Just bought a junk m20c Ranger

[HRM]

6 hours ago, super6 said:

I am a machinist and a electrician , Logic  and Termination are part of what I do for a living.I have access to aluminum and have a shear brake . Cant be that hard.

Pay no attention to the naysayers.

An RV is hardly a Mooney. It boils down to certified vs experimental, go with your gut.

[Johnnybgoode]

No Mooney, I will agree. But in its role my RV-4 takes the Mooney hands down.

Just one opinion though...

[Guest]

56 minutes ago, HRM said:

Pay no attention to the naysayers.

An RV is hardly a Mooney. It boils down to certified vs experimental, go with your gut.

Exactly.  Far too many people over state how difficult Mooney’s are to fly and even harder to maintain!  With skill, time and guidance this Mooney can be restored, as long as the airframe is sound to start with.

Clarence

[gsxrpilot]

6 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

as long as the airframe is sound to start with.

The big question.

[Hank]

Congratulations, @super6! Happy rebuilding! You will need to have a friendly A&P/IA around for a while. But you will certainly stay busy and not be bored as you enter retirement. It will be very satisfying to being this plane back from the brink.

Question:  why are you replacing the engine? If the only problem it has was the gear up, that is repairable for much les than a replacement used engine (which is about half the price of a new one).

Another question:  why get an O-360-A1A? My M20-C has an O-360-A1D in it. Just curious, maybe it was changed over the years. 

[DXB]

Here we have a US veteran who is gutsy enough to  get his pilot's license and simultaneously restore a vintage Mooney.  He should find nothing but help encouragement on this site. None of this RV talk. The '68 C is the best plane ever made in my highly biased opinion .   @super6 keep asking us how we can help every step of the way.  

Edited April 1, 2019 by DXB

[aviatoreb]

How exciting for you!!!

[steingar]

I would suggest one of two ways to the OP.

The first is take some of that cash and go to A&P school.  They'll teach the OP how to do things on airplanes, and if he can pass the test he can legally work on his airplane and anyone else's wherever and whenever he wants.

If the OP is unwilling or unable to do the first, he should run, not walk, away rom this project. Abandon whatever moneys he's spent as lesson learned.  Without the A&P he's going to be thoroughly dependent on one, and unless his bestest drinking buddy who he hangs around with all day is one, its going to get old really, really fast.  Abandon this  project and buy an RV9 kit. The RV9 is awesome airplane, can be built by anyone, can be maintained by the builder, and the OP can use it to learn to fly.

If the OP really wants a challenge buy a set of plans and start building.  Should keep him busy for a decade or two.

[1964-M20E]

Welcome aboard.

How hard can it be?  Not hard but time consuming and tedious.  Keep in mind like others have said you will need an A&P / IA looking over your shoulder.  You seem to have the mechanical skills needed to do the project.  However, make sure the air frame itself is good i.e. no death sentence corrosion.  Also the wings of a Mooney don't just come off like a Cessna.  The Mooney wing is a one piece wing so transportation of a complete airplane on the ground is very challenging.  Hopefully your warehouse is close to an airport.

 

The order that I would proceed is :

1. Airframe - repair, clean, polish paint get controls all working correctly
2. Engine - overhaul / upgrade to 200HP IO360 etc. get firewall forward ready to fly and all engine controls, and accessories on engine
3. Avionics - bare minimum at first to get it in the air and make sure everything else is working fine. (basic 6 pack flight instruments, basic factory engine gauges, 1 NAV/COM and transponder.)
4. Plan you avionics to suit your mission of how you intend to use the plane and while laying out the panel anticipate possibly what someone else or you might want i.e. GPS, engine monitor etc.

Good luck and keep us posted.  Also read the many threads of others bringing planes back form the graveyard.  Lean from their mistakes.

[steingar]

I suggested the RV9 because they were designed to be trainers.  Mooneys are good for lots of things, but primary instruction isn't one of them.  I hate the thought of the OP spending gobs of time and money rebuilding his Mooney only to prang it trying to learn to fly it.  Good luck getting insured to do that by the way.

As far as "how hard can it be"?  Plenty.  The OP's airplane has 7000 parts, most of which aren't even made anymore and can't be replace by a do it yourself mechanism.  Heck, I'd be all over this if there weren't issues of certification involved.

[Sabremech]

Hasn’t N69ZZ been discussed on MS before and quite recently? Isn’t a previous owner also on MS? 

[jaylw314]

On ‎3‎/‎30‎/‎2019 at 11:59 PM, M20F-1968 said:

I would not do the RV thing.  If you want to have more freedom in rebuilding, you can always move it to the experimental class.  I did not do that as I thought it best to keep it all certified.  The Mooney is a much more substantial airplane.  Speeds are similar.  I have never flown a RV but I suspect the Mooney is a more stable instrument platform.  

John Breda

Just saying, I flew in the factory RV-7 and RV-10 demonstrators, and both platforms are very stable.  At speed, neither have stick forces that are particularly light, and they can be flown hands off for a fair amount of time if trimmed off

That being said, I have to admit owning a Mooney is the largest demotivational factor in my RV build...

[super6]

The title to this thread may have been a little misleading,The aircraft has belly rash and  did not come with the engine or prop. I will post pics as soon as I take delivery in a week. I have flown 182s and other highwing aircraft in the past, Just never made time to get The ppl. always with a pilot never solo.

Edited April 1, 2019 by super6

[Guest]

Building a Vans RV isn’t exactly cheap.  These kit prices are less engine, prop, avionics, instruments,  lights, interior etc.

Clarence

[jaylw314]

12 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

Building a Vans RV isn’t exactly cheap.  These kit prices are less engine, prop, avionics, instruments,  lights, interior etc.

Clarence

You figure though, if you outfit an RV-10 it might end up costing within the ballpark of a 252 or Bravo.  Performance would be reasonably close, although that's a bit of apples and oranges since the main motor option is non-turbo.  The benefits at the end would be:

• A new plane
• Instruments and avionics the way you want them
• More choices in your equipment
• The ability to maintain all parts of your plane (here in the US anyway)
• The knowledge of your plane from nose to tail from building it

Of course, I could argue the cons are precisely the same as the above... 

 

[Guest]

If one has the ability to build and safely fly something like an RV10, restoration of a C model should not pose a challenge.

Clarence

[Sabremech]

On 3/31/2019 at 2:59 AM, M20F-1968 said:

 

I would not do the RV thing.  If you want to have more freedom in rebuilding, you can always move it to the experimental class.  I did not do that as I thought it best to keep it all certified.  The Mooney is a much more substantial airplane.  Speeds are similar.  I have never flown a RV but I suspect the Mooney is a more stable instrument platform.  

John Breda

Hi John,

You can’t move a certified aircraft to the experimental category. 

There is the research and development certificate that can temporarily be issued but at some point the aircraft goes back to normal or utility category when the R&D is done. 

I looked into this recently for my airplane and my cowling modifications and found the restrictions weren’t worth the effort or hassle. 

David

[MB65E]

 Well you can take a certified airplane to experimental, it just can’t be an amateur built experimental. It would need to be Experimental Exhibition which has more restrictions than AB aircraft. 

-Matt

[Sabremech]

3 minutes ago, MB65E said:

 Well you can take a certified airplane to experimental, it just can’t be an amateur built experimental. It would need to be Experimental Exhibition which has more restrictions than AB aircraft. 

-Matt

That depends on the aircraft. Typically that’s reserved for former military aircraft that don’t comply to a type certificate or foreign military aircraft.

I personally haven’t seen an aircraft that was certified in the normal or utility category moved to experimental exhibition. Like you said, there’s no real benefit to it but more restrictions. 

David

[EricJ]

4 minutes ago, MB65E said:

 Well you can take a certified airplane to experimental, it just can’t be an amateur built experimental. It would need to be Experimental Exhibition which has more restrictions than AB aircraft. 

-Matt

An acquaintance took his King Air into Experimental category pretty much so he could work on it himself.   He was a little quirky so I don't know whether what he did was entirely recommended or practical or not   He perished in a UH-1 that he had in Experimental Exhibition and that he was also working on himself.  Repeated mast bumping is apparently not a great idea in those.

But, yeah, I think if taking a certified GA airplane into Experimental was practical most of the fleet would have converted by now.

[jaylw314]

33 minutes ago, Sabremech said:

That depends on the aircraft. Typically that’s reserved for former military aircraft that don’t comply to a type certificate or foreign military aircraft.

I personally haven’t seen an aircraft that was certified in the normal or utility category moved to experimental exhibition. Like you said, there’s no real benefit to it but more restrictions. 

David

I don't know anything about the other types of experimental categories, but the main benefit to the amateur-built Experimental category aircraft is the provision to give the builder the authority to maintain and modify the aircraft even if they are not an A&P.  My guess is that all the other types of Experimental category aircraft would still require an A&P to perform those maintenance and modifications.

[Guest]

In Canada we have the “owner maintenance category “ mostly for older un supported types, others are being added from time to time.

Here is the current list.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/regserv/cars/part5-standards-a507sh-1837.htm

Clarence

Edited April 2, 2019 by M20Doc

[Atalla]

5 hours ago, steingar said:

I suggested the RV9 because they were designed to be trainers.  Mooneys are good for lots of things, but primary instruction isn't one of them.  I hate the thought of the OP spending gobs of time and money rebuilding his Mooney only to prang it trying to learn to fly it.  Good luck getting insured to do that by the way.

I know that's the general consensus and it makes sense that students should learn on a slower/more simple platform.  I choose not to listen to that advice and am glad I did.  It made me take everything extremely seriously and really respect the plane.  It did not hinder my training pace and my dedication and intensity to learning motivated my CFI which in turn makes me better - faster.  So as long as the OP understands why his Mooney is known as a bad training platform and is the type that will "rise to the challenge" I think he will be fine.  

Insurance is less about luck and more about compromise.  I initially was insured Liability only/State minimums @ $1700 a year as a 0 hour student pilot.  Fully aware of the financial risk I was taking which made me take everything that much more seriously.

[gsxrpilot]

2 hours ago, M20Doc said:

If one has the ability to build and safely fly something like an RV10, restoration of a C model should not pose a challenge.

The issue is not the ability but the legality. I'm not an A&P or AI but I can order an RV kit tomorrow and build it 100% myself. But doing the same with an M20C requires an agreeable A&P/AI to sign off everything I do, possibly DAR/DER, and FSDO if we run into particularly nasty issues. Building the RV only requires the ability you mention.

Well built RV's also go for 100K to 200K depending on the model. Its unlikely a C will go for much over $50 no matter how nice it is.

[Sabremech]

49 minutes ago, jaylw314 said:

I don't know anything about the other types of experimental categories, but the main benefit to the amateur-built Experimental category aircraft is the provision to give the builder the authority to maintain and modify the aircraft even if they are not an A&P.  My guess is that all the other types of Experimental category aircraft would still require an A&P to perform those maintenance and modifications.

The EAB is the least restrictive category. The experimental exhibition category requires an FAA approved inspection program. I’ve written a number of these as well as revised them. Yes, will need to be an A&P to sign off a return the aircraft to service.