Jump to content

What's wrong with this 201


ToddDPT

Recommended Posts

I've been watching this Mooney on Controller for some time.  Does anyone know what is wrong with it?  Panel is nice, interior is tired.  I don't want to get into a discussion about fuel bladders, but maybe that is one of the reasons.  It just seems as if comparable 201s continue to sell, but this one doesn't.  Any ideas?


http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/MOONEY-M20J-201/1977-MOONEY-M20J-201/1152931.htm


 


Todd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had seen this one and rejected it for several reasons, not the least of which is that my personal preference was for a later model as I like the rounded-corner windows. That's purely an aesthetic thing but it's what I wanted. But beyond that, I would agree that the price seemed high for the value of the components available.  I didn't even examine far enough to realize it had fuel bladders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not too out of line IMO.  Old damage history isn't a huge deal.  I would deduct for bladders and the 3-blade prop.  Cosmetics aren't great, and it looks like the windows should be changed too.  Upside is the engine time and a fairly good panel.  I bet it would sell in the mid-80's or so.


I paid more for my '77 3 years ago, but with much higher engine time but a better panel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote: JimR

The off airport gear up would concern me more than anything. I would want to see who did the repairs and verify that they were done properly. 4000 hours on a 33 year old airplane is hardly excessive, though, in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me a lot would depend on how the hours had been accumulated. I would be looking at the log books to see if the previous pilots were just flying a stedy amount and doing good maint. when needed or was it that the aircraft was in a training operation and accumulated a bunch of hours being run into the ground and then left sitting or onlt getting minimal service. Personally I would shy away from the '77 just because it has some features that I dont care for like the fuel selector location and the control quadrant. I believe the landing gear actuator is more problematic too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would rather have a machine with high hours that was well maintained over one that was hardly ever flown and had basic maintenance.


Letting a plane sit is the best way i know to rot out and engine and everything else.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is wrong is that it has the critical components of the buy no buy decision process going against it.  It is a 77 with a DATED 430 and facelift for a panel, MAJOR DAMAGE history, being sold by a used car (airplane) dealer, thusly OVERPRICED, who has to say "...as good as it gets for the money " !!??  Are you kidding me!!  So it sits on the lot.  Lot queen?! Oh it has that ugly red carpet!  But you can change the carpet. You can never change the DAMAGE HISTORY.   In my opinion I would never buy an airplane with major damage history at any price, and never from a dealer.  There are plenty of clean airplanes out there. Deal directly with the seller.      


This is my opinion and it's worth more than you paid for it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.