M20A Advice

[yaboigm]

Hi, potential mooney purchaser here. I am currently looking at a 1960 M20A. Is there any advice you'd care to share about the M20A model? I know it has some wood construction, does anyone know if there are issues with this? Are there any reasons to avoid the A model? Or any potential pros/cons?

 

Thanks in advance.

[carusoam]

There are many M20As around here...

They are the first natural composite airplane that the Mooney world has ever seen...

They are great planes and require some better protection compared to all aluminum planes...

When looking for a mechanic to do woodwork... it is good to know where that mechanic is... a good relationship to have...

There are plenty of wooden planes in the country... EAA is a great resource for these planes too....

Best regards,

-a-

 

[mike20papa]

I've owned an A model for over ten years and (call me different) purposefully looked for one to purchase!  

1.  This was the last aircraft Al Mooney designed - the last AC with his name on the type certificate.  Al was at his zenith when the A model rolled out of the Kerrville factory.  Al never designed an AC without a wood wing.  The A model wing is lighter.  MY airplane sits on it's gear lighter than any other mooney Ive ever seen.  The Lord disks barely compressed.   

2.  Subsequent models suffered loss of performance and suffer from "wet wing" issues, corrosion and .. well, aluminum is just second rate aircraft structural material compared to a composite.  With lots of wood AC construction experience, I had no psychological aversion to wood.  Actually my aversion (due to experience/observation) is to aluminum.    The fuel tanks are all removeable/repairable on the A model.

3.  Yes, the aircraft needs to be hangared and why would you own ANY AC and not put it in a hangar unless you accepted the fact it was to be "short lived".  I've seen plenty a Cessna  with corrosion interior to the wing that looks more like aluminum oxide sand paper than airplane, and any AI with a flashlight usually won't sign one off.   There is some sealing tape required under the wing root farings - lots of A models are without and so even washing the AC puts water interior to the aft spar area.  Something to check.  

[Tcraft938]

16 minutes ago, mike20papa said:

I've owned an A model for over ten years and (call me different) purposefully looked for one to purchase!  

1.  This was the last aircraft Al Mooney designed - the last AC with his name on the type certificate.  Al was at his zenith when the A model rolled out of the Kerrville factory.  Al never designed an AC without a wood wing.  The A model wing is lighter.  MY airplane sits on it's gear lighter than any other mooney Ive ever seen.  The Lord disks barely compressed.   

2.  Subsequent models suffered loss of performance and suffer from "wet wing" issues, corrosion and .. well, aluminum is just second rate aircraft structural material compared to a composite.  With lots of wood AC construction experience, I had no psychological aversion to wood.  Actually my aversion (due to experience/observation) is to aluminum.    The fuel tanks are all removeable/repairable on the A model.

3.  Yes, the aircraft needs to be hangared and why would you own ANY AC and not put it in a hangar unless you accepted the fact it was to be "short lived".  I've seen plenty a Cessna  with corrosion interior to the wing that looks more like aluminum oxide sand paper than airplane, and any AI with a flashlight usually won't sign one off.   There is some sealing tape required under the wing root farings - lots of A models are without and so even washing the AC puts water interior to the aft spar area.  Something to check.  

Nice looking Mooney and intriguing comments.  I've often wondered what the performance differences are for the A model, speed, climb and useful load with the same HP as the C should be significant.  My aircraft prior to the Mooney was a 1946 Taylorcraft BC12D.  Several years ago, instead of a Flight Review I decided to get tailwheel endorsement, and fell in love with the challenging landings, going to short grass strips etc.  Always kept it hangered and never had issues with the wood and fabric.  The Tcraft's tightness helped prepare me for the short body Mooney making it feel spacious for my wife and me.  LOL   On a nice day I often miss the Tcraft, short strips 4 gph but I love the efficiency, flexibility, travel, fly at night or IFR the Mooney provides.  Like any plane, it's about the mission and finding what fits that mission.  A friend recently bought a Bonanza, constantly making fun of "the little Mooney".  Recently he complained how much his insurance went up, mine decreased slightly.  Then found out he flew 14 hours last year compared to my 96.  "How the %$#@ can you afford to fly that much?!!!"   (he's always complaining about fuel cost).  Well, I fly similar speed on 9 gph compared to your 16.  Therefore for the same $ I can fly 75% more than you, and that my friend translated into lower insurance cost.  Think how much fuel and flying time you could have enjoyed for the $2000 increase in insurance.  Sure your's is roomy and debatably more comfortable, but what do you care, you're in it one hour per month.  Incidentally, his annuals are much more expensive because it's not flying.  In my opinion he bought outside his mission and/or budget and now paying for it one way or the other.

[Guy123]

I would also welcome any advice from the wood wing mooney owners.  I found a 1960 M20A sitting in a hangar near me that peaked my interest so I have done a little reading about it and I am confused.    I have seen a metal tail referenced several different places and possibly that there was an AD requiring the wood tail to be changed to metal?  but I havent been able to find the AD?   if someone could point me in the right direction that would be awesome.  is there an AD to change the wood tail to metal and I am just looking in the wrong spot? 

[Hank]

27 minutes ago, Guy123 said:

I would also welcome any advice from the wood wing mooney owners.  I found a 1960 M20A sitting in a hangar near me that peaked my interest so I have done a little reading about it and I am confused.    I have seen a metal tail referenced several different places and possibly that there was an AD requiring the wood tail to be changed to metal?  but I havent been able to find the AD?   if someone could point me in the right direction that would be awesome.  is there an AD to change the wood tail to metal and I am just looking in the wrong spot? 

There was an AD in late 60s / early 70s (?) to replace the wooden tail on M20B models with metal. Not sure about the A model . . . . Check Mooney's website, they should have a list of ADs and SBs (there's likely one on how to comply with the AD).

[MikeOH]

29 minutes ago, Hank said:

There was an AD in late 60s / early 70s (?) to replace the wooden tail on M20B models with metal. Not sure about the A model . . . . Check Mooney's website, they should have a list of ADs and SBs (there's likely one on how to comply with the AD).

Hmm, my admittedly not 100% memory on this is that the M20B was always ALL metal, and the AD was a mandatory AD to change the M20A wood tail to metal.  I may have the AD tucked away somewhere back when I was shopping for Mooneys I was considering the M20A (the wood itself didn't scare me, but finding a competent wood A&P did!)

[MikeOH]

I think it's this one: 86-19-10: 

https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf/0/33BA96B4A3AD098A86256A57006692E3?OpenDocument

Looks like you can keep the wood tail if you are willing to do a load test periodically!

[carusoam]

Wood tails are gone... all replaced with aluminum....

One fell off once... after doing the pull test... it wasn’t supposed to be a destructive test...

There may be some around still somewhere...

Knowledge of wood and glues can take some of the fun out of flying...

Knowledge of wooden structure, maintenance and repair.... can put the fun back into flying...

It helps to have a good EAA chapter nearby...

PP thoughts only, not a mechanic...

Best regards,

-a-

[BKlott]

I do believe that Al Mooney did design some airplanes without wooden wings. The LASA-60 and the Lockheed Hummingbird come to mind. In his bio written by Gordon Baxter I think he said something to the effect that the M20 was designed to eventually be all metal construction. He had that goal in mind.

He is better known in the GA community for his wood wing designs like the Alexander Bullet, the Culver Cadet, Culver V and Mooney Wee Scotsman aka the Mooney Mite as well as the original M20 and M20-A.

[carusoam]

Al Mooney’s last design was a composite twin engine pusher...

How cool is that?

Best regards,

-a-

[MBDiagMan]

On 5/21/2021 at 9:52 PM, MikeOH said:

I think it's this one: 86-19-10: 

https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf/0/33BA96B4A3AD098A86256A57006692E3?OpenDocument

Looks like you can keep the wood tail if you are willing to do a load test periodically!

I hesitate writing this because I no longer have the book where I read it.  I “loaned it” to my son in law and haven’t seen it since.

In an airplane buyers guide from the the eighties, I read that Dugosh refused to do the pull test on the wood tail.  He feared that the pull test could begin a crack and you might never know it until it was too late.  He felt very good about the wood wing, but said that he would not put his signature anywhere in the logbook of a Mooney with a wood tail.  That led me to believe that being in Kerrville, he had seen a tragedy involving a wood tail.

Take it for what it’s worth, but further research might be in order.

[MikeOH]

8 hours ago, MBDiagMan said:

I hesitate writing this because I no longer have the book where I read it.  I “loaned it” to my son in law and haven’t seen it since.

In an airplane buyers guide from the the eighties, I read that Dugosh refused to do the pull test on the wood tail.  He feared that the pull test could begin a crack and you might never know it until it was too late.  He felt very good about the wood wing, but said that he would not put his signature anywhere in the logbook of a Mooney with a wood tail.  That led me to believe that being in Kerrville, he had seen a tragedy involving a wood tail.

Take it for what it’s worth, but further research might be in order.

100% agree.  NO way I'd keep a wooden tail.  I put an exclamation mark because I was shocked that the AD actually allowed the wood tail to be retained at all

[Guy123]

so this is why i am hung up and confused.   as stated above by MikeOH  (the wood itself didn't scare me, but finding a competent wood A&P did!).  that being said with the small amount of reading i have done i have decided i am to chicken to fly one with a wood tail.  but if you look at mooney service bulletin number: M20-170A  Dated 2/24/69   https://mooney.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/SBM20-170A.pdf states that immediate compliance is required. installation of a metal empennage is mandatory within one year.  but if you look at AD 86-19-10 also posted above by MikeOH   https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf/0/33BA96B4A3AD098A86256A57006692E3?OpenDocument it has an effective date of october 6 1986 and my interpretation of it is that it is just an inspection of the wood tail i see nothing requiring it to be replaced by metal?  so i guess my question what is the difference between a mooney service bulletin and an AD? i would think if the service bulletin was followed when released in 69 there would be no reason for AD 86-19-10 released in 86? so did they retract the mooney service bulletin?  at the end of the day it doesent really matter because I would want it changed to metal for my piece of mind. justified or not.    my delima is i found a 1960 M20a sitting in a hangar here in SW KS that I think looks pretty good.  granted I know NOTHING AT ALL about the wood wing.  I know most would probably argue that i would be way better off just buying a later all metal mooney but I hate to see this bird just sit there and rot.  I guess i an trying to figure out if it is at all even thinkable for me to get it back in the air. or if not me if someone here looking for a project could get it flying or if it is so far gone it is just doomed to sit there forever....

[carusoam]

1 hour ago, Guy123 said:

so this is why i am hung up and confused.   as stated above by MikeOH  (the wood itself didn't scare me, but finding a competent wood A&P did!).  that being said with the small amount of reading i have done i have decided i am to chicken to fly one with a wood tail.  but if you look at mooney service bulletin number: M20-170A  Dated 2/24/69   https://mooney.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/SBM20-170A.pdf states that immediate compliance is required. installation of a metal empennage is mandatory within one year.  but if you look at AD 86-19-10 also posted above by MikeOH   https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf/0/33BA96B4A3AD098A86256A57006692E3?OpenDocument it has an effective date of october 6 1986 and my interpretation of it is that it is just an inspection of the wood tail i see nothing requiring it to be replaced by metal?  so i guess my question what is the difference between a mooney service bulletin and an AD? i would think if the service bulletin was followed when released in 69 there would be no reason for AD 86-19-10 released in 86? so did they retract the mooney service bulletin?  at the end of the day it doesent really matter because I would want it changed to metal for my piece of mind. justified or not.    my delima is i found a 1960 M20a sitting in a hangar here in SW KS that I think looks pretty good.  granted I know NOTHING AT ALL about the wood wing.  I know most would probably argue that i would be way better off just buying a later all metal mooney but I hate to see this bird just sit there and rot.  I guess i an trying to figure out if it is at all even thinkable for me to get it back in the air. or if not me if someone here looking for a project could get it flying or if it is so far gone it is just doomed to sit there forever....

It is tough to recognize when a plane is better for somebody else to own...

There are still many wooden boats around... 

You want to... want, to take on the additional effort to own this plane...

Fortunately, there are resources around that can really provide support... EAA, MS, and others...

 

For my friend @MBDiagMan...  see if this cover shot looks familiar..?

Before the internet... there were these things called books...   they were kept in a place called a book store...

In the 90s... the bookstore people made a sport out of attracting readers...   Starbucks would sell you coffee, while you read about boats and planes....

Every now and then... you would go home as a book owner...

This one is the one I got while researching airplane ownership... 20+ years ago, while Dugosh was a man named Dugosh...

His business has changed hands... And is still in good hands...

 

From this knowledge... I went with an M20C...  also in the running were equally priced C172, and P150...

So many people have difficulty weighing the options... and typically, have to follow the herd...

I took the road less traveled... and it has made all the difference!  - R. Frost

Best regards,

-a-

[EricJ]

1 hour ago, Guy123 said:

so this is why i am hung up and confused.   as stated above by MikeOH  (the wood itself didn't scare me, but finding a competent wood A&P did!).  that being said with the small amount of reading i have done i have decided i am to chicken to fly one with a wood tail.  but if you look at mooney service bulletin number: M20-170A  Dated 2/24/69   https://mooney.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/SBM20-170A.pdf states that immediate compliance is required. installation of a metal empennage is mandatory within one year.  but if you look at AD 86-19-10 also posted above by MikeOH   https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf/0/33BA96B4A3AD098A86256A57006692E3?OpenDocument it has an effective date of october 6 1986 and my interpretation of it is that it is just an inspection of the wood tail i see nothing requiring it to be replaced by metal?  so i guess my question what is the difference between a mooney service bulletin and an AD? i would think if the service bulletin was followed when released in 69 there would be no reason for AD 86-19-10 released in 86? so did they retract the mooney service bulletin?  at the end of the day it doesent really matter because I would want it changed to metal for my piece of mind. justified or not.    my delima is i found a 1960 M20a sitting in a hangar here in SW KS that I think looks pretty good.  granted I know NOTHING AT ALL about the wood wing.  I know most would probably argue that i would be way better off just buying a later all metal mooney but I hate to see this bird just sit there and rot.  I guess i an trying to figure out if it is at all even thinkable for me to get it back in the air. or if not me if someone here looking for a project could get it flying or if it is so far gone it is just doomed to sit there forever....

For aircraft operating only under part 91 (i.e., nearly all of us), Service Bulletins, Service Instructions, Service Letters, or any update other than an AD are not required to be complied with.   So Mooney was saying replace the tail, the FAA didn't think it rose to the level of Federal law for part 91 operators and so didn't require it in the AD.

Since replacing the tail was probably an expensive proposition for many owners, many probably chose not to.

Some maintainers in the desert southwest, where I am, say that wood is very problematic here since it dries out and cracks, etc.   My hangar neighbor has a beautiful M20A that he's had for a few decades (iirc) and says it's been fine.   He does inspections, etc., and it seems to be doing okay.   He flies it pretty regularly.

Definitely get somebody knowledgeable about wood airplanes to look at it if you really get interested.   The local EAA chapter may know people who do.