Hangar Queen Mooneys

dans2992 said:
He doesn't have a "right" to dictate what a person does. However, given that there are a finite amount of GA aircraft, and I bet more piston AC rot away every year than come off the assembly line, it would be better for everyone if people did not let planes rot to a point they'll never fly again.
Click to expand...


On the other side of the market, is there any reason to believe that there are buyers waiting for these airplanes? At the current time there are 143 M series Mooneys of various ages listed on Trade-a-Plane, would adding more to the for sale side of the market make any difference? As long as the pilot population continues to decline, I'd expect the fleet to decrease as well.
 
SbestCFII said:
Once any plane sits for any length of time, they start an increasingly progressive decline. Mooneys are expensive and, from what I have seen, their drivers tend to be older professionals that start flying less and less, but can't part with them, so they sit, and too often, rot. Planes are like pets. Maybe circumstances dictate that you can't keep them anymore, but don't kill them. Actively seek to find them a new home.
Click to expand...

Seriously, Mooneys aren't any more expensive than more than any other retractable plane. There are a lot of sitting Mooneys. There are a lot of sitting everything if you get out away from the urban centers. At my little 'drome we have rotting on the ramp off the top of my head-


  • 1 Mooney M20C
  • 1 Piper Cherokee Six
  • 1 Cessna 175
  • 1 Cessna 172
  • 1 Piper Aztek
  • 1 Piper Apache
  • 1 Piper Clipper
What's in the hangars, I don't know all of them, so there could be people rotting planes in the hangars for all I know. A rotten plane in a hangar is repairable IMO. A rotten plane on the ramp is parts at best.
 
FormerHangie said:
On the other side of the market, is there any reason to believe that there are buyers waiting for these airplanes? At the current time there are 143 M series Mooneys of various ages listed on Trade-a-Plane, would adding more to the for sale side of the market make any difference? As long as the pilot population continues to decline, I'd expect the fleet to decrease as well.
Click to expand...

Exactly!! Nobody wants these planes. They are past their prime just like the Mustang II I posted above. If there were loads of pilots with cash in their pockets, desiring to own airplanes, it would not be like this.

There are not. Hence the buyer's market.
 
dans2992 said:
He doesn't have a "right" to dictate what a person does. However, given that there are a finite amount of GA aircraft, and I bet more piston AC rot away every year than come off the assembly line, it would be better for everyone if people did not let planes rot to a point they'll never fly again.
Click to expand...

I still don't follow that. An airplane is a machine. If someone buys one, it's their business what they do with it. If their intent is to buy it and let it rot in their hangar, what would they care about the number of GA airplanes out there? :dunno:
 
Dav8or said:
It's very true that if you personally are comfortable with experimentals that somebody else built and you don't need back seats, The E/AB category is the way to go. I may join the ranks one day myself.

However, if you need the backseats and you're on a budget, or your wife says "No F'in way!!" to the "experimental" sticker on the door and the panel, then I might steer you towards the Mooney. It's pretty much the "experimental" of the certified group. :D
Click to expand...


Somehow, that brought John Denver to mind.
 
SbestCFII said:
Maybe circumstances dictate that you can't keep them anymore, but don't kill them. Actively seek to find them a new home.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with this. I view an aircraft as my responsibility, not my property. My responsibility to keep nice, maintain, and yes fly. My responsibility to pass onto the next generation of pilots. That's why I hate to see these things rot.

The sad fact is obviously the next generation of pilots is far smaller than the current one, and we're going to loose a lot of airplanes. I don't have to like it, though.
 
steingar said:
I actually agree with this. I view an aircraft as my responsibility, not my property. My responsibility to keep nice, maintain, and yes fly. My responsibility to pass onto the next generation of pilots. That's why I hate to see these things rot.

The sad fact is obviously the next generation of pilots is far smaller than the current one, and we're going to loose a lot of airplanes. I don't have to like it, though.
Click to expand...

It's not like airplanes are an irreplaceable natural resource, it's entirely possible to build more of them. I wouldn't worry about keeping yesterday's planes alive for tomorrow's pilots, chances are they won't want to fly them anyway.
 
FormerHangie said:
It's not like airplanes are an irreplaceable natural resource, it's entirely possible to build more of them. I wouldn't worry about keeping yesterday's planes alive for tomorrow's pilots, chances are they won't want to fly them anyway.
Click to expand...

It's a double edged sword. Less demand for new planes means less new planes, but the increase in demand from scrapping out old planes won't be sufficient to decrease the price of new planes which are out of the financial reach of the majority of buyers. There are a lot of good old airframes that can be brought up to fully modern spec for 1/10th the cost of a new plane, 1/5th the cost of a used modern spec plane.
 
dans2992 said:
He doesn't have a "right" to dictate what a person does. However, given that there are a finite amount of GA aircraft, and I bet more piston AC rot away every year than come off the assembly line, it would be better for everyone if people did not let planes rot to a point they'll never fly again.
Click to expand...
define "better for everyone". Who are you to determine that the current owner using the airplans as static display in his hangar is getting less value for his investment than a new owner who might fly it ?

I have a farmall A, just like your mooney, they aren't making any more of those either. It sits in the corner of a barn rusting and collecting dirt, I'll never get around to getting it running and i don't have any work that it can do. Every time I see it I am reminded of my dad teaching my brother and I to cultivate tobacco with it as a kid, and i smile and relive a part of my childhood. I'm sure there are lots of people who'd like to paint it up pretty and drive it in parades. They can get their own, this one is mine.
 
I've done a few flights this year in a Mooney Acclaim Type S w/ G1000 WAAS, tks, synthetic vision, etc.... It's a damn cool airplane, and an absolute blast to fly.

But..you can buy a lot more airplane for that kind of money with something else. Kind of sucks to have a lot of horsepower, turbos, and no pressurization.

I can't comment really on the older Mooneys. The oldest I've flown is the M20J. They're a damn fine airplane, but really, I'd rather be in a Bo.
 
jesse said:
I can't comment really on the older Mooneys. The oldest I've flown is the M20J. They're a damn fine airplane, but really, I'd rather be in a Bo.
Click to expand...

I would think the total cost of ownership (acquistion, and operating expenses) would be lower on an M20J/201 than a comparably equipped Bo. But, as you know with airplane stuff it's all a crap shoot.
 
Anthony said:
I would think the total cost of ownership (acquistion, and operating expenses) would be lower on an M20J/201 than a comparably equipped Bo. But, as you know with airplane stuff it's all a crap shoot.
Click to expand...

Not really, the difference is no more than a rounding error (which can go either way depending on condition) in the big picture of long term ownership. Buy whichever makes you smile more; unless of course you're married then you buy the one your spouse likes.;)
 
MBDiagMan said:
Somehow, that brought John Denver to mind.
Click to expand...

It should not have. John Denver was asked shortly before he took off.... Want me to fill it up? His reply was, ......no, I'm only going up for a short flight, half an hour. The fuel selector had been moved but he knew that. He died due to carelessness.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
It should not have. John Denver was asked shortly before he took off.... Want me to fill it up? His reply was, ......no, I'm only going up for a short flight, half an hour. The fuel selector had been moved but he knew that. He died due to carelessness.
Click to expand...

I didn't realize his crash was from fuel exhaustion.
 
rbridges said:
I didn't realize his crash was from fuel exhaustion.
Click to expand...

Well, kind of. The crash itself was IIRC a situation of loss of control trying to switch tanks on a valve that was awkwardly placed after he ran out of fuel on the other tank. He had fuel in the plane IIRC, he just couldn't access it, and he didn't keep the plane under control after he ran it dry.
 
Henning said:
Well, kind of. The crash itself was IIRC a situation of loss of control trying to switch tanks on a valve that was awkwardly placed after he ran out of fuel on the other tank. He had fuel in the plane IIRC, he just couldn't access it, and he didn't keep the plane under control after he ran it dry.
Click to expand...

Which is interesting as he was a good pilot, had over 2 thousand hours, a lot of it in a Pitts, did acro, etc. ( his father was a well regarded Air Force pilot who flew a B58 hustler so Denver knew that being careless could kill him)
 
Jimmy cooper said:
Which is interesting as he was a good pilot, had over 2 thousand hours, a lot of it in a Pitts, did acro, etc. ( his father was a well regarded Air Force pilot who flew a B58 hustler so Denver knew that being careless could kill him)
Click to expand...

Wasn't alcohol also involved in the John Denver crash?
 
Henning said:
Not really, the difference is no more than a rounding error (which can go either way depending on condition) in the big picture of long term ownership. Buy whichever makes you smile more; unless of course you're married then you buy the one your spouse likes.;)
Click to expand...

Hey, my wife said that she would rather I didn't buy an airplane. But she also said the Bo was "cute". SOLD!

Burning MOGAS is nice and has saved me some cash. I guess any airplane will have MX surprises along the way and if the gear folds - there are more things to break.

I do love my oldie, but if someone would like to give me an Acclaim, I wouldn't turn them down ...
 
brian];1816532 said:
I do love my oldie, but if someone would like to give me an Acclaim, I wouldn't turn them down ...
Click to expand...

I've only had the 231 a short time and already I wish it was faster :rolleyes:
I'd love an acclaim, really capable airplanes.
 
Henning said:
It's a double edged sword. Less demand for new planes means less new planes, but the increase in demand from scrapping out old planes won't be sufficient to decrease the price of new planes which are out of the financial reach of the majority of buyers. There are a lot of good old airframes that can be brought up to fully modern spec for 1/10th the cost of a new plane, 1/5th the cost of a used modern spec plane.
Click to expand...


I'm not questioning that it would be cheaper to continue to fix up the old fleet, but I'm wondering if a 1950s designed airplane that is 30 plus years old is going to be all that appealing to the next generation of pilots. When I learned in the late 70s, I flew Grumman AA1Bs and AA1Cs, which were current technology. If they'd showed me a Tri-Pacer an told me it's what I'd be flying, I'm not sure I'd have gone ahead with flight training.
 
FormerHangie said:
I'm not questioning that it would be cheaper to continue to fix up the old fleet, but I'm wondering if a 1950s designed airplane that is 30 plus years old is going to be all that appealing to the next generation of pilots. When I learned in the late 70s, I flew Grumman AA1Bs and AA1Cs, which were current technology. If they'd showed me a Tri-Pacer an told me it's what I'd be flying, I'm not sure I'd have gone ahead with flight training.
Click to expand...

With a new paint job, interior, and a $75,000 panel upgrade, do you think the typical new pilot would notice the difference between a 1972 and 2012 172?
 
Henning said:
With a new paint job, interior, and a $75,000 panel upgrade, do you think the typical new pilot would notice the difference between a 1972 and 2012 172?
Click to expand...

No, but that's not the problem. A 172 still looks/acts/feels like it is from the mid 20th century. We need some updated designs.
 
FormerHangie said:
No, but that's not the problem. A 172 still looks/acts/feels like it is from the mid 20th century. We need some updated designs.
Click to expand...

:rofl:

You seem like the kind of guy that wouldn't have a clue about which designs are new or old.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
It should not have. John Denver was asked shortly before he took off.... Want me to fill it up? His reply was, ......no, I'm only going up for a short flight, half an hour. The fuel selector had been moved but he knew that. He died due to carelessness.
Click to expand...

It also had a handle missing from the fuel selector valve that was in an almost impossible position to reach while in the pilots seat.
 
Henning said:
Well, kind of. The crash itself was IIRC a situation of loss of control trying to switch tanks on a valve that was awkwardly placed after he ran out of fuel on the other tank. He had fuel in the plane IIRC, he just couldn't access it, and he didn't keep the plane under control after he ran it dry.
Click to expand...

That's an accurate description of the accident.
 
FormerHangie said:
No, but that's not the problem. A 172 still looks/acts/feels like it is from the mid 20th century. We need some updated designs.
Click to expand...

Well, there's only so much updating available, physics being what it is. The Cirrus is about as updated as available, with price tags that reflect it.
 
Anthony said:
I would think the total cost of ownership (acquistion, and operating expenses) would be lower on an M20J/201 than a comparably equipped Bo. But, as you know with airplane stuff it's all a crap shoot.
Click to expand...
People are wanting a lot of money for a decent M20J. You can easily get a Bonanza for the same dollars that is considerably more comfortable and fun to fly (IMO at least). The asking prices for a decent Bonanza with a nice panel aren't much different than a decent M20J with a nice panel these days.

As far as cost to operate -- yeah the Bo will burn more gas. Maintenance? Hard to say. The Bo has more cylinders but is considerably easier to turn a wrench on.

Basically, even if it's just me in the airplane, I would rather fly a Bonanza over a M20J. However, I would rather fly the Acclaim over the Bonanza...until I need to bring people..then I want the Bonanza again.
 
jesse said:
As far as cost to operate -- yeah the Bo will burn more gas. Maintenance? Hard to say. The Bo has more cylinders but is considerably easier to turn a wrench on.
Click to expand...

Is it really? If you fly a Bo at M20J speeds (150ish), does it really drink more gas than the Mooney?
 
Henning said:
Well, there's only so much updating available, physics being what it is. The Cirrus is about as updated as available, with price tags that reflect it.
Click to expand...

You are being more realistic. The most successful aircraft from biz jets to single engine piston pounders are very rarely clean sheet designs.

You could stick a 1970's Falcon 50 next to a 2012 Falcon 7x and basically the only real noticeable differences other than sizes is the instrument panel and fewer circuit breakers in the cockpit. Neither has anything to do with performance.
 
FormerHangie said:
I'm not questioning that it would be cheaper to continue to fix up the old fleet, but I'm wondering if a 1950s designed airplane that is 30 plus years old is going to be all that appealing to the next generation of pilots. When I learned in the late 70s, I flew Grumman AA1Bs and AA1Cs, which were current technology. If they'd showed me a Tri-Pacer an told me it's what I'd be flying, I'm not sure I'd have gone ahead with flight training.
Click to expand...

When I was in ground school, almost all the students in there wanted to fly Cubs or planes line them. None of them wanted fancy panels and other crap.
I think a PA-20 is a great looking plane. The Cirrus look silly to me. :dunno:
 
Papa Foxtrot said:
Only tangentially - Denver was not legal to fly that day:

Denver Flew Illegally -- No Medical

According to the article, he had been ordered to surrender his medical certificate. Might still be alive if he had complied.
Click to expand...

What does surrendering a medical have to do with being able to fly your own plane? The plane doesn't check.
 
Denver died because of a poor fuel selector modification by the builder. Alcohol or a medical cert has nothing to do with it.
 
Velocity173 said:
Denver died because of a poor fuel selector modification by the builder. Alcohol or a medical cert has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

Denver died because he accepted stupid risks rather than correct problems before flying the plane. He died from poor choices on his part, and that was his right.
 
Velocity173 said:
Denver died because of a poor fuel selector modification by the builder. Alcohol or a medical cert has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

Are you saying the builder had modified the fuel selector valve and not flown it since the mod????:dunno:
 
N801BH said:
Are you saying the builder had modified the fuel selector valve and not flown it since the mod????:dunno:
Click to expand...

No, the builder was of a different stature and put it where he could reach it, Denver had a vise grip on it IIRC but that wasn't sufficient to keep him from having to contort to reach it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top