Any opinions on this M20K 231 (N1167N)?

[Pinecone]

23 hours ago, DCarlton said:

Yep. I flew from UOX to CRQ in one day once in my Mooney just to see if I could do it.  It was a sunrise to sunset trip and the ride was calm that day.  Will probably never do it again.  

I did KBJC to 0W3 in 7 hours, but had some nice tailwinds.

[Pinecone]

2 minutes ago, hubcap said:

I am puzzled by the way many non-turbo guys seem to be fixated on turbo airplanes, and argue they aren’t needed, or they don’t use it. Many folks criticize turbos because they are so expensive to maintain, or they don’t NEED a turbo. 
 

I have a turbo, and while I don’t fly in the flight levels on every trip, I use the benefits of turbocharging when it makes sense. Just like when I don’t use my hammer every time I open my toolbox….I am still glad I have a hammer in my toolbox.

Just like the guys who have anti-icing equipment don’t use that on every trip…but I bet they are sure glad to have it when they need it. 
 

I am not going to criticize anyone’s choice of airplane. As long as they are the one making the payment it’s none of my business. You want to fly a NA airplane…go for it. I will happily enjoy the benefits of my turbo when it makes sense.

That is why I wrote the article for Mooney Flyer about the positives of a turbo.  I LOVE having a turbo aircraft.

[Fly Boomer]

4 minutes ago, hubcap said:

I am puzzled by the way many non-turbo guys seem to be fixated on turbo airplanes, and argue they aren’t needed, or they don’t use it. Many folks criticize turbos because they are so expensive to maintain, or they don’t NEED a turbo. 
 

I have a turbo, and while I don’t fly in the flight levels on every trip, I use the benefits of turbocharging when it makes sense. Just like when I don’t use my hammer every time I open my toolbox….I am still glad I have a hammer in my toolbox.

Just like the guys who have anti-icing equipment don’t use that on every trip…but I bet they are sure glad to have it when they need it. 
 

I am not going to criticize anyone’s choice of airplane. As long as they are the one making the payment it’s none of my business. You want to fly a NA airplane…go for it. I will happily enjoy the benefits of my turbo when it makes sense.

It's a long-standing tradition among pilots who don't have some tool or gadget on their airplane, or don't practice some behavior to repeat the ancient mantra:  "DON'T NEED IT".  I know guys who say this about ADSB, radios, or talking on the radio even if they do have one -- things that most people consider a necessity.  It seems like most pilots I know prefer bouncing along at lower altitudes, even if they could go higher and get out of the bumps.  Each to their own.

[1980Mooney]

1 hour ago, hubcap said:

I am puzzled by the way many non-turbo guys seem to be fixated on turbo airplanes, and argue they aren’t needed, or they don’t use it. Many folks criticize turbos because they are so expensive to maintain, or they don’t NEED a turbo. 
 

I have a turbo, and while I don’t fly in the flight levels on every trip, I use the benefits of turbocharging when it makes sense. Just like when I don’t use my hammer every time I open my toolbox….I am still glad I have a hammer in my toolbox.

Just like the guys who have anti-icing equipment don’t use that on every trip…but I bet they are sure glad to have it when they need it. 
 

I am not going to criticize anyone’s choice of airplane. As long as they are the one making the payment it’s none of my business. You want to fly a NA airplane…go for it. I will happily enjoy the benefits of my turbo when it makes sense.

 

55 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

It's a long-standing tradition among pilots who don't have some tool or gadget on their airplane, or don't practice some behavior to repeat the ancient mantra:  "DON'T NEED IT".  I know guys who say this about ADSB, radios, or talking on the radio even if they do have one -- things that most people consider a necessity.  It seems like most pilots I know prefer bouncing along at lower altitudes, even if they could go higher and get out of the bumps.  Each to their own.

It is not just underappreciated turbo guys vs. turbo-envy NA guys.

Actually every added feature has a cost vs benefit profile.  And that is especially evident in aviation.  Of course it is nice to have the "option"  to take advantage of all the features available.  The point is what do pilots, with the features, actually do in the real world - how often do they use the "option"?   

Choice of altitude flown by turbocharged aircraft is fairly easy to sample/track because of ADS-B.  Other features are not as easy to understand actual usage and actual cost (purchase cost and ongoing cost to operate and maintain).

If you think broadly about it, Mooney's are typically seen as great 2-seat occupied aircraft.  And because we are Mooney owners we only have a "4-seat" mindset.  But what if you want to fill all 4 seats with adults or even 6 seats?  Isn't it great to have the option to fill all 6 seats sometimes?  We can debate buying a 2 seat Lancair vs an A36 or Saratoga vs a Mooney.

We can debate 4 cylinder vs 6 cylinder vs 8 (M20Doc/Clarence always talked about his IO-720).

FIKI vs Non-FIKI

Air-conditioning

How about a wider cabin?...Cirrus, old Commander 114/112

Increased GW

It would be great to have it all the features, all the capabilities when or if you ever choose to use them - it is just cost to purchase, added weight, increased operating cost, impact on performance (some good, some bad).

And then you can start thinking about the benefits and having the "option to use" twin piston, pressurized, turboprop, turbine....

 

[1980Mooney]

2 hours ago, Fly Boomer said:

It's a long-standing tradition among pilots who don't have some tool or gadget on their airplane, or don't practice some behavior to repeat the ancient mantra:  "DON'T NEED IT".  I know guys who say this about ADSB, radios, or talking on the radio even if they do have one -- things that most people consider a necessity.  It seems like most pilots I know prefer bouncing along at lower altitudes, even if they could go higher and get out of the bumps.  Each to their own.

10 years from now the debate will probably move to:

• DeltaHawk water cooled, JET A burning, turbocharged direct injection diesel engine retrofits vs. spending money on antique Lycomings and Continentals.
• By that time Garmin will probably have Auto-throttle and Autoland for GA, and they may have "Auto-Takeoff" by then too.  The debate will be whether it is better to just let the plane fly itself....

[DCarlton]

12 hours ago, Pinecone said:

I did KBJC to 0W3 in 7 hours, but had some nice tailwinds.

One stop or two with the turbo?  
I’m not a turbo basher.  I’d like to have one if it were no more maintenance intensive than a NA IO360.  I just think what the NA Mooneys can do with a 200 hp engine is fantastic compared to the competition.  That impressive foundation led to every hot rod version that came after the J.  

[Pinecone]

12 minutes ago, DCarlton said:

One stop or two with the turbo?  
I’m not a turbo brasher.  I’d like to have one if it were no more maintenance intensive than a NA IO360.  I just think what the NA Mooneys can do with a 200 hp engine is fantastic compared to the competition.  That impressive foundation led to every hot rod version that came after the J.  

Non stop, 1333 nm.  But also have Monroy tanks.  With stock tanks it would be just a bit too far.

WIth tailwinds, hit 229 ground speed for a short period.

[Pinecone]

But it seems a lot of people seem to think it is pay more, get no more.

[chriscalandro]

So you guys talked him out of what could have been a great deal based on guesses and nonsense?

 

its equally likely that airplane would have been perfectly fine as needing an overhaul. You don’t know until you look at it. 
 

With the work that went into it in the last few years I’d be willing to bet someone checked the condition of the engine before hanging a new prop and getting it flying again. It would have been very easy to check. 
 

if people listened to the advice on the internet there wouldn’t be a single Mooney over the age of 10 still in the air. 
 

The facts of it are nobody here knows the airplane and if you’re interested in it you should take a knowledgeable mechanic with you to go have a thorough look. 

Edited October 25, 2023 by chriscalandro

[Pinecone]

2 hours ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

Some, but a lot seems like a stretch to me.  I think most, many, or a lot of NA pilots feel that a turbo buys options, even if the data indicates those options are exercised less frequently than one might have otherwise thought. 

Just read the responses here to people looking to buy a plane.  Most will tell them they don't need a turbo unless they are in the mountain areas.

[Pinecone]

1 hour ago, chriscalandro said:

So you guys talked him out of what could have been a great deal based on guesses and nonsense?

 

its equally likely that airplane would have been perfectly fine as needing an overhaul. You don’t know until you look at it. 
 

With the work that went into it in the last few years I’d be willing to bet someone checked the condition of the engine before hanging a new prop and getting it flying again. It would have been very easy to check. 
 

if people listened to the advice on the internet there wouldn’t be a single Mooney over the age of 10 still in the air. 
 

The facts of it are nobody here knows the airplane and if you’re interested in it you should take a knowledgeable mechanic with you to go have a thorough look. 

Possibly.  But the buyer always had the option of taking a trip to see the plane and check the logs in person.   HE decided that he did not want to do so.

And the price quoted was not reasonable assuming an overhaul was needed.  And do NOT assume that someone checked the engine.

[chriscalandro]

He passed because everyone here scared him off based on guesses and comments based without fact knowledge or research. 
 

he was willing to do a proper prebuy. 
 

for a group that always whines about the loss of the fleet and is quick to judge others, you sure condemned this airplane pretty quick, and publicly. 

[Fly Boomer]

53 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

Just read the responses here to people looking to buy a plane.  Most will tell them they don't need a turbo unless they are in the mountain areas.

Most "Don't need it" even in the mountains.  "You can always scud run through the passes."

[T. Peterson]

On 10/22/2023 at 9:33 PM, 1980Mooney said:

And when you fly back from Atlantic to the Pacific you will generally be flying down low with all the "non-turbos" due to headwinds.  You might go a little faster but at the cost of more fuel burn rate.

Tomorrow go to FlightAware and look at where pilots fly in the real world - not what is said here.  You find a lot of turbo owners stay below 12.  Passengers tend to not like O2 cannulas and hate masks..  

If you want to find at what altitudes turbo Mooney's fly in the real world Just click here

http://flightaware.com/live/aircrafttype/M20T

For non turbo Mooney's click here

http://flightaware.com/live/aircrafttype/M20P

For Cirrus SR22 click here

http://flightaware.com/live/aircrafttype/SR22

For Cirrus SR22T click here

https://www.flightaware.com/live/aircrafttype/S22T

For Bonanza B36TC click here

https://www.flightaware.com/live/aircrafttype/BT36

For Turbo Centurions click here

https://www.flightaware.com/live/aircrafttype/T210

Go here for all the other types

https://www.flightaware.com/live/aircrafttype/

Good point. I have a K, but go almost everywhere at 11 or 12. I just don’t like supplemental oxygen.

[1980Mooney]

3 hours ago, Fly Boomer said:

Most "Don't need it" even in the mountains.  "You can always scud run through the passes."

If you are implying that a turbo will make it safer to fly up higher into the mountain scud, make sure to tell the buyer to find a plane that also comes equipped with FIKI.

[1980Mooney]

5 hours ago, chriscalandro said:

So you guys talked him out of what could have been a great deal based on guesses and nonsense?

its equally likely that airplane would have been perfectly fine as needing an overhaul. You don’t know until you look at it. 
With the work that went into it in the last few years I’d be willing to bet someone checked the condition of the engine before hanging a new prop and getting it flying again. It would have been very easy to check. 

if people listened to the advice on the internet there wouldn’t be a single Mooney over the age of 10 still in the air. 

The facts of it are nobody here knows the airplane and if you’re interested in it you should take a knowledgeable mechanic with you to go have a thorough look. 

Not sure what you mean by "check the condition" of an engine that ran 1,100 hours in its first 10 years and then basically sat idle for the next 21 years (has only run 13 hours in 21 years).  No doubt it runs but will it last very long ?  @NewMoon just posted that he purchased an inactive Acclaim - borescoped the engine with a thorough PPI - and after one month of ownership with 40 hours of flying it is making so much oil that it is killing the plugs.  He will be doing a top overhaul.  Will his plane be down 3 months? 6? 9?

Any plane can crap out the day after you buy it.  The prospective buyer of the "hangar queen" K just has to be comfortable with the increased risk of large spending and extended downtime.

[Schllc]

@oisiaa

tons of good information and perspectives here to chew on. 
lt is a lot in the beginning, there are so many differences and even similarities described differently. 
my experience is only a fraction of some of these guys, but I have owned more than a few ovations and acclaims so here are my highlights of ownership. 
 

First, everything is a trade off…. 
Example a turbo cost very little more to maintain than a NA plane, but….  
They are another system to maintain, and they burn about 5% more fuel for the same distance, the trade off is you have better climb and better speed at all altitudes over about 4k, this is a huge safety factor that applies at 6k, 10k etc, so there is absolutely a benefit to a turbo, even not at turbo necessary altitudes  

Second, buy the newest, best maintained and best equipped plane you can afford as your first plane, I would not want to spend two years whipping a plane I know I don’t want into shape. You owe this to yourself and your family, and at the end of the day the purchase price of nearly any used piston is irrelevant.  If you maintain the plane, you will more than likely get back what you paid, maybe a little more and sometimes a little less but it isn’t enough to complain or retire either way.  
The real cost is ownership 

Third, when you decide on the model best for you, find guys who have owned the same make and model, and or equipment, and listen to their experience.  The “hangar talk” out there about planes is no different than any other subject.  There are always plenty of people willing to opine on what they heard, or believe, but don’t really have actual ownership experience of that model.  

Lastly, from what you describe your desires to be, it sounds like a bravo and 252/encore and or a rocket are also models that should enter the mix.

 

[chriscalandro]

There’s always risk buying an airplane not covered by some sort of warranty. 
 

there is no evidence to support this is a high risk motor or a low risk motor and even if you buy an airplane that’s flown 100hrs a year, there is no promise it won’t need an overhaul within the next 25 hours. 
 

These are facts, end of story.  
 

Go look at it and see what the current condition is best you can. It’s not complicated or difficult. 

[NewMoon]

10 hours ago, chriscalandro said:

There’s always risk buying an airplane not covered by some sort of warranty. 
 

there is no evidence to support this is a high risk motor or a low risk motor and even if you buy an airplane that’s flown 100hrs a year, there is no promise it won’t need an overhaul within the next 25 hours. 
 

These are facts, end of story.  
 

Go look at it and see what the current condition is best you can. It’s not complicated or difficult. 

I agree with this statement and of SCHLLC. As you mentioned, I am going through a fairly expensive maintenance event after only 40 hours. 

I had extensive photos and videos done in the boroscope process. Not only of the cylinders but also also of two separate sections of the bottom end and CAM.

Not only did the shop look at them but I also had two top guys at the Continental factory evaluate the images. All involved said looks good. 

Unfortunately these engines are old technology and there is a risk in them, even brand new factory engines have issues. Just be prepared with a reserve fund if needed, if not good for you.

[geoffb]

Having bought into a similar situation and hoping I would get lucky, the OP should have been budgeting for an engine as a worst case scenario.  Also, check Airpower quick for a number on a reman.  Mine was 228 snew.  Effectively parked for 10 yrs in heated hangars.  In the first 120 hours it took 5 cylinders, mags and one alternator.  Plus lots of little issues waking it up from a 10 year nap.  If I'd have been paying shop rates for all that work, I'd be broke.

If it's a clean airframe, then it might be worth taking home at the right price.  But if you don't want a project, buying a plane that's been sitting isn't the best play.

 

[RobertGary1]

On 10/23/2023 at 3:46 PM, ttflyer said:

Sure they do!  Airplanes do not like to sit.  Everything breaks when they do. Batteries...  Lubrication... Avionics.  It all atrophies when not in regular use.  And sitting airplanes rarely sit in hangars, they usually sit outside and rot. 

Honestly I always consider our engine to be 10 seconds away from needing an overhaul (for financial planning purposes).  What I would like to avoid is having the damn airplane break every time I fly it. The best way I've found is regular flying...

 Batteries are disposable. What issues have you had due to lack of airframe lubrication? Are you following the Mooney service manual on airframe lubrication?

[ttflyer]

23 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

 Batteries are disposable. What issues have you had due to lack of airframe lubrication? Are you following the Mooney service manual on airframe lubrication?

We'll just agree to disagree.  My experience is airplanes like to fly not sit.  That was the point of my comment.  You seem to be in the "let it sit around and nothing will change" camp (never heard a pilot in that camp before). No sun exposure. No rodent infestation. No corrosion. No new $900 Concord battery...  Ever change the battery on a G5? Ask Garmin if they charge disposable prices for those things (they don't).  I fly for a living and I'm telling you airplanes that sit, break.  In fact the jets I fly don't like to sit more then a couple of weeks before they start having issues.  I used to fly one made in Israel that better fly every couple of days or things started leaking, stopped working etc.. 

And for context, this thread is about an airplane that's flown 13 hours in 21 years.  Odds are long that the owner "followed the Mooney service manual on airframe lubrication." 

[RobertGary1]

3 hours ago, ttflyer said:

We'll just agree to disagree.  My experience is airplanes like to fly not sit.  That was the point of my comment.  You seem to be in the "let it sit around and nothing will change" camp (never heard a pilot in that camp before). No sun exposure. No rodent infestation. No corrosion. No new $900 Concord battery...  Ever change the battery on a G5? Ask Garmin if they charge disposable prices for those things (they don't).  I fly for a living and I'm telling you airplanes that sit, break.  In fact the jets I fly don't like to sit more then a couple of weeks before they start having issues.  I used to fly one made in Israel that better fly every couple of days or things started leaking, stopped working etc.. 

And for context, this thread is about an airplane that's flown 13 hours in 21 years.  Odds are long that the owner "followed the Mooney service manual on airframe lubrication." 

The sun exposure doesn’t change based on hours. I’m just curious what airframe part you had to replace because a plane sat. Just not seen that so long as it’s getting serviced at annual. 

[ttflyer]

1 hour ago, RobertGary1 said:

The sun exposure doesn’t change based on hours. I’m just curious what airframe part you had to replace because a plane sat. Just not seen that so long as it’s getting serviced at annual. 

I think I made my point.  You made yours.  Anybody who cares can make their own mind up about where they stand on the issue of airplanes sitting around verses airplane that fly regularly...  Moving on...

<beating a dead horse emoji>

[Schllc]

On 10/24/2023 at 12:03 PM, 1980Mooney said:

It would be great to have it all the features, all the capabilities when or if you ever choose to use them - it is just cost to purchase, added weight, increased operating cost, impact on performance (some good, some bad).

 

I agree completely with your assessment of options and trade offs. 
the one thing I would supplement is you suggest flight aware can indicate when people “use” the option of a turbo, this is false. 
Every single time a pilot takes off with a turbo, they are exercising most of the options. 
Sea level altitude is absolute, and the higher you go, at any DA, the better a turbo engine performs. 
There are probably more NA pistons that turbo in raw numbers, so it’s obvious you don’t “need” a turbo. 
That being said, in my personal opinion, anything that gets me:

to altitude quicker = safety. 
through an icing layer =safety. 
above weather = safety   
sea level manifold pressure all the way 25k = safety. 
full horsepower at all altitudes = safety. 

like you said, trade offs…. 
I am willing to pay for a turbo for the extra measure of safety it provides.  
many don’t see the value, to each their own.