M20B as a trainer?

[bcg]

I'm about 10 hours into my PPL training, planning to go straight into instrument when I finish this and an ultimate goal of getting into a 252 or a Bravo. I'm shopping half-heartedly right now just to get a feel for what pricing is in the market and how quickly they sell when I came across this little gem - https://www.controller.com/listing/for-sale/215941843/1961-mooney-m20b-piston-single-aircraft

 

Now in thinking this might be a great trainer for me as it's inexpensive enough I could easily pay cash and not stress out about self-insuring it to build up time in a Mooney so the insurance companies will hopefully feel better about insuring a more expensive 252 or Bravo when I get there. The TTAF seems really low to me for the vintage, which could be good or bad, and the engine is pretty fresh. I think there are enough avionics in it already to be able to use this for my Instrument training, although I'm not sure if it's got ADS-B out. I'm thinking I could get a couple hundred hours in this and then start to seriously shop for my lifetime plane.

 

Anyway, what to do you guys think? Anyone know anything about this plane in particular? Are there specific things to this model I should be looking for? I'm only about a 1.5 hour drive from GMAX and 45 minutes from Kerrville so it's not a big deal to go look at it, in fact Bulverde is only a 15 minute flight from my flight school and in fairly confident I could easily convince my CFI to pop over with me during a lesson to take a look at it.

 

What do I not know to be asking and/or considering here?

 

Forget the financial side of it, while I could make a case for buying being cheaper than renting, it's not really about that. There's lot of toys here that I could technically rent cheaper, I just like owning stuff and being able to use it on my schedule.

 

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

 

 

[Schllc]

45 minutes ago, bcg said:

 

I'm about 10 hours into my PPL training, planning to go straight into instrument when I finish this and an ultimate goal of getting into a 252 or a Bravo. I'm shopping half-heartedly right now just to get a feel for what pricing is in the market and how quickly they sell when I came across this little gem - https://www.controller.com/listing/for-sale/215941843/1961-mooney-m20b-piston-single-aircraft

 

Now in thinking this might be a great trainer for me as it's inexpensive enough I could easily pay cash and not stress out about self-insuring it to build up time in a Mooney so the insurance companies will hopefully feel better about insuring a more expensive 252 or Bravo when I get there. The TTAF seems really low to me for the vintage, which could be good or bad, and the engine is pretty fresh. I think there are enough avionics in it already to be able to use this for my Instrument training, although I'm not sure if it's got ADS-B out. I'm thinking I could get a couple hundred hours in this and then start to seriously shop for my lifetime plane.

 

Anyway, what to do you guys think? Anyone know anything about this plane in particular? Are there specific things to this model I should be looking for? I'm only about a 1.5 hour drive from GMAX and 45 minutes from Kerrville so it's not a big deal to go look at it, in fact Bulverde is only a 15 minute flight from my flight school and in fairly confident I could easily convince my CFI to pop over with me during a lesson to take a look at it.

 

What do I not know to be asking and/or considering here?

 

Forget the financial side of it, while I could make a case for buying being cheaper than renting, it's not really about that. There's lot of toys here that I could technically rent cheaper, I just like owning stuff and being able to use it on my schedule.

 

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

I think it is a Fantastic idea!
If you can afford it and can find an insurance company to cover you, I would get the bravo now. It may take a little more time to get the ppl that way but you will be very proficient in the plane you plan to own and fly. 
in a lot of ways a Mooney is easier to fly than a 172. It is probably not as forgiving, but things like crosswind landings are much easier in a Mooney. 
Insurance will be a challenge, but I did it with an ovation and about 30 hours before I got my ppl. 
it can be done. 
any Mooney will be good prep if you plan on ending up in a Mooney. 
go for it!!

[MikeOH]

Great idea IMO. 
I rented a B for many years before buying my F and insurance was a non-event. I think you’re smart to self insure hill; just make sure you have liability! Even renting you need liabilityafter you solo.

Personal opinion, but I think getting the instrument rating with steam gauges and then transitioning to glass is preferable to learning with glass. If the screens go blank you’ll be back to backup steam….and in that situation I’d be glad I’d learned on steam.

EDIT: I see it doesn’t have an IFR GPS…you need to spring for that install if you want to get your Instrument in that B.

[bcg]

1 minute ago, MikeOH said:

Great idea IMO. 
I rented a B for many years before buying my F and insurance was a non-event. I think you’re smart to self insure hill; just make sure you have liability! Even renting you need liabilityafter you solo.

Personal opinion, but I think getting the instrument rating with steam gauges and then transitioning to glass is preferable to learning with glass. If the screens go blank you’ll be back to backup steam….and in that situation I’d be glad I’d learned on steam.

My personal umbrella will force me to get liability, whether I want to or not.  I would even if they didn't though, it's just silly not to.

I've flown in both STEAM and mostly glass cockpits now and to be completely honest, I find it a lot easier to scan the STEAM gauges and keep my head out of the cockpit.  With the glass, there's so much information in such a small space that I spend a lot of time trying to decipher what I'm looking at.  I know it'll get easier with time but for now, the STEAM gauges reduce my workload and make it easier for me to pay attention to everything else.

[bcg]

30 minutes ago, Schllc said:

I think it is a Fantastic idea!
If you can afford it and can find an insurance company to cover you, I would get the bravo now. It may take a little more time to get the ppl that way but you will be very proficient in the plane you plan to own and fly. 
in a lot of ways a Mooney is easier to fly than a 172. It is probably not as forgiving, but things like crosswind landings are much easier in a Mooney. 
Insurance will be a challenge, but I did it with an ovation and about 30 hours before I got my ppl. 
it can be done. 
any Mooney will be good prep if you plan on ending up in a Mooney. 
go for it!!

I could afford the Bravo now, insurance would be the trick.  Plus, I would constantly be worried I was going to bend something.  With this B, if it gets bent, I can just fix it and move on, I won't have so much invested in it that I'll be worried about it, which means I'll be more relaxed flying it and less likely to bend something.  Funny how that works out...lol

I started out with a 172 and have spent the last 3 hours in a Cherokee.  I like the Cherokee a LOT better, I really just like the way the low wing handles vs the high wing during takeoff and landing.  I think the ground effect is increased and it makes landing smoothly easier.  I really like the way you have to pop the low wing out of ground effect when you take off, it makes it feel like you're literally leaping off the runway.  It took me a couple of takeoffs to figure out that I needed to be more deliberate about pulling the yoke back initially, once I did though things got more fun.

[Shadrach]

12 hours ago, bcg said:

I could afford the Bravo now, insurance would be the trick.  Plus, I would constantly be worried I was going to bend something.  With this B, if it gets bent, I can just fix it and move on, I won't have so much invested in it that I'll be worried about it…

This is a hard insurance market and to be honest, one that’s more realistic about pricing risk.  There is a reason insurance companies don’t insure 20 hour students in complex airplanes.  There is also a reason flight schools use trainer aircraft. There are exceptions to the norm where people use complex aircraft for primary training but that does not mean it is efficient or ideal. Good for bragging rights but Have doubts that it is more efficient. I trained in a C150 and passed my ride with just over 50hrs TT and the minimum instruction requirements. Not because I was so good (I wasn’t in hindsight) but because I was flying a simple airplane and learning in manageable increments. You may be a natural talent but do consider that you don’t  yet have the skills to assess your own talent.  The idea that a B model is an “expendable” that you can “just fix and move on” from strikes me as cavalier at 10hrs. 
 

[BravoWhiskey]

Is that M20B IFR capable?  Might want to ask that question if you were looking to get your IFR rating in it.  There is another one listed for $85k that is… 

I got my bravo after my IFR and complex endorsement.  I felt I knew much more to be able to truly evaluate the plane (and equipment) I was buying.  At 10hrs I think I had just soloed for the first time and my only focus then was flying and landing that 172 like my kids were on board.

 

[bcg]

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

This is a hard insurance market and to be honest, one that’s more realistic about pricing risk.  There is a reason insurance companies don’t insure 20 hour students in complex airplanes.  There is also a reason flight schools use trainer aircraft. There are exceptions to the norm where people use complex aircraft for primary training but that does not mean it is efficient or ideal. Good for bragging rights but Have doubts that it is more efficient. I trained in a C150 and passed my ride with just over 50hrs TT and the minimum instruction requirements. Not because I was so good (I wasn’t in hindsight) but because I was flying a simple airplane and learning in manageable increments. You may be a natural talent but do consider that you don’t  yet have the skills to assess your own talent.  The idea that a B model is an “expendable” that you can “just fix and move on” from strikes me as cavalier at 10hrs. 
 

At the end of the day, they're all just expendable things.  The most important and valuable part of any aircraft are the people sitting inside it so if it comes to sacrificing the thing and saving the people, I'll make that choice every time over someone getting hurt and the plane living to fly another day. 

What I mean when I say "I'll fix it and move on" is that is that if something were to happen, even if it got totaled, it wouldn't be financially ruinous and so I'm willing to take the risk of flying it without hull insurance, not that I don't care about breaking it.  Obviously, the goal is to never break anything but, sometimes things happen and it's a lot more likely that they'll happen when I'm a low hour pilot than when I have several thousand hours in the seat.  For that reason, I see some advantage to knowing that if I buy something now, I'm going to have someone more skilled than me in the right seat more often than not for the next 30+ hours to help prevent things from happening vs buying after I have my license, getting a few hours of transition training and being on my own after that.

Edited July 24, 2022 by bcg

[Shadrach]

3 hours ago, bcg said:

At the end of the day, they're all just expendable things.  The most important and valuable part of any aircraft are the people sitting inside it so if it comes to sacrificing the thing and saving the people, I'll make that choice every time over someone getting hurt and the plane living to fly another day. 

What I mean when I say "I'll fix it and move on" is that is that if something were to happen, even if it got totaled, it wouldn't be financially ruinous and so I'm willing to take the risk of flying it without hull insurance, not that I don't care about breaking it.  Obviously, the goal is to never break anything but, sometimes things happen and it's a lot more likely that they'll happen when I'm a low hour pilot than when I have several thousand hours in the seat.  For that reason, I see some advantage to knowing that if I buy something now, I'm going to have someone more skilled than me in the right seat more often than not for the next 30+ hours to help prevent things from happening vs buying after I have my license, getting a few hours of transition training and being on my own after that.

While it’s true that they are just things, it’s pretty clear Mooney’s manufacturing days are behind them. Which is why reading a 10hr wonder speak of a B model like it’s an expendable path to a Bravo is off putting. As impressive as your financial ability to absorb a 60k loss is, it’s not terribly unique around these parts. There are less than 100 B models left in the FAA registry. No idea how many of those are still in flying condition.  I’m partial to this airframe in all configurations. They are not ever going to make anymore of them. So again, it rubs me the wrong way to see someone who has been flying for a month ostensibly say that they wish to begin an unorthodox and uninsurable training regimen in a B model because “hey, it’s only a B model, I can afford to prang it”.  I appreciate ambition, it’s a valuable personality trait. I’ve been around airplanes my whole life; in 25 years of flying, I have never seen humility and self awareness contribute to a bad outcome. I can’t say the same about ambition and ignorance. 

[MikeOH]

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

While it’s true that they are just things, it’s pretty clear Mooney’s manufacturing days are behind them. Which is why reading a 10hr wonder speak of a B model like it’s an expendable path to a Bravo is off putting. As impressive as your financial ability to absorb a 60k loss is, it’s not terribly unique around these parts. There are less than 100 B models left in the FAA registry. No idea how many of those are still in flying condition.  I’m partial to this airframe in all configurations. They are not ever going to make anymore of them. So again, it rubs me the wrong way to see someone who has been flying for a month ostensibly say that they wish to begin an unorthodox and uninsurable training regimen in a B model because “hey, it’s only a B model, I can afford to prang it”.  I appreciate ambition, it’s a valuable personality trait. I’ve been around airplanes my whole life; in 25 years of flying, I have never seen humility and self awareness contribute to a bad outcome. I can’t say the same about ambition and ignorance. 

While I appreciate your points, I think you may be being a bit harsh on the new guy.

My read is that he is a realist; as has been said, flight schools tend to use low end aircraft.  And, one of the reasons is that inexperienced students tend to prang them.  Given his goal that he eventually wants a high-end Mooney it seems logical to train in Mooney even if that isn't the accepted 'best choice' way to go about it.  Would you feel the same way if he'd said he was going to buy an old 172 for the same reason?  Or, is it morally ok to accept you may prang an old Cessna, but not an old Mooney?

Long term, I've always been curious about the statistics behind gear up landings.  I doubt the data is available, but I wonder what percent of gear ups happen to pilots that trained ab initio with a retract?

[bcg]

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

While it’s true that they are just things, it’s pretty clear Mooney’s manufacturing days are behind them. Which is why reading a 10hr wonder speak of a B model like it’s an expendable path to a Bravo is off putting. As impressive as your financial ability to absorb a 60k loss is, it’s not terribly unique around these parts. There are less than 100 B models left in the FAA registry. No idea how many of those are still in flying condition.  I’m partial to this airframe in all configurations. They are not ever going to make anymore of them. So again, it rubs me the wrong way to see someone who has been flying for a month ostensibly say that they wish to begin an unorthodox and uninsurable training regimen in a B model because “hey, it’s only a B model, I can afford to prang it”.  I appreciate ambition, it’s a valuable personality trait. I’ve been around airplanes my whole life; in 25 years of flying, I have never seen humility and self awareness contribute to a bad outcome. I can’t say the same about ambition and ignorance. 

In the scenario I framed that statement in anything is expendable to me.  Save the thing or the people I'm always choosing the people, I don't care what the thing is, the people are always more valuable to me.  That doesn't mean I see the thing as having no value or disposable, it just means that in my order of priorities, it's never going to be at the top of the list.

I find it kind of funny that I readily admit from the beginning that there is a chance I could bend stuff and that's seen as anything other than self-awareness or humility though.  The thing you're most put of by is essentially me saying I'm aware I don't have the skills to be assured I won't mess something up, if that's not self-awareness, then maybe I don't understand what you mean by that.

Bottom line is that I'm going to be very difficult to insure at this point regardless of the plane I choose, even a Cessna 152 would be tough.  All I'm really trying to do is maximize my training time by spending it learning what I plan to fly instead of having to duplicate a lot of work later in a transition.  If I'm going to be in a Mooney, what's the point of putting a ton of effort into learning something else if the option to learn with what I want to be flying in is available?  Especially if I have that option with the built in safety net of a CFI sitting next to me? 

Speaking of the CFI, I made it a point to choose a CFI that had real flying experience, not a freshly minted guy building hours so he can get his commercial.  I want to fly/learn with someone that actually understands the workload in planes other than trainers so that I can learn from his experience now instead of making my own expensive mistakes later.  I flew with several before I chose one with 1700 hours, that is type rated in the Phenom 300 and Honda Jet and has flown corporate jets.  I feel confident in him being able to help me with everything that's required in flying a complex plane and it just seems smart to take full advantage of that resource from the start.

I guess I should have explicitly stated it but my goal to learn in, and love, the B while I have it and pass it on in better condition than I got it in.  That seemed so obvious to me that I didn't think it really needed to be.  I try to do that with everything but, I also don't go into anything believing nothing bad can or will happen.  Part of the evaluation has to be what's the worst case here and can I live with that if it happens and that's all the statement was meant to convey.  I'm sorry it struck you otherwise.  I do appreciate your input though, thanks for taking the time to share it.

Edited July 24, 2022 by bcg

[Shadrach]

58 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

While I appreciate your points, I think you may be being a bit harsh on the new guy.

My read is that he is a realist; as has been said, flight schools tend to use low end aircraft.  And, one of the reasons is that inexperienced students tend to prang them.  Given his goal that he eventually wants a high-end Mooney it seems logical to train in Mooney even if that isn't the accepted 'best choice' way to go about it.  Would you feel the same way if he'd said he was going to buy an old 172 for the same reason?  Or, is it morally ok to accept you may prang an old Cessna, but not an old Mooney?

Long term, I've always been curious about the statistics behind gear up landings.  I doubt the data is available, but I wonder what percent of gear ups happen to pilots that trained ab initio with a retract?

Actually,  I think you’d be surprised how many gear up incidents occur during training flights. My apologies if it came across as though I was moralizing training in a Mooney. It’s a free country, people can do whatever they wish. A 20B  is way more airplane than a 172 and it is much easier to get behind. A 172 is primary trainer - buying one to train in can make sense, but it adds the complexity of aircraft ownership to the training scenario. I think it would be much more prudent to buy a Mooney for IR training after gaining the PPL. We have a local flight school and I watch students land all day long. To say that a retract with very limited suspension travel transferring the landing loads to the wing is suboptimal for that task is an understatement. 172 is ideal by comparison.

[M20F]

You can get your PPL in a 747 if you got the time and the money.  With proper training and a sufficient wallet anything is possible

[MikeOH]

37 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Actually,  I think you’d be surprised how many gear up incidents occur during training flights. 

Oh, I'm sure I wouldn't be surprised.  There are plenty of YouTube videos of student and instructor belly landing while the gear horn is blaring away!

The point I failed to make, was one of primacy of learning.  If you learn, from the beginning, in a retractable gear aircraft I think you are less likely to have a gear up in your future flying.  I can't prove that assertion, which is why I was wondering if that data even exists for all gear ups that would allow us to determine the breakdown.  I doubt it, unfortunately.

[bcg]

I learned how to fly in the early 80s as a teenager in the M20C I now own.  My dad owned it back then.  He was a former USAF pilot but was not an instructor and he taught me how to fly in it.  When I was old enough he told me he would pay for 20 hours of dual and 20 hours solo in a Cessna 150 or 152.  I soloed the Cessna in 7 hours, and had my license in 41 hours.  Thanks, I am sure, to my unlogged time in the Mooney.  Yes, he paid for the extra hour.    I have since owned several other airplanes including a M20J that I owned for 12 years.
To be perfectly honest, I don’t remember the Mooney being any harder to fly now than the Cessna, but I’m sure that it was.   I do remember a 10 hour basic aerobatics course that I took about 20 years ago, though   The first eight hours were in a Great Lakes doing what Great Lakes do, as was the tenth hour in a Pitts.  The ninth hour, though, was an a 172 and the entire objective of the flight was to try to get it to spin.  If you have never tried, with two men in the front seats you might be surprised by just how hard it is.  It is that well designed as a trainer.  To get it to spin you basically have to use a burst of power and abrupt up elevator and enter it almost like you would a snap roll.  Otherwise she’ll spiral down.  Around that same period of time I owned a Cherokee 180.  You could do “delayed recovery” or “falling leaf” stalls in that thing from 10,000 feet all the way to the ground if you wanted to.  It was that well designed as a trainer.  As much as I like to herald Mooneys as being much easier to fly than most people think, the reality is that if you try either of these shenanigans in a Mooney the outcome will be very different.  

I bring all of this up to make just one point.  Yes, you can get your license in a M20B, but I wouldn’t recommend it.   No matter what you fly if you fly long enough you will do dumb things that you will learn from.  I’m talking about long after you earn your PPL even.   Most of us survive this learning process but some do not.  We have had several members here on MooneySpace who did not, in fact. Trainers are designed to help you survive.  It really is that simple.  There is just no good reason not to take advantage of their engineering.

Good input, thank you. My dad was also career AF, flying tankers for 22 years. After retirement, he went to work at Flight Safety and was a type instructor for the Falcon 10, G200, G350 and PL-24, only recently retiring. I spent a decent amount of time with him in the SIM for the Falcon and the G350, almost all of it landings because that's the fun part. I fully get that the SIM is not a real plane but, if you've never experienced these SIMs, they're as close as you can get. They have a full motion base that will actually produce enough G force to push you back in your seat on takeoff, the only real giveaway was the graphics weren't all that great out front but, these were instrument aircraft so that wasn't all that important. He's the guy that usually talks me out of bad aviation ideas and his only objection to this one was financial. I'm not considering this because I think it'll be cheaper though.

One thing to keep in mind is that even if I go look at it tomorrow, by the time a PPI is done and the deal is finished, it would be at least a couple of weeks before I would be flying the plane. That assumes there's nothing that needs to be fixed and I would be very surprised if that turned out to be the case, so more realistically probably a month, maybe longer. I'm now flying 2-3 days a week, at least 2 hours per lesson. I started with 1 hour flight lessons and found shorter lessons didn't really give me enough time to pick up new skills. About the time something was starting to click, it was time to head back to the airport. My point being that by the time I could actually fly the B, I would be at least 20ish hours in, not that 20 hours is a lot compared to the 22k my dad has but, it is twice as many as 10.

What I was really asking more than anything was if there are specifics to these vintage Mooneys that I should be looking for? I know corrosion is an issue for some and I assume everything mentioned in the current post about the C would apply to a B as well. Are there other things that are specific to the B though?

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

[Shadrach]

31 minutes ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

I learned how to fly in the early 80s as a teenager in the M20C I now own.  My dad owned it back then.  He was a former USAF pilot but was not an instructor and he taught me how to fly in it.  When I was old enough he told me he would pay for 20 hours of dual and 20 hours solo in a Cessna 150 or 152.  I soloed the Cessna in 7 hours, and had my license in 41 hours.  Yes, he paid for the extra hour.    I have since owned several other airplanes including a M20J that I owned for 12 years.

To be perfectly honest, I don’t remember the Mooney being any harder to fly now than the Cessna, but I’m sure that it was.   I do remember a 10 hour basic aerobatics course that I took about 20 years ago, though   The first eight hours were in a Great Lakes doing what Great Lakes do, as was the tenth hour in a Pitts.  The ninth hour, though, was an a 172 and the entire objective of the flight was to try to get it to spin.  If you have never tried, with two men in the front seats you might be surprised by just how hard it is.   It is that well designed as a trainer.   To get it to spin you basically have to use some power and enter it like you would a snap roll.  Around that same period of time I owned a Cherokee 180.  You could do “delayed recovery” or “falling leaf” stalls in that thing from 10,000 feet all the way to the ground if you wanted to.  It was that well designed as a trainer.  As much as I like to herald Mooneys as being much easier to fly than most people think, the reality is that if you try either of these maneuvers in a Mooney the outcome will be very different.  

I bring all of this up to make just one point.  Yes, you can get your license in a M20B, but I wouldn’t recommend it.   No matter what you fly if you fly long enough you will do dumb things that you will learn from.  I’m talking about long after you earn your PPL even.   Most of us survive this learning process but some do not.  We have had several members here on MooneySpace who did not, even. Trainers are designed to help you survive the learning process.  It really is that simple.   There is just no good reason not to take advantage of their engineering.

I too was landing a Mooney reasonably well by the time I was in my teens. I grew up in it. Had hundreds of hours right seat before ever taking the yoke.  Nevertheless I trained for my ticket in trainers. Why? Because it was the right tool for the job. And despite my notions of superior skills, I still had a lot to learn. I could land the Moon reasonably under ideal conditions, But I didn’t practice cross wind landing in it. I didn’t do accelerated stalls, I didn’t do departure stalls, I didn’t do spins. I didn’t do…well we are making the same point. There’s a lot that can be learned in a forgiving, high wing trainer that you just can’t do in a Mooney.

 

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, MikeOH said:

Oh, I'm sure I wouldn't be surprised.  There are plenty of YouTube videos of student and instructor belly landing while the gear horn is blaring away!

The point I failed to make, was one of primacy of learning.  If you learn, from the beginning, in a retractable gear aircraft I think you are less likely to have a gear up in your future flying.  I can't prove that assertion, which is why I was wondering if that data even exists for all gear ups that would allow us to determine the breakdown.  I doubt it, unfortunately.

If primacy were truly significant, I’d still be reaching for carb heat abeam they numbers. I don’t.

[M20F]

I learned how to fly in a AC560 and then moved onto a C320.  I finally crossed into more ASEL time than AMEL time couple years ago.  

[Shadrach]

7 minutes ago, M20F said:

I learned how to fly in a AC560 and then moved onto a C320.  I finally crossed into more ASEL time than AMEL time couple years ago.  

So which did you take your PPL checkride in the Aerocomander or the twin Cessna? 

[M20F]

17 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

So which did you take your PPL checkride in the Aerocomander or the twin Cessna? 

AC560 with Walter P he was the DPE out of KRFD. He flew Lears and had a lot of time in twin commanders.  He liked to say big rudder, good spin recovery.  He wanted to see a full power on stall.  I yanked and banked and he pushed down.  Victory was mine.  We got the seat cleaned before we  went back to home base.  
 
If I could own any airplane the AC560 is it.  7 passenger airplane that you never needed to do weight and balance in.  Full tanks, full luggage, full people, no problems.  They only built I want to say 56.  There are a handful around but out my price range and the GO-480 has part issues/issues finding people who can do the gear box. 
 
I still occasionally get power/prop backwards on the Mooney especially in the go around. 
 

The 320 sucked mostly and the turbos are completely unrebuildable.  Was a rocket on rails when it wasn’t being problematic.

I like probably everyone love a twin but the maintenance is rough.  
 
I love the 569/640’s!

[Shadrach]

21 minutes ago, M20F said:

AC560 with Walter P he was the DPE out of KRFD. He flew Lears and had a lot of time in twin commanders.  He liked to say big rudder, good spin recovery.  He wanted to see a full power on stall.  I yanked and banked and he pushed down.  Victory was mine.  We got the seat cleaned before we  went back to home base.  
 
If I could own any airplane the AC560 is it.  7 passenger airplane that you never needed to do weight and balance in.  Full tanks, full luggage, full people, no problems.  They only built I want to say 56.  There are a handful around but out my price range and the GO-480 has part issues/issues finding people who can do the gear box. 
 
I still occasionally get power/prop backwards on the Mooney especially in the go around. 
 

The 320 sucked mostly and the turbos are completely unrebuildable.  Was a rocket on rails when it wasn’t being problematic.

I like probably everyone love a twin but the maintenance is rough.  
 
I love the 569/640’s!

You’re quite fortunate. There is no way I could have afforded to feed either of those birds in my primary training and even if I could have, I likely would have passed.  I Was and still am too frugal to use a twin when a single would suit the mission.

[M20F]

30 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

You’re quite fortunate. There is no way I could have afforded to feed either of those birds in my primary training and even if I could have, I likely would have passed.  I Was and still am too frugal to use a twin when a single would suit the mission.

Lol I couldn’t afford either but I my great friend and CFI to this day could :-)

[Jsno]

For your Instrument you will need to perform precision approaches.  This is only equipped for non recision approaches.  You would have to up grade some of the avionics.  

[47U]

1 hour ago, Jsno said:

This is only equipped for non recision approaches.

I think this (hidden behind the yoke) is a VAL INS 429, which has glide slope (not TSO’d, but ‘meets TSO’).  

The registration shows ‘Quiet Technologies’ as the owner… is Phil still around here? 

 

 

[Jsno]

Didn't see that.  Interesting...