kellym

I find the speed and fuel consumption claims rather generous. I owned an E model for 18 years. Same engine, shorter fuselage with slightly less drag. 75% power is 150 hp, which if you are low enough to generate 75% is 10 gph, no ifs ands or buts. The E will do a bit better than 150kts TAS, but you are fooling yourself if you flight plan for more than 145, given climb to altitude, unforecast headwinds, etc. If you want to go slower, you certainly can get under 10gph. I found carefully measured that I got 153kts in calm air ROP and 147 LOP. Usually went high enough was more like 70% which equates to 9.3 gph. Book fuel consumption for 75% (ROP) is right around 10.8-11.2 depending on altitude. Now if you are talking an F with most of the 201 mods, that is a different story.

Why do you think you need to inspect the connections? Is there an existing problem or are you trying to create one? Kelly A&P/IA

The most common reason for intermittent readings is poor or broken connections in the FF sensor line. You need to use the EI OLC-2 connector and support the wires to avoid vibration flexing. (https://www.iflyei.com/product/olc-2/). The original spade connectors would oxidize or come loose causing bad readings.

IIRC, from when I put the red cube on my old E model, the only location approved on the STC is between the mechanical fuel pump and the fuel servo. You want to have it somewhere alongside the oil sump. Requires new hoses to lengths your A&P determines. There are ways to install on the line from the servo to the spider and is commonly done on experimentals, but I don't think you can do that legally on your Mooney. The STC will be explicit about where you can install.

You have the correct Gumps. The other stuff isn't real important unless the gear isn't down and you need to go around. Gas...you shouldn't be so low that it matters. Mixture isn't big issue unless you go around....ditto prop. Seat belts, don't matter unless you have an upset(wake turbulence, etc) or crash. Whatever you do, spouse needs to be comfortable that the gear is down. In manual gear Mooneys it is a yank on the handle downwind, base, final and short final. Manual gear Mooneys all need the down lock block replaced if it is original.....why risk enough slop that handle pops out on a bump? Less than 1/2 AMU to change. Hard to believe it has been 5 yrs since I sold my E model and started flying my fixed gear Mooney (aka RV-10).

You won't regret it. RV-14 is a great kit, Van's most refined. I've been advising on one for 3 yrs. I really enjoy my RV-10, but RV-14 will out perform it on less gas. Just remember that sticking to the plans and not modifying will get you finished a LOT quicker. Same for building at home as much as you can.

Uhhem, Either I misunderstand what you are trying to say or you don't really understand the situation. The issue with Vne is not while IN a spin, it is during the recovery, after you have stopped the rotation, because you will be at a very nose low attitude, gaining speed rapidly. Holding a Mooney in a spin isn't the problem, it is getting out of the spin, and it is necessary to both stop the turn and break the stall, which requires forward pitch long enough to break the stall, and then restoring a normal attitude at a rate that doesn't generate a secondary stall and doesn't exceed Vne. The Mooney rudder is not particularly effective at stopping the turn. A Cessna takes effort to initiate a spin and maintain it. The Mooney is very different. A spiral is normally encountered when in IMC and when not realizing you are turning. It has very little in common with a spin or spin recovery, although I suppose if the turn isn't fully stopped in a spin recovery it could happen. I'd like to hear thoughts on the subject from experienced CFII.

Well, there is at least one documented case of in-flight breakup, exiting the bottom of a Cat 5 T-storm with icing, and an incident of a different Mooney exiting another T storm that required estimated 12 G pull up to recover that popped some rivets and wrinkled some skins. Factory made the G estimate based on the damage. The real risk of exceeding Vne is flutter and potential for a control surface to depart the airframe due to flutter. The problem with spins is not so much airframe damage as it is actually regaining controlled flight before the ground rises up to smite thee.

No, he tested the aircraft without the bushings that go with the bolts. The bolts were the proper ones. Two main reasons you don't want to spin a Mooney.....the rudder is too small and too slow to stop the rotation quickly, and the long wings also make the stopping of the roll slow. But much of this discussion about stalls, loading and speeds is too generic. There is a big difference in Vne in a pre-68 model and later models, the short bodies have a different moment and the rudder up until around 68 is shorter. You can''t do 90 knots and lower the flaps at all...87 kts or 100 mph is max flap speed. Main issue with stalls is that you must keep the controls coordinated with the ball in the center. Cross control is very risky in stall, very likely to initiate a spin.

With that budget, look for a C. They are the most numerous, least expensive to maintain, and cruise within 5 kts of the E and F. You want to keep at least 10% of purchase price for unforseen maintenance the first few years. Get the nicest C you can find within your budget. The leg room for the front seats is identical, only back seat leg room is increased in the F. The E is the fastest of the 3, but in most cases won't make much difference. Only if you plan on operating in frequent high density altitude operations will the extra power of the E be a significant difference. It will out climb the other 2.

I am surprised that this discussion has not brought mention of the LASAR FAA/PMA gear down lock socket. It is significantly improved from the factory part, with hard anodized aluminum instead of plain cast aluminum. Not to mention that far too many J Bar Mooneys have worn out sockets. I learned first hand that it is virtually impossible to judge the amount of wear on the socket when it remains installed. I was shocked at how worn mine was when I removed it and installed the LASAR socket. One of the reasons the J-bar can come unlatched without pilot action is when the socket gets too ovalized. The parts and labor to do the job should be under 1/2 AMU. Important, because a gear failure on a J Bar Mooney is almost guaranteed to result in insurance totaling the airplane.

Obviously you have never flown an RV-10 or you wouldn't make such a statement. The only reason for a turbo is to have excess power available to be able to hold an altitude IFR at MEAs of 16K or more. I personally would not want to fly IFR over the Front Range in anything less than a TLS, and better a turbine powered aircraft. The RV-10 has a much better power to weight ratio than the 231, with 260 hp on usually 2700 lb gross. The airframe is lighter, generally 1600-1650 so it has greater useful load than the K as well. I have zero problems operating out of airports like Prescott, Flagstaff, etc. with my RV-10. My takeoff roll is rarely more than 1500 ft, even out of Salt Lake City. It is about 10 kts faster than my E model was when set to the same hp number, usually operating on around 160 hp to keep fuel consumption down, with about 160-165 TAS, vs the E was about 153 kts on 150 hp. Now, you will be very hard pressed to find an RV-10 with a turbo, because Vans specifically discourages installing one. The reason is that the design Vne is 200 kts TAS. If you put a turbo on that allowed you to generate 75% power (195 hp) at 12,000 ft. you would be cruising at or above Vne. My E model had no trouble getting to 17,500, with published service ceiling of 18,800. However, it had no reserve power to maintain altitude if there was any convective activity. My RV-10 weighs the same, empty as my E model did, with an extra 60 hp. My climb rates are at least 500 fpm better than the E. I haven't bothered to find a service ceiling, but others have reported values up into the low 20s. At any altitude below around 12,000, my RV-10 will be faster than a stock 231, on less fuel. For the trip to OSH I average about 11.3 gph on 160 kt cruise. Of course you can probably buy a TLS for what I have in my RV, but not with all avionics less than 10 yrs old. Annual nav/data and charts updates for my Dynon Skyview displays costs about 1/5 what they cost for my GTN 650. I have full 3 axis modern autopilot for about the price of one King replacement servo. Yes, I took 8 years building my RV-10, but I know others that have built one in as little as 12 months. There usually are several advertised for sale, so no building is required.

They really are not. Monroy STC adds capacity over and above existing capacity by sealing an additional bay the same way the original tanks are constructed. For example, one E I know of has around 80 gal capacity. You can't get that capacity from bladders, AFAIK from the current O&N STCs.

Mooneys are more prone to leaks for one reason, mostly with a few other issues. Mooney until around 10-12 yrs ago did all of the tank sealing AFTER the wings were built. That meant no sealant under the lap joints, no sealant under the rivets. Also there is a huge gap between the main spar and the rib at the inner end of the wing. Every other manufacturer riveted the wing skins on with sealant applied, so there was sealant inside every joint. Also, the vast majority of Mooneys were built before 1970, and the sealant used in that era was very inferior to what has been used from some time in the 1970s on. I would say a strip and reseal done by the handful of specialty shops is more likely to be leak-free for many years than a new wing built by Mooney before the turn of the century.