After an 18-year flying hiatus, looking for the right M20 model to buy

[Fly Boomer]

On 12/19/2022 at 5:58 PM, Ed de C. said:

Thanks in advance for your guidance and don’t hesitate to challenge my assumptions and ask for more info.

For the best dispatchability and the most options, I vote for both TKS and turbo.  Even if you don't get up into mask territory, the turbo will get you up there quickly, and you always have the option to go higher.  I prefer the Continental, but there are a lot of happy turbo Lycoming pilots as well.

[Fly Boomer]

2 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

There were only 36 Encores made ever (Serial numbers 25-2001 - 2036). I know of at least 6 that left  the U. S.

I owned one with TKS (N40FM) that I later sold to a doctor in Erie PA where TKS is a must. I think there were only 2 or 3 where TKS was done at the factory. CAV may have installed TKS on some later on though. TKS airplanes don't change hands nearly as often, since people specifically bought them for a purpose. Waiting for a TKS Encore . .  highly unlikely that's going to happen.

 

A TKS Acclaim S with some history showed up on Controller today. Even with a little history (hard landing repair and a prop strike repair) it's still a great deal. It won't last long.

https://www.controller.com/listing/for-sale/219803977/2008-mooney-acclaim-type-s-piston-single-aircraft

Lot of airplane for that price.

[goodyFAB]

I can't wait to see what you choose ! 

I am certain there's a hell of a plane out there for you just waiting.

the J seems out of place on your list as it is way outclassed by your other options. 

I think you forgot a couple options. Here's my unsolicited $.02 opinion on the mid body K model Rocket I fly. The budget you mention can easily buy a rocket or a missile and have the interior completely done, and some avionics upgrade and still have dollars left over while giving you TKS, turbo, and enough room to make trips work. Although not a long body, The mid body plane is still plenty big, im 5'11, I have had a couple 6' tall passengers and nobody is complaining about leg room. The pedals in the mooney are so far forward that the pilot / co pilot seats are far enough forward there's more than enough room in back. I could not afford a long body so I have no idea how much more roomy they are but I can't say room is an issue in my k model mooney. 

I have a rocket with TKS, oxygen, Monroy tanks, and speed brakes and still have a 1000lb UL. if you shop for a rocket or missile it is very important you find one with a good UL as I have seen some with very low UL and it is my understanding the 3200lb gw STC is no longer available ( I could be wrong , but worth noting).

Performance in a rocket is impressive, for ex: full gross today I can still climb at 1550fpm. you can plan for 200kts. I have not found the TKS to slow the plane down 5% ...maybe 5kts. The step is removed on my K and that may help speed but I think 5% decrease in speed is an exaggeration or the plane isn't rigged properly. You definitely do not need the turbo on the east coast, but flying a turbo has really been eye opening. Its something else to have the climbing ability no matter the elevation or DA. I imagine the missile with the IO550 is a beast at sea level too, but I can offer no opinion as I have no experience. Another thing I love about the rocket engineering rocket (or missile) is the full feathering prop. should you have an engine out you can glide 16-1 or better, that makes me feel good to extend a glide. its a substantial difference to a non feathering prop. granted, this becomes less of a thing when you have an engine out on take off or landing but at altitude being able to glide 40-60 miles is worth mentioning. Its worth mentioning this is also the reason the rocket has a forward CG, playing with weight and bal if I mounted an MT prop my plane would become even more versatile but I would lose the feathering prop. 

good luck in your plane search, I thought it Worth mentioning the rocket engineering Mooneys as they are out there at a relative bargain and I've seen quite a few with TKS... what mooney performs like a rocket or missile dollar for dollar ?

[PilotX]

On 12/19/2022 at 4:58 PM, Ed de C. said:

 

The models that have my attention are:

1. M20M (Bravo)
2. M20M (Bravo)
3. M20M (Bravo)
4. M20M (Bravo)
5. M20M (Bravo)

 

Fixed it for you.

[rbp]

One thing I would say is that if you have a budget of $300K and can afford that much, compare planes/models in that price range, and leave out the less expensive ones.

PS: I love my M! 

[goodyFAB]

2 hours ago, rbp said:

One thing I would say is that if you have a budget of $300K and can afford that much, compare planes/models in that price range, and leave out the less expensive ones.

PS: I love my M! 

yeah the difference between a 140K plane and 300K plane is not even comparable... there is amazing equipment out there for 300K 

[Schllc]

4 hours ago, goodyFAB said:

yeah the difference between a 140K plane and 300K plane is not even comparable... there is amazing equipment out there for 300K 

I won’t say which Mooney I think is best, I do believe that dollar for dollar, there is no better value than a bravo. 
You get the versatility of the turbo, the speed of a big bore, good UL, great climb, more of them with tks than short or mid body’s, engines that more than likely go to TBO, and cheaper on average by a large margin than all the long body’s. 
It’s slower than an acclaim, faster than an ovation, and I believe there will always be a sting market for it among people who know more than the average bear. 
move seriously looked at more than one and do not think you will regret any Mooney you buy, but the bravo is a lot of bang for the buck for sure. I would hold out for one with a panel, after watching my aerostar sit in the shop for 7 months it’s agonizing…
 

[rbp]

On 12/23/2022 at 9:25 PM, Schllc said:

there will always be a sting market for it among people who know more than the average bear.

What scares people away from the Bravo is fairly simple: money. 26 gallon /hr in the climb, ~18 gallons per hour for 75% power. Mythologically more expensive maintenance, with no data to back it up.  

The people living in the flats are willing to trade actual Bravo raw performance for perceived lower costs. 

There is one fundamental difference between the bravo and the ovations , and that is more complicated engine management revolving around very careful management of temperatures. Not everybody is willing to make the learning investment and add the additional workload

[Schllc]

On 12/24/2022 at 8:07 AM, rbp said:

What scares people away from the Bravo is fairly simple: money. 26 gallon /hr in the climb, ~18 gallons per hour for 75% power. Mythologically more expensive maintenance, with no data to back it up.  

The people living in the flats are willing to trade actual Bravo raw performance for perceived lower costs. 

There is one fundamental difference between the bravo and the claim, and that is more complicated engine management revolving around very careful management of temperatures. Not everybody is willing to make the learning investment and add the additional workload

The fuel consumption in the climb for both models is irrelevant. You climb at 1000+ per minute so you are spending 20min max at that rate and you make most of it up on descent. 
I’ve flown both and I don’t see any more workload controlling temps or engine management . 
the acclaim runs well LOP and is faster which is the only difference I am aware of. An extra turbo and potential for cylinders is equal to a midlife exhaust (roughly).

but the bravo is half the cost to get into for a little higher fuel consumption and a little less speed. 
it’s a great value if you don’t have an extra 150k+ to spend. 

[Jerry 5TJ]

Ed, 

Given your location and missions most folks agree that you should look for TKS and a turbocharged plane.  A 252, Rocket, or Bravo fit in your budget.  

At this point all the planes you are looking at are decades old. Any planes you would consider buying have been modified, most extensively.  They are each unique by now.   

Rather than debate the minutiae of model, GPH or LOP, I’d suggest you find the best plane you can and buy it.  

Good hunting!
 

 

[Fly Boomer]

1 hour ago, Schllc said:

An extra turbo and potential for cylinders is equal to a midlife exhaust (roughly).

That was one of my rationalizations for turbo vs non-turbo (the mid-life exhaust part, not the "extra" part).

[hubcap]

2 hours ago, Schllc said:

The fuel consumption in the climb for both models is irrelevant. You climb at 1000+ per minute so you are spending 20min max at that rate and you make most of it up on descent. 
I’ve flown both and I don’t see any more workload controlling temps or engine management . 
the acclaim runs well LOP and is faster which is the only difference I am aware of. An extra turbo and potential for cylinders is equal to a midlife exhaust (roughly).

but the bravo is half the cost to get into for a little higher fuel consumption and a little less speed. 
it’s a great value I’d you don’t have an extra 150k+ to spend. 

When you get up to the Bravo and its performance and operating expense, why not just go with a Malibu and get the benefit of pressurization, a much higher useful load and FIKI? 

[Fly Boomer]

1 minute ago, hubcap said:

When you get up to the Bravo and its performance and operating expense, why not just go with a Malibu and get the benefit of pressurization, a much higher useful load and FIKI? 

I'm surprised to learn that the Malibu has a good useful load -- a guy who drives a Meridian professionally told me that the Meridian ALWAYS departs over gross because it has a terrible useful load.  Maybe the Meridian is a lot heavier than the Malibu?

[Schllc]

11 minutes ago, hubcap said:

When you get up to the Bravo and its performance and operating expense, why not just go with a Malibu and get the benefit of pressurization, a much higher useful load and FIKI? 

I looked at them(malibus) very hard. I personally believe they all have weak wings. They have had a lot of in flight breakups.  They also appear to only make it halfway to tbo. 
Some owners I spoke to said they made it further but the stats on every one listed says otherwise. 
I have some time in the meridian, not the m600 though, and it’s not a bad plane, but the UL and range are limited, and they are an order of magnitude more money, insurance is a lot higher as well. If I had the money I may have considered the m600 because it’s a turbine they changed the wing, and it has a stairway, but it’s so much more money it’s not even really an option 

[exM20K]

36 minutes ago, hubcap said:

When you get up to the Bravo and its performance and operating expense, why not just go with a Malibu and get the benefit of pressurization, a much higher useful load and FIKI? 

I have considered one as an upgrade.  Pressurization is nice, the Malibu runs well LOP with good range and UL.  It is about 3” too long with the RV in the back of my hangar.

Mirage is not on my radar because of the pathetic climb rate.  Look at flightaware PA46 flights.  These things crawl into the flight levels at maybe 500 FPM.  This time of year they look a bit better with the cold OAT permitting slower climb speeds.  The Malibu is really not much better.  A friend went from Acclaim to M350 (mirage) and likes it very much.  I mentioned the climb rate concern, and his attitude was, “so what?”  For me, 40 minutes of climb at 40GPH and 120 KIAS, carefully watching the CHT is inferior to the Acclaim’s balls to the wall, 35 GPH, 12-1500 FPM @130 KIAS.  Set it and forget it.  Just remember low boost passing 12,000. And flip the boom cannula down. And monitor blood O2. And stay 11,000 if the dog is onboard.  
 

PA46 of any flavor is probably double the purchase price of a good Bravo.  And that’s just the ante.  Recurring costs, like hangar and insurance, are significantly higher.  For an average $5-600,000 PA46, you could well be looking at $15-20,000 annual, recurring insurance premium. My premium for a $450,000 hull value is <$5,000 for $1MM smooth.  A friend is selling his Malibu because of the insurance cost and current high prices he thinks he can tap.  Perhaps @Parker_Woodruff can confirm my anecdotes. High recurring costs are a bad bleed.  
 

PA46 is a great platform that, along with SETP, put the final nail in the coffin for the cabin class pressurized twins as anything other than a niche  market.  But it is a whole different cost category than our planes.

-dan

[LANCECASPER]

55 minutes ago, hubcap said:

When you get up to the Bravo and its performance and operating expense, why not just go with a Malibu and get the benefit of pressurization, a much higher useful load and FIKI? 

In 2000 I sold my first Bravo and went in on a partnership in a new 2000 Mirage. Beautiful airplane, very capable - I was ok with the slower climb rate - the pressurization was well worth the trade-off, great partner, but in 2002 we were down for nine months due to a Lycoming crankshaft issue. Trying to get 350 hp out of an engine (TIO-540-AE2A) very close to the Bravo's 270hp engine (-AF1B) without the oil cooled heads makes it tough to even think about TBO. The next year we added a third partner (not a good partner) and bought a Meridian, which was very capable - nicest airplane I've ever flown - also the easiest to land, but had much less range. On longer trips the fuel stop required on the Meridian didn't make it any faster over all than the Mirage. After that partnership was over, in 2006 I came back my 2nd Bravo. I've had Mooneys ever since. Over all, to own an airplane on your own, it's hard to beat the cost and capability of a Turbo Mooney. The insurance savings alone cover the annual inspection and then some easily over a PA46.

[Parker_Woodruff]

3 hours ago, exM20K said:

 

PA46 of any flavor is probably double the purchase price of a good Bravo.  And that’s just the ante.  Recurring costs, like hangar and insurance, are significantly higher.  For an average $5-600,000 PA46, you could well be looking at $15-20,000 annual, recurring insurance premium. My premium for a $450,000 hull value is <$5,000 for $1MM smooth.  A friend is selling his Malibu because of the insurance cost and current high prices he thinks he can tap.  Perhaps @Parker_Woodruff can confirm my anecdotes. High recurring costs are a bad bleed.  

These are so pilot dependent and also it's a model that's not always liked from insurance company to insurance company.  A premium range would probably be $7000 to $13,000 for an instrument rated pilot with over 1000 hours and a good amount of RG time.

Also, make sure you can fit in a PA-46.  I'm 5'11" and more upper-body...I don't fit... I have to tilt my head sideways or hunch forward.

[Jerry 5TJ]

10 hours ago, Schllc said:

looked at them(malibus) very hard. I personally believe they all have weak wings. They have had a lot of in flight breakups.

If you lose control of your PA46 in IMC it will sometimes shed the wings, usually after the horizontal stabilizer fails.   If you lose control of your Mooney in IMC, the wing will probably be intact at impact.  

[LANCECASPER]

12 hours ago, Schllc said:

I looked at them(malibus) very hard. I personally believe they all have weak wings. They have had a lot of in flight breakups.  

The PA-46 had a rough time in the late 80's on in flight breakups and had to go through an intense scrutinization by the FAA - they basically grounded the airplane and put it through a re-certification. There was a thick book that complied all of the FAA & NTSB data that I read in late 1999 and those accidents really didn't have  much to do with the airplane, but they had a lot to do with:

(1) total lack of any transition training back then - sell it to them, throw them the keys and that was it. Many of the accident pilots had no clue on how to even use altitude pre-select and some accidents were basically the autopilot flying the airplane into a stall/spin. Another considerable amount of the airframe breakups were flying into thunderstorms, which will take out any light airplane, Mooney included. Although it's approved for FIKI and almost every one ever sold had on-board radar, Piper sold it as an all weather airplane, which it isn't. Having almost real-time Nexrad now has helped out since very few pilots knew how to use the onboard radar.

(2) pilots who had more dollars than sense. They could afford the airplane but had no business flying it without more experience flying and more training, of which there was very little available back then.

(3) loose insurance requirements early on. For well over twenty years now even to get coverage you have to have a week of initial training and a 3 day annual recurrent training by an approved school or instructor. I did my initial in 2000 at SimCom in Vero Beach and went back there in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004. The training requirements plus the high rates have vetted many low time, untrained pilots from moving into these airplanes. SimCom was strict in their requirements - they did not sign off pilots that they felt couldn't handle the airplane. In some cases they sent an instructor back with the owner and they spent enough additional time to feel that they were safe before they would sign them off.

I seriously considered a used Mirage about a year and a half ago. Insurance was more than the Mooney but wouldn't have been terrible, but the 42' wingspan wouldn't have worked with the hangar I own. Even though pressurization is hard to beat, I'm glad I ended up with the Acclaim.

 

[Schllc]

1 hour ago, LANCECASPER said:

I'm glad I ended up with the Acclaim.

Mark Twain said “there are lies, damn lies, and statistics”.

I do not doubt training played a roll in the reputation. Same as the story of the twin Comanche and revision to training rules.

However, most of the things you cited could be said about any aircraft.  Yet there were still an inordinate amount of them shedding wings. Little doubt the pilots exceeded limits, but to me it intimated the plane plays a roll, whether a weakness, or perhaps just facilitatory because of complementary abilities.   I don’t like the small delta between max and maneuvering speeds.
I don’t believe the safety concerns would have been the sole reason I elected to avoid the plane. I have and would fly in them again, just found better suited options for me to purchase. 
The Aerostar certainly has an interesting history and I bought one of those. 

[Rizvon]

I know of a very nice Rocket that fits your specs. Based in southern Indiana.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rbp]

On 12/24/2022 at 8:47 AM, Schllc said:

but the bravo is half the cost to get into for a little higher fuel consumption and a little less speed. 

Which is why I wrote: “Mythologically more expensive maintenance, with no data to back it up.”

 

[Mcstealth]

On 12/20/2022 at 9:09 PM, KSMooniac said:

Duh, thanks for the correction! That's two mistakes for me this week! I need to fly more and work less.

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk
 

You thought you were wrong once, but you were mistaken.....

[Fly Boomer]

On 12/19/2022 at 5:58 PM, Ed de C. said:

Good evening, folks – I’m just back from an 18-year hiatus raising kids.  Looking for the right M20 model to focus in on for purchase this summer.

I suspect that you are getting tired of hearing all these opinions by now, but I'm going to share an observation that I made when I was looking (and this is all pilots -- not just Mooney):  When pilot X is thinking about buying an airplane with a particular feature, if pilot Y already has that feature, he will say "Greatest thing since sliced bread".  If pilot Z does not have that feature, he will say "Don't need it".

turbo:  "Don't need it"
TKS:  "Don't need it"
glass panel:  "Don't need it"

My free advice is:  Get what you want.  There is nothing worse than buying an airplane that is missing some of the things you really wanted, but were talked out of.  It's a pretty time-consuming process to sell one and buy another.

[hubcap]

The challenge is finding the model of plane, equipped properly, without a timed out engine, that you can afford, and afford to fly and maintain.

Some compromise may be required along the way. I couldn’t be happier with the plane I own, but it was not the plane I was looking for when I purchased. I ended up buying it because it was in great condition with a low time engine.

Now, the avionics are being upgraded so she I’ll be the plane I wanted from the beginning. If you can’t find the perfect plane, find one you can make a little investment into and have the plane you want.