Lame Duck Airplanes

[DavidWhite]

...and it had to go slower and burn more gas

.....but we don't talk about that.

Mooneh is a good airplane as long as you don't have linebacker shoulders. My dad liked flying in the Mooneh a lot more than the 172. Not only was it more comfortable, he seemed convinced it was roomier inside.

I'm 5'10 165 and of fairly slight build, so I fit just fine in the ol Mooneh. As long as I stick to the no fat chicks rule I shouldn't have any issues in it.

FWIW though the Comanche and Bo are both incredibly comfortable rides, and if my usual trip was more than 1 or 2 people I would not have bought a Mooney.

 

[DavidWhite]

Yesterday, I spoke with the executor of the deceased's estate, his son. The father had 7+ airplanes, but the Mooney was in his name and the other 6 in a corporation. I don't know, but it implies special affection for the Mooney.

Son did give me verbal permission to have a mechanic look it over. If I do, I will have to get the keys from him. Son says he has all the paperwork on the plane, so from a documentation perspective it should be a cakewalk.

Best case scenario: Engine is good, airframe is corrosion free. Not sure about the paint, but it does need interior cosmetics and cleanup and the panel is outdated. The son claims everything is functional, only mentioning a drain that needs replacement. He seems to know the airplane very well.

How do I evaluate my risk in this scenario?

Wayne would be the fella to talk to on that, but if it was me I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot stick.

The risk? You miss something on the prebuy and then get to write a few 10k checks. Btdt on an airplane that wasn't sitting when we bought it. The seals in the tank are probably dried out, as are the seals in the prop, and you probably have some cam corrosion issues since its a lyc. Mooney airframes came out of the factory corrosion treated and that typically isn't a big issue on them, engines are a different story though.

 

[wabower]

And people who drive full-size cars have understood and happily accepted that trade-off for many years. Why would they change when the degraded comfort level is even worse?

...and it had to go slower and burn more gas

 

[Jaybird180]

Wayne would be the fella to talk to on that, but if it was me I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot stick.

The risk? You miss something on the prebuy and then get to write a few 10k checks. Btdt on an airplane that wasn't sitting when we bought it. The seals in the tank are probably dried out, as are the seals in the prop, and you probably have some cam corrosion issues since its a lyc. Mooney airframes came out of the factory corrosion treated and that typically isn't a big issue on them, engines are a different story though.

Ok, then what's the salvage value? If I get it for less than that, I solve the son's problem, the airport owner's problem and if the doo-doo gets blown by a rotational plane, I make a few bucks and maybe have a little fun in the process.

 

[wabower]

With extreme skepticism. From a selfish standpoint I hope it works out well for you. Not because I have a dog in the fight or stand to gain from your success, I'd simply like to be able to point to at least one such project that did.

Yesterday, I spoke with the executor of the deceased's estate, his son. The father had 7+ airplanes, but the Mooney was in his name and the other 6 in a corporation. I don't know, but it implies special affection for the Mooney.

Son did give me verbal permission to have a mechanic look it over. If I do, I will have to get the keys from him. Son says he has all the paperwork on the plane, so from a documentation perspective it should be a cakewalk.

Best case scenario: Engine is good, airframe is corrosion free. Not sure about the paint, but it does need interior cosmetics and cleanup and the panel is outdated. The son claims everything is functional, only mentioning a drain that needs replacement. He seems to know the airplane very well.

How do I evaluate my risk in this scenario?

 

[Jaybird180]

With extreme skepticism. From a selfish standpoint I hope it works out well for you. Not because I have a dog in the fight or stand to gain from your success, I'd simply like to be able to point to at least one such project that did.

Thank you for your sober words, Wayne. This may result in being a fools errand, but if I learn something, I shall be the fool no more.

...and I haven't committed to doing anything, only that I will call him (the son) back.

 

[Jaybird180]

Hypothetical, same scenario as OP:

Assume the 201 needs tank reseal, gear servicing, F/w fwd OH, airframe in otherwise high condition, airplane nearly gifted to me.

What's a likely investment?

 

[bluerooster]

Here, there's a 172. A doggy looking fastback, straight tail. Flown regulaly, current annual, decently equipped, flys beautifully, (no rigging problems). Mid times, and if I had the pennies I'd be all over it. But Apparently no one has $18k for a good solid airplane. But they have $50k for a high time trainer with bell and whistles.

 

[Dav8or]

Son did give me verbal permission to have a mechanic look it over. If I do, I will have to get the keys from him. Son says he has all the paperwork on the plane, so from a documentation perspective it should be a cakewalk.

You need to get an A&P with specific Mooney experience. The local Cessna guy will miss critical things. You need to join MooneySpace.com and read up. Here are two horror stories recently from guys who got pre purchase inspections from the "local A&P" and now they are screwed.

http://mooneyspace.com/topic/11665-heres-to-the-mother-ing-faa/

http://mooneyspace.com/topic/11834-just-learned-my-c-is-junk/

There are also some success stories on the forum of people who have resurrected derelict Mooneys. It can be done.

My opinion is you need to do these things-

1. Inspect the airframe thoroughly with a Mooney expert. Look for corrosion everywhere. The airframe needs to be sound for this project to work.
2. Do a title search and get all records on the plane from the FAA. Don't trust the Son's word on it.
3. Get in writing that the airport will forgive the lien on the title.
4. Assume as a fact that the engine and prop are crap and nothing but cores. Same goes for the radios.
5. Assume you will at some point have fuel tank issues.
6. Get the airplane for free.

A solid, serviceable airworthy Mooney 201 with vintage avionics, crappy paint and recent flight history can be easily had for $60,000. This is what you're competing against. If you can't get it for free and you really want this project, I would offer them no more than $10,000. If it all goes to hell, you can get your $10,000 back by parting it. No matter what the Son says, if you pay the $10,000, you will be at the $60,000 mark in no time flat.

Good luck!

 

[Dav8or]

Hypothetical, same scenario as OP:

Assume the 201 needs tank reseal, gear servicing, F/w fwd OH, airframe in otherwise high condition, airplane nearly gifted to me.

What's a likely investment?

Tanks- $8,000
Gear- 0- $8,000 depending. Here you may get lucky. The Mooney gear is simple.
FW Forward- $40,000

Don't forget avionics, electrical, brakes, tires, batteries and all manor of miscellaneous airframe issues. It is a certified airplane, so every thing you have to replace costs lots o' $$$.

When you go to inspect it, bring a fresh battery to see what works and what doesn't.

 

[Jaybird180]

....I'm thinking
I'm thinking....

 

[Bonchie]

Your idea of a useable airplane must be different than mine. It just depends on his mission - if he wants to carry 2 people and bags, while going pretty fast and not burning much gas it's about the best choice around. If he wants to carry 4 people and bags he's gonna be looking at a 210 or an A36

There must be a lot of fat pilots with fat friends and family (not counting the people who are legitimately 200+ because of being 6'3"+) because you aren't the first person I've seen say this about Mooneys and Piper Archers/Arrows.

A 201 has a useable load around 1000~ pounds and with it's economy, you can skimp on some gas weight and still have 780~ pounds and 3 hours of fuel + 1 hour reserve. A 201's 3 hours will take you a long way too.

That's 3 people and bags easy unless all 3 people are 200+ pounds and you have bags full of rocks. 4 people if your family is like mine (I'm 160 and my wife is 100 pounds wet).

 

[Dav8or]

There must be a lot of fat pilots with fat friends and family (no counting the people who are legitimately 200+ because of being 6'3"+) because you aren't the first person I've seen say this about Mooneys and Piper Archers/Arrows.

A 201 has a useable load around 1000~ pounds and with it's economy, you can skimp on some gas weight and still have 780~ pounds and 3 hours of fuel + 1 hour reserve. A 201's 3 hours will take you a long way too.

That's 3 people and bags easy unless all 3 people are 200+ pounds and you have bags full of rocks. 4 people if your family is like mine (I'm 160 and my wife is 100 pounds wet).

Yep. Fuel economy comes at a price. However, you do have to be pretty fat to not fit in a Mooney. I do concede though that the Mooney is one of the most awkward to get in and out of that I have flown. The door is really pretty small. Want more room and still have the speed? Buy a Bonanza and buy more gas.

 

[denverpilot]

I wouldn't want to ride in the back of any of them other than the Bo.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I wouldn't want to ride in the back of any of them other than the Bo.

I wouldn't want to ride in the back of any of them including the Bo, but part of that is who might be in the front seats!

While I don't sit in the back of much of anything in flight, I think the most comfy back seat in piston GA that I've been in was the DA40. It's about the same size as the front seats - While metal airplanes tend to have the largest cross section about at the pilot's shoulders, the DA40's bubble shape allows both front and back seats to be sizable, with a quicker taper behind the back seats (though still a huge baggage compartment as well).

 

[Bill]

I wouldn't want to ride in the back of any of them including the Bo, but part of that is who might be in the front seats!

While I don't sit in the back of much of anything in flight, I think the most comfy back seat in piston GA that I've been in was the DA40.

Believe it or not, the back seat of the 201 is quite roomy, and that big rear window gives you one heck of a view. My partner is a good pilot, I'll ride back seat with him anytime.

 

[Jaybird180]

My first 201 flight was in the backseat. I'm 6'1" and had no problem. The pilot was a small fellow though so that may have contributed to my comfortable seating position.

 

[Fearless Tower]

I wouldn't want to ride in the back of any of them including the Bo, but part of that is who might be in the front seats!

Have you actually sat in the back of a Bo/Baron?

I've been in the back of my Baron and it is very comfortable regardless of who is in the front, or are you saying that because you don't trust other pilots flying?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Have you actually sat in the back of a Bo/Baron?

I've been in the back of my Baron and it is very comfortable regardless of who is in the front, or are you saying that because you don't trust other pilots flying?

The latter... It was kind of a nod to the other thread about riding with other pilots.

However, I hit my head in the FRONT seats of Bos and Barons, and I'm sure the back seats aren't bigger than the front!

 

[JHW]

Buy a Bonanza and buy more gas.

or not. If you slow the bo down to mooney speeds it will burn mooney gas.

 

[Bill]

or not. If you slow the bo down to mooney speeds it will burn mooney gas.

And slow either down to 172 speeds and burn 172 gas. Although nobody I know will slow down that much. I'm happy to trade 10kts for 3gph by running lean of peak, though.

 

[Bonchie]

There's a cool video on youtube demonstrating that with a Bonanza.

I don't think he gets quite to M20J efficiency knot for knot, but it's very close.

 

[JHW]

And slow either down to 172 speeds and burn 172 gas. Although nobody I know will slow down that much. I'm happy to trade 10kts for 3gph by running lean of peak, though.

Not really. A 172 uses more gas per mile than you do.

 

[Bill]

Not really. A 172 uses more gas per mile than you do.

Now that I think about it, yeah. I get 145 true on 8.5 lean of peak, that is 17Nmpg, pretty darned good.

 

[Bonchie]

Now that I think about it, yeah. I get 145 true on 8.5 lean of peak, that is 17Nmpg, pretty darned good.

Yeah. That 172's 9gph sounds good until you remember you are only going 115 kph.

The bonanzas and mooneys that can hit 140kph on 8-9 gph when leaned are really efficient cruisers.

 

[AdamZ]

Another thing to consider is the potential legal hurdles of trying to buy an airplane from a deceased person's estate.

I wouldn't want to ride in the back of any of them other than the Bo.

I wouldn't want to ride in the back of any of them including the Bo, but part of that is who might be in the front seats!

While I don't sit in the back of much of anything in flight, I think the most comfy back seat in piston GA that I've been in was the DA40. It's about the same size as the front seats - While metal airplanes tend to have the largest cross section about at the pilot's shoulders, the DA40's bubble shape allows both front and back seats to be sizable, with a quicker taper behind the back seats (though still a huge baggage compartment as well).

I've actually sat in the back seat of the Mooney that Kent flys. Kent picked Alon ( Armageddon Aviator) and me up at MKE and flew us to OSH. I wanted Alon to have the front seat experience so I sat in the back. I'll say this. It was amply roomy and very comfortable and I'm over 200lbs.

 

[Dav8or]

or not. If you slow the bo down to mooney speeds it will burn mooney gas.

Which Mooney are you talking about? There isn't a Bonanza out there that can catch an Acclaim. Slow an Ovation, or Acclaim down to Bo speeds and well, it still burns less gas than a Bo.

 

[Jaybird180]

Which Mooney are you talking about? There isn't a Bonanza out there that can catch an Acclaim. Slow an Ovation, or Acclaim down to Bo speeds and well, it still burns less gas than a Bo.

Dav8or- Retract your fangs buddy. This thread is about the M20J.

And I didn't know that a Bo could even compete with 160-165KTAS at 75% power....say it isn't so

 

[hindsight2020]

My arrow does 130 on 8; 135 on 9. 15-16.25NMPG. Not bad for a PA-28 airframe. I do prefer the seating position of the Piper over the Mooney, plus the airframe is cheaper to maintain IMO.

 

[Dav8or]

Dav8or- Retract your fangs buddy. This thread is about the M20J.

And I didn't know that a Bo could even compete with 160-165KTAS at 75% power....say it isn't so

Perhaps you don't understand that Bonanzas have engines ranging from 470 cubic inches to 550 cubic inches. Bigger engine = go faster, but cost more at the pump. To really compare apples to apples, you need to compare the Mooney Bravo, Ovation, Acclaim, or even Rocket to the Bonanza. Either that or, then comparing the 201 to a Bonanza with an IO-360 engine in it. I doubt very highly that there has ever been a Bonanza owner that has considered that conversion!

 

[Jaybird180]

Again, you can't get Mooney fuel flows at the same speed.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Now that I think about it, yeah. I get 145 true on 8.5 lean of peak, that is 17Nmpg, pretty darned good.

The other day, I flew the Ovation nonstop from Santa Fe, NM to Boscobel, WI - 877nm - in 4:37 on 50 gallons of 100LL. Average 190 knots GS and 17.54nmpg!

Yes, I did get a tailwind, but I was truing 170 knots at 13,000 feet on 10 gph.

 

[Henning]

The other day, I flew the Ovation nonstop from Santa Fe, NM to Boscobel, WI - 877nm - in 4:37 on 50 gallons of 100LL. Average 190 knots GS and 17.54nmpg!

Yes, I did get a tailwind, but I was truing 170 knots at 13,000 feet on 10 gph.

Interesting, people always say a twin uses twice the fuel, but it doesn't, I go faster for less than twice the fuel with a much larger tube.

 

[hindsight2020]

Interesting, people always say a twin uses twice the fuel, but it doesn't, I go faster for less than twice the fuel with a much larger tube.

I suspect the all-in costs of ownership of a 310 (including engine overhaul delta opportunity cost) would quickly overtake the delta in purchase price. A second engine is still an expensive way of going 170true.

That said, no doubt, 150K for an Ovation is a lot of money.

---break break--

For those who have sat on the long body mooneys. Have they improved on the seating ergonomics or are you still sitting ass to ankles waterline like the 20C/E/F? I was watching youtube videos of ovations and it almost seemed "piperish" in seating position, but it could be my lying eyes.

 

[SCCutler]

The other day, I flew the Ovation nonstop from Santa Fe, NM to Boscobel, WI - 877nm - in 4:37 on 50 gallons of 100LL. Average 190 knots GS and 17.54nmpg!

Yes, I did get a tailwind, but I was truing 170 knots at 13,000 feet on 10 gph.

You can't cheat reality - Mooneys are fast for the fuel, and I am thrilled that they are back in production. I hope to visit the factory one day soon.

---

Data point: I fly cruise in my Bo WOT, Lean of Peak, 161-162 knots true, 11.9 GPH. Not terribly bad, works out to 15.6 SMPG.

 

[Dav8or]

For those who have sat on the long body mooneys. Have they improved on the seating ergonomics or are you still sitting ass to ankles waterline like the 20C/E/F? I was watching youtube videos of ovations and it almost seemed "piperish" in seating position, but it could be my lying eyes.

The only real difference in the front seats from the Modern long body Mooney and the vintage Mooney is the newer ones have more adjustable seats. You can adjust them up and down as well as fore, aft and seat back angle.

The airframe dimensions in the front cabin, the position of the yoke and the rudder pedal location are all the same as they were in 1955.

 

[Jaybird180]

You can't cheat reality - Mooneys are fast for the fuel, and I am thrilled that they are back in production. I hope to visit the factory one day soon.

---

Data point: I fly cruise in my Bo WOT, Lean of Peak, 161-162 knots true, 11.9 GPH. Not terribly bad, works out to 15.6 SMPG.

I heard the factory got new ownership, but per discussion with a tech at the local MSC they are not in production. I don't know the truth either way.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I heard the factory got new ownership, but per discussion with a tech at the local MSC they are not in production. I don't know the truth either way.

You can't just flip a switch and turn an airplane factory back on. They've got to hire back what workers may still be in the area, hire new workers to replace others, train them, etc... But they'll be back in production soon. I think they plan to have a few new airplanes done by the end of the year.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Data point: I fly cruise in my Bo WOT, Lean of Peak, 161-162 knots true, 11.9 GPH. Not terribly bad, works out to 15.6 SMPG.

Spike, what engine do you have? What HP?

For what I normally plan in the Mooney (I don't go over 10K unless I'm going at least a couple hundred miles):

IO-550G, 280hp@2500RPM
Cruise power setting: 23" or WOT, 2200 RPM, 12.2gph LOP (less if up high)
175 KTAS at 9000 feet, losing about 1-1.5 knots per 1000 feet in either direction from there. I plan on 170 knots and 13gph (to cover climb fuel). FWIW, in a full-power climb I'll burn 25 gph on the takeoff roll, going down to 18 gph at 10,000 feet.

It'll go 10 knots faster, and cost another 5 gph to do so (not to mention probably an early overhaul if I was doing that much at all). Totally not worth it.

 

[Jaybird180]

You can't just flip a switch and turn an airplane factory back on. They've got to hire back what workers may still be in the area, hire new workers to replace others, train them, etc... But they'll be back in production soon. I think they plan to have a few new airplanes done by the end of the year.

According to the tech, there are still only 4 employees there.