, recognized and calibrated training that makes them more precise and with a greater knowledge base regarding many different aspects of piloting. 

[gsxrpilot]

I think we're all in violent agreement here. There are lots of ways a pilot might be less safe than other pilots. There are lots of variables such as personality, attention span, hours per year, recency of experience, to basic hand eye coordination, etc. We're all different in ways that are out of our control. 

But I think we would all agree that training is good. And more training is better. And a pilot who holds an Instrument rating has had more/different training than one who hasn't.

There are exceptions of course, someone might be VFR only but have hundreds of hours of formation training, or other training. But in general Instrument pilots have more training than VFR only pilots.

Those of us who are instrument pilots understand that there seems to be a misconception that IFR pilots are flying in dangerous weather and shooting approaches to minimums and that is therefore inherently more dangerous. When in actuality, using myself as an example, I fly in IMC regularly. But I rarely, maybe once per year, get an actual approach that could even qualify for currency. I have to get my 6+1 under the hood just because as an amateur pilot I can't find enough "weather" to stay current in actual IMC. So the reality the vast majority of my flying is in very easy and safe weather, I'm just doing it with more training.

[MIm20c]

12 minutes ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

Agreed completely.  More training is definitely better. Only a fool would argue otherwise.

The fact is, though, that the average private pilot flies very little. I flew 82 hours last year, and as little as that is I am confident that the national average is even less and I doubt many at my homedrome flew more. That was my point.  Unless you are flying a lot you are probably better off in VMC, and in VMC there are very few real instrument panel must-haves.

Jim

In my area of the country there can be multiple days with low lying clouds that are ifr to mvfr type days.  I purchased my Mooney to save at most an hour on a long trip.  To postpone a trip multiple days or scud run makes no sense to me.  If I’m not flying enough in the future to keep current vfr/ifr or otherwise the plane will be listed for sale.

[bonal]

11 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

Have I ever suggested an upgraded panel was preferential to a corroded spar? 

Corrosion is a deal breaker, full stop. No one intentionally buys a Mooney with corrosion. And anyone who buys a Mooney without doing all the due diligence possible on corrosion is a fool. Certainly shit happens. Ask me how I know. And a full and detailed pre-buy at the best MSC in the country is no iron clad guarantee of a corrosion free airplane. But please don't think I'm placing panel over corrosion. That is a gross mischaracterization and a bit insulting.

But assuming a clean and well maintained airframe, an WAAS moving map GPS and proper autopilot, (Stec30 or better), is a much better value than a plane without. Sure if you don't ever intend to fly IFR, you don't need it. But when you go to sell, you'll be looking for another pilot who's not interested in IFR flying. For Mooney customers, that's a small group. I've also spoken with plenty of Mooney pilots who initially thought they'd never fly IFR, but after getting an airplane that is such a great cross country machine, they've now changed their minds. 

The cost to add a WAAS GPS and Autopilot to a C, D, E, or F will cost 4x over the purchase of the same aircraft with the equipment already installed. 

 

No I never suggested you would suggest or purchase an airplane with corrosion all I'm saying is if someone finds a solid airframe and engine a panel can be improved upon, In fact there are lots of folks here that have been doing just that even though they are well aware they will never recover the investment.  Plus one can look at a simple panel as a blank canvas that can now be improved exactly the way they want not almost or good enough but exactly.  As I said its a balance of mission and budget.  And since I did not do all due diligence on ours I could take offense that you would call me a fool, I don't I just didn't know then what I know now.  You know I have a ton of respect for you Paul we just have different missions,  expectations and means that we apply to our passion for flight. 

One of the things I like most about Mooney Space is that most folks here have way more knowledge and experience than me so I get the benefit of learning. Sadly I don't really have much that I can bring to the table for others.

[gsxrpilot]

6 hours ago, bonal said:

No I never suggested you would suggest or purchase an airplane with corrosion all I'm saying is if someone finds a solid airframe and engine a panel can be improved upon, In fact there are lots of folks here that have been doing just that even though they are well aware they will never recover the investment.  Plus one can look at a simple panel as a blank canvas that can now be improved exactly the way they want not almost or good enough but exactly.  As I said its a balance of mission and budget.  And since I did not do all due diligence on ours I could take offense that you would call me a fool, I don't I just didn't know then what I know now.  You know I have a ton of respect for you Paul we just have different missions,  expectations and means that we apply to our passion for flight. 

One of the things I like most about Mooney Space is that most folks here have way more knowledge and experience than me so I get the benefit of learning. Sadly I don't really have much that I can bring to the table for others.

I certainly don't mean to be insulting to you or anyone else here. I should probably impose a "no posting after mid-night" rule on myself. This community truly is such a wealth of information and what I've learned from all of you has been priceless. 

I certainly understand different missions, different budgets, and different priorities. But it's painful to see so many on this forum who have passed up the $45K Mooney in favor of a $35K Mooney that has good bones and are now trying to figure out how to upgrade or even just replace/repair simple things like radios, autopilots, gps, etc. and come to the painful realization that it will cost $20K - $30K to do it.

[gsxrpilot]

5 hours ago, David Herman said:

Our old M20Cs (Ds) are one of the best if not the best “bang for the buck” in all of aviation. 

Truth!

5 hours ago, David Herman said:

I don’t agree with all his posts, but ... 

Of course not, I'm a lefty Austin liberal . But I'm glad we can agree on Mooney's! And if you're ever in Austin, you'll have to take my 252 for a spin around the pattern. 

[MyNameIsNobody]

I don’t have small hands.  Thank God because I am only a lowly 800 hour VFR Mooney pilot...

[bradp]

Back to the OP- one piece of airplane search advice is your search by default must be a regional if not national one to find the right plane.  If looking for 172s or PA2Xs you can find something close by - for these planes you need to cast a wide net. 

Long cross county trips of 300nm or more I would highly suggest an autopilot.  Anything else is candy.  Fatigue is a real issue at the end of 2+ hrs of flying.l at altitude with noise etc. An autopilot is a mitigating factor.