Hangar or no hangar? Big dilemma.

[Echo]

Andrei,

Get the hanger.  The drive and expense is off set by the many positives that 1980 and others expanded upon.  A ramp in the winter is NO PLACE for a Mooney to recide.  Hell, I got the last hanger available when I bought my E recently.  This was a must BEFORE making the purchase.  Drive something fun  My Boss and Porsche make the drive to/from nearly as fun as the flight.  Scott

[Pinecone]

Out of the box.  Keep the tie down AND get the hangar.  Much of the year, you can tie down and be close to your plane.  Times when hail is likely or snow and ice, hangar.

[PT20J]

The main corrosion concern if you keep it outside is to make sure it doesn’t leak water. Good door seals and especially the pilot’s window seal are important. If the pilot’s window leaks on older Mooneys, the water pools up in a channel PK-screwed to the tubular structure and rusts out the screws and then gets inside the tubes and gravity takes it to the bottom tube where it rusts that tube from the inside. Also, if it still has the fiberglass insulation, that will hold water against  the tubes and rust them from the outside. If it hasn’t already been done, I’d do SB 208. Older Mooneys had zinc chromate primed tubular structure which is more easily corroded from the outside than the epoxy primer Mooney started using in the 1980s. 

Skip

[RoundTwo]

31 minutes ago, PT20J said:

The main corrosion concern if you keep it outside is to make sure it doesn’t leak water. Good door seals and especially the pilot’s window seal are important. If the pilot’s window leaks on older Mooneys, the water pools up in a channel PK-screwed to the tubular structure and rusts out the screws and then gets inside the tubes and gravity takes it to the bottom tube where it rusts that tube from the inside. Also, if it still has the fiberglass insulation, that will hold water against  the tubes and rust them from the outside. If it hasn’t already been done, I’d do SB 208. Older Mooneys had zinc chromate primed tubular structure which is more easily corroded from the outside than the epoxy primer Mooney started using in the 1980s. 

Skip

I for one will tell you that modern Mooneys, with modern primer and factory foam insulation, not touching any tubes, are not immune to surface rust on the tubes. 
All planes, regardless of everything, need to have a thorough tube inspection, which requires removing ALL of the duct tape touching the tubes. 

[PT20J]

52 minutes ago, RoundTwo said:

I for one will tell you that modern Mooneys, with modern primer and factory foam insulation, not touching any tubes, are not immune to surface rust on the tubes. 
All planes, regardless of everything, need to have a thorough tube inspection, which requires removing ALL of the duct tape touching the tubes. 

Good point. In mine, I noticed that the primer was not sprayed into the gaps between some gussets and the tubes and here was light corrosion there which I removed and treated with epoxy primer.

[RescueMunchkin]

For those who have to tie down, what kind of covers would be recommended to help with the cockpit water intrusion concerns? A waterproof canopy cover that goes over all the air vents and door/window seals?

[RoundTwo]

1 hour ago, PT20J said:

Good point. In mine, I noticed that the primer was not sprayed into the gaps between some gussets and the tubes and here was light corrosion there which I removed and treated with epoxy primer.

You were lucky these joints were on vertical sections where moisture wouldn’t naturally accumulate. Nice job cleaning it all up.

[RoundTwo]

15 minutes ago, RescueMunchkin said:

For those who have to tie down, what kind of covers would be recommended to help with the cockpit water intrusion concerns? A waterproof canopy cover that goes over all the air vents and door/window seals?

Biggest problem is the pilot’s vent window gasket tearing. That gasket is cheap insurance to prevent water intrusion.

[FlyingDude]

I'm a CB and proud of it. However if I were in your situation, I'd get both. My default would be to keep the plane in the hangar. Hangar is obviously better for maintenance etc. But if I fly one day and expect to fly in 2-3 days' time with no adverse weather expected, I'd keep it on the ramp. Then I'd go back to get hangar if I'm not going to fly for a week.

I pay more in hangar rent than the sum of  both rents for you, so there's also that.

[RescueMunchkin]

14 minutes ago, RoundTwo said:

Biggest problem is the pilot’s vent window gasket tearing. That gasket is cheap insurance to prevent water intrusion.

Got it, but even if that part is replaced, wouldn't a waterproof canopy cover be good extra insurance? I've read about the avionics cowling also potentially letting water in.

[chriscalandro]

1 hour ago, RescueMunchkin said:

For those who have to tie down, what kind of covers would be recommended to help with the cockpit water intrusion concerns? A waterproof canopy cover that goes over all the air vents and door/window seals?

Most if not all covers will cover the glass and most of the doors. 
 

Bruce covers. 

[Brandt]

Use the drive to think about the flight. Hangar rent will be less than a new paint job and corrosion repair. Plus you can store tools etc in a hangar.  And preheat. Get the hangar. Move to the closer hangar when one becomes available. 

[toto]

25 minutes ago, Brandt said:

Use the drive to think about the flight.

If you have a flying companion, asking them to drive to the hangar also means that you can do things like reviewing weather and notams during the drive. That can offset some of the drive time cost, since you’re going to be doing it anyway. 

[FlyingDude]

1 hour ago, toto said:

If you have a flying companion, asking them to drive to the hangar also means that you can do things like reviewing weather and notams during the drive. That can offset some of the drive time cost, since you’re going to be doing it anyway. 

Have you guys bought autonomous cars?

 

[Jsno]

I have done both and found that the hangar was a better option.  It takes time to tie down, install covers, block holes to prevent birds and mice from nesting in it and less chance of insects getting into places that they don't belong.  Lube on external areas last longer.  The drive will be less time than doing the above.  Plus you can control moisture issues in a hangar.  

[Mooneymite]

The best solution is to live with your plane.

Live in a fly-in community where you can be airborne in 15 minutes from the time you think, "fly", and you can recover your hangar expenses when you sell.  Owning your own hangar on your own land is absolutely the best.  Every other situation is a compromise.

[Immelman]

My Mooney survived 9 yrs tied out (wait list time). I flew and washed it regularly (California - no hail or freezing precip in the area). In the ensuing time I saved 25K of rent, 1/2 of the initial purchase price of the airplane. I fly airliners for a living, and being working machines, they are only hangared for maintenance work.

And while I have a hangar now and enjoy it..... you can get by without it.

[Pinecone]

15 hours ago, Brandt said:

Hangar rent will be less than a new paint job and corrosion repair.

Actually about a wash on painting every 10 years.

Delta is $200 per month.  10 years that is $24,000.  Which is about a paint job these days.

I am still a HUGE fan of being in a hangar.

[GeeBee]

13 hours ago, Immelman said:

My Mooney survived 9 yrs tied out (wait list time). I flew and washed it regularly (California - no hail or freezing precip in the area). In the ensuing time I saved 25K of rent, 1/2 of the initial purchase price of the airplane. I fly airliners for a living, and being working machines, they are only hangared for maintenance work.

And while I have a hangar now and enjoy it..... you can get by without it.

There is no comparison either in materials or construction (because of power to weight ratios) between a Part 25 pressurized transport aircraft and a Part 23 single engine airplane other than they both have wings and a tail. It is like comparing a pie tin to a pressure cooker and saying they are both cookware.

[Echo]

19 hours ago, FlyingDude said:

I'm a CB and proud of it. However if I were in your situation, I'd get both. My default would be to keep the plane in the hangar. Hangar is obviously better for maintenance etc. But if I fly one day and expect to fly in 2-3 days' time with no adverse weather expected, I'd keep it on the ramp. Then I'd go back to get hangar if I'm not going to fly for a week.

I pay more in hangar rent than the sum of  both rents for you, so there's also that.

That kind of opulence will get you thrown out of CBC.  lol

[carusoam]

1 hour ago, GeeBee said:

There is no comparison either in materials or construction (because of power to weight ratios) between a Part 25 pressurized transport aircraft and a Part 23 single engine airplane other than they both have wings and a tail. It is like comparing a pie tin to a pressure cooker and saying they are both cookware.

There is also the difference between spending personal dough and corporate funds…

Corporate funds are easy to spend, while doing the right thing…and the corporation decides what is right.

Personal funds, always limited… no matter what the owner wants to do… 

 

Using the cost of a paint job vs. being outdoors for a decade…

To make this argument work…

Can require a full refurb… it isn’t just the exposed paint taking a beating…

 

outdoor exposure… also includes the yahoos parked in your neighborhood…

Stormy seasons… how interested are you in tying down everyone’s planes nearby…?

Damage by other people’s planes by loss of their control… comes in a myriad of whacky ways…

New pilot/ owners have great imaginations…anyone see a pilot doing a run-up, using the tie down ropes as a brake?

picture what happens when a weathered tie-down actually snaps…. 
 

Best regards,

-a-

[T. Peterson]

On 9/29/2023 at 2:07 PM, Andrei Caldararu said:

I should have been clearer. Most people here addressed the issue of money, which of course matters, though compared to other expenses in aviation $200 extra/month is not going to break the bank. My concern is more about the go/no-go decision to fly when it is a beautiful Saturday afternoon and you feel the sudden urge to go fly for an hour. That unplanned flight, not the trip to a destination 6 hours away that you plan for months. For such flight, if it takes 3 hours versus if it takes 2 can make a difference. This is what concerns me the most. 

But based on what was said above, it seems like most people would still recommend getting the hangar 40 mins away, rather than the tie-down 15 min away. Thanks for the replies. I will be happy if more people chime in.

Lots of good replies here, but since you asked….. I am firmly in the camp of using a hangar if at all possible. I would not even consider the extra 25 minutes as a deal breaker. In full disclosure, I rarely just go for a local flight simply because I don’t enjoy it. My airplane is totally for the mission of traveling to see friends and relatives.

[MikeOH]

1 hour ago, T. Peterson said:

Lots of good replies here, but since you asked….. I am firmly in the camp of using a hangar if at all possible. I would not even consider the extra 25 minutes as a deal breaker. In full disclosure, I rarely just go for a local flight simply because I don’t enjoy it. My airplane is totally for the mission of traveling to see friends and relatives.

You have an excellent point that hasn't been discussed here in the context of the OP's question: his mission.

I just love to fly and going for a local flight is probably 90% of my 'mission'  As I mentioned earlier, if I had to drive 40 minutes each way I wouldn't be able to enjoy my plane whenever I want; it would require planning/allocating time and ruin the 'spur of the moment' pleasure I get from being able to be airborne within 30 minutes.

If my mission was primarily longer, planned, trips then I can see how the drive time to the plane would be much less important.

[T. Peterson]

1 hour ago, MikeOH said:

You have an excellent point that hasn't been discussed here in the context of the OP's question: his mission.

I just love to fly and going for a local flight is probably 90% of my 'mission'  As I mentioned earlier, if I had to drive 40 minutes each way I wouldn't be able to enjoy my plane whenever I want; it would require planning/allocating time and ruin the 'spur of the moment' pleasure I get from being able to be airborne within 30 minutes.

If my mission was primarily longer, planned, trips then I can see how the drive time to the plane would be much less important.

Very interesting!! Goes to show that “context is king”, in theology and airplane hangarship!

[toto]

3 hours ago, MikeOH said:

You have an excellent point that hasn't been discussed here in the context of the OP's question: his mission.

I just love to fly and going for a local flight is probably 90% of my 'mission'  As I mentioned earlier, if I had to drive 40 minutes each way I wouldn't be able to enjoy my plane whenever I want; it would require planning/allocating time and ruin the 'spur of the moment' pleasure I get from being able to be airborne within 30 minutes.

If my mission was primarily longer, planned, trips then I can see how the drive time to the plane would be much less important.

I agree completely with this sentiment, but I do think it’s offset at least in part by one of the least pleasurable aspects of aircraft ownership… unplanned maintenance. 

Depending on the exact circumstances of the tie down, the unplanned maintenance delta might be small. But unplanned maintenance sucks, and having the plane in an environment that you control is one of the best ways of avoiding it. 

Showing up at the airport for a quick flight and finding something unexpected that needs to be fixed would certainly kill the spontaneity. Not a reason to pick the far-away airport necessarily, just a discussion point.