Should I purchase A Mooney M20A w/ Wood Wings??

A

Adrin D

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jun 7, 2018
Messages
1
Display Name
Display name:
Adrin D
So I have been going back and fourth on a Mooney M20A 1960 for the last week. My only concern is the wings are wood. Ive read both good and bad about wood wings but for some reason I would still feel more comfortable with metal wings. I actually today just came across a guy who is parting out his old m20a and said he would be happy to sell the wings I just have to figure out the shipping! This will be my first airplane, do I stick with the wood or go ahead and purchase the metal wings and swap them out. Ill put the link in so you can give me your opinion on the plane. I really like how its a fast plane, has a nice useful load and is IFR and only has 1034hrs on the engine. Thanks in advance.

https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/27697495/1960-mooney-m20a
 
I'm sure the fine print says "Woman not included" :frown:
 
I would almost prefer a wooden wing. No fatigue to worry about or smoking rivets. Just get a good pre-buy from someone who knows the potential problem areas. The only reason I would shy away from a wooden wing is if you didn't have or plan to have it in a hangar.
 
think about how or who you will get to repair that wood wing when it gets damaged.
 
Tom-D said:
think about how or who you will get to repair that wood wing when it gets damaged.
Click to expand...

A-model Mooneys are $20,000 aircraft . Insure it at $25,000 and buy a new one if you hit a runway light.
 
weilke said:
A-model Mooneys are $20,000 aircraft . Insure it at $25,000 and buy a new one if you hit a runway light.
Click to expand...

The engine,prop is worth $20,000, so that means the airframe is worthless.
 
teejayevans said:
The engine,prop is worth $20,000, so that means the airframe is worthless.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. But in reality a used 360 is probably worth 11k and the prop 3-4. That leaves 5-6k for the airframe which is about right. Old less desirable airplanes are almost always worth more in parts than the airplane as a whole. I sold my old Grumman for 15k with a practically new firewall forward.
 
Tom-D said:
think about how or who you will get to repair that wood wing when it gets damaged.
Click to expand...

20 years with a wood wing; this was never a concern. All the problems were with firewall forward (ordinary stuff from too much heat and moving parts) and the landing gear (also just wear etc).
AND if I did need wood repairs, there are a few in the Viking community who can handle it.
 
Adrin D said:
My only concern is the wings are wood.
Click to expand...

Is the concern about them breaking? If so, I have never had any concern with my Viking. a) is a 3/16" piece of aluminum more likely to bend than a...tree trunk? b) when they certified the Viking wing, they decided to push it way beyond its limits because they figured being wood it must break...well there was a boom and cloud of dust - and they found that the steel anchors in the floor gave way but the wood wing was fine c) find that pic of a viking with all those hefty Plainsview cheerleaders standing on it.

Or is the concern about maintenance? Buy Good Wood (ie have it inspected by a mechanic very familiar with THAT TYPE before buying then a) Keep it hangared b) Keep the seals good to prevent moisture ingress c) Run 160kt air through it on a regular basis.


<<<Also be advised right now, there is no such thing as Dry Rot. Complete misnomer. Rot requires fungal growth with means moisture must be present. If you find "rot that is dry", that is because sometime in the past there was moisture and now it is gone.>>>
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
<<Also be advised right now, there is no such thing as Dry Rot. Complete misnomer. Rot requires fungal growth with means moisture must be present. If you find "rot that is dry", that is because sometime in the past there was moisture and now it is gone.>>>
Click to expand...
This is really the crux of the inspection of a wood structure.
With todays technology in bore scopes we can do an adequate job of finding problems in wood wings.
 
If the tail is wood I would not buy it. Wood wings are faster than metal wings but finding AP who can properly maintain it will be difficult. I looked at one many years ago that I knew had had the wing properly rebuilt. The current owner an Air Force instructor at the Academy took it to Puerto Rico for 6 months. On his return the plane was inspected and the wing was found to be in need of considerable restoration. I probably would not buy a airplane like this for my first airplane.
 
What's with his oil pressure pegged north of 90 on that pic of him in cruise?

Colorful ad overall, he has no idea when it was repainted, but must be 1981 or later

Dude sounds like a character, I bet he's fun to drink with



RE: wood
Wood sailboats, while much heavier on maintenance, are generally revered as the best sailing and most seakindly. Wouldn't bother me, assuming it was well inspected. Hell, given the choice between 60 year old metal vs wood I'd probably choose the wood
 
Their are still 80 M20-A registered not sure how many still fly great aircraft with the wood wing. If the aircraft has been taken care of and with the wood wing, a little more care is required and someone like a IA that knows wood then it could be a great plane for you. If it is something that has had a less than great care and inspections could be a endless money pit. The one I was flying was at the NAS Moffett aero club wood wing loved it great plane, would I buy one now, No.
 
Tantalum said:
Wood sailboats, while much heavier on maintenance
Click to expand...
Sez the guy who has never restored a fiberglass sailboat.

If you want a Mooney with wood wings, buy a Mooney with wood wings.

A cream puff is a cream puff.
A POS is a POS.
Doesn't mater what it's made of.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Sez the guy who has never restored a fiberglass sailboat.
Click to expand...
have you restored a wooden one?

Worked in a boat yard for a few years in college. Fiberglass work and restoration is a messy process, especially when the awlgrip or gelcoat need redoing, but generally unless a boat has sat neglected most well cared for FG boats (hauled yearly, waxed, bilge kept dry, etc.) need very little *real* maintenance outside of basic upkeep. We had a lot of 1960s and 1970s era 40 footers that were a cakewalk compared to the occasional wooden Hinckley or Chris Craft and others that came in

Even a well maintained wooden classic was a lot of work. When hauled on dry land the wooden planks would shrink, making the boat basically a porous sieve when it was relaunched, it would take a few days for the planks to swell back up and become "watertight" again, all the while you have pumps to keep the boat from sinking... and if the planks were too close? Then you get cracking and pinching, very delicate process, and you hope the pumps don't fail overnight and you walk out in the morning to a sunken boat (which I saw happen 3 times in the 4 short years I worked there, not all our boatyard!) then ofcourse replacing rotted members is a project in itself, and my favorite /s part of it all was the brightwork. Some boats took 7, 8, 9 or more layers going between oil/sand/polish with ever finer grits, etc. to give it that shine. Still, many people preferred it not only for its looks, but allegedly they sail unlike any other, with even the wooden fir masts apparently being better than a metal pole. Some of those qualities of the wood probably carry over to planes.. there's a reason they chose wood in 1960, which by that point metal was heavily used in aviation.

Still, I'll take an FG sailboat any day over wooden. And I'll take an FG / composite / wooden plane over aluminum too when it comes to planes. Metal fatigues, corrodes, has electrolysis issues, etc., you don't get that with wood and FG / composite. Fine, people will tell you "yeah but it cracks slowly and you can catch it, while composite just blows apart" .. but how many (non homebuilt, non stunt) composite GA planes have broken up in flight? Have any Grummans had an inflight breakup? I am almost positive out of >7,000 Cirri there have been no inflight breakups (and this is I'm sure after some people got in some pretty stupid situations with them). The same can't be said for the metal planes, where, often the fatigue cracking is not caught, or not remedied appropriately.. but that's a whole different topic lol. Wood and composite can take a remarkable amount of abuse
 
Tantalum said:
When hauled on dry land the wooden planks would shrink, making the boat basically a porous sieve when it was relaunched, it would take a few days for the planks to swell back up and become "watertight" again, all the while you have pumps to keep the boat from sinking... and if the planks were too close? Then you get cracking and pinching, very delicate process, and you hope the pumps don't fail overnight and you walk out in the morning to a sunken boat (which I saw happen 3 times in the 4 short years I worked there, not all our boatyard!)
Click to expand...
Why wouldn't you pump water into it for a few days while its on blocks? My father had a wood cabin cruiser when I was a kid and that's how he always did it. Toss a hose in and let it run for a few days until the water stops dripping out. Then pump it out and plunk it in no muss no fuss. Is there a reason they didn't do it that way with the sailboats?
 
Juliet Hotel said:
Why wouldn't you pump water into it for a few days while its on blocks? My father had a wood cabin cruiser when I was a kid and that's how he always did it. Toss a hose in and let it run for a few days until the water stops dripping out. Then pump it out and plunk it in no muss no fuss. Is there a reason they didn't do it that way with the sailboats?
Click to expand...
That's clever. I've never seen that method done, but not to say it isn't or can't be done. Maybe the hull shape of sailboats would preclude doing that without swamping the interior finishings? Definitely a labor of love with a wooden boat!
 
Tantalum said:
Maybe the hull shape of sailboats would preclude doing that without swamping the interior finishings?
Click to expand...
Yeah that's possible. Most of the cabin area sat above the waterline on his boat if I remember correctly.
 
Putting water inside the hull can put a lot of load on a few concentrated areas where it is blocked up - most should go on the keel, but boats do flex.
Best thing is to be first in the water in the spring, last out of the water in the fall, and keep it in the shade.

If it's leaking so bad that pumps can't keep up, there are larger problems.

Sanding and a fresh coat of paint ain't no more work than trying to keep tired gel coat looking halfway tolerable with a buffer.
 
Properly stored and maintained wood wings can be okay. In fact it is said that they are considerably faster than a comparable metal wing version. What you DO NOT want is a wood tail. Most if not all have been converted to a metal tail, it might have even been an AD along the way.
 
I thought in the Al Mooney story they said the A was faster then the B, but that the C caught back up to the A.

And let me just say the D with its original gear is the coolest M20 variant.
 
No, you should purchase a Bo.
You get a mulligan since it's your first post.
But this is PoA, and Bo is the name.
Ask us again and we'll tell you the same.
 
skier said:
I thought in the Al Mooney story they said the A was faster then the B, but that the C caught back up to the A.

And let me just say the D with its original gear is the coolest M20 variant.
Click to expand...

If by "coolest" you mean "slowest", yes. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top