2024: Thoughts on the sweet spot in the M20 model range?

[BlueSky247]

Those of you that have gone through a couple of the M20 generations, I'd love to hear where you ended up and your rationale for choosing what you have now.

 

I'm asking because post-covid pricing is really something, and I'm amazed to be seeing C's with steam gauges listing for 80k. I am(was) looking for one of those since it just me for now, but am wondering if it wouldn't make more sense to go a little more modern to something like the J model.

 

What would you folks recommend, especially given the availability of parts, etc. ?

[Utah20Gflyer]

The 1968 G model was the pinnacle of Mooney aircraft development!  It’s all been downhill since then.  I may be a biased source but no one has disagreed with me yet so maybe I’m on to something.  
 

Personally I like the mid body.  More back seat legroom and more baggage area.  The CG is almost impossible to screw up.  Nothing wrong with the short bodies but just a personal preference. 
 

The J has all of the aerodynamic upgrades already included and some have had a gross weight increase that can make them true 4 seaters.   You’ll pay a sizable premium though over an F model.   I think some Js have fully folding rear seats….a very nice option.  
 

Every Mooney at this point is going to be a unique airplane.  You just need to decide which characteristics are most important to you and find one that most closely matches.  

[DCarlton]

This is going to precipitate a huge debate.  Cool.  My vote...  late model J.  Amazing convergence of fully refined engineering.  Everything that followed was an exaggeration.  Oh but you mentioned parts; that's why I like my F.  They made so many.  There's likely salvage opportunities for harder to find parts.  

[MikeOH]

M20F for the win!

[TheAv8r]

Partly depends on your mission… if you’re regularly carrying 3 grown adults you probably want a mid or long body. 
 

If you’re regularly carrying 2 adults: M20E is where it’s at. Nimblest, fastest and best performing of the short bodies. Fuel injected and 20 more hp than the C, it climbs out better too. It’s faster than the F and you don’t need the extra space of the F for 2 people. The J is faster but considerably more expensive. I can get mine to 140-142kts TAS at 7.6-8gph. 

[Andy95W]

The M20C gives the most miles per $.

Some will point out the better fuel economy for the fuel injected M20E/F/J.  But the M20C wins because of lower overhaul, maintenance, and insurance costs.  Not to mention that they cost $20,000 less than an M20E and $30,000 less than an F.  And it’s only about 5 knots slower- which is less than 4 minutes difference on a 300 mile flight.

[MikeOH]

I see 140-143 kts at 8- 8.5 gph in my F.  Consider the increased range of 64 gallon tanks vs. 52 gallons of the E.

[Paul Thomas]

As someone that bought in the past 60 days, F/J appeared to be a sweet spot, but would also look at E models. Years ago, I would have said C due to the price point but, in this market, it appears that condition matters more than the variant (for the 180-200hp NA airplanes).

[hammdo]

That 64 gallons in the F/J is hard not to like. I wish my C had that….

-Don

[BlueSky247]

64 gallons sounds like a great compliment to a Bladder Buster Big Gulp. 

[hammdo]

Yep! That would be the sweet spot…

-Don

[Hank]

40 minutes ago, hammdo said:

That 64 gallons in the F/J is hard not to like. I wish my C had that….

-Don

 

5 minutes ago, BlueSky247 said:

64 gallons sounds like a great compliment to a Bladder Buster Big Gulp. 

 

3 minutes ago, hammdo said:

Yep! That would be the sweet spot…

-Don

My C doesn't need 12 more gallons. I've flown 4:45 twice, and boy was I happy to get out and stand up! Don't want to fly that long again, and certainly don't want to fly further! Oh, I landed with 12 gallons both times, so another 1:15--1:20 in the tanks.

[hammdo]

For IFR reserves, 12 extra is great… that was my thinking…

-Don

[Tx_Aggie]

I bought a 1980 M20J in August of 2020. I considered an F model for 10k cheaper in acquisition cost. My J trues at 155-160 ktas on about 10-11 gph and grabs every ounce of tailwind available. No offense to the vintage guys but if a J is among your options, you won’t wish you’d have gotten anything less. It’s wonderful knowing I’m within arms distance of an SR22, my fuel bill is cheaper and my acquisition cost is a tiny fraction for very close performance. There’s some good deals on M20Js on the market. If I had to do it again with the same or less budget, I’d pick up the best J model I could afford then add better avionics as my budget allowed. It’s a shame Mooney can’t restart the J line again - I’d think they’d find a  real niche need in the current market. 

[Echo]

59 minutes ago, Tx_Aggie said:

I bought a 1980 M20J in August of 2020. I considered an F model for 10k cheaper in acquisition cost. My J trues at 155-160 ktas on about 10-11 gph and grabs every ounce of tailwind available. No offense to the vintage guys but if a J is among your options, you won’t wish you’d have gotten anything less. It’s wonderful knowing I’m within arms distance of an SR22, my fuel bill is cheaper and my acquisition cost is a tiny fraction for very close performance. There’s some good deals on M20Js on the market. If I had to do it again with the same or less budget, I’d pick up the best J model I could afford then add better avionics as my budget allowed. It’s a shame Mooney can’t restart the J line again - I’d think they’d find a  real niche need in the current market. 

None taken.  I have all your J mods on my E and Monroy tanks.  I only fill two seats with humans.  speed and efficiency without higher entry cost.  

[Dick Denenny]

I can't imagine having a better plane than my turbo '66 M20E

 

[ArtVandelay]

None taken.  I have all your J mods on my E and Monroy tanks.  I only fill two seats with humans.  speed and efficiency without higher entry cost.  

Over the years you’ll own the plane, the acquisition costs will be dwarfed by maintenance, hangar, insurance, and fuel costs.

And there’s more to a J than just a cowling and windshield modification.

[Z W]

Love the speed, altitude performance, and folding split folding rear seats in the 1982 K.  Very rarely seem to use the back seats for people, but nice to have the option.

Sometimes miss the simplicity and short field performance of the 1968 C.  It just had a different feel.  More like hopping into the trusty 172 trainer for a local scenic flight. It's not a 172, lots more performance, just closer to one than the K. They're great planes.

May have more to do with me doing more training in the C.  Lately I'm flying more like an airline - 400+ NM, dodging weather, on autopilot a lot, mission driven.  The K can also just go fly laps, but I don't seem to have time.  I'm using all the capability it has and wouldn't want to give it up.  

Going farther up the line to a Bravo, 300 HP Ovation, or Acclaim would add some performance in every category except range.  Not sure about the Ovation without the turbo.  I'd be hard pressed to ever go back to NA.  But all at a big cost increase.  And at that point you're knocking on the door of getting into a larger twin or even single engine turboprop for the same acquisition cost.

[LANCECASPER]

15 hours ago, BlueSky247 said:

Those of you that have gone through a couple of the M20 generations, I'd love to hear where you ended up and your rationale for choosing what you have now.

 

I'm asking because post-covid pricing is really something, and I'm amazed to be seeing C's with steam gauges listing for 80k. I am(was) looking for one of those since it just me for now, but am wondering if it wouldn't make more sense to go a little more modern to something like the J model.

 

What would you folks recommend, especially given the availability of parts, etc. ?

For everything J and newer here's some good reading:

 

[M20F]

Overall probably the F.  The J is better but the purchase price these days is almost double for a couple of knots. 
 
The turbo variants are nice but not worth the capital nor the maintenance in my opinion.  Many have the useful load issue as well. 

[hubcap]

For value, ie speed, efficiency, and useful load, I believe the Encore is the best choice. You can fly fast, far, high, using very little fuel. Barrier to entry is greater than older lower performers, but you get a lot for your money with an Encore.

[mooniac15u]

When comparing the older models to the J everyone focuses on the speed mods and purchase cost but nobody talks about the single greatest design improvement of the J. It doesn't use one of those accordion air-intake boots made of unobtanium.

[A64Pilot]

It all depends on condition / price in my opinion. Don’t get married to the “I have to have X model”

A well maintained C is a much better airplane than a worn J with corrosion.

[ArtVandelay]

When comparing the older models to the J everyone focuses on the speed mods and purchase cost but nobody talks about the single greatest design improvement of the J. It doesn't use one of those accordion air-intake boots made of unobtanium.

And the result is the intake is more efficient and doesn’t require the ram air kludge.

[Shadrach]

30 minutes ago, ArtVandelay said:

And the result is the intake is more efficient and doesn’t require the ram air kludge.

I read this a lot of this…yet oddly, I manage to pull field level manifold pressure on take off and see well over  ambient pressure with the ram air open. As much as 1.5” at low altitudes.
I’m sure it was the inefficient intake that caused Mooney to install the ram air…and to keep it on the original J before deleting it on later models…I mean, we’ve all seen the data….right? It’s out there, right?  Surely someone has recorded the minuscule delta between ram air open and closed in a J?
I am also sure that no manufacturer has ever implemented a cost savings strategy that eliminated a feature and then marketed as something else…you can take their word for it…never happens…ever.