upgrading - older/newer, slower/faster, value of avionics?

[AJ88V]

Owned my little C-model for over 25 years.  She's marginal IFR circa 1970.  Have always wanted to update her with an IFR GPS.  Lusted after Garmin 430s but held off.  My little Lowrance Airmap 500 took me to both coasts and south to Florida and north to Maine without much trouble.

Now I'm in the position to upgrade.  It never really pays to upgrade avionics when you can just buy it already done, especially if you're wanting to move to a roomier, faster, more modern airplane.  My C has decent paint, low time TTAF and very low SMOH.  $50-$60K would buy some pretty nice glass (still struggling with the autopilot at that price) and I'd have a plane that compares very well with with a Cirrus SR20 in performance, better than Piper and other offerings in the price range, and not really that far off from many more expensive airplanes.  I would move up to a J model in a heartbeat and am secretly lusting after a particular Missile currently for sale, but if those later model Mooneys have newer avionics, they're all breaking the $200K barrier.  The Missile looks like a superb airplane, but it's got great avionics circa 2015, whereas I can go slower in my C and have great avionics circa 2025.

My mission profile has changed as I approach retirement (already past 65).  I'll have more time and less need to get there (or get back), mostly only a SO co-pilot and bags, not a back seat with kids.

On the other hand, do I really want to own the most expensive M20C when I could be blasting through the skies in a Missile (or Ovation)?

Your thoughts?

[MikeOH]

I think you have to be honest with WHY you want the upgrade?  It sounds like, for 25 years, your set-up has met all of your mission needs.  Going forward, what new mission requirements necessitate spending money on new avionics, or a new plane?

Hey, if you just think all the glass is 'cool' and 'new' and whatever, that's a perfectly fine reason...don't really need to justify that

[C.J.]

Just how much faster is a J, Missile or Ovation going to get you to your new missions' typical destinations and at what cost delta. Personal property tax, insurance, annuals and direct operating costs will all be higher, so in the end it will boil down to what puts the biggest smile on your face. Only you can determine if that's worth it.

My plane was a vintage '65 when I bought it, but now has a new GMA345, GNC355, GNC255, a used GTX327 & a reorganized 6 pack with a GI275 HSI. I don't miss the Narco Mk12s at all and the GNC355 is vastly more user friendly that the GNS 430s & 530s in the rental fleets I flew before buying my Mooney. Life's too short; you worked hard for your $$$ and retirement. Enjoy the fruits of your labor and don't over-analyze it. Blue skies & happy retirement. 

[Danb]

23 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

I think you have to be honest with WHY you want the upgrade?  It sounds like, for 25 years, your set-up has met all of your mission needs.  Going forward, what new mission requirements necessitate spending money on new avionics, or a new plane?

Hey, if you just think all the glass is 'cool' and 'new' and whatever, that's a perfectly fine reason...don't really need to justify that

It’s difficult to justifying our flying we’re only on this planet for a short time do, get what you actually want. I’ve got a good friend who was a pilot for 35 years starting worrying about penny’s wife passed he’s worth over 1m and watching sitcoms. Enjoy..

[MikeOH]

15 minutes ago, Danb said:

It’s difficult to justifying our flying we’re only on this planet for a short time do, get what you actually want. I’ve got a good friend who was a pilot for 35 years starting worrying about penny’s wife passed he’s worth over 1m and watching sitcoms. Enjoy..

Completely agree.

I guess I'm just tired of hearing all the 'justifications' and rationalization for avionics upgrades or new planes...when it really comes down to 'get what you actually want'!

[0TreeLemur]

4 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Completely agree.

I guess I'm just tired of hearing all the 'justifications' and rationalization for avionics upgrades or new planes...when it really comes down to 'get what you actually want'!

Yes, and I'll add to that:   "get what you want before you retire."

[bigmo]

Since you’re not in a hurry, perhaps just wait on the AeroCruze STC. Add someone’s takeoff WAAS navigator (or a new GPS175), and a couple of AC-30-C or G5. You’ll have a fabulous IFR machine for a $20k investment. 

Do I prefer big glass? Sure, but as long as Ive got a reliable way to get the info I need, I’m good. Frankly I’m a better hand flyer on a traditional 6 pack (albeit digital) than a big glass presentation. I don’t do intentional IMC without an autopilot. That’s a me thing…clearly not hanging you up…but once an affordable 2 axis is approved, that’s a lot of bang for the buck.

[hubcap]

I am 63 years old. I upgraded my panel because I wanted to fly with the best I could afford for the last part of my flying years. I love it and no regrets. 

[Flash]

I resisted any avionics upgrade (other than an ADSB-compliant transponder) for my first 22 1/2 years of ownership and was perfectly happy. But I realized I'd get added performance from a WAAS GPS and decided if I was going to do that I should do some other things at the same time. I really love my IFD 540 and my dual GI-275s. I flew a DME arc on a recent IPC and felt like I was cheating it was so easy, even after I disengaged the autopilot with GPSS. The ability to fly LPV approaches was a real benefit to my upgrade, but it's not so much that I'm able to do more with my plane than I was before, and more about being able to do the same things more easily. Considering my missions can involve long days of flying, I'm probably getting a safety benefit because the flying is less demanding than it used to be.

Like you, I thought about buying a faster plane instead of doing an avionics upgrade. I decided I don't need that; my plane gets me where I'm going plenty fast enough. YMMV. Choose additional speed/altitude/engines if that's what floats your boat. If you don't make that choice, an avionics upgrade will definitely make a difference in your flying experience.

Edited December 14 by Flash

[donkaye]

19 hours ago, Danb said:

It’s difficult to justifying our flying we’re only on this planet for a short time do, get what you actually want. I’ve got a good friend who was a pilot for 35 years starting worrying about penny’s wife passed he’s worth over 1m and watching sitcoms. Enjoy..

"Life is short" is a term we hear often.  When we're young and say the term, I don't think most of us really grasp the concept.  Life seems infinite.  However---one day you will wakeup and say, "Wait a minute, just yesterday I was 20 years old and everyone around me is older.  Where did the last 60 years go?"  It happens just that fast.

My recommendation?  Don't wait too long to go after the things you want.  Time waits for no-one.

[AJ88V]

All your responses above are greatly appreciated.  I'm definitely doing something and glass (or some glass) cockpit makes more sense than the expense and hassle of upgrading planes when I need neither the speed nor the space.  I think (for me) the speed would be mostly ego, but the extra climb would be appreciated, more so if I eventually move back to the southwest (still under consideration).

As for the extra speed, here are some notes from Aviation Consumer on the Missile conversion:

• We think the airplane's best altitudes are in the 8500 to 12,500- foot range, where plenty of power is still available without the inevitable drop off due to altitude. At 8500 feet, we noted a true airspeed of 173 knots on 15.5 GPH. Thats about 65 percent power or 195 HP, far better than the stock 201 can manage at the same altitude. At lower altitudes-2000 feet-flat out, we recorded 183 knots on 18.5 GPH.
• The IO-550 engine in our test Missile was equipped with GAMIjectors but we were not able to run it well lean of peak, without roughness. At 6500 feet, 50 degrees lean of peak, we recorded 142 knots TAS at 9.7 GPH, but with engine roughness. For a max long-range economy flight with a decent tailwind, 1500 miles would be within reach at that power setting. (We think the engine roughness could be corrected with plug, mag or induction work.)

My C does about 140 kts at optimum altitudes (I flight plan for 135).  So on a 500 nm flight, it would be about 50 minutes faster in the Missile, but I rarely go that far and that's not that much savings, given all the other costs.  And the Missile turning in 142 kts at 9.7 mph lean of peak is pretty much in line with my little C.

Cheers!

[Max Clark]

20 hours ago, AJ88V said:

Owned my little C-model for over 25 years.  She's marginal IFR circa 1970.  Have always wanted to update her with an IFR GPS.  Lusted after Garmin 430s but held off.  My little Lowrance Airmap 500 took me to both coasts and south to Florida and north to Maine without much trouble.

Now I'm in the position to upgrade.  It never really pays to upgrade avionics when you can just buy it already done, especially if you're wanting to move to a roomier, faster, more modern airplane.  My C has decent paint, low time TTAF and very low SMOH.  $50-$60K would buy some pretty nice glass (still struggling with the autopilot at that price) and I'd have a plane that compares very well with with a Cirrus SR20 in performance, better than Piper and other offerings in the price range, and not really that far off from many more expensive airplanes.  I would move up to a J model in a heartbeat and am secretly lusting after a particular Missile currently for sale, but if those later model Mooneys have newer avionics, they're all breaking the $200K barrier.  The Missile looks like a superb airplane, but it's got great avionics circa 2015, whereas I can go slower in my C and have great avionics circa 2025.

My mission profile has changed as I approach retirement (already past 65).  I'll have more time and less need to get there (or get back), mostly only a SO co-pilot and bags, not a back seat with kids.

On the other hand, do I really want to own the most expensive M20C when I could be blasting through the skies in a Missile (or Ovation)?

Your thoughts?

I think I've written and deleted a few responses each time I've re-read your post.

Do you want a bigger plane, a faster plane, new avionics, or everything?

It seems like you want something new, but not set on what that means for you.

I agree that buying a plane with avionics done is a cheaper way of doing things, but a) you're buying someone else's choices, and b) you're buying a lot of unknowns with the new plane.

I'm in the middle of a full panel overhaul. It's expensive and if I sold the plane right away would probably lose 50% of that expense on the sale. But I'd tell you after doing this it's amazing how many little choices you make along the way that are a reflection of your preferences, priorities, and how you actually fly.

What equipment do you select, where does it go (autopilot above the stack, below the stack, off to the side), how your switches get laid out based on your in cockpit flow, etc...

From what I know the J will only buy you 10 knots over the C - is that worth it? The Missile should get you 30 knots over the C (and more fuel burn to match) - is that worth it?

I know I'm asking questions and not giving any answers, but I hope this helps.

 

[AJ88V]

55 minutes ago, Max Clark said:

I think I've written and deleted a few responses each time I've re-read your post.

Do you want a bigger plane, a faster plane, new avionics, or everything?

It seems like you want something new, but not set on what that means for you.

I agree that buying a plane with avionics done is a cheaper way of doing things, but a) you're buying someone else's choices, and b) you're buying a lot of unknowns with the new plane.

I'm in the middle of a full panel overhaul. It's expensive and if I sold the plane right away would probably lose 50% of that expense on the sale. But I'd tell you after doing this it's amazing how many little choices you make along the way that are a reflection of your preferences, priorities, and how you actually fly.

What equipment do you select, where does it go (autopilot above the stack, below the stack, off to the side), how your switches get laid out based on your in cockpit flow, etc...

From what I know the J will only buy you 10 knots over the C - is that worth it? The Missile should get you 30 knots over the C (and more fuel burn to match) - is that worth it?

I know I'm asking questions and not giving any answers, but I hope this helps.

 

Yep, I think you've got my dilemma figured out! 

I'm 90% leaning towards a panel at this point.  Will start planning some options.  Unfortunately, I started with $25K, then $35K, now thinking $50 - $60K and not sure that's enough.  Really hate to throw $60K of avionics into a plane worth probably $60ish.

[Ibra]

3 hours ago, AJ88V said:

My C does about 140 kts at optimum altitudes (I flight plan for 135).  So on a 500 nm flight, it would be about 50 minutes faster in the Missile, but I rarely go that far and that's not that much savings, given all the other costs.  And the Missile turning in 142 kts at 9.7 mph lean of peak is pretty much in line with my little C.

I am not sure why you are looking at J/Missile? I would personally bite the bullet and go for Ovation (Eagle) if I am looking for +30kts deltas then it's 310hp Ovation, that is what qualifies as "normally aspirated perfection".

The same applies to J/Rjay turbos, I don't think they are worth it? if one is looking for turbos they should "ditch J" and get 252/Encore which are "turbo perfection".

Under 20kts delta, I don't think it matters that much? +/-20kts is barely changes from winds, time of the day and routings...I don't think pilots notices it, I would look at avionics or leather as they come with perceived comfort 

For Avionics: a coupled digital auto-pilot with WAAS/LPV is a must. The rest is mostly nice to have, they fall under personal projects...

Edited December 14 by Ibra

[DC_Brasil]

53 minutes ago, AJ88V said:

Yep, I think you've got my dilemma figured out! 

I'm 90% leaning towards a panel at this point.  Will start planning some options.  Unfortunately, I started with $25K, then $35K, now thinking $50 - $60K and not sure that's enough.  Really hate to throw $60K of avionics into a plane worth probably $60ish.

Let me tell you my POV.

I have been passionate about aviation since I was a little kid (I am 41 now). I got my PPL almost 10 years ago and basically flew the flight school planes or a rented the local club Arrow here and there. Finally I've reached a point where I could indulge my dream and started looking. Found a beautiful 1990 M20J that had the original panel. I knew what I wanted: I wanted to fly, take my family for a few expensive burgers, but wanted the most gizmos my wallet could afford. I know I'd not be compensated for the installed technology if I ever decide to sell, but I am not buying my Mooney with that intent.

I want to Fly. I want to shoot IFR approaches. I want to be safe. I want to be current, modern and fun. 

So I spent the most I could afford (and the most that would not lead my wife to commit murder ahahahhah) and put a G3X, G5, GFC500 and a GMA245R (the GSB15 was complimentary by the shop).

The plane is used and has its squawks, old GPS and NAV/COMM, very beat out interior... But last week, flying to the coast with my wife, I can definitely tell you: I am living my dream.

[Slick Nick]

I might be a bit of an outlier in this regard, but I actually prefer a steam gauge panel. My ‘91 still has the factory panel. It’s not 70’s vintage mind you, I’ve got an HSI, RMI, standby vacuum, dual nav comms, ADF, DME. Basically the bendix king catalog from 1991. I’ve looked at doing the G5 thing, but I always come back to “why”? Maybe my day job flying big jets for a living has me a little jaded on the whole glass display thing, but I love the visceral feel of a Mooney, I bought mine to fly it, not sit there and stare at the screen while the autopilot does everything. That’s just me, your mission and goals may differ. I fly IMC often, and the steam gauges ensure my scan stays sharp. 

Perhaps that’s no help to you, but it’s my viewpoint on it. You don’t “need” a glass panel. If you want one, that’s different and only you can decide if it’s really worth it. Me, I’m more than happy with my 90’s panel. Reminds me of when I started flying!

Edited December 15 by Slick Nick

[MikeOH]

@Slick Nick

I'm an 'outlier' right there with you.  I may well be a luddite, but my six-pack, GNS430W, and STEC-30 do everything I need...personally, I just don't see the need, nor have the desire, for the new stuff.  Honestly, I like having both vacuum (and standby vacuum) and electric to provide dual-source power.  Electric everything, and battery backups, makes me nervous; I'm not out to save a few pounds to get rid of the vacuum system.

The only thing I'd like to have is an HSI...I might spring for a G5 one of these days

[Hank]

@AJ88V, i was in your position a few years ago, looking at a Missile that I just missed. It would have been a step up in instruments, performance, fuel and maintenance from my C, but would have been amazingly fun.

Logged along another decade, and another great Missile popped up, as I was debating my retirement schedule; work ended the debate by closing the plant, and i didn't want to move to work another year or two, so I backed out of that dandy Missile, knowing that it wasn’t needed as a soon-to-be-retired engineer. 

I had high hopes for the Dynon autopilot, and would have done the full SkyView suite with it, but they have decided to pass on the Vintage Mooneys. And my C continues to soldier on. I'm digging into the Brittain system to get it in tiptop shape and see if I can squeeze a couple of more decades out of it, and see how well the venerable G430W holds up . . . .

Let's enjoy our retirements, and our retirement rides! Aren't Cs amazingly capable and versatile airplanes? Mine still makes me smile after 17 years.

[Slick Nick]

42 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

@Slick Nick

I'm an 'outlier' right there with you.  I may well be a luddite, but my six-pack, GNS430W, and STEC-30 do everything I need...personally, I just don't see the need, nor have the desire, for the new stuff.  Honestly, I like having both vacuum (and standby vacuum) and electric to provide dual-source power.  Electric everything, and battery backups, makes me nervous; I'm not out to save a few pounds to get rid of the vacuum system.

The only thing I'd like to have is an HSI...I might spring for a G5 one of these days

I wish I had a 430W! I’m still on a KLN89B! Thank goodness Honeywell still provides database updates!

[Immelman]

5 hours ago, Slick Nick said:

Maybe my day job flying big jets for a living has me a little jaded on the whole glass display thing, but I love the visceral feel of a Mooney, I bought mine to fly it, not sit there and stare at the screen while the autopilot does everything.

I'm right there with you, coming from the flying an airliner thing for a paycheck. My Mooney is similarly equipped and looked like a King showroom piece in the early 90s.

BUT, 3 things I come back to for my Mooney, should I upgrade it:

1) Vacuum instruments need to go

2) An RNAV/LPV approach is now the best approach (and often the only approach) to many GA airports

3) The ancient 6-pack of engine gauges and their associated plumbing on the wrong side of the firewall are ready to go

 

Edited December 15 by Immelman

[Marc_B]

If you already have an aircraft that fits most missions and now looking for something different…how about adding a tail wheel, RV, Bush plane, or something fun to fly??

Depending on what you’re looking for there are as many answers to “what should I get/do” as there are people on MS.

But, for an IFR traveling single engine piston, it’s hard to beat a well equipped turbo Mooney. Of course that’s my answer to my own question.

[ArtVandelay]

I might be a bit of an outlier in this regard, but I actually prefer a steam gauge panel. My ‘Perhaps that’s no help to you, but it’s my viewpoint on it. You don’t “need” a glass panel. If you want one, that’s different and only you can decide if it’s really worth it. Me, I’m more than happy with my 90’s panel. Reminds me of when I started flying!

You don’t “need” a Mooney either, you wanted it.
It’s all about what you want and what you can afford. You live only once, fly what you want. When I started I use an old 152 for my PP and then went to a G1000 172 for my instrument. After that I knew I wanted a glass panel, it adds so much more situational awareness.

[Slick Nick]

6 hours ago, ArtVandelay said:

You don’t “need” a Mooney either, you wanted it.
It’s all about what you want and what you can afford. You live only once, fly what you want. When I started I use an old 152 for my PP and then went to a G1000 172 for my instrument. After that I knew I wanted a glass panel, it adds so much more situational awareness.

It does add to the overall picture of situational awareness, but I also think there's one piece of equipment that's now in every pilot's flight bag, that bridges the gap between a G1000 style setup and steam gauges - the iPad. Before iPad's and things like ForeFlight were prevalent, I absolutely concur that the added situational awareness provided by a moving map GPS is priceless. Heck, even my old KLN-89B has a rudimentary top-down map page. The big "step" in avionics came with the introduction of the Garmin 400/500 series back in the early 2000's. A full color, moving map, with inputs for terrain, traffic, and of course GPS approaches. That's why they were so immensely popular. Recall, when GPS approaches first debuted, almost all of them were "overlay" approaches that allowed you to more easily fly a traditional navaid approach, like an NDB. Now, overlay approaches are hard to find, as standalone RNAV's have taken over. Before iPads, the value proposition for a giant glass panel was much different than it is today.

I digress...

Yes, I agree that a big display in the panel is sweet, but as tablet technology has progressed, having that iPad in your aircraft means that even the guy in a Piper Cub can have access to a full moving map, approach plates, traffic, terrain and even a rudimentary AHRS display. No longer do you need to spend $50K on avionics to get all of that same information displayed in two places at once.

Disclaimer: I'm in no way suggesting that an iPad is a true replacement for a proper GPS for navigation, simply illustrating how it is another tool that aids in increasing situational awareness.

For me, the steam gauges and early 2000's GPS get me where I need to go. The iPad helps my situational awareness immensely, but I'm careful not to be too reliant on it. If I forget it at home, I can still get to where I need to go.

Edited December 15 by Slick Nick

[Marc_B]

1 hour ago, Slick Nick said:

Yes, I agree that a big display in the panel is sweet, but as tablet technology has progressed, having that iPad in your aircraft means that even the guy in a Piper Cub can have access to a full moving map, approach plates, traffic, terrain and even a rudimentary AHRS display. No longer do you need to spend $50K on avionics to get all of that same information displayed in two places at once.

Disclaimer: I'm in no way suggesting that an iPad is a true replacement for a proper GPS for navigation, simply illustrating how it is another tool that aids in increasing situational awareness.

OP had said "She's marginal IFR circa 1970.  Have always wanted to update her with an IFR GPS."  In my mind that's more than an iPad.  A fully capable IFR aircraft has built in certified equipment, and while an iPad can help with situational awareness and moving map, it pales in comparison to the capabilities of a fully integrated IFR panel. 

We've heard plenty of Live ATC with people unsuccessfully trying to use their iPad for IFR, having trouble with their iPad that derails their flying, and trying to "roll their own" instrument procedures and crashing.  My iPad is used for preflight planning (and flight logging) and my panel is used for flying.  There's no denying that an iPad is a highly capable equipment at a fraction of the price, but shouldn't replace certified equipment for IFR.  But in all fairness, you can get 90% of the glass panel/IFR capabilities with a G5/GI275 + GTN750/Xi (or pick your manufacturer if you'd prefer other than bigG).

I think the slippery slope is that the price of entry for modern IFR capability is usually more than just a GPS Nav/Comm and this makes the initial buy-in high enough that it then turns into a  "if I'm gonna spend that much money I might as well add to it and have it done my way."  This makes it easy to snowball into a "I started with a WAAS GPS and i wound up getting an integrated engine monitor, went all glass, removed my vacuum system, and have an all new panel."  Also to be fair on price comparisons, you can completely redo a Mooney with new avionics, new interior, new paint, resealed tanks, etc. for about a third of the cost of ANY new comparable aircraft.

Best compromise is to find a flying buddy with an aircraft/panel/equipment/etc that you like and just go fly with them!  Then you can see if you like it and feel that it's worth your time and money.  Also to consider...a group of friends decided to go in on a Piper Pacer tail wheel.  With 5 of them it made purchase and maintenance MUCH more reasonable and made sure there were enough flight hours instead of just filling a hangar space.  Since it was an older aircraft and VFR only, it also took away the urge to modernize it and kept the maintenance bucks just for maintenance.

[1980Mooney]

29 minutes ago, Marc_B said:

I think the slippery slope is that the price of entry for modern IFR capability is usually more than just a GPS Nav/Comm and this makes the initial buy-in high enough that it then turns into a  "if I'm gonna spend that much money I might as well add to it and have it done my way."  This makes it easy to snowball into a "I started with a WAAS GPS and i wound up getting an integrated engine monitor, went all glass, removed my vacuum system, and have an all new panel."  Also to be fair on price comparisons, you can completely redo a Mooney with new avionics, new interior, new paint, resealed tanks, etc. for about a third of the cost of ANY new comparable aircraft.

 

18 hours ago, AJ88V said:

Yep, I think you've got my dilemma figured out! 

I'm 90% leaning towards a panel at this point.  Will start planning some options.  Unfortunately, I started with $25K, then $35K, now thinking $50 - $60K and not sure that's enough.  Really hate to throw $60K of avionics into a plane worth probably $60ish.

This was discussed in a recent topic.  Modern glass panel, WAAS GPS, coupled glide slope autopilot - cheapest install is Dynon at $77,000.  Be sure to increase your insurance hull value.  Slippery slope....