All Activity

Back on the market - buyer's financing fell through. Motivated Seller.

I totally agree with MikeOH on this one. I own odd AMC 60s cars, and they sell steering and brake parts for them at reasonable prices. The liability is the same or higher than an airplane since the part can fail and harm people and property. It even might be better if they stopped making the clamp completely. Then since the part is unavailable, we can either fabricate our own or use a superior clamp that is out on the market. Who are they going to sue if there is an incident? The auto part maker did not see me the part as an "aircraft" part. I cant sue myself, people on the ground might sue me, but I have liability insurance. The point is, the heavy automotive racing type clamps are far superior to the "traceable" clamps and American manufacturers of these part DO know the history of the metallurgy of those parts too, because they dont want to be sued by people driving fast cars with turbo chargers. By pricing the clamps so high, it just causes people not to change the clamps and keep running the ones they have as long as they can (since the AD was extended until next year for these clamps now), how is that safer for skies?

It seems the only having done it so far had to get two then thx for the replies

A complication on a go-around for some is that you're already at flying speed when full power is applied, so it may require significant pitch-up to keep below gear transit speed. On my airplane it is a bit of a dance, and if you get it wrong the gear breaker pops, which adds an unwelcome dimension to a go-around. So getting the gear up asap makes sense, before the airplane accelerates past transit speed or before you have to pitch way up to keep it there. It can help, and I've heard others here say they do this, too, to just apply about half throttle, get the gear up, then go to full throttle for the go-around. However it works for you and your airplane, I think this just highlights why it's good to practice this stuff frequently enough to stay proficient.

Check with Powermasters in Tulsa... experts in the 550's especially. I believe Mitch had their former Ovation engine done there and posted about it here many years ago after I gave that vector. Beechtalk is full of great PIREPs as well, and Bill C even participates there. He'll have a backlog (likely) and be at the mercy of the supply chain, but I bet it will be faster than the factory. One nice touch they do is re-work new factory cylinders and get the valves installed correctly so that they'll run for more than the typical 700-900 hours before they need to come off. For installation, plan for 40 +/- hours of labor. I did mine 100% by myself (Lycoming on my J though) and it was not difficult. Great opportunity for sweat equity!

Very good discussion...Here is a question to add to the gear and flap order. Would it be reasonable to add enough power to keep the airplane flying and lessen the brisk pitch up. maybe push yoke and trim first ......and avoid a stall?? can we add that to the mix? Alan Long body M20R

I don't doubt you, but this is the response I got when I asked my current broker why an E model was the same cost as an Ovation: "Aviation insurance premiums are a % of the hull value. With that, similar hull valued Mooney’s tend to have similar premiums."

@Moondoggy, @1980Mooney and everyone else: this is the relevant page in the Owners Manual / POH to determine if Sport Pilot privileges are relevant. So for my C, 70 mphi = 67 mph CAS; Vs1 = 67 mphi = 64 mph CAS = 55.6 KCAS. So yes, a Sport Pilot can legally fly my C, if he can get both my permission and my keys . . . . Yes, that would be an unusual request, and would require additional instruction (most likely) equivalent to a Complex Endorsement for Day VFR flight only.

A64Pilot, I agree that flight testing is not always cut and dry! As a test engineer for modifications made to USAF C-20H and C-37 aircraft, I found it apparent that each aircraft tested had variances from the computed/expected limitations. Barring unexplained deviations from the mean data, we would set the limitation tipping more to the safe side of the envelope we were testing. The M20 TCDS (2A3) doesn't publish the VS1 for any model. Therefore, the MOSAIC final rule, which recommends using AC90-89A to determine VS1, may be used to determine the clean stall of specific models. My experience tells me that weight will be the key factor impacting VS1 if the airfoil is not altered. There are differences in the wing design over the years. Besides the wingtip fairings, which in my opinion have a limited effect on slow flight, specific year ranges of M20s incorporate more washout into the wing. Those years all have an MTGW under 2740LBS. The FAA definition implies that the published lower limit of the green arc is VS1, which I would use to determine the clean stall speed. To determine the application of the Sport Pilot limitation, we need only adjust the published KIAS range to a KCAS range. 1980Mooney, The folks I was referring to had no psychological issues prior to being told they could no longer exercise their pilot privileges. The loss of identity when this happens can be devastating to a lifelong pilot. - Cheers

Depends how badly your pax want to be on the ground . . .

Great point. My mistake.

Did the servos in wing and tailcone get removed? Servos are on ebay and not that expensive. I did majority of installation of an AccuFlite with Avionics tech doing install of on/off switch in panel. If the tubing has been removed on sidewall that would be a pain, but if it is just replacing torn rubber on servos and reconnecting it is not that complicated and definitely not that expensive...Unless adding unnecessary altitude hold. With heading bug set and plane trimmed mine holds course and flies hands free. Nevermind...I see now you punted. No CB Club for you

Deep depression is a "benign condition"? Hmmm. I don't think the medical community, aviation community or the families of the 150 victims of the Germanwings Flight 9525 deliberate crash into the Swiss Alps 10 years ago would agree. But since those afflicted can drive and carry guns here, then why not let them fly....

I would of laughed at the guy as well. Worked for Chubb years ago. Affluent loved to have appraisal increase on property and could not wait for privilege to pay way more. Me? Not so much.

Agreed I think this is a critical point. It is just like (and should be like) any other takeoff. If you are forced into a "Go Around" situation, your mind is likely preoccupied on other distractions - weather, visibility, down to minimums (or you busted) on a difficult instrument approach, unexpected traffic conflict (or animals, cars or other planes on the runway) in untowered airports, etc. You should not need to think about how to "go around" - it should be muscle memory. Gear then Flaps...Gear then Flaps. If you are in the clag then your eyes will be on the instruments to insure you are climbing on the right heading/attitude. KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid.

All of them. But, the M20S probably has the best rates for non instrument rated pilots. The more expensive, the lower premium per dollar insured, too! So, please, let's start production of $800,000 Mooneys. It's for my children.

I have some theories. From my desk, the loss ratios are anecdotally exceptionally better than the earlier models...

Parker, you’ve opened a can of worms! Which of the long bodies warrant the best rates?

Why are K models cheaper?

Should be about $2000 at your pilot experience level. And about $1600-$1700 if that was a $125K M20K instead of a vintage Mooney. K model is the best deal going in short and mid bodies.

I'm so sorry to hear about your sticky plane situation, that sounds rough! I've already found and purchased a 201 since making this post. Thanks so much reaching out, though, and good luck finding the new owner.

Hmm, the FAA comes pretty close

On a go-around all the gear is doing is adding drag. The flaps decrease the stall speed and add some lift. So, yeah, gear first on takeoff, go-around, or landing.

Yeah, same here, gear then flaps.

"Legal" unless your navigator/FMS Limitations say no, although the truth is the GNS limitation is probably violated regularly. "Preferred?" Maybe. They do exist, but there are not too many airports in the U.S. where a VOR or LOC approach would be a better choice than an RNAV approach. In those cases, sure. Pink needles primary with green needles on a secondary CDI or a bearing pointer. But otherwise, it seems to me that the only time one would choose a VOR or LOC approach in real life is going to be during a GPS failure. That means, to me, from a proficiency standpoint, we are better off practicing VOR or LOC approaches green needles only, preferably with the GPS off or at least with the approach not loaded and on a non-map page. And if we're not going to practice that failure mode, don't bother practicing VOR localizer approaches at all.