Which of the J and older models hold their value best?

[Shadrach]

4 hours ago, ArtVandelay said:

Not really true.
Improved engine and intake design (ram air becomes superfluous on the J).
In 78 they completed the transformation: push/pull controls, higher gear speeds.


Tom

There were some changes for sure. Whether or not the B6D engines are an upgrade is subjective. I prefer the narrow (2150-2350) red arc of the A1A to the broader (1500-1950) yellow arc of the B6D. J models are indeed more refined and better looking versions of the F model. They are typically a bit faster (5-10kts). I have flown in several Js and none of them would climb with my early F.  There were many small changes made. Some made big improvements (cowling and windshield), some were paperwork changes that made for small improvements (gear speed, flap speed increases) and some were changes that were not improvements (fatter airframe, dual mag, one piece rear seat back). I personally prefer the manual gear and flap system as well as increased UL of the early birds (my F has 190lbs of payload over the bird the OP was considering). An early F come J by way of mods is my ideal (think John Breda’s bird).  The OP needs to find a machine that will hold its value and remain marketable in 2-3 years. Almost any well equipped Mooney will do that +/-10%. The question is how much does he want to spend. There is always a risk of depreciation. 

[gsxrpilot]

So much of this depends on the overall state of the economy. But assuming today's economy, I don't think you can go wrong with any J. They are the hottest selling Mooneys right now and bringing the highest premiums. This makes sense to me as there just isn't anything else available new or otherwise that compares to a J. And since the fleet gets smaller each year, the values of J's will continue to go up. We are seeing some J's get into early Ovation price territory, but in my mind, for the same money, an Ovation isn't automatically more desirable. 

Jimmy says he's selling J's and Ovations quicker than any other models right now. The values of all the short and mid-body Mooneys are going up. But J's are going up the fastest.

On the other hand, I happened to have heard of a really nice F that will likely be coming on the market soon...

[AdventureD]

OP here:  and whose nice F is that?

[flyer338]

On 9/14/2019 at 2:04 PM, AdventureD said:

Thanks for all the thoughts.  Any thoughts on pricing on this?  http://www.skywagons.com/airplanes-forsale/1983-mooney-m20j-201-99900-here-placerville-n87pm.  Biggest negative is no GPS, but I've got a 430 I could drop in there.  The interior is a little rough, but I can live with that.  I'd have a thorough pre-buy to check for corrosion and the engine given that it was rebuilt in 2016 after a gear-up.

I looked at that airplane in late July. I looked at the plane and the logs. The hidden value is what was done after the gear up landing that does not meet the definition of a major overhaul. The detractors, in my book, were the useful load and speed cost of the three-blade propeller (looks way cool though), and the deficient panel without IFR GPS. That said, I made an offer of $90,000 on the plane and after a week with no response, I withdrew the offer. I would have bought the plane had there been a counter offer of $94,000 or less. I am glad I was ignored; I close escrow tomorrow on a different ‘83 J with an A3B6 engine, electronic ignition, pre-Oiler, engine heater, better panel, and more useful load for 10k less than I offered on the other. The airframe time is higher at 5600 hours, but all that really means is that it has flown 100 or more hours per year during its life - a feature, not a bug. I am looking forward to flying again and my 2nd Mooney. 

[flyer338]

On 9/14/2019 at 2:04 PM, AdventureD said:

 

Edited September 16, 2019 by flyer898
Posted in error

[flyer338]

On 9/14/2019 at 2:04 PM, AdventureD said:

 

Edited September 16, 2019 by flyer898
Posted in error

[flyer338]

I goofed and posted the same post three times - my bad. The plane I am buying has new leather interior, and the Skywagons plane is still for sale. 

Edited September 16, 2019 by flyer898
Typo

[carusoam]

898,

There are options to remove errant posts by their authors if you want...

Best regards,

-a-

[wcb]

On 9/15/2019 at 7:58 AM, ArtVandelay said:

Not really true.
Improved engine and intake design (ram air becomes superfluous on the J).
In 78 they completed the transformation: push/pull controls, higher gear speeds.


Tom

Almost none of those changes really impacted performance like the speed mods.  As far as the engine many would say the A1A dual mag system was much better also my useful load is around 1050 and is better than almost all J's .  It was my understanding that RAM was on both the F and J's however mine is a RayJay Turbo so am unable to really comment.  I would say there were really two MAJOR improvements in my opinion that make the J a Superior machine (not talking about acquisition cost and resell ... I still think a good F can be purchased for less money compared to a comparable J.)

#1 improvement Speed MODS!!!! 

#2 improvement Fuel Selector Location!!!!!   Sorry if this was mentioned in another response but I would love to have my fuel selector valve location fixed.

Edited September 16, 2019 by wcb

[steingar]

Sorry, but the OP's question is profoundly stupid.  What good is an airplane that holds it's value but is a money pit while you own it?  And what's the economy going to be 2-3 years down the road?  Remember, what goes up must come down.  In an economic downturn no airplane holds it value, I'd say the vintage birds are the best because they have less value to loose.

Says me get he aircraft that floats your boat and let the future take care of itself.

[carusoam]

Steiny,

it helps to be nice to people no matter what they are asking... 

If the OP gets insulted, and never comes back...

We risk losing a Mooney sale and learning what it takes to afford two planes, while one gets built.

Best regards,

-a-

[ArtVandelay]

The J is like a Porsche 911, yea Porsche has made faster cars, with bigger engines, less expensive cars that were almost as fast. But like the 911 it’s a classic, and that’s not going to change.
Caveat: I own a J, so I might be a little biased.


Tom

[AdventureD]

17 hours ago, flyer898 said:

I looked at that airplane in late July. I looked at the plane and the logs. The hidden value is what was done after the gear up landing that does not meet the definition of a major overhaul. The detractors, in my book, were the useful load and speed cost of the three-blade propeller (looks way cool though), and the deficient panel without IFR GPS. That said, I made an offer of $90,000 on the plane and after a week with no response, I withdrew the offer. I would have bought the plane had there been a counter offer of $94,000 or less. I am glad I was ignored; I close escrow tomorrow on a different ‘83 J with an A3B6 engine, electronic ignition, pre-Oiler, engine heater, better panel, and more useful load for 10k less than I offered on the other. The airframe time is higher at 5600 hours, but all that really means is that it has flown 100 or more hours per year during its life - a feature, not a bug. I am looking forward to flying again and my 2nd Mooney. 

Flyer898, this is great information -- Thanks!

[MIm20c]

Over the last 6 months I’ve looked at a couple J’a in the mid $80’s that were great values. When I bought my C three years ago similar J’s were selling for the same amount.  Imo these 85-95k J’s are the best value in Mooney aircraft right now. The few late model J’s are really commanding top dollar but the value is in the late 70’s vintage planes. Of course I’m looking for a really nice K which for some reason has also taken off. 

[AdventureD]

4 hours ago, steingar said:

Sorry, but the OP's question is profoundly stupid.  What good is an airplane that holds it's value but is a money pit while you own it?  And what's the economy going to be 2-3 years down the road?  Remember, what goes up must come down.  In an economic downturn no airplane holds it value, I'd say the vintage birds are the best because they have less value to loose.

Says me get he aircraft that floats your boat and let the future take care of itself.

OP here...   First, the plane's history (which might be determined partly thorugh a filtered discussion with the owner) and a good pre-buy will inform the "money pit" aspect of your comment. Second, the issues are (i) whether the plane is priced above or below the expected value (which was not my question), and (ii) whether any particular plane is relatively more risky than another (which is implicit in my question).  Assuming risks (measured by, say, the variance of value) are the same for two planes, additional questions are the purchaser's tolerance for risk and preferences for quality.

Sorry, I'm an economist, and familiar with the Capital Asset pricing model.  Doesn't change my question.  Thanks  :).

Happy and safe flying,

AdventureD

Edited September 16, 2019 by AdventureD

[AdventureD]

1 hour ago, carusoam said:

Steiny,

it helps to be nice to people no matter what they are asking... 

If the OP gets insulted, and never comes back...

We risk losing a Mooney sale and learning what it takes to afford two planes, while one gets built.

Best regards,

-a-

A comment like the one you reference won't insult OP.  My question created a discussion that as helped me, and that was my goal.  This list is a great resource and I appreciate all the responses.  ... I'm the one who's gotta figure out what I want :).

[gsxrpilot]

Maybe I've been lucky, knock on wood, but I believe airplanes done right can be an investment. Just like Porsche 911's. Obviously if the economy goes off a cliff, then all bets are off until it recovers, which it always has.

I love to study the market for Mooneys. And the more I watch and study it, the more it makes perfectly good sense. First, buy an airplane that is high in the desirability range, in other words that is properly equipped, well maintained, and flying regularly. This airplane will cost less to maintain. If you start in a good place, it's easier/cheaper to maintain that good condition, than it is to get to that place via upgrades, deferred maintenance, etc.  It's cheaper to keep the train moving, than to get it moving in the first place. Second, buy a plane that is unique in that it doesn't have a newer option. 

The J is the best NA Mid-body Mooney ever made. The J is the pinnacle of that range. There isn't anything newer that compares. The E is the same for the short bodies. But the mid-bodies are not as much of a leap from the short bodies and do solve a well known issue, back seat leg room, and therefore an E selling for J money is going to be difficult. It's different going to an Ovation. The long bodies don't do anything except solve the W&B problem posed by the big engine. Therefore a J for Ovation money doesn't mean the Ovation wins the deal automatically.

C's are going to be capped by the value of E's. F's will be capped by the value of J's. 231's will be capped by the value of 252's. E's are somewhat capped by the value of J's. But the J and the 252 don't have a natural ceiling and therefore we see them climbing in value faster than any other Mooneys in the fleet. J's do much better than 252's though just because there is a much larger market for NA planes than Turbo planes. My first Mooney was an M20C and the CapEx was +$2K after two years and 400 hours. My 252 is doing a lot better than that.

In all these calculations, I remove the OpEx from the equation. OpEx is what I pay to play. Obviously buying a well maintained airplane means the OpEx is likely to be less than one that has to be brought back from the brink. But at the end of the day, I fully expect to make a profit on the CapEx. That bucket might not grow as much as some other investments, but if done right, it will grow. And the buckets growing most quickly and consistently currently are the late model J's and the 252's.

[Hank]

1 hour ago, gsxrpilot said:

In all these calculations, I remove the OpEx from the equation. OpEx is what I pay to play. Obviously buying a well maintained airplane means the OpEx is likely to be less than one that has to be brought back from the brink. But at the end of the day, I fully expect to make a profit on the CapEx. That bucket might not grow as much as some other investments, but if done right, it will grow. And the buckets growing most quickly and consistently currently are the late model J's and the 252's.

You and I calculate OpEx differently. Panel makeovers, adding engine analyzers, etc., fits under CapEx in my book. My Mooney has flown well for five decades without several AMU to buy and several more to install a JPI/EI unit. Same for the several additional AMU going from G430W to the 440 (with marginal adxed benefits). Etc.

Not saying these expenses are undesirable, just that they shouldn't be lumped into Operational Expenses. Neither should hangar, insurance, etc., be included when figuring your hourly operating costs, because you pay these exact same expenses whether you fly 100 hours, 1000 hours or 0 hours per year. $250 x 12 months = $3000 hangar rent; at 100 hours, it's $30/hour; at 1000 hours, it's $3/hour; at 0 hours, it's an infinite hourly cost. The 100 hour hangar rate is almost my hourly fuel burn . . . . But is the same every month regardless of how much I fly, while real operating expenses vary with flight hours.

[carusoam]

So...

If we are still focused on holding value, and J or older...

We may have come to the agreement that depreciation on all of these has pretty much stabilized by the time the Great Recession rolled around...

There aren’t any new Js coming down the line...

If turning an older Mooney into a forever plane... the E and F are popular starting points...

Since we aren’t talking forever-plane for this one...

Let’s talk comfortable for A.D...

That would probably take knowing more about the Lancair project...

IO360 powered, four seater?  Consider E, F, and J...

TIO540 powered, four seat?  Consider a K, Rocket, and Bravo...

LIV-PT turbine powered, four seat?  Consider the Rocket

 

Would you want to start with an F/J to be familiar with something pretty similar, in preparation for the completed Lancair?

Would you want to see other guys that have done something similar?

The last guy that joined MS with a Lancair under construction, flew an M20K until after the Lancair was finished and flying... Tom is still around here often... so if you have questions... 

 

What are you working on, and do you want something as similar as practical?

 

PP thoughts only, not a plane builder...

Best regards,

-a-

[AdventureD]

19 minutes ago, carusoam said:

What are you working on, and do you want something as similar as practical?

 

ES (fixed gear) with an IO-550.  It's pretty easy to fly but with lotsa power and speed, especially for fixed gear.  A bit faster than the Cirrus with the same engine.  I'm told "float" on landing is "like a Mooney."  It lands slightly faster, but handling is nice like the Mooney.  Not one you want to stall, though, especially not a power-on stall.  Laminar flow wings; very slippery; not a Cessna.  Power-off stall is OK if plane is built well, but my practice on this dimension will be about stall avoidance.

[carusoam]

In that case...

The IO550 in an M20J is called a Missile...

Rocket Engineering generated the STC to put the IO550 on the J... then bumped it to 310hp when they installed the IO550(g or n) in the Ovation and Eagle....

We have at least three MSers currently flying around in Missiles.

The Missile technically has an NA IO550(A) rated at 300hp.

A fantastic machine...

 

Now... let’s talk engine details... are you going with an electronic ignition?

One of these days I hope to stop in Uvalde TX to see what things look like at the Lancair house...

Best regards,

-a-

[gsxrpilot]

59 minutes ago, Hank said:

You and I calculate OpEx differently. Panel makeovers, adding engine analyzers, etc., fits under CapEx in my book. My Mooney has flown well for five decades without several AMU to buy and several more to install a JPI/EI unit. Same for the several additional AMU going from G430W to the 440 (with marginal adxed benefits). Etc.

Not saying these expenses are undesirable, just that they shouldn't be lumped into Operational Expenses. Neither should hangar, insurance, etc., be included when figuring your hourly operating costs, because you pay these exact same expenses whether you fly 100 hours, 1000 hours or 0 hours per year. $250 x 12 months = $3000 hangar rent; at 100 hours, it's $30/hour; at 1000 hours, it's $3/hour; at 0 hours, it's an infinite hourly cost. The 100 hour hangar rate is almost my hourly fuel burn . . . . But is the same every month regardless of how much I fly, while real operating expenses vary with flight hours.

I'm almost half way with you. I calculate CapEx as anything that will effect the sale price of the plane. And so while you could say that hangarage vs ramp will effect the value of the plane, and I'd agree. That is in the OpEx column for me. But the panel upgrade I did in my 252 is going into the CapEx column. As it certainly effects the value of the capitol asset directly.

But reading what you wrote, I can't disagree with you.

[Hank]

11 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

I'm almost half way with you. I calculate CapEx as anything that will effect the sale price of the plane. And so while you could say that hangarage vs ramp will effect the value of the plane, and I'd agree. That is in the OpEx column for me. But the panel upgrade I did in my 252 is going into the CapEx column. As it certainly effects the value of the capitol asset directly.

But reading what you wrote, I can't disagree with you.

Hangar, insurance, annuals, pitot static tests, transponder checks, etc., are costs of ownership, neither Capital nor Operating expense. Like putting tags and insurance on your car, required for use but absolutely unrelated to value and don't change with amount of operation.

[gsxrpilot]

4 minutes ago, Hank said:

Hangar, insurance, annuals, pitot static tests, transponder checks, etc., are costs of ownership, neither Capital nor Operating expense. Like putting tags and insurance on your car, required for use but absolutely unrelated to value and don't change with amount of operation.

True, but if I only have those two buckets, it's OpEx for me. I would have those expenses no matter what airplane I have. It's the cost of ownership like you say,  but if I didn't have a plane, I wouldn't have those expenses. Of course, the more hours I fly, the smaller those costs are as a percentage of my hourly expense.

When I started flying I worked out what it would cost to own and fly my own airplane on a yearly basis of 150 hours per year. Once I decided I could afford that cost, then it was time to buy the plane. But the purchase price of the plane didn't come out of that budget. I moved money from other investments into the purchase price of a Mooney. When I sell the Mooney, hopefully I can put the money back where it came from. But those monthly and yearly expenses are sunk costs that I'll never get back. To me, that's the cost of participation or OpEx.

As Anthony would say, not an Accountant or CPA, just a PP.

[Hank]

6 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

As Anthony would say, not an Accountant or CPA, just a PP.

  Me, too! But I have three buckets:  Cost to Purchase/Upgrade, Cost to Own, Cost to Operate.

First is obvious; second are recurring expenses after purchase not related to / affected by operation (hangar, insurance, annual, pitot static & transponder tests, ELT batteries replaced every two years, etc.); last is what it costs me to fly (fuel, oil, battery, tires, oil changes, etc.).

Little things like flight bags, headsets, CO detector, tools, etc., don't fit into any of these categories, but they do come out of my budget. Hobby expenses? Safety gear?