Mooney M20K 231 (252 FWF Conversion) as first airplane

[toto]

3 hours ago, Will.iam said:

Looking at flight aware this airplane’s last 3 flights where 20 mins or less per flight. 

Those may be sales demo flights. 

[tmo]

As a data point, I was around 80h TT when I got a normal M20K. Put probably around 80 on it the past 2.5 years.

Like the others wrote, be prepared to spend unlimited $$$ to make it yours, or, at least, leave some cash on hand for the unevitable squawk that will come up. Also become friends with a smart A&P that knows a reasonable IA.

All that written, go for it!

[redbaron1982]

Thanks again for all the comments, very insightful!

Regarding the airplane itself, first of all, I do have reserves in case something exceptional arise, but of course, if I end up spending 200k between the airplane and repairs on top, is not going to be what I expected. Although I could afford it, for 200k maybe I'd have looked for a newer Mooney for instance.

The airplane has some things that are good:

• low time engine (factory new)
• nice avionics (GNS 530 and GTN 650)
• it had a "minor" prop strike back in 2013 and it seems to have been handled correctly (new prop, engine was sent back to the factory for inspection).
  • Although the prop strike is not a nice thing it is good to see it was handled correctly and the entry logs are there.

A few points of concern:

• The airplane was supposedly selling for a long time.
• While the airplane was "on sale" an avionics upgrades added GTN 650. The GTN 650 was installed less than 20 hours ago.
• The airplane was "under contract" two times in the last 2 months, and the deal was not closed. According to the seller due to issues of the candidate buyer (insurance related).
• The airplane has flown very little in the recent years: 250 hours in 10 years, 20 hours in the last year.
• The last compression check, two cylinders (4 and 5) drop to 64/80 from 77/80 100 hours before.

My main doubt is, a good pre buy inspection would bring to light any major discrepancy or you can still get burnt even paying a thorough pre buy?

[tmo]

You can always get burnt, but a good inspection by a knowledgeable and unrelated shop is the way to minimize that risk.

Do price out insurance - it may very well be true that it is prohibitive to some prospective buyers. Reach out to @Parker_Woodruff for a quote.

If the prop strike was handled correctly, then I'd not obsess over it. Mine had a nearly identical mishap a few years before i bought it. So far, so good.

[M20Curious]

There you have it, Red.  You know more than I do about that plane.  Shows how hard I’m ‘looking’.  While I can afford everything everyone said about plane ownership, I have a hard time transitioning from club member to owner.  It’s such financial malpractice.  Damn my parents and their sensible money lessons.  I’ll live vicariously through you because I have no plane buying… guts.  Keep me posted on the plane hunt.  There’s a M20J with TKS that looked nice.  While more expensive, the TKS is a very nice feature once you’re flying through rain with an OAT at the freezing level.

If you are a serious student of flying and you (legitimately) know your limitations, I wouldn’t worry about transitioning to a higher performance, complex airplane.  That’s how people progress (not sure of your career goals).  If you’re going to start instrument training, might as well be in a more advanced plane.  Your instructor can help you learn the complexities of the plane and no better time than to get the rhythm of approaches in a complex (with an instructor to catch you when you goof).  Not sure of the approach speed of the M20K but it has to be 90-100 kts.  A C-172 has a 90 kt approach so what’s the difference?  A prop control and a gear handle?  Yeah, there’s some new power settings for attitude flying but now’s the time!  Just be honest about each flight and your personal minimums.

 

[1980Mooney]

On 9/5/2021 at 2:07 PM, redbaron1982 said:

Thanks again for all the comments, very insightful!

Regarding the airplane itself, first of all, I do have reserves in case something exceptional arise, but of course, if I end up spending 200k between the airplane and repairs on top, is not going to be what I expected. Although I could afford it, for 200k maybe I'd have looked for a newer Mooney for instance.

The airplane has some things that are good:

• low time engine (factory new)
• nice avionics (GNS 530 and GTN 650)
• it had a "minor" prop strike back in 2013 and it seems to have been handled correctly (new prop, engine was sent back to the factory for inspection).
  • Although the prop strike is not a nice thing it is good to see it was handled correctly and the entry logs are there.

A few points of concern:

• The airplane was supposedly selling for a long time.
• While the airplane was "on sale" an avionics upgrades added GTN 650. The GTN 650 was installed less than 20 hours ago.
• The airplane was "under contract" two times in the last 2 months, and the deal was not closed. According to the seller due to issues of the candidate buyer (insurance related).
• The airplane has flown very little in the recent years: 250 hours in 10 years, 20 hours in the last year.
• The last compression check, two cylinders (4 and 5) drop to 64/80 from 77/80 100 hours before.

My main doubt is, a good pre buy inspection would bring to light any major discrepancy or you can still get burnt even paying a thorough pre buy?

I see that you have been flying out of Hooks, Houston Southwest and Pearland.  I am based at Sugar Land.

First, transitioning to a Mooney as a low time pilot is not difficult with a good instructor.  I bought a J model at the same time I got my PPL.  I immediately went from a C-172 to the Mooney.  Landing is all about managing and bleeding off the energy of the Mooney as it translates into rate of descent and speed.  And I used it for my IFR training and at the same time underwent a 300 hp Missile conversion by Rocket Engineering.   

Second, I am surprised that no-one has asked you what you think your mission is - fly fast? fly high? how many seats do you need to fill? is high density altitude capability in the middle of a hot summer day a must have? do you have an operating cost max range?  The concerns that you have mentioned are insurance availability (at any cost?), $200K limit all in cost with repairs, quality of pre-buy and a good IFR platform.

• Are you going to fly mainly out of and around Texas? - Gulf coast?  Or are you planning to fly in the Rockies a lot? 
• Are you planning to typically fly alone or with passengers? max number?
• What distance do you think the typical trip will be? 

if you are flying typically below 10,000 ft. then a K isn't really much faster than a J.  Granted you get a better rate of climb as the altitude increases. And the turbocharged engine of the K can better handle high density altitude takeoffs but the wing and propeller still suffer the same as the J.   But where we are on the Texas Gulf Coast, that high density altitude capability is of no real benefit.

The K really shines at high altitude - mask wearing oxygen altitude.  But funny thing if you look at a lot of flight history for unpressurized planes with high altitude capability,  flights are predominantly below 12,000 ft.   Why? - because many passengers don't like the hassle of oxygen and few like wearing full masks.  Some are ok - it is just a choice.  And if you don't carry passengers then it is no problem.

The tradeoff for the benefits of the K are complexity and cost.  Also fuel burn and useful load.  A turbocharged 6 cylinder Continental will require more engine management and is less forgiving than the 4 cylinder Lycoming that you are used to.  When you are learning IFR and building experience you may become consumed with basics and may not be able to pay as much attention to the engine settings as some.  Yes it is safe but you may just run it hotter - you will be more likely to cook some cylinders or the turbo over its life.

Annuals for a turbocharged 6 will be more than a 4 cylinder Lycoming.  Overhauls will be eyewatering.  More parts, more complexity, more tightly packed  and more shop hours at about $100/hour anywhere around Houston.

Some here will say you can dial back the boost and the engine to manage fuel burn - that means fly it like a J.

The K that you are looking at has a Useful Load of 797 lbs. and 106 gal fuel tanks.  Let's say you are planning a trip with IFR reserves and you plan for 80 gallons.  Let's say you have 10 lbs of junk on your hat rack, a 15 lb flight bag, 30 lbs of luggage/bags and 5 lbs of water/drinks/food.  That leaves 257 lbs. total for you and passengers.  No passengers then no problem.  Maybe you are skinny with a very skinny passenger.

Third - have you looked at the logs posted on the for sale website?  The logs posted don't appear to be complete but what is there shows that this plane has experienced a lot of corrosion repairs.  It looks like it led a hard life early on in Canada.  1998 NTSB reported " DURING ANNUAL INSPECTION NOTED AILERON ROD RUSTY. UPON FURTHER INSPECTION, FOUND ROD RUSTED TO THE EXTENT IT COULD BE SEPARATED IN TWO WITH LIGHT HAND PRESSURE. SUBMITTER RECOMMENDED INSPECTING AT EACH ANNUAL."  If you look at the maintenance logs all they say is both aileron tubes were replaced. There are numerous log entries where they have treated corrosion over time. Lots of re-riveting  Corrosion is bad news and hard to stop.  If it is one place then the entire plane has been subject to it.  You will definitely need a very thorough pre-buy opening all the panels and pulling rear seats to look at the spar.  Also the interior panels to look at the steel frame for corrosion.

Also the "New" engine is from 2008 - a Mod Works 262 conversion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heYy6dI4TOk

The price has been dropping

https://plane-sale.com/en/search_aircraft/single_engine/mooney/231_(m20k)_w__252_fwf_engine_upgrade!/73030

The avionics were upgraded because much was INOP.  Looks like they took the radar out - and the UL is still only 797 lbs.

From just before the upgrade in the past year.  You can see the old panel.

https://www.aircraft.com/aircraft/151753529/n261cb-1980-mooney-m20k-231

This could be the plane you want and all repaired properly but it needs to be priced right.

 

 

 get more complexity and cost with some other tradeoffs.

Edited September 7, 2021 by 1980Mooney

[hubcap]

There has been a lot of great advice offered here. I can't add much but I would suggest getting more hours before moving into a "K". It is NOT anything like a 172. I don't know if you have checked on insurance but that would be a good start. I have a M20K and I absolutely love it. However, if you don't like being on oxygen and flying in the mid-teens altitude wise...............do not get a "K".........the "J Model" would be more appropriate. 

IF you buy a "K" then I would definitely recommend a good engine monitor. The "K" does require a little more attention to the management of the engine. 

 

 

[carusoam]

Two challenges…

1) getting the plane up to speed…

2) getting the pilot up to speed…

Commit to doing both… because it takes time and resources… you will do well.

Have the need to skimp on anything…. Or don’t feel that extra effort is required….

A NA Mooney makes a great alternative for low time, GA pilots…

See what your insurance company says… they have a way of telling you if you are serious enough already…

PP thoughts only, not an insurance guru…

Best regards,

-a-

[redbaron1982]

Thanks again all for the great insights! In particular to @1980Mooney, you did take a lot of time to investigage. I found very suspicious the corrosion issue mentioned in NTSB and not found in the logbooks.

Regarding my mission, I want to fly (solo or with my girlfriend) and have fun while doing it. Basically I want to add hours (200 per year approx) and not flying around my home time, want to take the advantage to do some long XC (between 1000NM and 1500NM). So speed is important, and ofcourse also economy is important (maintenance and fuel consumption).

Honestly not super fan of flying at FL240, I would only do it for extra speed (or for avoiding weather). 

So M20J could be a good option (I assume less maintenance because it's NA) as long as I get from 170kt of a M20K to 150kt on a M20J. I'm not super familiar with the speeds, I couldn't find POH for them and in websites I get different readings.

[Schllc]

I agree 100% with the comments about if you fly low and in flat areas, that a turbo is not a must have by any means.  In fact, most of the tail draggers i see in back country mountain flying are NA, so there are plenty of ways to get around "needing" a turbo. 

But it still has benefits even in those flat environments, even if they aren't compulsory.  As an owner, over time, you will inevitably find yourself with weather to get above, mountains etc, and having that steady climb ability that comes with consistent MP is really nice, and you don't have to be at 24k to take advantage of the benefit.  

It is more to maintain, probably end up burning more fuel, paying more for insurance, and having more things to pay attention to which increases work load.  However, everything in aviation is a trade off, and if you polled people who have owned both turbo and non turbo, you would find most prefer to have the capability, even with the caveats.

[1980Mooney]

2 hours ago, redbaron1982 said:

So speed is important, and ofcourse also economy…Honestly not super fan of flying at FL240, I would only do it for extra speed

So M20J could be a good option (I assume less maintenance because it's NA) as long as I get from 170kt of a M20K to 150kt on a M20J. I'm not super familiar with the speeds, I couldn't find POH for them and in websites I get different readings.

As you fly more and study winds aloft you will find that high altitude is not always your friend speed-wise ….especially on your westbound legs. However the return leg will be great unless the winds have shifted. Funny thing I always feel that I have headwind…. As someone said aviation is balancing act if tradeoffs 

 POH
Early M20J GW was 2,740 lbs.  Later was 2,900  

https://pilotage.e-monsite.com/medias/files/m20j-poh3203b.pdf
 

https://www.nqac.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/M20J-POH.pdf

M20K POH

http://www.sparrowflyingclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/M20K-POH-N654JB.pdf

https://www.oesc-aero.at/downloads/POH_Mooney_M20K_OEKOG.pdf

Edited September 9, 2021 by 1980Mooney

[Tx_Aggie]

On 9/4/2021 at 7:09 PM, Mooney Dog said:

College station? Going off the name

My alma mater! I’m out of Midland, TX

[Tx_Aggie]

15 hours ago, redbaron1982 said:

Thanks again all for the great insights! In particular to @1980Mooney, you did take a lot of time to investigage. I found very suspicious the corrosion issue mentioned in NTSB and not found in the logbooks.

Regarding my mission, I want to fly (solo or with my girlfriend) and have fun while doing it. Basically I want to add hours (200 per year approx) and not flying around my home time, want to take the advantage to do some long XC (between 1000NM and 1500NM). So speed is important, and ofcourse also economy is important (maintenance and fuel consumption).

Honestly not super fan of flying at FL240, I would only do it for extra speed (or for avoiding weather). 

So M20J could be a good option (I assume less maintenance because it's NA) as long as I get from 170kt of a M20K to 150kt on a M20J. I'm not super familiar with the speeds, I couldn't find POH for them and in websites I get different readings.

I looked long and hard at k models also before pulling the trigger on a 1980 M20J. I’m very pleased, in terms of aviation, the J is best bang for your buck in terms of speed, fuel burn and affordability. The j will get 155-160 ktas on 10-11 gph depending on engine settings. As others have mentioned, if you look at a few tail numbers on flight aware to compare real world performance, I think you’ll see most k models flying at the same altitudes of J pilots and equal to near equal ground speeds. The J model should be considered a high performance airplane in my opinion, it is so slick and aerodynamic, it takes practiced finesse to slow down and transition from cruise to approach to landing - much more than a piper arrow or 182rg… good luck with the search. 
 

by the way - the k model originally posted about was for sale when I bough mine last year. I too noticed the years of corrosion, my 2 cents would be to run from this one. It’ll end up being a curse not a blessing. 

Edited September 10, 2021 by Tx_Aggie

[Falcon Man]

Redbaron1982,

I have over 1800 hours in turbocharged 231/252 K models, including 1000 hrs in a converted 231 (1985) and almost all hours are 3-4 hr. flights over the Sierras and Rockies. Unless most of your flights are at these altitudes, just about any other non-turbo Mooney will be more efficient and less expensive to operate. The most sensible transition would be to get a F or J model to do your IFR training in and become a master Mooney pilot. When the time is right for you and you need to fly high on O2, a 231/252 will be a great step up.

If you do pursue the 231 conversion please reach out to me so I can share with you the issues you are likely to encounter maintenance wise.

Good luck pursuing your dream,

Jeff - 208.720.2506

[Z W]

I have time in both a non-turbo (C model) and turbo (K model 262, like the one discussed here) Mooney.  I would not go back to the NA engine.  The turbo is not about speed, but convenience, comfort, and options.  You can always climb to get out of turbulence, clouds, and/or icing. After a nasty, moderately-turbulent flight across Texas and New Mexico in a naturally-aspirated M20C, maxed out in altitude at 12,500 feet with bumps all the way to the ground, my wife appreciates the turbo and won't go back.

If there's a tailwind you want to catch, you go up high and catch it.  If you want to take your family of four into the mountains and depart at gross weight on a hot summer day, you just do it.  No leaning for take-off, no need to study the POH and do density altitude calculations (you may use a couple hundred more feet than normal but generally its a no-factor).

You don't have to spend every flight way up high to enjoy the turbo.  It's there for the 10% of flights where a NA plane might be uncomfortable or even unsafe.  It costs a little more in maintenance, but I'm betting less than 5% of the total cost of owning the plane, and we've replaced our entire turbo system at this point.  I'd do it again.  Just my two cents.

[MooneyNoob]

On 9/10/2021 at 12:42 AM, Falcon Man said:

Redbaron1982,

I have over 1800 hours in turbocharged 231/252 K models, including 1000 hrs in a converted 231 (1985) and almost all hours are 3-4 hr. flights over the Sierras and Rockies. Unless most of your flights are at these altitudes, just about any other non-turbo Mooney will be more efficient and less expensive to operate. The most sensible transition would be to get a F or J model to do your IFR training in and become a master Mooney pilot. When the time is right for you and you need to fly high on O2, a 231/252 will be a great step up.

If you do pursue the 231 conversion please reach out to me so I can share with you the issues you are likely to encounter maintenance wise.

Good luck pursuing your dream,

Jeff - 208.720.2506

@Falcon Man I’m also a 120 hour ppl transitioning to Mooney.  I just got an m20k 231 with intercooler and merlyn waste gate and am working on my Instrument rating.  Since you’re offering, I would really appreciate any words of wisdom!!!

[carusoam]

Fly often with other MSers…

Go to farther away fly-ins… sharing expenses….

A great way to see how others operate in the real world…

 Best regards,

-a-

Edited September 12, 2021 by carusoam

[geoffb]

I’d be less concerned about the flying and more concerned with the ownership.  Having recently moved from an E to a 262, I can say the level of complexity and therefore the cost of everything increases significantly.  From that, if you don’t need the capability, I’d skip it.  The 4-cylinder naturally aspirated lycoming is simple.  TSIO360MB with dual alternators is a bear to work on and has a lot of “stuff” under the hood.  Expect your first annual to be significant.

As said, that one has been for sale for a long time.  Biggest turn off for me when I was shopping and it was much cheaper is the fact that it was weather scout radar equipped.  I think the turd radar is gone, but the radome? in the wing is still there.  Reskin the wing won’t be cheap.

I  flew to Tulsa last year expecting to fly home in a Bo Dan had.  Flew home commercial.  Dan didn’t waste my time, hold my deposit, or cause me any grief, he seems to be a straight shooter all in all.  Just remember he represents the seller, all the due diligence is yours and with a reasonably complicated plane that has had a very, very significant modification done to it, you want experienced eyes on it.