1968 Mooney M22 Mustang for sale on Facebook

[katzhome]

All,

Not for sale by me!  Saw this pop up today.  Looks like it hasn’t flown much.

Cool project for someone with more disposable income and time than I have.

only 30-some made?

 

tt 1100 since new

Lycoming  tio-541-ser 310 hp

In annual

Very rare Mooney M 22 mustang, turbo charged pressurized 24,000 foot service ceiling 1100 hours total time since new, always hangared same performance as a 210 for half the price interior and air frame in great condition two previous owners, Nebraska and Colorado dry climates no corrosion complete logs no damage history located in Edgewood New Mexico (1n1)  $98,000 firm See less

 

 

[Schllc]

Could something like this be taken experimental?  

[KSMooniac]

Certified planes cannot be converted to experimental and be used as a conventional GA plane for business or personal use like experimental amateur built planes can be.

Certified planes are temporarily moved to experimental for things like STC development, R&D, exhibition, etc. Those categories come with restrictions about when and where they can fly, who can go, etc, so it removes almost all of the utility that we enjoy with regular Mooneys.

Sent from my motorola edge plus 2023 using Tapatalk

[Steve Dawson]

When I was in Don Maxwell's shop last year they had one that they were working on. Not sure if they've finished it yet but thought it would be a cheap to purchase pressurized aircraft. (expensive to operate ?) 

Does anyone know what the cabin pressure is or what the in cabin altitude is at it's ceiling? 

[Ron McBride]

There is another for sale in Germany on controller.  Needs some love though.    

[bcg]

9 hours ago, Steve Dawson said:

When I was in Don Maxwell's shop last year they had one that they were working on. Not sure if they've finished it yet but thought it would be a cheap to purchase pressurized aircraft. (expensive to operate ?) 

Does anyone know what the cabin pressure is or what the in cabin altitude is at it's ceiling? 

There's probably no such thing as a cheap to operate pressurized airplane...  The M22 is really an amazing plane given when it was built, it was way ahead of it's time.  They made some mistakes with it though, the square windows don't work as well as round on pressurized planes and they chose the TIO-541-A1A, a power plant that's all but unavailable now.  The big door is really nice though, I wish they'd been profitable for Mooney and development had continued, I bet it would have turned into something really nice.

The pressurization system is on/off and will hold 7500 feet for as long as it can, after which the cabin pressure will start to climb.  I think the ceiling was 24,000.  I believe it uses bleed air from the turbo to pressurize the cabin so, there's a limit to what it can accomplish.  I could be wrong on that though.  Dugosh has a set of service and parts manuals for the M22 in the library, one of these days I may thumb through them.

[GeeBee]

Cabin pressure spec is 11,000 at FL240. 

[EricJ]

3 hours ago, bcg said:

I believe it uses bleed air from the turbo to pressurize the cabin so, there's a limit to what it can accomplish. 

That's generally how recip airplanes pressurize cabins.   I don't know of any exceptions.    Turbine/jet aircraft use bleed air from the compressor stage, except for the most modern airliners (e.g., 787).

[1964-M20E]

On 11/8/2023 at 8:13 PM, KSMooniac said:

Certified planes cannot be converted to experimental and be used as a conventional GA plane for business or personal use like experimental amateur built planes can be.

Certified planes are temporarily moved to experimental for things like STC development, R&D, exhibition, etc. Those categories come with restrictions about when and where they can fly, who can go, etc, so it removes almost all of the utility that we enjoy with regular Mooneys.

Sent from my motorola edge plus 2023 using Tapatalk
 

It is a shame that the FAA does not let us do this especially with a rare aircraft like this one or aircraft that are 30 or 40+ years old.

[A64Pilot]

21 hours ago, EricJ said:

except for the most modern airliners (e.g., 787).

How do they do it?

AH-64A used a Shaft driven compressor for the pressurized air system for engine starts etc, D model went to bleed air for simplisticity.

I can’t imagine anything could be simpler or lighter than bleed air?

[A64Pilot]

2 hours ago, 1964-M20E said:

It is a shame that the FAA does not let us do this especially with a rare aircraft like this one or aircraft that are 30 or 40+ years old.

I think maybe we may see a move toward the Canadian system where small, simple aircraft can be owner maintained, but I don’t see how that would ever happen to a complex pressurized aircraft, I’m surprised that home built ones are allowed because in my opinion that’s outside of the realm of the original intent of home builds.

Its touchy and you had better have a decent relationship with the FSDO to pull it off, but you can take a Certified aircraft and modify it, and as long as you build 51% of it make it Experimental, I have a friend that did that with a Maule, and it’s pretty common for Super Cubs.

https://www.kitplanes.com/experimental-maule/

[Schllc]

On 11/8/2023 at 9:13 PM, KSMooniac said:

Certified planes cannot be converted to experimental and be used as a conventional GA plane for business or personal use like experimental amateur built planes can be.

Certified planes are temporarily moved to experimental for things like STC development, R&D, exhibition, etc. Those categories come with restrictions about when and where they can fly, who can go, etc, so it removes almost all of the utility that we enjoy with regular Mooneys.

Sent from my motorola edge plus 2023 using Tapatalk
 

I saw a highly modified v tail bonanza all over beechtalk a few months/years ago that was experimental. Maybe he had to comply with all of those limitations?

the guy was selling and posted a video about the plane and didn’t elude to all those restrictions. 

if no parts are made,  no one will rebuild the engine, it’s kind of orphaned. 
seems like a perfect example of a plane that could be converted. 
the FAA really does deserve all the scorn and ridicule. 
the Feckless Aviation Agrivation….
 

[A64Pilot]

You guys aren’t understanding the purpose of Experimental, there are two reasons that come to mind. First of all there are several different versions of “Experimental” like market survey for example which allowed me to fly an uncertified aircraft pretty much anywhere in the US to allow others to see and fly it. Or a way to fly Warbirds that were never Certified and in fact don’t have a Type Certificate. But very often it’s one of two.

1. Gives a manufacturer and or others a way to develop aircraft or it’s subsystems.

2. A way that an individual can build their own aircraft.

It’s not a way for someone who doesn’t like the FAA rules and doesn’t want to put the work required to build their own a way to take a Certified aircraft and do as they want.

From my dealing of selling aircraft and providing maintenance support in over 85 Countries I can tell you that the US regulations are pretty much the most lax in the World and give owners rights and privileges that the majority of the World can only dream of.

If you don’t like dealing with FAA rules and regulations, sell your Certified aircraft and you don’t even have to build your own, your allowed to buy one, and without looking very hard it’s not hard to find very new low time home builds, it’s pretty obvious that some pretty much manufacture kit planes as they build and sell them on a regular basis, which isn’t allowed of course but the FAA looks the other way, like the two weeks to taxi programs, anyone who honestly believes a person can actually build 51% of a decent airplane in two weeks is mistaken, yet such programs exist.

The FAA is pretty much bending over backwards to allow individuals freedoms in the US that just don’t exist in most of the rest of the World.

Trust me, the majority of the FAA wants to wash their hands of our old, single engine toys and concentrate on what they see as providing service to the taxpayer, the Airlines. In private most will admit that they see oversight of little airplanes as a waste of taxpayers money for rich men’s toys.

Some of course understand that our little airplanes are job security for a whole lot of them

Every year that goes by, Experimental makes more and more sense, parts are usually available and if not just build your own where possible, our aircraft get older and parts less and less available at any cost. Try to find a new landing gear actuator for instance.

To be truthful if I wasn’t an IA I wouldn’t have considered a Mooney, and even then I almost bought an RV-7, and whenever I have to search for almost non existent part I think I should have.

I often think I should sell while selling is good, because I think when 100LL goes away, my airplane will lose a huge amount of its value.

[Schllc]

Saying that 85 other countries have even dumber rules than our FAA doesn’t really make them good, it just means they may suck a little less. 
Regulation is obviously a necessary evil, and I  don’t object to regulations, just the nonsensical foolish ones. 
The FAA is spending tens, maybe hundreds of millions of dollars, trying to thwart warbirds from being enjoyed, and even when they discovered the horrific unintended consequences of their folly, they doubled down instead of adjusting. 
Meanwhile, they ignore basic things that could actually make aviation safer. 
They are a gigantic, bloated, feckless bureaucracy that is so convoluted and filled with dead weight employees it’s arguable that it does more good than harm. 
Under the FAR concerning experimental, you could technically take that plane apart to the point it satisfies the percentage of building regulation, modify and restore however you want, and then register it as experimental. 
The point is if that is possible, why not allow conversions of planes that have no support? 
I seriously doubt most people with the intelligence and funds to build an airplane are trying to avoid maintenance, but who wants to pay more for something just because? 
Look at the cost of an experimental avionics vs certified. 
There is NO difference whatsoever in how those units are made, nor how they function, they are identical, yet one is an order of magnitude more $$$. 
The vast majority of the rules appear to do little for efficacy, safety or economy, most seem to be just for the sake of a rule, as useless and arbitrary as it may be…  perhaps some of them made sense 50 years ago but many of them are obsolete now  

There are many simple rules that would make aviation safer overnight, such as requiring all planes to have a radio. This is not a hardship today, but would make uncontrolled fields a lot safer. 
They could also mandate Adsb in and out for every plane so traffic was available. 
The challenge is that the FAA uses “safety” as a shield for all of their idiocy, just like every other bureaucracy, they get caught in the petty power struggle rather than efficacy, and they have no competition, and no ability to self regulate or evaluate. 
All they do is pile new dumb rules on top of old dumb rules…  
The FAA need a genuine overhaul for, top to bottom. 

[philiplane]

On 11/9/2023 at 7:57 AM, bcg said:

 The big door is really nice though, I wish they'd been profitable for Mooney and development had continued, I bet it would have turned into something really nice.

 

It did. The M22 resulted in the Mooney 301, which lead to today's TBM series from Daher/Socata. 

 

During the brief Mooney/SOCATA partnership, the name “Tarbes Built Mooney,” or TBM, emerged and has remained to this day.

 

https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraft/mooney/mooney-301/

 

Edited November 13, 2023 by philiplane

[Pinecone]

21 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

If you don’t like dealing with FAA rules and regulations, sell your Certified aircraft and you don’t even have to build your own, your allowed to buy one, and without looking very hard it’s not hard to find very new low time home builds, it’s pretty obvious that some pretty much manufacture kit planes as they build and sell them on a regular basis, which isn’t allowed of course but the FAA looks the other way, like the two weeks to taxi programs, anyone who honestly believes a person can actually build 51% of a decent airplane in two weeks is mistaken, yet such programs exist.

Current rules are that the builder has to do 51% of the tasks, not 51% of the actual work.

Making one rib is doing that task of making ribs.

[KSMooniac]

On 11/12/2023 at 4:25 PM, Schllc said:

Saying that 85 other countries have even dumber rules than our FAA doesn’t really make them good, it just means they may suck a little less. 
Regulation is obviously a necessary evil, and I  don’t object to regulations, just the nonsensical foolish ones. 
The FAA is spending tens, maybe hundreds of millions of dollars, trying to thwart warbirds from being enjoyed, and even when they discovered the horrific unintended consequences of their folly, they doubled down instead of adjusting. 
Meanwhile, they ignore basic things that could actually make aviation safer. 
They are a gigantic, bloated, feckless bureaucracy that is so convoluted and filled with dead weight employees it’s arguable that it does more good than harm. 
Under the FAR concerning experimental, you could technically take that plane apart to the point it satisfies the percentage of building regulation, modify and restore however you want, and then register it as experimental. 
The point is if that is possible, why not allow conversions of planes that have no support? 
I seriously doubt most people with the intelligence and funds to build an airplane are trying to avoid maintenance, but who wants to pay more for something just because? 
Look at the cost of an experimental avionics vs certified. 
There is NO difference whatsoever in how those units are made, nor how they function, they are identical, yet one is an order of magnitude more $$$. 
The vast majority of the rules appear to do little for efficacy, safety or economy, most seem to be just for the sake of a rule, as useless and arbitrary as it may be…  perhaps some of them made sense 50 years ago but many of them are obsolete now  

There are many simple rules that would make aviation safer overnight, such as requiring all planes to have a radio. This is not a hardship today, but would make uncontrolled fields a lot safer. 
They could also mandate Adsb in and out for every plane so traffic was available. 
The challenge is that the FAA uses “safety” as a shield for all of their idiocy, just like every other bureaucracy, they get caught in the petty power struggle rather than efficacy, and they have no competition, and no ability to self regulate or evaluate. 
All they do is pile new dumb rules on top of old dumb rules…  
The FAA need a genuine overhaul for, top to bottom. 

I agree with some or most of your thoughts, but not all.  You are 100% correct comparing modern experimental avionics (now entire systems) compared to the certified options.  Both versions can fly IFR in the same airspace, so it is certainly ludicrous that we have to pay more to install a G3X and GFC500 in a Mooney versus an RV.  That is certainly the most egregious example of an area where reform is needed.

It should be trivial to allow old/orphaned/simple airplanes into a long-proposed primary non-commercial category that allows more owner maintenance and upgrade with experimental avionics and autopilots.  That would likely answer just about every complaint we have today re: FAA as Mooney owners.  

After seeing and working "behind the curtain" a little bit in the kit world, we do NOT want the FAA to completely abdicate certification rules and standards that aim to make aircraft safer in all aspects... structural integrity (my professional specialty), handling qualities, performance, etc. are important.  There are a lot of BAD airplanes in the experimental world in terms of structure and handling qualities.  We don't want to step backwards in that regard, but there should be some reform that would allow sensible compliance to the regs.  Vans is in a bad pickle now b/c of some bad decisions and un-verified changes in their production system, and it might end up killing that company IMO.  And they were the BEST in the kit industry.  If they were subject to FAA regs via a production certificate and quality system, that would have been caught before they shipped tons of parts.  So the FAA does serve an important purpose, but that does not mean there is not vast room for improvement.  Trust me, we do not want the wild wild west in terms of crazy airplanes available to unsuspecting buyers!

[Geoff]

Would one of you please post the sellers contact info. I would like to speak with them. 

[katzhome]

Hi @Geoff,

Looks like this add is back:

Appears to be S/N 001, they have done work on the plane and the price has gone up to $118k (!).  I’ve sent a message to the seller for contact info.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/264065583995947/permalink/1895879524147870/?sale_post_id=1895879524147870&mibextid=W9rl1R

 

M22 For Sale N7722V

This is one of only 35/36 Pressurized Mooney M22 Mustang Aircraft Ever produced. Kind of ugly in a way yet Mooney to the bone.
Super Rare ! (Pressurized Mooney) 
CORROSION FREE !
With a 222K Max Speed burning 15/16GPH 
This is Ser#-0001

The Aircraft has only 1,100 Hours Total Time Engine & Airframe!
Don’t misunderstand me.
This Mustang is “Presently Flying” & IN ANNUAL !
No ADSB yet !
Compressions are all in the High 70’s
We have replaced 
ALL Fuel, Oil Lines, Fire sieving & skeet/scat tubing Fire wall Forward.
New tires & Tubes
Fresh oil & Filter.
Interesting enough all these Pressurized Mooney Mustang’s came with No intercom.
Reason was 1st as we all know Pressurized aircraft are extremely quiet inside. Then Mooneys forward thinking Engineers Ducted the Turbo Exhaust through an Augmenter to further silence noise dB in the cockpit & improve Exhaust flow. “Wow”

Likened to finding a 56 year old Ferrari, or Aston Martin in your neighbours garage. waiting to be Re-Freshened & up dated.
This Cabin Class Mooney has Great Bones, and flys super quiet with a 25,000 foot ceiling.
The M22 Mustang was way ahead of its time.

All the Thickened plexiglass windshield and side glass is like new, 
NO crazing, cracks or fading.
Paint is original and faded in spots.
yes, the plane was previously listed
nothing wrong with plane buyer backed out
 Price has gone up more work has been done to the plane

 

[glbtrottr]

And craigslist …

https://tallahassee.craigslist.org/avo/d/edgewood-1968-mooney-pressurized/7701890461.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GMRudella]

It's great to see 7722V again after all these years!!  Flew in her many many times in the early-mid 70's with the original owners, the Valli brothers from Pennsylvania. Attached are pictures from 1969 when they went to Kerrville to pick the brand spanking new aircraft up and one in the mid 70's as we flew to the Reading airshow. Bob's son, sitting on his lap is now 50+ yrs old. She was sold to them, new, through a Mooney dealer at Allegheny County Airport, Pittsburgh, PA (who they bought their previous two M20 aircraft from). If you could share these with the current owner, if you know him/her, please do!  I loved how massive 22V looked around othe G/A aircraft. You could always spot her.  If you note in the current photos of 7722V the engine cowling "strips" are a darker paint then the rest of the a/c.  VERY INTERESTING  story as to just why that is.....Thanks, G.Rudella

Edited August 18 by GMRudella
Missing some information about a/c for clarificaton

[Schllc]

Can one of these relics receive modern avionics?

[Igor_U]

On 8/18/2024 at 11:21 AM, Schllc said:

Can one of these relics receive modern avionics?

Of course they could, most of STC listing M20 also list M22. But fact they did not, and very low total time on all the M22s I've seen on internet tells you they were not flown a lot even as new. Must have number of maintenance and reliability issues like Alfa Romeo of the same vintage. 

[Schllc]

I suppose I was thinking of modern autopilots. 
are any of those possible to install?

[M20F]

3 minutes ago, Schllc said:

I suppose I was thinking of modern autopilots. 
are any of those possible to install?

Money and time make all things possible.