Mcstealth Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 Richard has a new listing for an 'F' model on his sight. I have talked to him about it already, but I would like you guys opinion please. No flames about Richard or his site please, just the plane. http://www.mooneyland.com/1968_m20f.htm Thanks David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSMooniac Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 Looks like a solid plane, but perhaps priced a little high IMO. For that price (and the engine time) I would expect a modernized/standard layout panel. But, it has nice equipment installed and cosmetics looks good from the pics. No mention of fuel tank status. Also no mention if the autopilot has a GPSS module or not. The 3-blade prop is a detraction on a 4-cylinder Mooney IMO too, but at least there isn't an AD. If you're in the market then I'd go look at it since it is close! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eaglebkh Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 I agree, nice-looking bird, but it appears like they have taken the value of the new equipment (530, 340, elec. AI) and added it directly to the value of the plane. In reality, you should add ~1/2 the value of the upgrades to the overall value of the plane. Quote: KSMooniac The 3-blade prop is a detraction on a 4-cylinder Mooney IMO So is orange paint... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSMooniac Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 Quote: eaglebkh Quote: KSMooniac The 3-blade prop is a detraction on a 4-cylinder Mooney IMO So is orange paint... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
podair Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 Quote: KSMooniac The 3-blade prop is a detraction on a 4-cylinder Mooney IMO So is orange paint... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurboExec Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 Not bad, but there are better deals out there for that kind of money...IMO High time engine (doesn't mention date of overhaul), and panel layout hurt it. But if you are in the market it is worth taking a closer look at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m20exec Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 If this is a clean and well maintained F the "asking" price may not be that far off considering the the low airframe time and better than average avionics. The one offered on Ebay appears low with all the speed mods, but with a damage history of two gear ups and double the AFT a buyer might be trading a few knots and aesthtetics for other major headaches down the road. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mooney217RN Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 Actually looks like a good buy. Here's some things to consider however - get compressions off all 4 cylinders. If any are below 72, you have new cylinders to buy. The 3 blade prop is pretty, but...be forwarned that it throws off the balance on a 4 cylinder engine. The only 3 blader that works is the MT composite. A few other matters to look at - when was the engine overhauled? Beyond 12 years, and you must do an oil analysis, pull the screen, and search for wear/tear. A/D on the yokes/control tubes. The tubes must be inspected at the yoke mount for signs of wear and/or cracking. Finally, fuel selector valve is another item to look at for servicing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fantom Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 Good advise from all. For that kind of $, you could have an older J with some fair equipment. In any event, if you are serious about this plane, invest in a good PPI, up to a full annual (saving some bucks). I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole without one. Don Maxwell, in Longview is not to far, and he knows these older planes better than anyone. http://www.donmaxwell.com/ Rich himself tells you "As always; it is up to the buyer to verify condition, equipment, and times." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m20exec Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 Quote: Mooney217RN Actually looks like a good buy. Here's some things to consider however - get compressions off all 4 cylinders. If any are below 72, you have new cylinders to buy. The 3 blade prop is pretty, but...be forwarned that it throws off the balance on a 4 cylinder engine. The only 3 blader that works is the MT composite. A few other matters to look at - when was the engine overhauled? Beyond 12 years, and you must do an oil analysis, pull the screen, and search for wear/tear. A/D on the yokes/control tubes. The tubes must be inspected at the yoke mount for signs of wear and/or cracking. Finally, fuel selector valve is another item to look at for servicing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triple8s Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 Wow! That F on Ebay looks awfully tempting, my "C" is in for an annual and I havent been in the air in 3 weeks. Anyone got any lines I could use on the wife to convince her why I need 2 airplanes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgePerry Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 Quote: m20exec Although I've heard anecdotal stories of remorse with 3 bladed props on pre 201's , it's our understanding that the "balance" was referring to the added forward CG of the aircraft from the increased weight of a 3 blade rather than an engine/prop balance which seems to be suggested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m20exec Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 George, As you have said, there are some who regret installing a 3 blade and others who seem to be content if not pleased with the performance, which indicates to us that this issue is more complex than I've heard it presented. It would be difficult to imagine Hartzell or any other company designing and STCing a propellor if they believed it was problematic and it's likely the aircraft used for testing may have not shown these issues. Until I hear an explaination which might explain the varying reports, I can only assume there are many unique variables in play such as engine timing, cylinder and flow balancing, the exhaust system, dynamic balancing and possibly some other suspects such as cowling. and rigging. It would be interesting to know more information about the planes that experienced these vibrations vs the ones who don't experience this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seth Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 I have a three blade propeller with about 130 hours on it and the engine has about 170 hours (factory reman). They are both very smooth and I have been told by Tom and Freeway Aviation (Mooney Service Center) that is one of the smoothest running 3 blade propellers he has ever converted on a 200 HP Mooney. There are a lot of vibration issues out there, I'm lucky in that my plane is not one of them. Some don't work, mine does. If you are close by to the potential purchase aircraft, a test flight would determine if there is an issue. Ask Zef about it, he may let you know if there is a vibration or not. With only 25 hours since the prop conversion, he may not have flown it that much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eaglebkh Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Hearing all you 2-bladers comment about 3-bladers is like all the non-Mooney owners talking about the myths of Mooneys - small cockpit, hard to land, etc. Are 2-blade props free from balancing/vibration issues? Of course not - any prop can develop a vibration. But I haven't had any issues with mine. Also, my 3-blade McCaulley only weighs 13 pounds more than the original Hartzell (68 lbs vs. 55 lbs, according to the W&B entry in the logbook). No cg balancing issue there - especially after getting a SkyTec starter. That basically puts the cg back to near the original position and negates the added weight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MooneyPilot231 Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 I wish the flying public understood just how meaningless the differential compression test on aircraft really are. The difference between a reading of 72 and 65 means nothing. Either of those readings could indicate a healthy cylinder or one that has problems. Having built and tested high end racing engines for a number of years where I performed compression and leak down test almost daily, I can tell you the the differential compression test used on aircraft is almost worthless. You would have to have a serious engine condition for it show up on a differential compression test and if you had a problem that big it would be evident in other ways. Turbo charged engines like mine have to run much larger ring gaps due to the cyl. head temps. It is nearly impossible to get the cylinder head temps anywhere near normal on the ground and by the time you get to the 2nd or 3rd cylinder the engine has "unsealed" signficantly due to cooling. Oil consumption and the ability to make proper manifold pressure are a much better indication of engine condition than differential compression. A number of aircraft experts have written articles stating at length what I just said and with a little work on a search engine you can probably locate those articles. Good luck on your search for your Mooney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N207LS Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 This looks like a nice airplane and seems to be priced about right for the condition and the avionics (ie. 530). The 530/330 combo is about $15k installed in a Mooney. Most likely the STEC 20 does not have the GPSS option on it. An Aspen would fix that though, as well as clean up the instrument cluster (about $12k installed). The lack of speed mods is really my only major issue with this F model, I would have expected at least some mods... I would also want to insure that the tanks have been recently resealed (or plan accordingly). To compare it to the one on Ebay (which has all of the great mods) you really need to figure out the value of the 530/330/audio panel package. Also on ebay they disclose a fuel leak smell... Finally the overall condition of the one on ebay really does not seem to compare to this F. The earlier comment about being able to buy an older J for this price is about right, but that same older J will not have the 530W and traffic option at that price. Personally, I fly a 1968 G model with lots of mods and a 530 W with the 330. In my opinion, the 330/530 combo is absolutely the best investment that I have ever made in my plane (although I am now looking seriously at an Aspen too). If you fly, or plan on flying, much IFR, then this combo is worth every penny. The manual gear is just an extra plus... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mcstealth Posted May 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 Thanks everyone for your opinions. Well thought out and presented. How was that for some brown nosing?? Anyway, the plane is not far from me at all and I will be down there some time next week to give it a quick visual. Thanks David 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.