The life of an airframe and when to stop investing into it

[hazek]

I'm wrestling with the question of how much to invest in my plane. A 1991 Bravo, still with the six pack, KFC150, original paint and interior. The only two modern avionics are the GTN650 and the EDM830. The engine has about a good third of its life left probably, hopefully.

How does one make the decision to make a significant investment into an airframe as old as this? I'm talking about thinking to completely renovate the plane. Modern avionics, interior + paint job. New engine and a complete overhaul would probably cost about 300k. If I sold it and bought an SR22T I'd spend about the same and jump into the 21st century airframes. Wouldn't be a slick retract Mooney... but similar performance.

Another worry is the end of AVGAS in Europe. We had two smaller Belgian airfields forbidding all AVGAS aircraft this year which was a major surprise and shock to everyone. The courts upheld it citing some European environmental initiative that hasn't even been implemented yet - apparently will be in 7 years. Should I be looking at diesel aircraft? I'd hate to fly a DA40 after flying my plane, and I can't afford a DA50 or DA42, let alone a turbo prop. Is there even anything else certified and not AVGAS dependent?

Is it pointless to be prudent with money since this is money out the window anyway? Should I just keep running with what I have as long as I can, even if I can afford to splurge a bit? Or should I just splurge and what may come may come, YOLO and all that?

I don't know how to think about this. Any input?

[Ethan]

Do you already own the airplane? If not, you might want to just get something newer and save yourself the time and the hassle it's going to take to get the airplane to the avionics shop, to the engine shop, to the upholstery shop, etc. I would just like to get a plane to fly it rather than spend months with it out of service.

If you already own the airplane just do stuff as you need to do it and fly the crap out of it. A 1991 Mooney is new. 

[MikeOH]

I've struggled with this on a much smaller (dollar) scale (I have a 1970 M20F with six-pack/GNS430W/STEC30)

The conclusion I've come to is that I love to FLY; the toys in the panel are distant to mechanical condition.  Could I afford to upgrade?  Yes, but the 'value' just isn't there for me.  I'll put the money into the engine overhaul, but I don't see myself spending the coin on the avionics or fancy interior.  Honestly, what  I have is really all I need; and I don't really want the 'glass'.

YOLO most certainly applies, but I'd rather spend on other entertainment (e.g. sailing yacht)  Neither hobby is financially prudent!

Realistically, I ask myself how much longer will I be flying?  Maybe 10 or 15 years...sure, we all like to think we will be flying octogenarians, but even so, it may be in a Cub...mission will likely change.

For me, the pleasure is in the flying itself, if the machine is safe the rest is not that important.

Sorry for the ramblings...if you can afford it and it brings you pleasure, then go for it!

[Fly Boomer]

19 minutes ago, hazek said:

How does one make the decision to make a significant investment into an airframe as old as this?

If I lived almost anywhere other than the US, and there were no good kerosene alternatives, I would probably just maintain what I have, and fly as much as possible.  When you are done, maybe look for a sales opportunity in the US if there was still a market here.  I assume that what you have now is a sunk cost and, while it would be unfortunate to lose it, losing whatever you have in it currently would be better than losing that amount plus 300k.

[IvanP]

Well, 100LLAvgas as we know it is going away sooner rather than later. The hope is that there will be some viable alternative to it, other than G100UL (many posts on that topic on MS), developed and distributed before the environuts succed in complete ban on Avgas. My Bravo is a year older than yours and the avoinics are nothing to write home about either. It flies well and I intend to fly is as much as I can before aging out of this hobby. Not going to put $100k into fancy glass avionics, though unless something breaks to the point that it would become necessary,   

[DCarlton]

IMO, it (a) depends on how old you are; (b) depends on how hard it would be to get your engine overhauled while based in Europe; (c) how easy it would be for you to sell your airplane without taking a major loss or it sitting on the market for a couple of years before it sells.  I've purchased and owned one airplane; now it's old (relative to yours) and I'm getting older by the minute too.  I doubt I'll ever buy another one.  If I were going to make a move, I should have done it 10-15 years ago.  I just never wanted to deal with the hassle of selling and I didn't want to pay sales taxes and higher annual property taxes.  

[201er]

2 hours ago, hazek said:

I'm wrestling with the question of how much to invest in my plane. A 1991 Bravo, still with the six pack, KFC150, original paint and interior.

How does one make the decision to make a significant investment into an airframe as old as this?

 
 

The median age of the entire Mooney fleet is probably around 1970. I think they made more Mooney’s in 1967 than the entire time since 1990! 

[gabez]

to me comes down to property tax, living in california upgrading a capable airplane (like my m20K) is way cheaper than buying a cirrus

[Schllc]

I’d invite you to look at it a litttle bit differently.

assuming money is not “the” controlling reason.  And assuming you have no immediate plans to sell and are capable of holding the asset. 
If you renovate your plane and even drop a new engine, you would spend 300k tops. 
for that 300k you will have a practically brand new airplane, that you know every squeak and purr.  It will be done exactly to your preferences and special appointments. 
it will be just like a brand new car x100.  It will also be very easy to sell later and probably retain the value over any in her age group  

you can of course sell it and buy something quicker and probably save at best 100k, more likely 40k after you run through squawks, upgrades deferred maintenance etc.  so yes, it’s still real money, but even then you will only be close to what you really wanted, with some compromises. 
 

or fly her like she is until you have to do something.  No wrong answer, but a restoration ant being able to pick a la carte isn’t all bad.

do you really think a gas will be banned in 7 years there?

[Schllc]

1 hour ago, gabez said:

to me comes down to property tax, living in california upgrading a capable airplane (like my m20K) is way cheaper than buying a cirrus

That’s true for any Mooney out there now. 

[LANCECASPER]

1 hour ago, 201er said:

I think they made more Mooney’s in 1967 than the entire time since 1990! 

Not too far off. They made 751 Mooneys in 1967. During the decade of the 1990's they made 838. 

In 2000 they sold 100 and from 2005-2008 after the G1000 was introduced they averaged about 70 per year.

[DCarlton]

7 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

Not too far off. They made 751 Mooneys in 1967. During the decade of the 1990's they made 838. 

In 2000 they sold 100 and from 2005-2008 after the G1000 was introduced they averaged about 70 per year.

Did all 751 have the twist wing?  

[LANCECASPER]

11 minutes ago, DCarlton said:

Did all 751 have the twist wing?  

Not sure, but there were 149 M20C, 62 M20E, 536 M20F and 4 M22.

The F was a huge success. They announced it in 1966 and 3 F models were made, probably for flight testing. They sold 536 the next year!

The first two years of the J, 1977 & 1978, they sold 377 and 380.

The first two years of the K, 1979 & 1980, they sold 246 and 200.

[gabez]

58 minutes ago, Schllc said:

I’d invite you to look at it a litttle bit differently.

assuming money is not “the” controlling reason.  And assuming you have no immediate plans to sell and are capable of holding the asset. 
If you renovate your plane and even drop a new engine, you would spend 300k tops. 
for that 300k you will have a practically brand new airplane, that you know every squeak and purr.  It will be done exactly to your preferences and special appointments. 
it will be just like a brand new car x100.  It will also be very easy to sell later and probably retain the value over any in her age group  

you can of course sell it and buy something quicker and probably save at best 100k, more likely 40k after you run through squawks, upgrades deferred maintenance etc.  so yes, it’s still real money, but even then you will only be close to what you really wanted, with some compromises. 
 

or fly her like she is until you have to do something.  No wrong answer, but a restoration ant being able to pick a la carte isn’t all bad.

do you really think a gas will be banned in 7 years there?

100% the thought of putting a new engine and avionics is not as taunting as buying another plane which will for sure require some work and have its own nuances  

[donkaye, MCFI]

I have a 1991 Bravo.  I'm on my 3rd engine.  The avionics I put in starting in 2013 and upgraded as the G500 transitioned to the G500 Txi and GTN 750/650 to the GTN 750/650 Xi and GTX330ES to the GTX335 are better than in most business jets I have flown in.  The Bravo travels at half the speed of jets.  That is fast.  Rather than step up to a Turbine with at least double the yearly expense, I chose to keep my Bravo and upgrade it to the max.  I love the airplane and its avionics.  Structurally, it is the strongest single engine airplane out there.  Basically, it is new, panel and firewall forward.  I feel like I have a new airplane.  I have never looked back.

[Schllc]

11 hours ago, donkaye, MCFI said:

I have a 1991 Bravo.  I'm on my 3rd engine.  The avionics I put in starting in 2013 and upgraded as the G500 transitioned to the G500 Txi and GTN 750/650 to the GTN 750/650 Xi and GTX330ES to the GTX335 are better than in most business jets I have flown in.  The Bravo travels at half the speed of jets.  That is fast.  Rather than step up to a Turbine with at least double the yearly expense, I chose to keep my Bravo and upgrade it to the max.  I love the airplane and its avionics.  Structurally, it is the strongest single engine airplane out there.  Basically, it is new, panel and firewall forward.  I feel like I have a new airplane.  I have never looked back.

A lot more than double, closer to 4-5x the cost. That’s if you can pay cash. 
turbines are an order of magnitude more.  
No bigger bang for your buck per mile than a Mooney. 

[hazek]

Some good points so far.

7 hours ago, Schllc said:

do you really think a gas will be banned in 7 years there?

Oostend and Antwerp in Belgium have already done it this year. And while the regional AOPAs are kicking and screaming about it, it does not appear a course reversal is happening. It may still come but this is a real danger. And given the stories of G100UL I don't consider that as a viable alternative.

But like I said, flying with your own plane is anyway not a financially prudent decision so maybe I just have to accept the risk that this will last only 7 years more.
 

6 hours ago, donkaye, MCFI said:

Structurally, it is the strongest single engine airplane out there.

This worries me because while it sounds good, it may not be true in my particular case. What if my plane has a hidden issue. I was thinking of actually going for interior/paint first that could uncover any hidden issues. And only then avionics if it turns out all is well. Is this silly? Am I worrying about the airframe too much? I notice there's some paint cracking, flacking on the right wing outboard leading edge and top side, I also notice some cracks in the fiberglass cowling.. Age is definitely starting to show on the airframe.

7 hours ago, Schllc said:

assuming money is not “the” controlling reason.

While it isn't and I can afford it I'm still not in a position to just waste it. I still would like to make a decision that is somewhat sensible.

[hazek]

9 hours ago, 201er said:

The median age of the entire Mooney fleet is probably around 1970.

10 hours ago, DCarlton said:

IMO, it (a) depends on how old you are

Oh and I'm younger than the average Mooney, so just by age I could myself flying for many many years to come.

[Schllc]

8 hours ago, hazek said:

While it isn't and I can afford it I'm still not in a position to just waste it. I still would like to make a decision that is somewhat sensible.

Sensible is a very subjective term in aviation. 
if you get the use and enjoyment of the plane for say five years and sell it for 100k less than you invested is that worth it to you?  It’s just an example for the exercise. There is a number there that makes it sensible and nonsensical for all of us.

I would not be overly concerned about hidden reasons your airframe is not worth restoring. 1991 in airplane years is not that old. 
I do admit, the specter of not being able to fuel my plane in seven years or sooner would make me pause as well. 

[Pinecone]

My M20K is a 1986.  I bought it in 2022 with good paint and low time engine.  I have done a full Garmin glass panel and new interior.  I did them at the same time, as the interior had to come out for the avionics work.

I now have the plane that I want and love it.  

In your situation, the AVGAS issue does add another factor.  But 100LL is also going away in the US, supposedly in 5 years.  While the current iteration of G100UL is not perfect (but 100LL is not either), they are working on the issues.   And they are way ahead of the other competition.  If it was a choice to not fly or use G100UL, even as it stands today, I would keep flying and deal with the issues.

[GeeBee]

My boat is a 1998, to replace it new would cost 300K, so it is on its 3rd set of outdrives and first engines. I replaced all the electronics twice and I wash and wax monthly. Is it worth it, a lot cheaper than a new one.

My Mooney is a 2005. It has a G1000. It is worth about 300K. If I had to replace it with new if new was available 1 million +. If I replaced it would annuals be any cheaper? Nope, would routine maintenance be any less? No. I put 23K into a new interior and it looks better than factory. My hangar neighbor has a new Cirrus and it is in the shop about the same amount as mine. He has the same maintenance issues as I do with a 20 year old airplane. If the G1000NXi upgrade came out I would buy it in a New York second. Because even with all that I am in it for waaaaay cheaper than new with the same performance. With that Bravo, you can blow the doors off that Cirrus, why would you not want to upgrade it for 1/10th the cost of new?

Avgas is not going away.

[IvanP]

3 hours ago, Pinecone said:

While the current iteration of G100UL is not perfect (but 100LL is not either), they are working on the issues.   

Understatement of the year   . Let's hope that GAMI is actually working on the issue, rather than finding excuses for the shortcomings of the current brew. 

I can see Europe banning 100LL earlier than US so the concern about fuel availability is very relevant, particularly with the engine that is in Bravo that cannot use some of the alternatives out there. 

[Fritz1]

Bringing a more than 20 year old airplane up to speed can take 2-3 years, after you have replaced everything that moves you know what is in there. This makes sense if the airframe is solid, no corrosion. In the US there still is a solid infrastructure that supports Mooneys. In Europe this may be a different story. I think the determining factors really are how confident you are working on your airplane under supervision of an A&P IA and how confident you are dealing with the shops available. The Bravo is unique through its turbo Lycoming engine and the extremely solid airframe. This comes to play in mountainous terrain or when going east in the USA with a tailwind. The answer may become evident from test flying an alternative aircraft and and talking to owners of such aircraft.

[DXB]

Your airframe has a basically an unlimited life if cared for.   It sounds like the utilty of this airframe is might be limited by the avgas situation in belgium. 

 An SR22T has advantages and disadvantages over a Bravo - but will never rival a Mooney in cool factor or fun factor.

 

[Hector]

Mooneys have no known fatigue issues affecting primary structure. If you can keep corrosion under control the airframe will last many decades. I own a 67F and just upgraded my panel with some of the latest from Garmin including GTN Xi, GNC355, GI275s. It has a good AP and I love to fly it and it’s really all I need. I maintain the aircraft well and I don’t defer maintenance. I’m not worried at all as I believe my airframe will outlast me. If your plane has good bones (airframe and powerplant) I would spend the money to upgrade it and make your own. Fuel in Europe may be an issue but I believe we will be transitioning to an unleaded fuel before it becomes a major problem


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk