Pre-65 models?

[Tom]

Hello all,

For a variety of reasons I'm looking for a 60s era Mooney (don't want anything more expensive or complicated).

In snooping around I've found a few planes for sale that are pre-65 (namely a 64 20E).

I see frequent statements while reasearching Mooney's on the web to the effect "start away from a pre-65 model" suggesting that there were significant changes in 1965.

What I can gather is that in 1965 the ailerons were changed, maybe the longer rudder that year as well.  Other than this, I don't know why the bias against pre-65 models.

While we are at it, what does anyone think about the following plane?

http://www.64mooney.com

Assuming that the above plane has no issues under the skin (corrosion etc) and that the P/I is good, what about the price?  Engine is recently out of overhaul but not done at a larger "reputable" center.  Panel is notably missing an autopilot and IFR GPS.  Looks like $50k would have been a great deal before the current meltdown but now I see other mid-time planes with GPS/autopilots going for many thousand less.  Any thoughts on this or other early models?  Anyone know of any hidden gems out there?

[Parker_Woodruff]

Couldn't tell you the details onthe pre/post 65 models.  I would say, however, that there are some deals you could get on a C, E, or F from the late 60s and into the 70s for the same/close to the same money.

 

If you're looking at a 1966 M20C in the Kansas City area, please talk to me before you look at it.

 

I've recently seen a 1965 M20C with about the same engine and airframe times but with a Garmin GNS430 and better overall equipment sell for the mid-high $40k range with seller-paid prebuy.

[danb35]

The longer rudder came in 1967 with the introduction of the F model, IIRC.

[Ned Gravel]

Tom:

I was where you are now, back in 2004.  During my hunt, I came to some of the same conclusions you have already mentioned. Pre-65 was a problem with the aileron links and the high roll forces caused by the curved ailerons used before that time.  See http://www.mooneypilots.com/mapalog/m20e.html.  In 1967, Butler bought Mooney and they stopped using flush rivets on some parts of the fuselage to save money.  Then two years later the empty weight went up for some reason (change in thickness of metal?)

In the end, I came to the conclusion that the 65 and 66 E model years were the two optimum model years for E models.  That is why I own a 65.  Might also want to get the book called "Those remarkable Mooney's."  It has quite a bit of good gen.

If you want to talk to history - try and get a hold of Bill Wheat.  He still works part time at Mooney and at Dugosh Aviation across the field from Mooney in Kerrville. He is Mooney history personified.  He knows all the ins and outs of those years.  He was one of the test pilots from those days. 

Hope this helps.

[MooneyMitch]

Hi Ned.

If you know where one might purchase "Those Remarkable Mooneys", please let me know.  I have absorbed Gordon Baxter's book, "The Al Mooney Story", but would really enjoy the other book as well.

Thank you.

[scottfromiowa]

Flush rivets in wings, retractable step, johnson bar and superior zinc galvonizing were areas I looked at and an old consumer aviation article quoting Charley DuGosh(sp) saying that '66-'67 Mooney's had the smoothest wings of any years...(at that time)...and STAY away from wood wings, unless you need a flower planter in your yard...his words not mine.  I would say 65-67 for pre-J M20E are the cream years.  Most built and have the square vs. round windows...

[MB_M20F]

Quote: Mitch

If you know where one might purchase "Those Remarkable Mooneys", please let me know. 

[flight2000]

I think the 67 E model was the last year made as there is a break with no E models being produced again until '69. 

It's pretty hard to find a 67 E model these days for sale.  I got lucky and found one owned by a current NASA astronaut that was selling to build a new house around Houston.

Brian

[MooneyMitch]

Thank you MB_M20F.  I will contact LASAR.

[flight2000]

MAPA has it as well. 

http://www.mooneypilots.com/thoseremarkablemooneys.html

Brian

[Ned Gravel]

Mitch:

I bought my copy of "Those Remarkable Mooneys" through MAPA.

[eaglebkh]

I'd like to chime in here, being a 64E owner myself.  The 64E doesn't have PC, which to me is fine because I like having the S-tec A/P.  There is also much concern over the aileron roll forces, which I believe is a little over-exaggerated.  The MAPA comparison of E's states that you need to retrofit the ailerons in order to have an A/P installed because of the high roll forces, which is flat wrong.  My A/P install required no such retrofit and I've had no problems with the A/P.

The windscreen for the pre-65's were 2-piece with the large divider in between, which restricts a lot of the view.  There was also a slight change in the cowl opening shape.  The pre-66's (I believe) have the little hump around the top of the spinner.

My 64E does have a hatrack.  It also has the retractable step, which mainly just impresses the passengers, or annoys them when you forget to lower it after a flight.

So don't rule out a pre-65, unless the features such as PC and 1-piece windscreen are very significant for you.  I'm not sure which year saw the longer rudder, but I've not encountered a crosswind yet where I ran out of rudder.

Lastly, the 64E ad you posted sports a very high price.  Barebones IFR, no A/P or IFR GPS, and the panel still has the random shotgun placement of gauges.  It also appears to have an antenna right in front of the windscreen - annoying!

[carusoam]

My 65 C had the short rudder.

It's greatest beauty feature was its rectangular windows.  It had a one piece windscreen when I got it.  I suppose an upgrade by one of the previous owners.

Flush rivets, stainless camlocks, Johnson bar and manual hydraulic flaps.   Lots of zinc chromate, It had a separate gyro for the PC system.  The gyro was mounted next to the vacuum system that raises the step.

Biggest drawback: shotgun instrument placement and non-standard engine control layout...

Best news:  All of this can be improved upon, see some of the instrument panel layouts in photo galleries.

-anthony-

[triple8s]

I have square windows, but it is supposed to be a 64 model, is it a 64 or 65. Flight testing in the original logbook was 12th month of 1964.

[KLRDMD]

Quote: triple8s

I have square windows, but it is supposed to be a 64 model, is it a 64 or 65. Flight testing in the original logbook was 12th month of 1964.

[kallend]

Quote: JimR

I always thought that 66 and 67 were kind of a sweet spot. Unlike the 65 and earlier models that I have seen, they were zinc chromated internally, but they had not been "Butlerized", which I always thought started with the 68 model. One big inprovement that happened in 65, if I am not mistaken, was the camlocks on the cowl. I also like the asthethics of the "square" windows. PC was first introduced in 65 as well. None of this would stop me from buying a cherry 64 or older Mooney, but they are factors to consider. BTW, when was the hat rack added? Some round windows don't have one, but I don't know when it was added.

[1964-M20E]

Just bought my first plane a 64E in May and I like it.  I was told the same thing by Zef (Mooney Land) stay away from pre 65's.  He said they used smaller steel tubing in the roll cage pre 65 among other things.  Of course I had to specifically inquire why he advised against pre 65's.  I like the rounded windows I think they look better.  The previous owners upgraded to a standard 6 pack instruments, IFR and Garmin 300, GEM 602 and all other digital avionics.

 

Off topic Mooney should go back and make a basic no frills E or F model with manual everything.

[flight2000]

Quote: 1964-M20E

Off topic Mooney should go back and make a basic no frills E or F model with manual everything.

[DaV8or]

Quote: 1964-M20E

Just bought my first plane a 64E in May and I like it.  I was told the same thing by Zef (Mooney Land) stay away from pre 65's.  He said they used smaller steel tubing in the roll cage pre 65 among other things.  Of course I had to specifically inquire why he advised against pre 65's.  I like the rounded windows I think they look better.  The previous owners upgraded to a standard 6 pack instruments, IFR and Garmin 300, GEM 602 and all other digital avionics.

 

Off topic Mooney should go back and make a basic no frills E or F model with manual everything.

[Comatose]

It wouldn't cost $500,000 if they were making 500 a year again. It wouldn't cost $500,000 if they had someone sink massive amounts of money into retooling everything to take advantage of modern production techniques. There's no reason all metal can't be competitive and easy to build (look at the recent RV kits.)

All it would take is money, which Mooney doesn't have any of, and demand, which is dubious.

 

 

[Piloto]

Just don't buy anything older than you, is not worth it.

José

[DaV8or]

Quote: Piloto

Just don't buy anything older than you, is not worth it.

José

[carusoam]

Quote: Piloto

Just don't buy anything older than you, is not worth it.

José

[Barry]

Building the 20J would require the rebuilding of ALL of the jigs that are required in the construction of this plane. In a typical modern management decision, all of the jigs to the M20 pre-long body were destroyed when the French took over the factory.

[1964-M20E]

Perfect opportunity to program robots to do most of the manual labor of riveting.  There are plenty of closed auto factories with unemployed robots.

Besides you can get a fast build RV kit for $30-$40k and with aluminum, being generous at $2 / lb, would only take $3k-5k$ of the airframe cost. The rest is labor profit and transportation.

As for the roll cage not a lot of steel and fabrication there.

 At a reasonable price you could sell more of them.  When an aircraft is $400k even a group of people can struggle with purchasing a new one.