6800 TOTAL TIME MOONEY??? WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS

[MATTS875]

Hello , I am looking at a 6800 TT mooney 201 .I understand that the TT is High but should that make me shigh away from it. I was debating a F model but really like the 201 better.go figure. i know the ideal would be a lower TT 201 but that is out of my budget.The plane has fuel bladders, 880 SMOH .please let me know what your thoughts are..thanks.I am trying to pay outright for the plane. I am going through the  Well for a little more I can get this one thought process but I am at the end of the budget..What are your thoughts

[Shadrach]

All things being equal, the number itself would bother me little to not at all. I expect that we will see M20 airframes with 4 times that amount of time at some point.  The bigger question is how has it been cared for. Most of the issues with this airframe are related to time, storage and upkeep; it matters little whether it spent it's life on the ground or in the air...  From a resale standpoint, you get your money out of most used vehicles when you buy them. Which is to say that the better you buy it (negotiate) the better you'll do when it's time to unload.  

By the way, I love my F and would likey not trade the payload, or the excellent and reliable manual systems of my bird for an extra 8-10kts id get with a J... 

[Jsavage3]

I'd be curious who has owned/used the airplane throughout its life, i.e. has it been employed in a flight school or has it been flown by owner pilots flying cross-country trips?

Any damage history related to airframe?

Hangared?  Hail damage?  Sun damage?

How's the interior and is the avionics package what pleases you?

These are the things I would recommend you consider rather than focus solely on the TT.

BTW, I love my J...9 gph at 160 kts for 6 hours with nearly 1000# payload is hard to beat.  

Happy hunting!

[rainman]

It's funny that we don't think anything of flying in airliners with 25,000 hours that have been landed thousands of times, but shy away from GA aircraft with far less.  I agree with what's been written. How was it stored and maintained? What's the history (any gear up landings), and how has it been used? I recently bought my Mooney with 4500 hours on it after a very extensive pre-buy inspection done at the time of the annual with the plane apart and the access panels off for corrosion inspection.  Do your homework and you'll be fine.

[PTK]

There are two items on an aircraft that cannot be changed. The TTAF and damage history. These things you are stuck with. Unlike engine, prop, paint, interior, and avionics for example.  Any aircraft valuation expert will tell you it is always desirable to purchase an airplane with most of the avionics you want already installed. And avionics can be changed!  Why then would you consider buying an aircraft with items, such as high time, that cannot be changed? Personally I'd keep looking.     

[DaV8or]

Quote: allsmiles

Why then would you consider buying an aircraft with items, such as high time, that cannot be changed? Personally I'd keep looking.     

[jetdriven]

Provided there is no corrosion, hours really are meaningless, from an airworthiness standpoint. If there was an airframe life limit, the FAA would have placed one on it, such as the Piper Tomahawk, Cirrus, or P-Baron.

[Vref]

Do a good pre-buy inspection on the corrosion and ask the right questions...

In this case look at the avionics package you get with it...make the balance

My J had 5000 + hours but with an up to date 90's  stack KCS55A, GNS430, Garmin xpdr mode S 330, KFC150, KX155...you don't here me complain..;-)..

On contrary what other people think, its still cheaper to replace a heim rod or even the no back spring mod on the actuator  then installing a new A/P or GTN xxx that plays with the rest of your stack.....my 0.2 eurocents on it..;-))..

Avionics are $$$$$$$

The big question to ask yourself do I buy an aircraft for max flying fulfilment or do I buy an return of investment.... having both is in the current economic climate a poker game..imho.

[Parker_Woodruff]

Quote: DaV8or

Probably because a high time airplane will be cheaper to buy. This way you get performance at a discount. I think that's more the point of the thread, not so much how does TT effect resale. I think the OP is wondering how much he should be scared of high TT with regards to potential airframe failures. In the case of Mooneys, I think high time represents a great value as long as the airplane was well maintained for all those hours.

[PTK]

Quote: jetdriven

...hours really are meaningless, from an airworthiness standpoint. If there was an airframe life limit, the FAA would have placed one on it, such as the Piper Tomahawk, Cirrus, or P-Baron.

[jetdriven]

The FAA does not care.  We do based on market valuation but not airworthiness.  The OP asked if he should "shy away from it" presumably since it is somehow "weaker" than a lower time airframe. I have flown airplanes with 125,000 hours on them, and they are esstentially no different than one that has 5,000 hours.  I flew a Cessna 401A that had 30,000 hours on it, smoking rivets etc and we all know Cessna's are built cheaply compared to Mooneys. They do require more maintenance but structurally, they are the same.  Its steel and aluminum.  Either it has a life limit or it doesnt.  M20 airframes do not.

[Vref]

As jetdriven pointed out already, airliners have ten times more airframe hours....this question can be answered two fold:

Technically--> if the airframe is well maintained = meaningless

ROI--> depends on what you do with it in terms of upgrade (see post above)

[jlunseth]

I would not shy away from a 6800 hour airplane if it had been flown and well maintained.  If it has not been flown and was poorly maintained, then there are all kinds of things that could have taken place alot earlier than 6800 hours, and you do not want those.