Looking at a C, PPI question

[chriscalandro]

1 hour ago, M20Doc said:

Time to grow up a bit.

Clarence

Filed in the same drawer.

The majority of the posts I've seen from you are making criticisms about airplanes totally out of the context of the topic.  Making comments to questions nobody asked.

Edited March 12, 2019 by chriscalandro

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Wrench978 said:

I appreciate all of the input here.  I have decided to move on from this particular plane.  too many red flags to make it even worth taking the next step.  The logs have been informative though.  the "recent gear donuts, tank reseal, big money annual 150 hours ago" being 11 years ago is a joke... aren't pucks only supposed to be good for 10-15 years?  hopefully you guys will tolerate me posting a few more planes as I keep searching.  I value opinions from people who know far more than I.

You’re welcome Nate,

Everyone here is generally helpful, no one wants to see a bad decision made on an airplane.  Knowing what you’re looking for, people will keep an eye open for you.

Clarence

[chriscalandro]

There is a value in finding a generally working airframe with the goal of updating and making it what you want. As long as the bones are good. 

Hoping someone has already done the work to build your airplane is a nice idea, but a bit unrealistic unless you get lucky. 

[Cth6]

Thanks for all of the input.  I am in a similar boat, buying my first Mooney, and posts like this are very helpful learning the nuances to buying a Mooney.  Much not too different from buying any plane, but definitely some item that are mooney-centric.

[cliffy]

I will admit taking "do you feel lucky" out of context and ascribing it to Clint rather than the obvious Kenny. Non the less, the connection to "well do ya punk" is more direct than "knowing when to fold'um"  :-) :-) :-)

I've never used a military structure repair manual. Never seen one in the flesh. I suppose if 43.13 was followed and the surface balances all right it could be determined to be OK with nothing I know of in printed form to the contrary.  Never thought of it that way.  I've also never seen a Mooney Structures repair manual, if there is such a thing? I've seen Boeing and others though.  

I had a discussion with Mooney many years ago about patches to elevators and they were adamant about no repairs. 

Learn something new every day I guess.  

[ragedracer1977]

21 minutes ago, chriscalandro said:

There is a value in finding a generally working airframe with the goal of updating and making it what you want. As long as the bones are good. 

Hoping someone has already done the work to build your airplane is a nice idea, but a bit unrealistic unless you get lucky. 

This is true, but you need to be realistic about it.  You can spend $30k on a plane with nothing you want and spend $50k getting it about to where you like it.  Or you can spend $50k on a plane that has almost everything you want and spend $20k making it amazing.  

Which plane was a better deal?

 

[Marauder]

There is a value in finding a generally working airframe with the goal of updating and making it what you want. As long as the bones are good. 
Hoping someone has already done the work to build your airplane is a nice idea, but a bit unrealistic unless you get lucky. 

I think this is where you are missing the point from the OP. He wants a plane to fly, not do what you are doing.





A “handyman” special works for people who can deal with the down time and have the means and skills to bring the plane back. This isn’t one of those owners.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Wrench978]

10 minutes ago, Marauder said:

 

I think this is where you are missing the point from the OP. He wants a plane to fly, not do what you are doing.

(Snip)

A “handyman” special works for people who can deal with the down time and have the means and skills to bring the plane back. This isn’t one of those owners.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

@Marauder, you are right with that... I love working on stuff, and wouldn’t mind a project at some point, but whatever I buy at this stage is to fly around the Caribbean. Not work on out on the ramp. 

[chriscalandro]

I remember that post. Everyone freaked out about all the "corrosion" which is actually just crapily applied sealant. 

Which is exactly my point. 

My airplane has been working about to be pretty decent, and I'm into it about the same money as the OP. 

If I had posted that picture and didn't know what it was I would have totally freaked out. Which goes back to my point of not knowing what it truely is until you have a look at it. That leak took about half an afternoon and some extra sealant from a friend. 

[chriscalandro]

Also that second picture isnt me. It's a picture I found on the internet to point to the piece of scat.

Edited March 12, 2019 by chriscalandro

[DXB]

2 hours ago, TX-Champ said:

A Mooney isn't a good first airplane due to the age and added complexity of the systems.  A better choice to get used to the maintenance responsibilities and cost of ownership (upkeep, hangar, insurance, etc.) is a more basic airplane like a solid 172 or Cherokee.  You can always move up to a Mooney later...  

Problem is - the first time you fly a Mooney, it's hard to even look at that lousy Cherokee that you trained in though you originally planned to buy something similar.  A little learning in the deep end was not such a bad thing for me in the end, though it certainly had its exasperating moments in the first few months.  

[Hank]

2 hours ago, TX-Champ said:

A Mooney isn't a good first airplane due to the age and added complexity of the systems.  A better choice to get used to the maintenance responsibilities and cost of ownership (upkeep, hangar, insurance, etc.) is a more basic airplane like a solid 172 or Cherokee.  You can always move up to a Mooney later...  

But having a Mooney as a first plane has worked out well for a number of us. I bought mine with 62 Cessna hours in my logbook . . . And still love flying it 12 years later. There's an awful lot of work in buying and selling ine airplane before buying the one you want. So I bought my first plane that did what I want to do, within reasonable limits.

[gsxrpilot]

2 hours ago, TX-Champ said:

A Mooney isn't a good first airplane due to the age and added complexity of the systems.  A better choice to get used to the maintenance responsibilities and cost of ownership (upkeep, hangar, insurance, etc.) is a more basic airplane like a solid 172 or Cherokee.  You can always move up to a Mooney later...  

Ok, I'll disagree.

I've only owned two airplanes. Both of them Mooneys. There is a cost associated with owning airplanes and I'm glad I didn't waste any of it on a 172 or a Cherokee. Those are good planes for someone else to own and me to rent. 

One only needs to get properly educated, which in the age of the Internet can be done for free. And have a realistic budget. Which will come as part of the aforementioned education. With those two done, a Mooney is an excellent first airplane.

The one and only pet peeve I have is people who say Mooneys are too difficult/advanced for ____________ to fly. And likewise when people claim they're too advanced/complicated for __________ to own. In doing so, you're making judgements about people you know nothing about and are also making the assumption that you are superior to said person as well. 

We're not landing F35's on a carrier here. It's just a simple piston single. Easy to fly and easy to own. And everyone should have the opportunity to enjoy it as much as I do.

[Hank]

7 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

. . . . everyone should have the opportunity to enjoy it as much as I do.

Cool! Please send me 100 hours.     Or your fuel card. I promise not to go over . . .

[MikeOH]

5 hours ago, TX-Champ said:

There's a lot of good advice here but I'll add something else that hopefully won't upset too many Mooney owners.  I've owned 9 airplanes over more than 25 years and currently have my second Mooney.

A Mooney isn't a good first airplane due to the age and added complexity of the systems.  A better choice to get used to the maintenance responsibilities and cost of ownership (upkeep, hangar, insurance, etc.) is a more basic airplane like a solid 172 or Cherokee.  You can always move up to a Mooney later...  

 

 

 

Hmm, not upset, and I kinda get what you're saying, but...here's a different perspective to consider:

Many of us, for sure myself, are unlikely to own 9 airplanes in our lives.  I've always liked Mooneys for the 40 years I've been a pilot.  Always wanted one; rented one for nearly a decade.  Finally got to a point in life where I could squander my money on my own plane...so, my first plane is a Mooney.

I think it's not so much of 'getting used to the maintenance' as it is making sure you buy a plane that isn't going to require an inordinate amount of maintenance (i.e., screwing up and buying a dog!).

Buying a 'simple' single like a Cherokee just lessens the amount you'll be out if you buy a dog, that's all

IOW, don't buy a 'starter' plane over the fear of maintenance if it's not what you really want.  The 'move up to a Mooney later' costs (both $$ and hassle) are not to be ignored as insignificant.

[Wrench978]

What are people's thoughts on M20G's? I found what looks like a decent example that would be in my price range.  810 SMOH in 2005, but 300+ in the last 3 years.  Basic IFR, Stec 40.  new interior 5 years ago.  paint is weak.

[MikeOH]

1 hour ago, Wrench978 said:

What are people's thoughts on M20G's? I found what looks like a decent example that would be in my price range.  810 SMOH in 2005, but 300+ in the last 3 years.  Basic IFR, Stec 40.  new interior 5 years ago.  paint is weak.

I REALLY like the recent use!  If you are going to tie down instead of hangar, maybe the weak paint is actually an advantage (I'd hate to put a plane with nice new paint outside!).  Just make sure the paint isn't peeling/flaking off.  Nothing wrong with a G; I would have considered one but they are not as common.  I have a PowerFlow on my F and no issues, but since it was on the plane when I bought I can't comment on any performance differences, however.  Also, very happy with my STEC-30.

[cliffy]

There is nothing wrong with a G unless you factor in the turned up noses of some because it has the reputation of being the slowest of the Mooney fleet (by a few knots-big deal- so what). All the same caveats apply as to any other Mooney purchase.

You can get a lot of good flying out of a G model. 

[gsxrpilot]

With the budget stated, I think a G is a great option. 

You'll be most happy with a well maintained, regularly flown, and properly equipped Mooney, regardless of the model.

When I was shopping for my first Mooney, I was looking for an E. I had the budget for a cheap and suspect E or a top of the line C. I really wanted the E but bought the C instead and it was the absolute correct decision. I put 400 trouble free hours on that C. 

So if the budget allows for a nice G or a low end C, you'll be much happier with the G.

[Wrench978]

14 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

I REALLY like the recent use!  If you are going to tie down instead of hangar, maybe the weak paint is actually an advantage (I'd hate to put a plane with nice new paint outside!).  Just make sure the paint isn't peeling/flaking off.  Nothing wrong with a G; I would have considered one but they are not as common.  I have a PowerFlow on my F and no issues, but since it was on the plane when I bought I can't comment on any performance differences, however.  Also, very happy with my STEC-30.

The recent use is the reason I’m not concerned at all about the age of the engine. If there were going to be issues from sitting, they would have shown up by now.  I’ll have to check on the useful load. I agree about the paint. I’d hate to put a pretty paint job out on a tie down. I can always look into painting it when I move/find a hangar. 

[Prior owner]

17 hours ago, chriscalandro said:

That leak took about half an afternoon and some extra sealant from a friend.

 

 

How in the world did you manage to remove the fuel tank top access panels, clean/prep them, then remove old sealant from the leaking area(s) of the tank, apply sealant, then let that cure to the point that you can recoat with 3600, then apply access panel sealant and reinstall the panels all in one half afternoon? I am too embarrassed to admit how long this horrible chore took me

Edited March 12, 2019 by PilotCoyote

[chriscalandro]

7 hours ago, PilotCoyote said:

That leak took about half an afternoon and some extra sealant from a friend.

 

 

How in the world did you manage to remove the fuel tank top access panels, clean/prep them, then remove old sealant from the leaking area(s) of the tank, apply sealant, then let that cure to the point that you can recoat with 3600, then apply access panel sealant and reinstall the panels all in one half afternoon? I am too embarrassed to admit how long this horrible chore took me

The short answer is just added more sealant and used a spare cover I had. Planning on stripping and resealing both tanks after this summer. 

It was an incredibly small leak. 

I am always watching around for things Luke covers and panels I can get cheap to make life easier. There are a ton of old mooneys getting parted out and panels and bits and bobs are cheap. 

Edited March 13, 2019 by chriscalandro