Sure, but in the context of Bosco’s comment
calculate 50k in avionics upgrades to get it to modern IFR standards
you would be installing something else if spending that much / spending 200k+ on a plane plus an avionics upgrade.
The screen on a GNS430 / GTN650 / IFD440 is quite small, if that’s your only display showing the route ahead.
Peter wrote:
ahead.
Granted though easy to tackle with another 3K secondary (MFD) aspen evolution.
Or the IFD100 ipad app for nothing.
The issue I have with Garmin is that I have trouble with their usability philosophy.
Before I decided to go for a real life license, I logged a lot of time on flight simulators and even in this environment I hated how Garmin made me use the GNS430 up to the Garmin1000.
And when I sat down in a real cockpit, I realized that the simulators were not even close in simulating the awkwardness of usability. It was even worse :-).
Yes, this might be an issue mostly in my head but it is there. So I would like to avoid Garmin if possible and without sacrifices in flight safety.
Hello Oliver,
as the pics and data of the plane are on here now, I’ll answer here.
First of all: The M20J will do everything what the TB20 does in terms of speed (better) and range (slightly worse), but it will do it more efficiently and cheaper. The 201 is probably the most efficient SEP on the market still today after it’s been gone as a new airplane for quite some time. With regards to the type you can’t do much wrong with it. Mooneys generally are very nice planes to fly, very stable and they give a lot of bang for the buck you pay. The price is a cabin where you better know your copilot well as you will be quite close to each other but it has ample leg room up front and about the same space than a PA28 in the back.
What can you expect of a 201 vs a TB20? Speed is almost identical, however the TB20 will use up to 1.5 times the fuel to achieve that. In numbers? The TB20 will cruise 150 kts @ between 13 and 15 GPH, the Mooney will cruise at 160-165 kts at 10-10.5 GPH or 150 kts @ 9 GPH. Both have almost identical range realistically, the Mooney will fly roughly 900 NM with it’s 64 USG while the TB20 has a slight edge and can fly 1000 NM if you are willing to cruise at 140 kt. Put two next to each other at top of climb and let both run at 65% and the TB20 will average 150 kt @ 12 GHP and the M20J will show it’s tail to the TB20 with about 155-160 kt @ 9.5 GPH. As a traveller, both are similarily capable, the TB20 has a nicer cabin but pais for the privilege with lots more fuel cost. Both are good IFR platforms. The M20 will need a bit more attention in landings but once you get the speed control properly set, they can operate out of pretty small airfields.
I fly a C model which has 20 hp less but still will cruise at 145 kts @ 9.5 GPH. The 201 with the same consumption is 10-15 kts faster. Would I look at this one carefully if I was in the market? Sure. If the pre-buy is ok, this is initially a fly-away, IFR with LPV capable airplane and not a project, (a project usually means an unairworthy airplane). Yes it has quite a bit of hours, which means the pre-buy needs to be very thorough in particular for tanks and corrosion. If it comes out clean from that, not much which goes against it, it appears to be in decent shape. I agree, 60-65k is a good price for this one. If the pre-buy identifies no defects and no upcoming larger maintenance tasks, maybe up to 70 can be still acceptable. I agree that it is always good to have reserves which would allow an engine overhaul but that is a good idea with all planes. Yet again, overhauling an IO360 is considerably more economical than doing the same to the TB’s engine.
This airplane is almost identically equipped as mine is with the difference that I have an Aspen and a Trigg Transponder. This means as it stands it is LPV capable with the 430W. Not sure if it is ADSB-out yet but it may well be if the transponder can do ADSB-Out. And yes an engine monitor would help, particularly if you plan on putting GAMI injectors. If you plan to upgrade, an IFD440 will be pin compatible with the existing 430W, however I’d get one of those and put the 430W as a 2ndary set if you already have it so you’d have two LPV capable GNS’s on board in addition to two 8.33 radios.
Yes, I’d definitly give it a try and if possible also fly it. Given your budget, you might well end up with a very capable plane for considerably less money as planned and can invest the rest to upgrade it to your liking.
Not correct fuel flow numbers, etc, for the TB20, but this is a Mooney thread 
Greetings all – first post on this forum.
Does anyone have any recommendations for an experienced Mooney shop that can carry out a pre-purchase inspection? Ideally based in the UK or NW Europe.
Troyes Aviation, but they don’t come cheap.
Peter wrote:
Not correct fuel flow numbers, etc, for the TB20, but this is a Mooney thread
If my figures are wrong then please give me the correct ones, so I can update my files. They are out of a PIREP in AOPA, so quite possibly with your experience you can give better stuff.
The OP originally wanted to buy a TB20 which got sold before he could pre-buy it. That is why I made the comparison. I actually referred him to you for information on the TB20 in the other place he originally asked the question.
At low level, say 2000-3000ft, I see 138kt IAS at 11.7 US/hr.
If you do a search for the term GPH and with Peter as the author you will find plenty of reading.
A smaller airframe volume will give you more speed for a given fuel flow. That is the first order factor.
