Jump to content

Plane A or Plane b?

FlyingAggie

By FlyingAggie
in Modern Mooney Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

FlyDave Veteran

FlyDave

Posted
Posted

Plane A - looks like a nice one! Low time engine, average 100 hrs. year, 3 bladed prop, Gammi's, 430 (WAAS?), KAP-150 w/FD/HSI, KX-155, Stormscope, JPI engine monitor, speed brakes, intercooler, "New" paint and interior (well, it was new at one time....). If you're looking for a 231, this looks like a good choice..but do your homework.


Good Luck and Fly Safe!!

FlyDave Veteran

FlyDave

Posted
Posted

Quote: FlyingAggie

 Interestingly enough that plane had been a repo by IRG Group and was listed on The Controller until a couple of days ago. It now shows up on eBay.  I actually inquired about it and asked if it had an intercooler and received an email from IRG saying "Sorry there is no air-conditioner"

Alan

FlyingAggie Proficient

FlyingAggie

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Airplane A seems to be winning hands down among the Mooniacs.  In defense of B, am I wrong about the following:


What I like about B vs A is:



  • 430W vs 430
  • SFRMN vs MOH
  • Auto wastegate + Intercooler vs Intercooler Only
  • Long range vs Normal Tanks
  • Gray vs Red interior

I did talk at length with the owner of B.  He has flown the plane 150-200 hrs/yr and flies it regulary.  He said Don Maxwell had told him if he wanted to avoid top problems cruise at 65% power.  So it has been handled gently. (A neat trick Don M taught him for setting power at 65% is  to have MP + RPM = 50.)   He removed the factory O2 bottle and has two portable units that will go with the plane.  He said it is much easier to access more economical sources of O2 with the portable bottles and he gained useful weight. Last two Annuals were by Chandler ($6000) and Top Gun ($7000).  Only negative is the plane has not been hangared, since the owner travels with it, it spends more time in transient parking than at home.  But home is in AZ's dry climate.


What I like about B vs A is



  • 1985 vs 1980 airframe options
  • 2550 vs 3900 TT
  • 335 vs 750 engine time
  • Radar Altimeter vs none
  • New vs original and faded paint

However after drooling over Scott's new paint job, I have had a paradigm shift in that actually bad paint is a plus, since it gives me the excuse to have my plane painted like Scotts.


Appreciate everyones comments.


Alan

FlyingAggie Proficient

FlyingAggie

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Quote: FlyDave

Nice to know that the people selling the airplane know what they're talking about..NOT! This is probably why it didn't sell on Controller. When someone I'm potentially buying an airplane from sounds like an fool, I quickly loose interest in the aircraft.

If you look at their other items on Ebay, you'll notice they're also selling a boat...you know, airplanes, boat, car...they're just all transportation, right?

Good luck finding the right airplane. I'm in the market also and will keep the board apprised of what I find.

N207LS Rising Star

N207LS

Posted
Posted

Another vote for A, but I would use B to negotiate with and try to reduce price based on no WAAS ($3k), and poorer interior (5-10k to re-do).  The new paint is a plus, but I would like to see photos of the actual paint work and insure that it was done properly (flight controls removed and balanced - see logbook entry for new balance info, complete strip and paint, not just a sand and paint), at a minimum talk to the paint shop that did the work.  The few years newer and lower time add some value, also a new paint and interior job will not be cheap on the other plane.  In order I would consider the following plan to update...


1. WAAS Upgrade, in my opinion essential


2. Re-do interior, just not a fan of the red (maybe consider just re-covering seats at a local auto interior shop and do the burn tests for the FAA paperwork).


 


Just my opinion...


Aaron


 

Cruiser Grand Master

Cruiser

Posted
Posted

someone with a WAAS GPS has to take me for a flight so I can see/understand what the fascination with it is. It just can't be THAT great to be "essential". I file IFR most of the time, in the last several flights I have been able to log only 2 hours of actual and the toughest approach was through broken clouds to 900 AGL. 

KSMooniac Grand Master

KSMooniac

Posted
Posted

Cruiser, WAAS gets you a 5 Hz refresh rate on the screen/data vs. 1 Hz of the non-WAAS versions, which is really nice.  The best part, though, is the much greater functionality if you have an autopilot with GPSS.  The WAAS box + GPSS will drive the plane completely thru a flight plan and approach including any holds, course reversals, 90 degree turns, etc. without any interaction from the pilot.  That is a huge workload reducer in a critical phase of the flight, and therefore much safer for single-pilot IFR work.  The WAAS glideslope on a GPS approach is very nice too, of course, and I think that is all that most people think about when debating the upgrade but there are other nice features too.

DonMuncy Grand Master

DonMuncy

Posted
Posted

WAAS is more accurate than non-WAAS, but you would never notice it in flying.  The difference is that the increased accuracy allows you to legally fly approaches with vertical components and (I think) to fly IFR with no other means of navigation than GPS.


Don

wmrunyon Apprentice

wmrunyon

Posted
Posted

I had an interesting flight last Sunday and WAAS came in very handy. I was picking up a patient at Monroe, LA (KMLU). The weather was b/w 400-700 feet and the GS for RW 04 was Notam’d  inop. We were vectored & cleared for the 22 ILS and the GS came alive but i never got the localizer, so went missed. After a query to the tower, they responded that it too was inop.  My only option now to get below the weather was a LPV approach and after a quick vector we were able to get in.


 


There is a reason the FAA did not invest in or install any new ILS approaches for 08 & 09…WAAS is here to stay and the future for our approaches.


 


Bill

N207LS Rising Star

N207LS

Posted
Posted

Another point with the WAAS approaches is that as you get to small towns and more remote areas, they become the only way to get in.  Several airports that I fly to, including the one where I purchase most of my fuel (usually ~$2 less than my home base per gallon and only 30 miles away) only have GPS approaches.  Here is Florida, especially in the summer, we can have 500' ceilings and the only way in is with a WAAS approach. 


Aaron

FlyingAggie Proficient

FlyingAggie

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Okay Plane A wins.  Unfortuante for me, Plane A went under contract on Wednesday.  So now it is between Plane B and Plane C.


Thansk for the discussions.


Alan


 

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.