Considering buying an M20

[Ragsf15e]

2 hours ago, CFIcare said:

I'd like a good single pilot IFR platform, that's why I'd like the glass and autopilot.

It will primarily be me, my wife and 2 year old.  We don't plan to have more and we're thin, so seems like we'll all fit.

You’re getting reasonable advice. Id keep your panel requirements if possible, but expand your selection to E, F, and possibly early J which might force you towards the $120k level.  Nothing wrong with a C too.  They might be a little cheaper but a good buy.  No fuel injection but still solid.  You should be ok with a 500-1500hour engine if it’s been flown a reasonable 60-100 hours (or more) year  for the last few.  My F had G5s, 430W, stec30, gtx345 and 1450 hours.  Interior good, paint not terrible, but not great. Sold for $80k a year ago.  If you fly a lot of ifr, the gfc500 is worth it (my K has it), so that seems a reasonable item for you.

Get a real good prebuy.  Maybe get savvy to run it.  Seriously, spend extra here because you will save in the long run. Trust me.  Prebuy this airplane well.  They all have corrosion potential.  Save yourself the heartburn and get a good prebuy.  Use savvy or consider it.

[gabez]

3 hours ago, CFIcare said:

That's quite a find!  I looked at some bo's but thought they'd be way out of my price range for one that's well-equipped.  Is this so cheap because it's so old? Or is it that hideous cork board panel?  Are those landing gear lights or thumb tacks?

But I guess if I'm looking at planes from the 60's, I shouldn't really turn up my nose at the 50's.  That's where rock and roll came from anyway.

Do you have any connection to this plane or just have excellent googling skills?  How did you find? Thanks for sending!

that plane has an electric prop if I am not mistaken and it's hard to find. I owned a j35 for a few years before getting my mooney. Don't get an old 35 for the same reasons some people are saying don't get an older mooney. that is not a cub you will be stock with a plane and no parts. part of the reason I sold my 1958 

[CFIcare]

16 minutes ago, gabez said:

that plane has an electric prop if I am not mistaken and it's hard to find. I owned a j35 for a few years before getting my mooney. Don't get an old 35 for the same reasons some people are saying don't get an older mooney. that is not a cub you will be stock with a plane and no parts. part of the reason I sold my 1958 

Interesting that they poured so much money into this antique.  Didn't know that about the electric prop pitch, interesting.

[CFIcare]

1 hour ago, Ragsf15e said:

You’re getting reasonable advice. Id keep your panel requirements if possible, but expand your selection to E, F, and possibly early J which might force you towards the $120k level.  Nothing wrong with a C too.  They might be a little cheaper but a good buy.  No fuel injection but still solid.  You should be ok with a 500-1500hour engine if it’s been flown a reasonable 60-100 hours (or more) year  for the last few.  My F had G5s, 430W, stec30, gtx345 and 1450 hours.  Interior good, paint not terrible, but not great. Sold for $80k a year ago.  If you fly a lot of ifr, the gfc500 is worth it (my K has it), so that seems a reasonable item for you.

Get a real good prebuy.  Maybe get savvy to run it.  Seriously, spend extra here because you will save in the long run. Trust me.  Prebuy this airplane well.  They all have corrosion potential.  Save yourself the heartburn and get a good prebuy.  Use savvy or consider it.

Yep, planning to do a savvy pre-buy, but appreciate hearing someone else recommend it.

[DXB]

5 hours ago, CFIcare said:

Hi y'all,

New member, my first post here.  I'm considering buying an M20 and looking for some opinions/advice.  I'd like to spend right around 100K.  I'd like to get something with an already upgraded panel to include 2 G5's (or equivalent) modern engine monitor, ideally JPI 930 primary, and if possible a GFC500.  Quite a wish list, right?

I kind of like the idea of a Johnson bar which helps narrow the search.  Seems like a pretty safe and simple system vs. electric gear with a backup.  But I'm looking for opinions on whether to consider Mooney's with electric gear. Any difference in maintenance costs for johnson bar vs. electric?

Anyway, here's a few listings I'm looking at, opinions/advice welcome!

 

No engine monitor, high time engine.  Anyone know the approximate cost and wait time for a good overhaul? Is factory rebuilt even an option?

https://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?category_level1=Single+Engine+Piston&make=MOONEY&model=M20C&listing_id=2448787&s-type=aircraft

 

No autopilot:

https://www.controller.com/listing/for-sale/249187751/1966-mooney-m20c-piston-single-aircraft

 

Old autopilot, presumably would replace with a GFC500:

https://www.aso.com/listings/spec/ViewAd.aspx?id=199015&listingType=true&IsInternal=True&pagingNo=1&searchId=62346357&dealerid=

 

Thanks everybody!

 

 

 

 

First one seems like best value given it already has some very solid avionics and may be a great IFR platform from day 1.  I'd go down that road assuming no gotchas during an attentive inspection out of the airframe. The engine may have some life left still and you can fly it for a while as you look for overhaul options.  The other two seem badly overpriced.   I don't know when their overhauls were done, but that should impact value also. If >20 years ago, they should still be priced as run out.  This thread makes me wonder if I should be insuring my '68C with very nice custom panel, lots of speed mods, and fresh engine and prop should be insured at more than the current 100k.  The old wisdom was you can't price the vintage Cs much above that no matter how nice they are, but these prices seem wildly elevated compared to when I bought 11 years ago.

 

 

[CFIcare]

6 minutes ago, DXB said:

First one seems like best value given it already has some very solid avionics and may be a great IFR platform from day 1.  I'd go down that road assuming no gotchas during an attentive inspection out of the airframe. The engine may have some life left still and you can fly it for a while as you look for overhaul options.  The other two seem badly overpriced.   I don't know when their overhauls were done, but that should impact value also. If >20 years ago, they should still be priced as run out.  This thread makes me wonder if I should be insuring my '68C with very nice custom panel, lots of speed mods, and fresh engine and prop should be insured at more than the current 100k.  The old wisdom was you can't price the vintage Cs much above that no matter how nice they are, but these prices seem wildly elevated compared to when I bought 11 years ago.

 

 

Sadly, I suspect these high prices have everything to do with the time that's passed since you bought.  Sounds like you've got a great plane!

[Paul Thomas]

10 minutes ago, DXB said:

First one seems like best value given it already has some very solid avionics and may be a great IFR platform from day 1.  I'd go down that road assuming no gotchas during an attentive inspection out of the airframe. The engine may have some life left still and you can fly it for a while as you look for overhaul options.  The other two seem badly overpriced.   I don't know when their overhauls were done, but that should impact value also. If >20 years ago, they should still be priced as run out.  This thread makes me wonder if I should be insuring my '68C with very nice custom panel, lots of speed mods, and fresh engine and prop should be insured at more than the current 100k.  The old wisdom was you can't price the vintage Cs much above that no matter how nice they are, but these prices seem wildly elevated compared to when I bought 11 years ago.

 

 

Some C have changed hands over 100k; in another thread about E valuation, someone mentioned they bought their C at 155k but it has all the goodies. I don't see full glass, GCF 500, GTN, etc, changing hands at less than 100k.

[hubcap]

There are really 2 variations to buying an airplane.

1. Buy the plane ready to go and equipped to fit your mission. ie “Buy once, cry once”

2. Spend less money and get a plane not equipped like we want, or with a high time engine. These guys usually end up crying a lot more than once, and spending a lot more in the end.

Everyone has a budget, but nobody likes to sit around not flying their airplane because it takes 7 months for an upgrade or maybe a longer wait time for cylinders or an engine.
 

If you don’t mind those long wait times times then maybe an engine that is timed out will give you the opportunity to get a deal. Waiting on an engine will give you plenty of time to fix everything else that people find when they buy a plane with a few issues.

[CFIcare]

Ok, so to get a 4 seat, fast-ish, glass, autopilot plane, with good parts availability, is there a Mooney model/year range for me? What should I realistically look to be spending?

Or should I be looking at other planes as some have suggested: bonanza's, experimentals, cirrus etc.

Great replies from everyone so far, thank you!

[MikeOH]

Meh, when I dream of a 'new' plane, the parts availability thing just doesn't factor into it; that's been a concern for many brands and smacks of periodic 'sky is falling' rhetoric.  In the eight years of my Mooney ownership I've only needed one factory part, the intake boot; Top Gun had one in stock when my plane was in for annual a couple of years ago and I jumped on it.  By and large, between stock somewhere, aircraft boneyards, and OPP, if necessary, I'm just not that worried about parts.  Leadtime on engines is a bigger threat to my continuous flying!

IOW, I don't think looking at other planes/brands is really going to help that.  Similarly, buying a newer Mooney or different model isn't going to solve it, either.  More money is just going to get you more performance...like the saying goes, how fast you want to go depends on how much money you want to spend!

[cliffy]

5 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

It looks like burled maple or bird's eye maple veneer. It may not be everyone's choice but if you're into vintage Bentley, Rolls or Jaguar I could understand how a wood veneer could be appealing to someone. https://glveneer.com/burl-wood-veneer-10-unique-species-we-offer/

Hey they stole my idea to match the panel of my Rolls in my Mooney!!!! AND ITS BIRDS EYE MAPLE !!!

[cliffy]

What ever you buy make damn sure you get a good inspection before you put money down

An inspection by someone who knows Mooneys!!! Not just any A&P

Too many new members here have disregarded this advice and been stuck with a very expensive first annual (as is the case with ANY make of airplane). 

At a min search here on MS for my recent post of a minimum pre-buy inspection guide. 

[Pinecone]

14 hours ago, DXB said:

First one seems like best value given it already has some very solid avionics and may be a great IFR platform from day 1.  I'd go down that road assuming no gotchas during an attentive inspection out of the airframe. The engine may have some life left still and you can fly it for a while as you look for overhaul options.  The other two seem badly overpriced.   I don't know when their overhauls were done, but that should impact value also. If >20 years ago, they should still be priced as run out.  This thread makes me wonder if I should be insuring my '68C with very nice custom panel, lots of speed mods, and fresh engine and prop should be insured at more than the current 100k.  The old wisdom was you can't price the vintage Cs much above that no matter how nice they are, but these prices seem wildly elevated compared to when I bought 11 years ago.

There is a difference between what you can sell your plane for and what you should insure it for.

Remember, if you have a mishap, if the repair cost is over about 70% of the insured value you will have a check, not an airplane.   And with current costs, a gear up could end up with your plane being totaled.   And you get to start looking for a new plane.

[TheAv8r]

15 hours ago, CFIcare said:

Interesting that they poured so much money into this antique.  Didn't know that about the electric prop pitch, interesting.

@CFIcare A few thoughts for you on this journey:

• The 1950s Bonanzas are underpowered and have convoluted fuel systems requiring careful management. They will cruise around 140kts at a higher fuel burn than the Mooney. That's why they command such a comparatively low purchase price when comparing to the 1960s and above V35 Bonanzas. It does not mean it's a dealbreaker, only that you have to stay on top of the fuel system and get well-trained by someone who knows the airplane.
• You will not find what you're looking for for $100k, as you've already seen on the market. 
• $120k will step you up into a nice C model, an E or an F with a compromise. You will not get a J in this price range with what you're looking for, that would be closer to $170-180k for a J with these specs. 
• I have been in 3 airplanes in the last 6 months doing transition training that had panels and engine times you described, 2 Fs and an E, that were recently purchased. Both Fs were in the $140-155k range, the E was in the $170k range. They also had speed mods and the E was basically perfect (speed mods, interior, paint, engine, panel, etc.). You're asking for a plane at the top of the market: good engine, top of the line modern panel, so you need to be ready to pay top of the market prices, or slim your list down to match your budget. I would budget $130k for a C, $150k for an E or an F for what you're wanting to find. Hopefully you will find one for less than that, but if you don't want to change your wish list, that's what you need to be ready for.
• I've owned Mooneys for the better part of the last 10 years. I've never had a grounding parts issue. I have had to replace the dreaded intake boot, but I was able to find one, and now I have a backup one I bought from LASAR when they did their last run. Parts availability is better on the Bonanzas, but also much more expensive.

If you want to buy a plane to immediately fly the crap out of it, don't buy one with a run-out engine. The wait is 6-8 months to get it overhauled. Avionics work will probably be around 2-3 months, but will cost more, especially with a primary engine monitor and a GFC-500 ($20-25k install). If you are sold on the primary engine monitor, I highly recommend also looking for one that has CIES Fuel Senders, you can't really effectively stick the tanks in Mooneys past a certain fuel level and with inaccurate gauges you won't know how much fuel is in your airplane!

For a 4-seat, fast, glass-panel, autopilot airplane, your options are really Mooney, Bonanza, Cirrus, Comanche, Rockwell Commander, Super Viking, or Experimental but 4-seat experimentals are equally pricey to obtain and harder to find. The Mooney is the cheapest price-wise of that group. Each has their pros and cons. 

[TheAv8r]

Here's an example of a Mooney M20F that checks all your boxes that is priced at $164k: https://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?category_level1=Single+Engine+Piston&make=MOONEY&model=M20F+EXEC+21&listing_id=2448117&s-type=aircraft . 

M20J with a KAP-150 AP but otherwise what you want for $175k: https://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?category_level1=Single+Engine+Piston&make=MOONEY&model=M20J+201&listing_id=2446676&s-type=aircraft

M20E with your panel and mid-time engine for $110k: https://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?category_level1=Single+Engine+Piston&make=MOONEY&model=M20E&listing_id=2444592&s-type=aircraft

Current market dynamics inform prices. There's some leeway there, but that's just what it is . 

[Vance Harral]

31 minutes ago, TheAv8r said:

you can't really effectively stick the tanks in Mooneys past a certain fuel level

This may be true with long range tanks, but fuel sticks work great in unmodified, vintage-era (M20J and before) airplanes.  The point at which the fuel level drops below what can be wetted by a stick through the fill port is around 2-3 gallons, which is getting somewhat close to the unusable fuel volume anyway.

[cliffy]

1 hour ago, TheAv8r said:

you can't really effectively stick the tanks in Mooneys past a certain fuel level and with inaccurate gauges you won't know how much fuel is in your airplane!

In reality I can "stick" my tanks down to below 5 gallons (that's as low as I have marked on my "stick") by using the inboard side of the opening as the guide to drop straight down into the tank. 1/4" wooden dowel 2' long.

I marked every 5 gallons to full and its surprisingly accurate if wings are level laterally.

Part of my every day pre-flight to verify what my old school level transmitters (1950s Cadillac) are saying.  

Don't get too hung up on a fancy engine monitor. While "nice" to have it also , in reality, is not really necessary as these are, after all, little 4 banger Lycomings that have run with one EGT gage for many decades with good service. They're nice to have but not necessary. Now if you were looking at the big 6 cylinder Mooneys - YA, its necessary. 

[TheAv8r]

53 minutes ago, Vance Harral said:

This may be true with long range tanks, but fuel sticks work great in unmodified, vintage-era (M20J and before) airplanes.  The point at which the fuel level drops below what can be wetted by a stick through the fill port is around 2-3 gallons, which is getting somewhat close to the unusable fuel volume anyway.

That has not been my experience in short-bodies, but all of the ones we've seen this on had bladders, so perhaps that is changing it. I have seen multiple cases where you opened the fuel tank and there was no wet fuel, but there was still 8-10 gallons in the tank. I'm able to know because I have CIES senders in my plane accurate to 1/10th of a gallon. If you don't, you have no idea how much is left in the area you can't see and that's dangerous  . 

[Vance Harral]

7 minutes ago, TheAv8r said:

That has not been my experience in short-bodies,

Something about this really doesn't add up.

First, a bladder would have to have a pretty horrible wrinkle to change the dry point as referenced through the fill port by more than a half gallon or so.  The wrinkle would have to be so bad that I'd think you would notice you couldn't actually fill the tank to the advertised capacity.

Second, while the CIES senders have some nice technology that eliminates the resistive wiper arm of standard senders, they still use a pivoting float that would be "fooled" by anything that changes the physical level of the top of the fuel.  As such, the problem you're hypothesizing wouldn't be fixed by CIES senders at all.

Not saying you're imagining things, it just seems like you've had some very bad luck with your short body fuel tank experience, that I don't think is at all common.

[DCarlton]

1 hour ago, Vance Harral said:

This may be true with long range tanks, but fuel sticks work great in unmodified, vintage-era (M20J and before) airplanes.  The point at which the fuel level drops below what can be wetted by a stick through the fill port is around 2-3 gallons, which is getting somewhat close to the unusable fuel volume anyway.

I've never sticked my tanks, but I'm not sure I agree with this either.  I've been surprised over the years how much fuel is left in the tanks when it looks almost dry in the fuel cap opening.  Now you've got me wanting to know exactly.  Regardless I certainly wouldn't fly if I can't see fuel.  

[midlifeflyer]

2 minutes ago, DCarlton said:

I've never sticked my tanks, but I'm not sure I agree with this either.  I've been surprised over the years how much fuel is left in the tanks when it looks almost dry in the fuel cap opening.  Now you've got me wanting to know exactly.  Regardless I certainly wouldn't fly if I can't see fuel.  

Sounds like you'll never fly a Diamond  

[DCarlton]

1 minute ago, midlifeflyer said:

Sounds like you'll never fly a Diamond  

Always wanted to.  They must fly off of fuel you can't see.  

[midlifeflyer]

15 minutes ago, DCarlton said:

Always wanted to.  They must fly off of fuel you can't see.  

They are definitely fun to fly. 

The fuel caps are out toward the wing tip rather than the wing root like most. The result is that with the dihedral,  you don't have be be down more than maybe 3-4 gallons and you can no longer visibly see the fuel. So there's this horrible manometer (pressure differential) measuring device is used to get a manual reading. 

[Hank]

10 hours ago, cliffy said:

In reality I can "stick" my tanks down to below 5 gallons (that's as low as I have marked on my "stick") by using the inboard side of the opening as the guide to drop straight down into the tank. 1/4" wooden dowel 2' long.

I filled up after a long trip and a short flight yesterday (our fuel pump at home was down for a fritzing card reader). One tank, the fuel was barely visible direct below the cap opening so I didn't bother with my dipstick. It took 24.6 gallons to refill. So a gallon and a half (C model, 26 gallon tanks; at reseal, filling both to the caps was 52.2 gal).

Per the Type Certificate, unusable fuel is 3.4 lbs total, or 1.7 lb = 0.3 gallons per tank. My stick is calibrated in 2-gallon increments from 2 - 26 gal.

[MikeOH]

43 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

Sounds like you'll never fly a Diamond  

LOL!

I think I have some 10 hours in Diamond and taking off the fuel cap is a waste of time

I rather liked the 'manometer', however.  I viewed it as an accurate built-in fuel stick.