Leaderboard

The short version of my story is that I wanted to purchase two new main gear shock links. I have in prior years bought parts from the factory by calling them directly. The current policy is to order through a MSC only. My service guys had in the past just called Lasar for price and delivery of factory parts. This time the phone went directly to an answering machine when they called. The same happened when I called. The message said to email parts requests. I did this but was a bit unsatisfied with this method given my plane was sitting on jacks in the hanger at the time. While awaiting a reply I discovered Dugosh had one of these new old stock on eBay. I called to ask if they happened to have a second one. They answered the phone on the first ring and told me they had only one. They checked factory stock for me while I was on the phone and gave me a quote. Further they offered to walk across the ramp to the factory to pick it up for me and ship it in the same box with the one they had available. You can't ask for more than that, I thought. The new one cost $1485 plus a bit of freight which is a lot. Lasar sent me an answer four days after my inquiry. They offered to sell me exactly the same part (as in the same exact physical one sitting on the factory shelf) for over $1800! So my experience was this: Lasar took four days to answer and marked up the factory price more than 20%. Dugosh answered instantly, shipped the part at once, and charged me a bit over the factory list price. They even apologized for not being able to box it up in time for UPS pickup the same day. Given the above it will be an easy choice who to call first when I need factory parts next. To be fair, I did not call every MSC for a quote and I would hope there are others who answer the phone. Don Maxwell was nice enough to tell me that both that the part was heat treated and not repairable and that he did not have any in stock. I only called Dugosh because they had one advertised. It does seem to me that they have a huge advantage over other MSC given they can see the factory from their hanger. Your experience may be different but I would suggest you consider Dugosh if you need factory parts.

It is my honor to announce that Dan Bass and Alex Gertsen have stepped up to make the Mooney Summit IX a reality once again in 2023. Initial target dates is last part of September. Look for some more info soon as they put the moving pieces together and really present a great program! Thanks Guys!

I will be a voice of descent here. We for the most part only know asking prices so it's hard to say what value the market places on mods. I would expect to pay a significant premium for a well well finished 201 clone over a standard F. Having flown both Fs and Js, the delta in block speed for average versions of each model amounts to little more than bragging rights. There are well rigged and tweaked outliers that do much better (and dogs that do much worse). Byron and Becca’s 201 @jetdriven comes to mind but he has spent a lot of time tweaking both his airframe and power settings for maximum speed, low altitude amateur air racing. I am biased towards the manual systems and the lighter weight of the vintage birds. The airframe build quality of the 1960's birds is about as good as any the factory ever put out. The same cannot be said for interior refinement/fit and finish but that is correctable. If there were a situation where I was seeking a replacement Mooney, I would be looking for another F model with an eye towards birds that are well modified. There are several folks with experience that extol the virtues of the vintage birds: @M20F-1968 and @FloridaMan both fly well modded vintage Fs and certainly could have acquired 201s instead. The former did a wings off "restomod" of an F that has resulted in TN'd 201 clone that is one of the most desirable mid-bodied Mooneys in existence. At the end of the day, I think you should look for the best value that meets your mission and desired equipment as the difference is performance between the two would be quantified as minimal anywhere other than an aviation forum.

ARI cowl Mod gave my Mooney a modern look and about 5 MPH. Here’s the breakdown: Used (like new) Polished 201 spinner with 5 hrs on it from eBay, listed $2k. Got it for $1032 shipped Top Gun labor: 11.5 hours, 135/hr: $1587.72 Finishing and painting: 7.5 hours/$60 in materials: $1103 Total: $5035 I also went with the single tinted piece rear windows, all side windows were about $1500 plus another 12 hours install. No speed gain, but it looks very close to a J and the view is fantastic from the back seat. I wanted to do the single piece sloped windshield, but you’re looking at $10k between parts and labor.

I can think of one scenario. If I lost the engine after crossing abeam the numbers (where I drop gear and 1st notch of flaps). In my case the top of the white arc and Vbg are about the same. I can say from doing many power off approaches from downwind that flaps detract from glide distance more than most would think.

Keep in mind that there are other benefits to getting the actual J airframe, as compared to spending the same amount of money (or more) modding an F. I have an F with most of the speed mods (cowl+windshield included) and it definitely looks sleek and goes a few knots faster. But it's impossible that I'll ever have a gear speed greater than 104kts in this plane, as compared to 132kts on the 1978+ J models. Sure, I've learned to start pulling power early in order to be slow enough in the pattern to drop the gear, but it stings when controllers call out to following traffic that I'm going cessna speeds down the glideslope. Also, if you like the look of the shiny smooth wingtips of the J, make sure you avoid the 1967(ish) F model years because the blunt wingtips can't be modded into the nice curvy design. Just a few of the benefit of the actual J model over the fully-modded F that come to mind. If I were considering spending money to mod an F model to J standards, I'd just buy the J. Otherwise, find an F with the mods you already want before buying, as everyone else has said. The impact of pre-existing mods on pricing will be minimal. Our values are a little different, so I'm very happy with my F that has a nice IFR panel with passable (but not fancy) paint, interior, and many of the mods tossed in as a bonus; it was certainly cheaper than a J with a similar panel. But if you want speed mods aerodynamics/looks above all else, just get the J from the start.

I did an interview video a couple years ago with the owner, I bought my 62 C project from him in 2019. It’s on my bucket list to cross the North Atlantic in the CAFE….

I guess I am a mother. Looks cool to me!

I notice it on final and during precision instrument approaches, but I also don’t worry about it because those segments of flight don’t seem continuous to me.

It turns out that a lot of hangar fairies are good at rehabbing wet compasses, so that's reasonably well covered.

Colonoscopy (However very difficult to get the Seller to submit.)

Would you put your sleeping children in it, alone, for the self drive home?

My son wanted to go to AI camp this summer so I sent him a scholarship application. He used ChatGPT to fill out the application then added a couple of lines at the end about how he’d used ChatGPT to fill out the application. He got the scholarship.

A bit of a loaded question... as-is, experimental market-research category it ain't worth much, unfortunately. (I'm assuming it hasn't been upgraded with the latest avionics and autopilot). It's just not practically usable like a standard Mooney for most owners. As-is, it might have value for someone wanting to pursue STC development for some or all of the mods as a test vehicle... and then it becomes a business case of how much additional it would cost to get approvals, and how many sales would be needed to return a profit. I'd speculate that business would never close in this modern era. It might have worked great in the 80s or 90s. The better question to ask, what is it worth if all of the mods were certified, and you could fly it normally! I'd say it would be easily worth $20-40k over any other E model, assuming comparable panel/engine times/cosmetics.

Man, I always thought that plane looked so sleek! I actually like the front end. To get 189kts at 8000ft is almost as impressive as the 28mpg it gets at 160kts. If you had the 88gal Monroy tanks you could go 1500nm with IFR reserve at 189kts or go 2000nm @ 160kts.

When I retract my flaps, my nose will point skyward…unless I adjust my trim down… I don’t lose any height, in fact my rate of climb and speed increase significantly. in my J , flaps enable a lower speed take-off, but in my honest opinion don’t help me climb over obstacle. I am not an engineer or a test pilot

That is what I do and it makes me happy. One thing, I don't think there is actual sink when retracting the flaps, but a momentary reduction in the climb rate. Like the Vomit Comet mentioned, if you are going up at 700 FPM, and it drops to 650 FPM, you will feel a bit light in the seat

Relax. No one is saying this will happen tomorrow. People are just fantasizing about how and when this will happen. And it will.

That's because, on a 2-1/2 hour flight from WV to KY, the FAA gave me weather and NOTAMs for every airport from Wisconsin to Boston to Miami . . . . Who has time to sort through all that crap?

Ah, I too run half flaps but usually just over 2350 rpm which gives me 100 mph (still A). Gee, I'll have to consider that slipping down the ILS idea <sarcasm>

Try more flap

I know of M20K's that have had the same problem, and have had the gear door stop kit installed to prevent the inner door going over centre. So I did this when I replaced the gear doors during my Encore upgrade (same gear and doors as later model Mooneys). I have a spare set of used links if anyone is stuck while waiting for parts. I would not fly with an inner door unrestrained, and would not install replacement links without going through the complete gear setup process. Aerodon SBM20-254: M20M -SIN 27-0107 THRU 27-0147 - (S/N's 27-0115, 27-0123, 27-0127, 27-0131, 27-0137, 27-0142, 27-0144, 27-0150 HAVE HAD INSTRUCTIONS OF SB ACCOMPLISHED).

Oh, yeah, I have those too… and they drive me crazy!

Think I got it sorted out again, but it certainly leaves an IA questioning the right placarding. AD 65-12-03 called for 2100-2350. The Mooney TCDS also reflects 2100-2350. Then Hartzell AD 77-12-06 R2 came out and expanded the range to 2000-2350. AD 2002-09-08 clarifies this further. In 2006 it looks like some Piper folks had the same issue and asked for clarification. Clarification came in the form of SAIB CE-06-62, which references the M20E and F. So, this leads me to believe the more correct restriction is 2000-2350.

Note, nasa already has an AI pilotless plane. also believe nextgen fighters are pilot optional AI driven

CFR 65.81 is in regards to a repair station where supervisors who don’t have an A&P are responsible for signing off work. The key word is “supervise”. This does not mean as an A&P that you must be supervised and signed off before you can do this work on your own. I had this discussion with the infamous Mike Busch and asked him to provide the document the FAA requires for me to keep with sign offs to prove I had previously done a task. I’m still waiting for his reply 10 years later. I also called my PMI and he confirmed this is geared towards repair stations with non certified mechanics in a supervisory role.

I think that most of us are assuming an accelerating airplane. I at least would not consider raising the flaps unless my airplane was accelerating.

Awesome

Aeroshell 100 Plus contains the Lycoming additive. Ok if you have a Lycoming engine but not good for Continetal starter adapters nor does it contain as strong anti-corrosion additive as Cam-Guard. You can note this by the Phosphrus and Calcium numbers in the oil analysis between the two.

They will start to consider it after G100UL is widely available.

That’s not what caused the airshow crash, 1/10 of a degree wouldn’t have prevented it. The test pilot was trying to demonstrate Alpha Floor, where the computers automatically command TOGA thrust. Close to the ground, as measured by the radar altimeter, the computers assume you want to land (which is smart, otherwise it wouldn’t let you land). In the accident, by the time the test pilot realized that the computers weren’t going to command TOGA thrust, he shoved the thrust levers forward (you can hear it in the video). But it was too late for the engines to spool up and develop enough thrust to miss the trees.

Very true. Many more suicidal AIs than suicidal pilots. AI doesn’t have to be perfect, just better than humans. I think some of you are still failing to understand that.

Under Contract

You need a TSO'd one and this one works for a lot less money. I have it on my Ovation with a Garmin 345 https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/comant105.php

Or you could also put in the vor as the active gps waypoint and fly the arc in gps mode on the g5 (using gps as a legal substitute for the vor). Then you will have the gps distance displayed on the top right corner of the g5. Depending on how your g5 is set up, you could possibly have a bearing pointer to the raw vor data at the same time (by displaying nav 2 as the #2 bearing pointer). On an ils however, we have to be in vloc after the faf, so don’t have the option to stay in the gps mode to get the waypoint distance on the g5.

In true FAA fashion, I tried to find the prop information in this thread. Using the "new" site I have now lost 30 mins of my life I will never get back and feel so frustrated that I want to scream! Can someone take the hyperlink on the first page and update it to the current FAA website? I have nothing good to say at the moment so I had better stop now and breathe and go for a walk in the cold.

A 201 cowl conversion is likely very difficult in the current era with the FAA tending towards not approving anything. If you have a good IA and friendly FSDO, though, you might be able to convince them it is a great candidate for a field approval if you lay out a sensible plan, parts list full of Mooney parts from a J, etc. You need far more than just the fiberglass cowl, though, and it will take a lot of hours to accomplish. Best to get a pre-approval before acquiring parts IMO. I agree with the sentiment about buying as much of what you want in the plane you get vs trying to incrementally add things later. That will give you the most bang-for-the-buck, albeit at a higher up-front cost, but it also might not be exactly what you would choose if doing things yourself over time. Having said that, any (airworthy) Mooney is better than no Mooney, so figure out your priorities and then go shopping! Find the deal-breakers like corrosion/neglect/damage, etc first and move on. You should want something capable of IFR so that you can get an IR if you don't already have one as soon as you're comfy in the plane. It will make you a better pilot, expand the utility of your Mooney, and lower your insurance costs. I would place a higher priority on at least a semi-modern panel and autopilot, assuming the rest of the airframe is solid. Paint, interior, windows, etc can all be addressed later if/when needed. Speed mods are nice, but realistically we're talking a max delta of maybe 5-10 knots on an F, and remember a slow F is still much faster than driving everywhere.

DC, watch how fuel level, and distribution of people in the cockpit affect the ball… See how much you need to step on the ball to raise the wing level… to center the ball… See what happens when you burn the fuel off from one side… Often what causes this… the L/R balance changes, but we keep the wings level with airlerons… it helps to have rudder trim for this imbalance… (Like the M20M being discussed) a good rudder rigging… requires using right rudder in the climb, left rudder in the descent, and neutral rudder in cruise…. but, is always dependent on L/R balance… Solo flight… we usually have just the pilot’s weight off center… causing the ball to drift left of center… Check that little trim tab on the rudder… it can be adjusted by your mechanic… you might want’s to put some weights in the seats… to see if you can center the ball… But, first… see if the panel is level with hte plane being level on the ground…. Often, worn panel mounts can be the easy fix for this… Back on topic….. Let’s invite @Jeff Golberg to the conversation… since he gets mentioned a few times… Jeff had joined MS a couple of years back… left no posts, and only used his account for about a month. Best regards, -a-

The small access panels are fairly convenient, I guess. Some access. I’m reminded of when I flew my Bonanza to meet up with a peripatetic purveyor of Beryl d’Shannon mods where the speed slope windshield conversion was done in a day. Flew in at 162 kts, flew out at 162 kts. Sure looked cool, though.

After having owned a vintage Mooney for several years I’m not sure I would want to get rid of the super convenient access to the back of the panel. 201 windshields sure do look nice though!

Nice good luck, the red and tan seats rock.

As Shadrach mentioned, chances are that’s an original paint scheme with the added Swiss motif Candies (tinted clear coats) and pearls (tinted iridescent mica in powder or liquid form, formerly made for cash currency if you can believe that) are not applied on airplanes as often given that many times the “depth” look used to be achieved with multiple coats of intercoat clear or now “nebulizer” in a brand before the final coat of clear ….which has UV protection and also which adds weight. A typical gallon of paint is about 10 plus to 13/14 gallons, with single stage being around 4 gallons on average on a Mooney. On base coat / clear coat, the number goes up. Makes you want to polish if it was not so much work Certain brands of paint made a “candy base coat” (House of Kolor, Axalta’s Hot Hues) which is an emulated candy - brighter colors, but if not properly cleared with a high quality product, subject to color fading in the sunlight substantially over time. Thats achieved by mixing a ton of Candy concentrates and adding a lot of powdered pearl to the mix. I recently mixed 6 gallons of Red and blue for a friend in a candy Basecoat and each gallon retailed for $2800!!! Adding flake to the Matterhorn white (or pearl, or any other thing to make it look brilliant or unique) is awesome. That said, make sure you keep at least a half a gallon of inactivated paint for touch ups just in case- most shops use exactly the amount of paint needed with little left over as a function of cost and profit, and color matching a custom made color can be a bear - not to mention fading colors in the sun. We do use a lot of custom color tints in our shop because frankly much of aviation is boring…Matterhorn white, a couple of trim colors and goodbye. Ugh. Have some fun! What’s awesome (and challenging) about paint jobs like the “anomaly” mooney is the sheer number of colors you’d have to save…however, the plane is first coated with a base color (like Matterhorn white), and each color applied was high quality Montana spray paint, which is easily sourced followed by clear coat provided the painter kept a paint map much respect to the artist on that job Since I’ve owned my 252 for more than 20 years (Hi, Don Kaye - yea, it’s been that long ) I’m about to replace the recent factory paint scheme of ultras and acclaims with something more fun. We partner with a nice chap from Ferrari of Team Nemesis and relentless fame to do our paint schemes, and we’ll see what he comes up with for this project. Nothing as fun as anomaly but we will see

Before this devolves into another lawyer bashing thread... Insurance companies spend millions of dollars every year on advertising and influencing campaigns to blame the cost of insurance on lawyers. Otherwise, who would you blame for your increased premiums? They have intentionally biased the jury pool in their favor before the case is ever called. They're very good at it. Bashing lawyers is a lot of fun, until you need a good one. Bashing the court system and advocating limiting access to it is a lot of fun, until you've been wronged and need your day in court. "It will never happen to me" is what most think. Some are wrong. You can be sued for anything, any time. Most of the time, the system gets it right. The alternatives of no system, or a system with limited access, don't help anyone. That's why some smart people a long time ago wrote equal access to the courts into the constitution. This lawyer would never chop up a perfectly good airplane.

Some find pleasure in knowing the engine is running optimally and they’re getting the most efficient use of the engine without causing any harm. Some like the fact that if something doesn’t sound or feel right they have additional information that can inform their decision making. I’m sure I can set ballpark power settings with my eyes closed and fly without engine gauges. That doesn’t mean it’s the smartest, safest or most efficient way to do it.

That's one way to look at it, but another is that these engine's cost big money these days and an engine monitor is smart investment. Not only in protecting the engine longevity but they also can go along ways to warning us before impending failure so we can at least get on the ground before catastrophic failure if we can't halt the impending failure. But to realize that advantage we need to invest time in learning how to use a modern engine analyzer, such as setting up useful alarms and incorporating the monitor in our scan. Technology can be really helpful in enhancing the pleasure to fly by enhancing your situational awareness of what's going on under the cowling. Some may poke fun at suggesting the need of an engine monitor. But I still can't believe how many pilots continue to flying never noticing some of the simplest things like declining oil pressure till the engines seizes. That's too sad to poke fun at.

I attended his memorial service on Saturday and it was a great tribute to him. There were at least two other Mooney owners there that I know of. Here is the obit in case anyone missed it, or wants to write a tribute: Ronald Blum Obituary (1964 - 2022) - Wichita, KS - Wichita Eagle (legacy.com) Donations for his memorial can be sent to the EAA as well...that would make him very happy! I'm going to miss him greatly!

My real concern would be for high DA takeoffs with quick gear and flap retraction. If you're always quick on the draw for gear and flap retraction (as I've seen many times) there's the likelihood you'll do the same at a time when it is inappropriate, therefore my 50' or no more runway for gear retraction and 300' for flap retraction.

CAN sink sure, especially if you're a little to fast with the flap retraction and not paying attention (which may be the last time that happens....) But if discussing a normal take-off, do you really think you actually SINK when you retract the flaps? Plane is climbing AND accelerating and yes you do change the coefficient of lift as you said. But do you actually think for that moment you're retracting the flaps you're behind the curve and loose all lift resulting in a momentary SINK? (Again, assuming you don't do it right at the edge of stall.) I agree with the others that have said you get a pitch change and I agree there is some REDUCTION in lift as the flaps are retracted. But I don't think you loose all your lift and actually start sinking, aka actually loosing altitude. But this slight slowing in the climb rate and change in pitch angle could make people think they are sinking. Might be an interesting flight to hold specific climb angle and see what happens to speed and rate of climb as you raise and lower the flaps to TO position. (But I bet the real numbers are in some flight test report at Mooney. )

It shouldn't be. You should have the same placard as John - no continuous operation between 2000-2350. Where are you getting the placard you claim to have? If it's from the Mooney POH or Operation Manual, I believe they changed that limit. Just for the record, let's look it up ourselves, shall we? Follow this link: (from FAA Website) http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/45911b31a312cf79862576e8004c87c7/$FILE/P-920.pdf This is the Type Certificate Data Sheet for the propeller. Go almost all the way to the end of the TCDS (page 8 of 13), and you will find a find a paragraph called "Note 9." This shows the propeller/engine combinations that are approved, and any placards that apply to that propeller/engine combination. These placards are applicable on your Mooney, Piper, homebuilt, golf cart, you name it. If those propellers are used on those engines, those limits apply. Your prop will appear on page 9 of 13. You should be operating an HC-C2YK or HC-C2YK propeller with F7666(A)-2 blades. Find your prop model in the first column, then the blade in the second (note that the -2 is missing, but that's not important right now). Find your engine in the third column (it's the fourth set of engines from the top on page 9 of 13). Read the placard in column 6: "Avoid continuous operation between 2000 and 2350 RPM." That's all there is to it.