New Member - Talk me out of a Mooney!

[tjs45d]

Thanks for all the replies everyone! Learned a lot, had some laughs, all is good!! 

Looks like my budget may need to increase slightly!! The 252's are starting to look pretty nice!

[tjs45d]

23 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

Nothing beats the ease and comfort of entering the 2 doors of that old Cardinal that you used to own.  Also it appears all your experience is with stiff leg planes - so get ready to pay a higher insurance premium for retractable gear as well as higher maintenance costs.

Below 8,000 ft a K is probably less efficient and no faster than a J.  You don't need to fly in the teens when traveling from the mid-west to Texas - in New Mexico a J is fine for 2.  If you are going to take advantage of a K you need to get the Instrument ticket and wear oxygen.  But when flying westbound you may find that you need to fly low due to punishing headwinds up high.

Additionally, although they are the same 360 cu. inch displacement, the maintenance and overhaul cost of the 6 cylinder Continental in the K will be materially more than the 4 cylinder Lycoming in the J.

Mooney Versus Bonanza - Aviation Consumer

Bonanza cruise speed v. Mooney

Used Aircraft Guide: Mooney K-Model - Goes Fast, Sips Gas - Aviation Consumer

Mooney M20K - Aviation Consumer

Mooney 231/252 - Aviation Consumer

Mooney M20K 231/252TSE/Encore - Aviation Consumer

Thanks for the reply and the great links to info! I appreciate that! Yes, most of my time has been in stiff leggers, although I had a few hours in an Arrow a lifetime ago, so I am expecting stiff pricing for insurance. I have around 600 TT. Higher costs are definitely a factor, but 99% of the use of the airplane will be for business trips. The airplane will be owned by the business LLC (pending accountant's approval), thus there should be some tax advantages. 

[glbtrottr]

Thanks for all the replies everyone! Learned a lot, had some laughs, all is good!! 
Looks like my budget may need to increase slightly!! The 252's are starting to look pretty nice!

On K models:

- There are 231’s. Ok. Some of these may have aftermarket intercoolers and waste gates

- There are 252’s - the factory improved 231’s with Intercoolers and very nice waste gates

- There are 231’s converted to 252’s …just like a 252 except the aircraft runs at 14v instead of 28v. These are often known as 261’s or 262’s depending on what vendor sold the STC. Functionally the exact same as 252’s with the exception they can’t be STC’d to encores. I own a 262.

- Then there are 252 Encores, which have the 220HP engine with the higher weight limits.


In other words, you may not want to limit your search to strictly factory 252’s. There are some nice 261/262’s to be had outthere.

If you’re a baller, go all out and find an encore - but your budget is blown.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fly Boomer]

5 hours ago, glbtrottr said:

If you’re a baller, go all out and find an encore - but your budget is blown.

Rocket 252.  All the airframe changes the 252 has, plus an extra 100 hp.

[KLRDMD]

On 1/4/2023 at 7:04 AM, glbtrottr said:

Perhaps we should talk you into a beautiful bonanza - 5 nice empty beautiful seats, 5-7 more gallons per hour so you can fly like a true baller, a couple thousand dollars more a year in insurance, but when you arrive at the FBO, the line people will surely be impressed like all those kids who like to look at my badass brodozer. Don’t get a mooney. Your mission doesn’t fit a mooney. You’ll be saving gas, insurance, pay less at purchase time, pay less on maintenance and overhauls, it probably wouldn’t suit you to be a cheapskate like the rest of us.

The level of misinformation is astounding!

Only the A36 Bonanza would have five empty seats and there's no Mooney that is in the class of A36 Bonanzas. Looking at the 33/35 series Bonanzas is the proper comparison and they all have four seats, the same as a Mooney, a few have a 5th seat. Where in the world did an additional 5-7 GPH come from??? A J/K model Mooney will burn 10-11 GPH on average. A -520 powered Bonanza burns 12.5 GPH and a -550 powered Bonanza burns 13.0 GPH. And the Bonanza will be getting 170-175 KTAS to the J/K's (mostly) 155-165 KTAS. Comparing a 200/210 HP engine to a 285/300 HP one isn't a fair comparison. The math isn't there.

Insurance between a Mooney and a Bonanza will be the same if the hull value is the same, where did a couple of thousand dollars more for a Bonanza come from?

If you're comparing a Continental IO-550 powered Ovation 3 at 310 HP to a Continental IO-550 powered Bonanza at 300 HP - as close to apples to apples as possible, engine maintenance and overhaul prices will be identical. Fuel flow will be identical. Speed will be a wash as the Bonanza is likely lighter even though the Mooney has a bit better aerodynamics. The Mooney isn't that much more efficient.

A friend of mine has an Ovation 3 at 310 HP. I have a Bonanza at 300 HP. One of these days we're gonna race and see exactly what the difference in speed is for the same fuel flow at the same altitude at the same time. I doubt it will be more than 2 knots either way. Of course he paid almost exactly twice as much for his Mooney as I paid for my Bonanza and I have over 1,000 hours less on my engine than he has. And his insurance is three times what mine is.

People sure do like to make generalizations when they truly don't know what they're talking about.

Edited January 6, 2023 by KLRDMD

[Mufflerbearing]

11 hours ago, tjs45d said:

Thanks for all the replies everyone! Learned a lot, had some laughs, all is good!! 

Looks like my budget may need to increase slightly!! The 252's are starting to look pretty nice!

Oh, be careful of price creep!  Before you know it, you will be looking at ovations and Bravos.

[RoundTwo]

21 hours ago, tjs45d said:

Thanks for all the replies everyone! Learned a lot, had some laughs, all is good!! 

Looks like my budget may need to increase slightly!! The 252's are starting to look pretty nice!

Yeah, that happens to all of us. It’s a pendulum swing situation. Enjoy the ride.

[tjs45d]

14 hours ago, KLRDMD said:

The level of misinformation is astounding!

Only the A36 Bonanza would have five empty seats and there's no Mooney that is in the class of A36 Bonanzas. Looking at the 33/35 series Bonanzas is the proper comparison and they all have four seats, the same as a Mooney, a few have a 5th seat. Where in the world did an additional 5-7 GPH come from??? A J/K model Mooney will burn 10-11 GPH on average. A -520 powered Bonanza burns 12.5 GPH and a -550 powered Bonanza burns 13.0 GPH. And the Bonanza will be getting 170-175 KTAS to the J/K's (mostly) 155-165 KTAS. Comparing a 200/210 HP engine to a 285/300 HP one isn't a fair comparison. The math isn't there.

Insurance between a Mooney and a Bonanza will be the same if the hull value is the same, where did a couple of thousand dollars more for a Bonanza come from?

If you're comparing a Continental IO-550 powered Ovation 3 at 310 HP to a Continental IO-550 powered Bonanza at 300 HP - as close to apples to apples as possible, engine maintenance and overhaul prices will be identical. Fuel flow will be identical. Speed will be a wash as the Bonanza is likely lighter even though the Mooney has a bit better aerodynamics. The Mooney isn't that much more efficient.

A friend of mine has an Ovation 3 at 310 HP. I have a Bonanza at 300 HP. One of these days we're gonna race and see exactly what the difference in speed is for the same fuel flow at the same altitude at the same time. I doubt it will be more than 2 knots either way. Of course he paid almost exactly twice as much for his Mooney as I paid for my Bonanza and I have over 1,000 hours less on my engine than he has. And his insurance is three times what mine is.

People sure do like to make generalizations when they truly don't know what they're talking about.

Thanks for the detailed response, I have actually been looking at the Bonanza 33's as well. To be honest, I'm enjoying the process, conversing with people and learning more about the different options out there.

This is a great forum, and I want to thank everyone for welcoming a newbie, and all the amazing input and information. Thanks all! 

[0TreeLemur]

21 hours ago, tjs45d said:

Thanks for the reply and the great links to info! I appreciate that! Yes, most of my time has been in stiff leggers, although I had a few hours in an Arrow a lifetime ago, so I am expecting stiff pricing for insurance. I have around 600 TT. Higher costs are definitely a factor, but 99% of the use of the airplane will be for business trips. The airplane will be owned by the business LLC (pending accountant's approval), thus there should be some tax advantages. 

Based on what I learned at the Mooney Summit in Sept., you should discuss formation of an aviation-related LLC with an aviation attorney, not just your accountant.   If you are an AOPA member you can access their team of attorneys if you pay for pilot protection services.

Here's the problem as I remember it:  If your aviation LLC does "anything" that makes it look like an airline, upon FAA scrutiny you can be at jeopardy of violating the FARS.  Take home message:  aviation LLC protection solely for tax purposes without consideration of the FARS is RISKY BUSINESS.   Talk to an aviation attorney.

[KLRDMD]

30 minutes ago, tjs45d said:

Thanks for the detailed response, I have actually been looking at the Bonanza 33's as well. To be honest, I'm enjoying the process, conversing with people and learning more about the different options out there.

This is a great forum, and I want to thank everyone for welcoming a newbie, and all the amazing input and information. Thanks all! 

A pilot that had recently joined MS asked me via E-Mail about a few Mooneys he was looking at. He had recently sent a Mooney to pre-buy but chose to not complete the transaction. He saw here that I had more experience than most buying and selling airplanes and that I had significant Mooney experience. He had a flight or two in a Mooney, was a new private pilot and was looking at C, E, F & J models. I looked at each one he brought up and discussed the positives and negatives of each. He just couldn't find what he wanted. After a bit more questioing I suggested he expand his search to other four place complex airplanes. He did and looked at a few non-Mooneys.

Since he's local to me we went for a flight in my Bonanza. Bottom line, he now has an S35 Bonanza with a -550 under contract and in pre-buy. With these airplanes you get Mooney Ovation performance for less than half the purchase price (and therefore half the insurance premium). He's also getting 1,200 lb+ useful load compared to the typical Ovation's 900+ lb. And, he's getting this for just about what he had budgeted for an F model Mooney.

Mooneys and Bonanzas are each niche airplanes but with some crossover. Each is a little better at some things and a little worse at others and very often either a Mooney or Bonanza will work for a given mission.

Edited January 6, 2023 by KLRDMD

[Will.iam]

On 1/6/2023 at 9:27 AM, KLRDMD said:

A pilot that had recently joined MS asked me via E-Mail about a few Mooneys he was looking at. He had recently sent a Mooney to pre-buy but chose to not complete the transaction. He saw here that I had more experience than most buying and selling airplanes and that I had significant Mooney experience. He had a flight or two in a Mooney, was a new private pilot and was looking at C, E, F & J models. I looked at each one he brought up and discussed the positives and negatives of each. He just couldn't find what he wanted. After a bit more questioing I suggested he expand his search to other four place complex airplanes. He did and looked at a few non-Mooneys.

Since he's local to me we went for a flight in my Bonanza. Bottom line, he now has an S35 Bonanza with a -550 under contract and in pre-buy. With these airplanes you get Mooney Ovation performance for less than half the purchase price (and therefore half the insurance premium). He's also getting 1,200 lb+ useful load compared to the typical Ovation's 900+ lb. And, he's getting this for just about what he had budgeted for an F model Mooney.

Mooneys and Bonanzas are each niche airplanes but with some crossover. Each is a little better at some things and a little worse at others and very often either a Mooney or Bonanza will work for a given mission.

I have heard bonanza have a higher parts premium than Mooney? Like bmw M3 to a corvette. Any truth to that in your experience?

[1980Mooney]

44 minutes ago, Will.iam said:

I have heard bonanza have a higher parts premium than Mooney? Like bmw M3 to a corvette. Any truth to that in your experience?

That might have been true in the past when Mooney was actually building planes. But today they struggle to remain a parts supplier. Not everything is supported. The jigs for the short and mid bodies were trashed years ago. The company is short of cash so they wait until several orders come in prepaid before they tool up or order from outside suppliers (example -no back springs $1000+ and 6+ month wait).

The recent Mooney factory parts prices that have been quoted here on MS seem outrageous. As a result Mooney owners are always looking for alternate sources.
 

The good news on short and mid bodies a lot of salvage parts exist and some drawings are in the public. Third parties supply interior parts, etc. With long bodies this is not true - you are more dependent upon Mooney if you can’t find a salvage part. 
 

I think the better comparison is like buying parts for a BMW M3 vs a Delorean.  ( yes parts exist - the owner of the Delorean trademark and what’s left used to live next door - he continues to supply)
 

Either way parts will be expensive. And since everything on a Mooney is so cramped and therefore harder to work on labor may be higher - ask @M20Doc

Edited January 7, 2023 by 1980Mooney

[KLRDMD]

52 minutes ago, Will.iam said:

I have heard bonanza have a higher parts premium than Mooney? Like bmw M3 to a corvette. Any truth to that in your experience?

I've never had to buy a Bonanza (or Baron) specific part. Wear items are typical to Continental engines, Cleveland brakes and such. I did put a new fuel cell in as the original one only lasted 62 years. It was from Eagle who makes fuel bladders for many makes and models. It is the same price as a Cessna bladder, Mooney bladder, etc. 

[Schllc]

3 hours ago, Will.iam said:

I have heard bonanza have a higher parts premium than Mooney? Like bmw M3 to a corvette. Any truth to that in your experience?

I dont believe his comparison is in any way valid when looking at year for year with same equipment. 
When I bought my first ovation I looked hard at the bonanzas in the same years with the same equipment and the bonanza was the one that cost double what the Mooney costs. 
This is still relatively true today. 
Now if you look at a g1000 Mooney and a 1975 Vtail it may be double but not comparable years and appointments. That just isn’t correct. 
I would also love to hear the results of the test of which is faster and more fuel efficient. 
It’s less aerodynamic and it is absolutely heavier so how could that be?
I find it difficult to believe the bonanza is that close on either, but I don’t have enough experience to argue it as fact.

Before I get burned at the stake, I think the bonanza is a very nice plane, and I completely see what someone would favor one  they generally have a higher useful load, and can carry more things and people.  I have considered them seriously more than once, and wouldn’t rule it out in the future.

The challenge is once you get mooney in your blood it’s hard to shake.  I’m fiercely loyal to the brand, heavily biased and human so not likely to change. But….  I wouldn’t argue with anyone over it

 

[1980Mooney]

8 minutes ago, Schllc said:

I dont believe his comparison is in any way valid when looking at year for year with same equipment. 
When I bought my first ovation I looked hard at the bonanzas in the same years with the same equipment and the bonanza was the one that cost double what the Mooney costs. 
This is still relatively true today. 
Now if you look at a g1000 Mooney and a 1975 Vtail it may be double but not comparable years and appointments. That just isn’t correct. 
I would also love to hear the results of the test of which is faster and more fuel efficient. 
It’s less aerodynamic and it is absolutely heavier so how could that be?
I find it difficult to believe the bonanza is that close on either, but I don’t have enough experience to argue it as fact.

Before I get burned at the stake, I think the bonanza is a very nice plane, and I completely see what someone would favor one  they generally have a higher useful load, and can carry more things and people.  I have considered them seriously more than once, and wouldn’t rule it out in the future.

The challenge is once you get mooney in your blood it’s hard to shake.  I’m fiercely loyal to the brand, heavily biased and human so not likely to change. But….  I wouldn’t argue with anyone over it

 

Isn’t @Will.iam asking about “parts” prices and not about the purchase price of the plane?

[Will.iam]

1 hour ago, 1980Mooney said:

Isn’t @Will.iam asking about “parts” prices and not about the purchase price of the plane?

I was but in the current argument ga aircraft are all compromises. Speed, efficiency, useful load, price. Mooney emphasized, speed and efficiency, bonanza, emphasized, speed and useful load. I heard bonanza went that way because when the designers were making the plane gas was cheap, now that gas is not as cheap it’s become more of a concern. 

[ZuluZulu]

On 1/3/2023 at 12:57 PM, tjs45d said:

Hi all, new member here. Currently considering getting back into flying after a 15+ year hiatus. Learned to fly in my C-150 in the 80's, last airplane was a nice '77 Cardinal that was sold back in the mid-2000's. I am currently traveling more for business and I have numerous trips to TX, AZ, NM. I'm located in northeast Indiana. Looking to get back into a decent cross country machine. My trips would be with 1-2 passengers at most, planned around VFR conditions. If I end up with a nice IFR platform, I would like to finish my instrument rating that I had almost finished back in the 80's, until I ran out of funds. Looks like it will be starting from scratch now with all the regulations and technology improvements.

Had some flight time in various aircraft over the years, Pipers, Luscombe, C-140, Decathlon - Aerobatic Training. I have always liked the looks, speed, and economy of the Mooneys, but the practical side of me says just get another C-177 or a boring C-182. I'm not in a hurry to buy, just researching the markets now to see what is available and educate myself on the current state of general aviation. One question I have on different models of Mooneys, is it necessary/ideal to have a turbo version over the naturally aspirated versions when flying in the desert southwest (4500-5000 ft. elevation)? I would imagine the elevations and density altitude conditions would make the turbo version much more user friendly in those environments? But is the additional expense worth it for ~10-12 trips a year? How do the turbo/TSIO-360 engine maintenance costs compare with a naturally aspirated IO-360?

I'm also looking for general advice for a prospective new Mooney owner, like insurance expenses, Airworthiness Directives to watch for, maintenance issues to inspect, etc. Basically anything that someone new to the brand may miss. I'm leaning towards later models, M20J-K and newer. I would rather buy one that is well equipped, that has had excellent, up to date maintenance than a fixer upper that I don't have time for. (If there is anyone close to FWA that has a nice one, I'd be glad to pay for demo ride!)

Thanks for reading! Any and all critiques and advice welcomed!

Thanks, TJS

These seem like pretty long trips for any single engine non-pressurized piston airplane, and the frequency you need to go only increases the risk. Doing this VFR consistently is IMHO not very realistic, there are going to be times you’re going to have to wait out weather. Are the airlines not adequately meeting your travel needs; i.e., are you trying to get closer to your final destination by accessing airports the airlines don’t serve? Will this actually save enough time to justify doing it? Going from not flying at all for 15 years and no instrument rating to dispatching to frequent 1000nm business-critical trips in all kinds of likely weather conditions is an awful lot of mission to take on. If you “need” to get there on time for meetings or other business, that’s just going to increase the pressure on you and tempt you to disregard personal minimums. If, on the other hand, you just want to fly again, that can be done without taking it to such an extreme.

Your past experience counts a lot, and you know how to handle ownership, but it might realistically be a while until this mission actually becomes feasible, factoring in the equipment, training, proficiency, and preparation. 

Just my two cents!

[hais]

45 minutes ago, ZuluZulu said:

These seem like pretty long trips for any single engine non-pressurized piston airplane, and the frequency you need to go only increases the risk. Doing this VFR consistently is IMHO not very realistic, there are going to be times you’re going to have to wait out weather. Are the airlines not adequately meeting your travel needs; i.e., are you trying to get closer to your final destination by accessing airports the airlines don’t serve? Will this actually save enough time to justify doing it? Going from not flying at all for 15 years and no instrument rating to dispatching to frequent 1000nm business-critical trips in all kinds of likely weather conditions is an awful lot of mission to take on. If you “need” to get there on time for meetings or other business, that’s just going to increase the pressure on you and tempt you to disregard personal minimums. If, on the other hand, you just want to fly again, that can be done without taking it to such an extreme.

Your past experience counts a lot, and you know how to handle ownership, but it might realistically be a while until this mission actually becomes feasible, factoring in the equipment, training, proficiency, and preparation. 

Just my two cents!

+1 . Do consider completing your IFR before embarking on these missions. If you didn't put a budget cap, I'd recommend a TBM

[Schllc]

2 hours ago, ZuluZulu said:

These seem like pretty long trips for any single engine non-pressurized piston airplane, and the frequency you need to go only increases the risk. Doing this VFR consistently is IMHO not very realistic, there are going to be times you’re going to have to wait out weather. Are the airlines not adequately meeting your travel needs; i.e., are you trying to get closer to your final destination by accessing airports the airlines don’t serve? Will this actually save enough time to justify doing it? Going from not flying at all for 15 years and no instrument rating to dispatching to frequent 1000nm business-critical trips in all kinds of likely weather conditions is an awful lot of mission to take on. If you “need” to get there on time for meetings or other business, that’s just going to increase the pressure on you and tempt you to disregard personal minimums. If, on the other hand, you just want to fly again, that can be done without taking it to such an extreme.

Your past experience counts a lot, and you know how to handle ownership, but it might realistically be a while until this mission actually becomes feasible, factoring in the equipment, training, proficiency, and preparation. 

Just my two cents!

I agree, even with an ifr 1000nm trips are 6+ hour trips.    

I fly a lot for business, but I do not have to fly “my” plane for business.  I made a promise to myself to not ruin my passion by taking the fun out of it, so when it’s questionable weather or over five hours one way, I don’t usually take my own plane. 
While a 1,000nm trip is certainly doable, it is an exhausting trip in a single engine piston.  
The noise alone wipes me out, and even though I have done them many times, I would never even consider one without several days between return flights.  Even then it’s not something I’m excited about. 
 

[ArtVandelay]

Long trips are only possible if you have a flexible schedule, and sometimes you have to cut the trip short because of weather, that means saying no despite being pressured to stay longer. For example I couldn’t have done this trip if I had to be on any kind of schedule:

[Niko182]

On 1/6/2023 at 12:20 AM, KLRDMD said:

If you're comparing a Continental IO-550 powered Ovation 3 at 310 HP to a Continental IO-550 powered Bonanza at 300 HP - as close to apples to apples as possible, engine maintenance and overhaul prices will be identical. Fuel flow will be identical. Speed will be a wash as the Bonanza is likely lighter even though the Mooney has a bit better aerodynamics. The Mooney isn't that much more efficient.

You're wrong on one part. The Overhaul will be cheaper by a couple grand on the Bo because the 550B is cheaper to overhaul than the 550N and G series. I never understood why people say the bonanzas are so much more expensive than the Mooneys. There is really only 1 thing that the Mooney can have that the bonanza cant. A V35 or F33 cannot have FIKI and long range tanks. A Mooney can.

[tjs45d]

On 1/7/2023 at 5:08 PM, ZuluZulu said:

These seem like pretty long trips for any single engine non-pressurized piston airplane, and the frequency you need to go only increases the risk. Doing this VFR consistently is IMHO not very realistic, there are going to be times you’re going to have to wait out weather. Are the airlines not adequately meeting your travel needs; i.e., are you trying to get closer to your final destination by accessing airports the airlines don’t serve? Will this actually save enough time to justify doing it? Going from not flying at all for 15 years and no instrument rating to dispatching to frequent 1000nm business-critical trips in all kinds of likely weather conditions is an awful lot of mission to take on. If you “need” to get there on time for meetings or other business, that’s just going to increase the pressure on you and tempt you to disregard personal minimums. If, on the other hand, you just want to fly again, that can be done without taking it to such an extreme.

Your past experience counts a lot, and you know how to handle ownership, but it might realistically be a while until this mission actually becomes feasible, factoring in the equipment, training, proficiency, and preparation. 

Just my two cents!

Thank you for the reply. You bring up extremely valid points. As far as waiting out the weather, my schedule for these trips is dictated by me, no one else, These aren't "business-critical" trips as there is unlimited flexibility in when and how I schedule these trips. With that being said, your point is still very worthwhile to consider, and is something I have thought about. The locations I travel to aren't really served by the airlines and I have no interest in using their services. It takes (2) full 12-hour days to drive the trip, and I would hope that even with a fuel stop, I could make better time than driving. I am sure that there will be many times that weather or timing will dictate driving over flying, and that the dispatch rate will be on 4 wheels more than 3.

Another part of this process is finishing what I started 30 years ago. When I got my PPL, I went right into the instrument training, planning on working my way up through the ratings. Life and work got in the way and I never completed it. So, I am looking forward to training again, new to me equipment and airplanes, and learning all the new avionics and procedures as the LORAN was the big deal back then! Another aspect of this, is that I have no time constraints on this process, I plan to casually shop for a possible airplane over the next year, while refreshing my skills at my local airport. I am approaching this endeavor of getting back into aviation as another long term journey, not a rushed destination.

Thank you again for the thoughtful reply and I appreciate the concerns as well. 

 

[steingar]

I'd not own a Bo for any money right now.  Textron doesn't make those tail feathers anymore.  They're made out of Magnesium, so you're going to have dissimilar metal corrosion no matter what you do, and Magnesium corrodes easily.  No way, not touching that.

[Niko182]

10 minutes ago, steingar said:

I'd not own a Bo for any money right now.  Textron doesn't make those tail feathers anymore.  They're made out of Magnesium, so you're going to have dissimilar metal corrosion no matter what you do, and Magnesium corrodes easily.  No way, not touching that.

That only applies to the Vtails. Not the normal Bo’s. Also it is easy to take care of the ruddervators. Vtails have issues with parts just like mooneys do. I can’t buy a no back spring for my Mooney. Doesn’t mean I’m selling my Mooney. My wing spar can corrode. Doesn’t mean I’m selling the Mooney. If you take care of the Ruddervators, you’re not going to have an issue owning a 35. This coming from someone who has quite a few friends that own v tails.

[Pinecone]

59 minutes ago, steingar said:

I'd not own a Bo for any money right now.  Textron doesn't make those tail feathers anymore.  They're made out of Magnesium, so you're going to have dissimilar metal corrosion no matter what you do, and Magnesium corrodes easily.  No way, not touching that.

I think that elevator skins are now available.