I like Mooneys their great fast and easy to fly, as far as maint. on them they are a little tight to work on and the wood wing ones need extra care. This is not a airplane you want any A&P working on they will complain and have little knowledge of what is important to check. This is one airplane if you can't afford to maintain it right you should not own one. This is one airplane they got it right in the first model other aircraft they get better as time and the model number go by. Some aircraft they never got right Everything about the Beech 18 is just terrible. Round engines. Too many engines to begin with. A taildragger. We won't even talk about the looks. If you can even get $15,000, you should sell it immediately. So.......will you take $21,000 for it?
hate climbing down into them and the PA-28. people step all over the seats, kick stuff getting in and out.
Air Force flew 'em in Vietnam, and Korea when I was there.
Gheesh just spoil it now!
Well the late 50s and into early 60s models had O-300s, which the OP apparently hates.
Mark definitely isn't Ronnie Mac. Jimmy Albertson lol...is it "riding dirt bikes and PBR...?"
Cessna redesigned the instrument panel to allow for more avionics and instruments. Thus the standard “six pack” was born. 172L – In 1971 Cessna introduced the 172L which featured tubular landing gear the spring steel one was narrow and subject to major damage as it had no give fore and aft. The early O-300 had no vacuum pump pad some parts like the crank and oil pan can be a problem to replace, it does have 2 more cylinders to care for and feed. 172R – a 160 horsepower Lycoming IO-360L2A with new sound proofing, interior, and fuel injection the 172R has been a popular choice for pilots and flight schools. Not saying their are not some pre 1971 models that are in new condition but those have a price that you can get a 1971 or newer with the improvements in safety and reliability Cessna made for the same price or less, why would you want the older one. I suspect some of the people would rather drive a 1957 ford than a new 2018 ford as for myself I like the new one.
The "Skyhawk" option package, introduced for 1961, had the O-300-D with vacuum pump pad. The vast majority of 172B through 172H were sold as Skyhawks. They switched to the Lycoming O-320 in the 1968 172I, mainly because Cessna had bought a boatload of O-320s intended for the new Cardinal, but soon realized the Cardinal needed an O-360 instead. 172s built in France continued with the Rolls-Royce Continental O-300 through the 1971 model year.
Based on the various threads I have read here on PoA over the last year or so, your list should also include:
- No high wing airplanes;
- No low wing airplanes;
- No airplanes with retractable gear;
- No light twins;
- No airplanes without a parachute;
- No airplanes without side stick controls;
- No airplane made out of plastic;
- No airplane with a Continental motor...
You're a very fortunate owner, the first time you have to clean and reseal a mooney tank will make you a believer.
Doesn't alter my statement, they have allowable fuel Leakes. its in a maintenance manual.
The early O-300, note I said early O-300 engines had no vacuum pump pads, lots of Cessna 172 had a venturi on the side for vacuum. Pilots complain about one engine driven vacuum pump failure, how many would fly hard IFR with a venturi for vacuum.
The O-300 did not go out of production because they had a large back order of them and could not keep up with production. That engine and Franklin went the way of Studebaker and others that fade into oblivion. Anyone that thinks their is some conspiracy behind their failure needs to get a new tinfoil hat on.
You probably have someone that knows how to inspect a Mooney landing gear rubber shocks. As I said this is one airplane if you can't afford to maintain it right you probably should not own one.
Me. No moving parts to fail. Relies solely on physics. Just stay WELL clear of ice.
Cessna did not change the flat spring because it was better, they changed it due to the narrow stance and severe damage that was due to the no give fore and aft of the flat spring. If you do not think the upgrade that Cessna made is better, than nothing I or others say will change that.
It's like they say "Their are old pilots and bold pilots but very few old bold pilots" .
Don't get me started on Comanche's single or twin, Lots of IA's have sent their kids to college working on them.
It's more of a age thing push pull old, real old, or the later or newer with other upgrades piper made with the quadrant. If you like the old push pull, single brake lever among other pre quadrant upgrades so be it I do not recommend it.
I'm okay with electric trim, but then remember how Mimi survived a runaway trim by getting her husband push on the yoke (the Mooney was totaled by the hard landing). As far as mechanical trim goes, the overhead crank was pretty convenient.
I used to be in that camp, but unfortunately it is getting harder and harder to find new vehicles with manual transmissions, especially the luxury / performance market which is where a manual transmission really was home turf
Agreed
oops., forgot to finish that sentence. They rent for at least twice that, about $250 or thereabouts.. and while they're more comfortable for sure if I'm flying alone or with other pilots the Archer is definitely not half the plane
