Leaderboard

He must either be running LOP or low power settings or has a TIT over 1750°, none of which are the reasons I bought and have owned my M20M for nearly 33 years (Speed). There's just no way you can run 75% power ROP on 15 gal/hour.

Thursday (yesterday) morning at 7:22 a.m. CDT a person from the FSDO in Birmingham, AL, replied to my e-mail asking if I still needed a revised A/W cert. I replied yes. An hour later, I received an e-mail from the FAA Certificate Management Section in Atlanta with detailed instructions explaining what needed to upload to their website. They wanted a scan of the current A/W cert, a copy of the form showing that I've changed to the new N-number, and a signed letter requesting the revised A/W cert explaining why (change in N-number). I happened to have all that but the letter. So I typed, printed, signed and scanned the letter and uploaded all. An hour later they e-mailed the revised A/W cert to me. All done by lunch. Wow. No complaints about the FAA in this matter. They did a great job!

310? Hmmmm- A really good Piper Twin Comanche? 165-170 kts TAS @ 15 GPH total 2 bullet proof IO-320 Lycs (or the 180 HP STC:-) Even NA its good to 15,000 easy. Turbos just make it better (IF a good one can be found) Easy to work on. Small enough you don't need a ladder to work on the engines With tip tanks it'll fly longer than you want anyway. NA will hold 9000+ ft on one engine, climb to 7300 ft on one.

Yes, those guys. I fly behind their engines from time to time, including breaking in the freshly overhauled units, and they've been reliable.

@CAV Ice will have them. Thanks again Andy for sponsoring the upcoming Mooney Summit with a 55 gal drum and shipping to the winner of this item in the Silent auction

Yup. I've had a 210HP TSIO-360 231 and a 310HP IO-550 Ovation, and pulling back and flying LOP, I can get the Ovation down to around the 231's burn at a similar speed and still fly comfortably in the low/mid teens (where I mostly flew the 231 as well). But WOW is that extra 100HP nice to have on takeoff and climbout from within this bowl of mountains I'm surrounded by! --Up.

I’ll start the speculation based on no facts. I think either Swashplste failure or Pitch Change links failure, either would sever main rotor control which would lead to mast bumping and that means everybody dies.

I have the io-540’s in my Aerostar, yes I know they are not the same variant, but it’s more similar than not to the bravo engine. All of my time prior to the Aerostar was in mooney’s behind the tsio-550 and it-550. The continental engines are designed and built for LOP ops, and they perform very well. In my experience, they do not enjoy ROP as much, and the speed loss from LOP is only about 7-8 knots to save 4-6gph. Easy decision for that engine to fly LOP. The Aerostar however is much different, while mine will fly LOP smoothly enough to tempt you, the speed loss is huge. It’s about 30knts. So when you do the math, and use miles flown divided by the tbo time, vs gas usage difference, it is actually cheaper to fly ROP. The Lycoming also just seems much happier ROP. I looked hard at a few bravos, and have flown quite a few, but none of the ones I have flown felt smooth enough to get comfortable flying LOP. To each their own, but I’m convinced the io-540 longevity is going to be better ROP.

Try an oil ring solvent flush first. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I got my 107 cert in two hours flat. Took the online training, took the test, got a CFI buddy to go on IACRA and sign me off. The funny thing is I have never flown a drone.

A few things, the transmission on a 206 is held in by two inverted V braces, one on each side, then there is an elastormeric “box” right behind the transmission that dampens movement, connected to this link is a round pin that sits in a square hole, excessive movement cause the pin to hit the hole and is called “spike knock”, we dreaded spike knock, usually got it in a touchdown auto by not leveling the aircraft on touchdown, at Ft Rucker if you got spike knock you got to wear a RailRoad spike hung around you neck for all to see. It wasn’t common I never saw anyone wearing the spike. The engine isn’t connected to the transmission except by a driveshaft and it’s pretty much like a auto driveshaft, no structure to really hold the two together The instant the engine quits, you immediately lower the collective to maintain rotor RPM, then at the bottom of the Auto you first decel which adds energy into the rotors, then finally use collective to cushion the landing. Having said all that the Bell products generally have more mass in the rotor system than others meaning they are much more forgiving in an autorotation, it’s possible the pilot could have been completely stupid and not put the collective down, but unlikely if they were decently trained being a Commercial pilot surely they were. Two bladed rotor systems are semi-rigid underslung, meaning simply that neg G or low rotor can destabilize the rotor and it tester back and forth and “mast bump”, mast bumping may or may not tear the mast off, I believe newer Civilian Bell’s have big springs in the Hub to help prevent mast bumping, mostly during shut downs etc from wing gusts, and I think that could have help prevent the mast from being broken off, but if a swashplate fails, it sealed and the PC links break and the rotor will come off, maybe breaking the mast or maybe just tearing the transmission out. Yes the blades most certainly took the tail boom off, if they were at full RPM they had plenty of energy to do that likely without breaking. UH-1 Transmission is completely different, to begin with it’s about 8 feet tall, held into the Huey with four “candle sticks” and a Lift Link at the bottom, you can’t get “spike Knock” in a Huey and as such you don’t have to level the aircraft before a touchdown Auto, the 206 tranny sits on top of the cabin top where the Huey one goes almost to the bottom of the aircraft. I was a 67V, an OH-58 Crew Chief for five years and flew them in flight school, an OH-58 is essentially a 206

I would start with the fuel injector. Partially clogged injector will cause lean mixture and higher EGTs. Also, borescoping the cylinder may be a good idea to see if there are any signs of damge to valves. I woudl not fly in its present condition.

I can't speak to ICAO requirements, but with the possible exception of search and rescue, the services mentioned in your first paragraph are all functions handled by ATC. in the US. Alaska is excepted in the notice because it is different in that respect. Large and remote areas where ATC communication may be sporadic. FSS has zero involvement with radio contact and flight following except in areas without ATC communication coverage. In your second group - opening VFR flight plans is purely an FSS issue and I am concerned about that in a few areas other than Alaska, but the reality is that VFR flight plans in the lower 48 are the exception rather than a rule. On the search and rescue end, there is no need for pilot-FSS air-to-ground or ground-to-ground radio communication required. With a VFR flight plan, automatic search and rescue is based on being overdue. Manual initiation is a communication to FSS by ATC that they've lost contact with no explanation or a phone call. UFOs reports by flight crew would definitely be to ATC in the US.

My direct driven alternator just came back from an 500h inspection and both brushes was worn 6mm left on them. Also drive coupling was worn, so it was out of spec. This on ~600h

No, by a factor of nearly six!

So,you are saying this clock cut your battery’s shelf life in half?

No, vacuum pump is gone and I am all digital (Garmin GI-275 ADI, HSI, ESI). For good measure, I'll mention that we did keep the analog Airspeed, vertical speed, altimeter and turn coordinator to maintain the more traditional 6-pack look and feel. Its a great mix of old and new.

A year ago my old engine was switched out for a factory new engine. Both were/are TSIO360-LBs. The intention was to get the engine up and running LOP particularly at cruise. That could not be done immediately because TCM required that the factory injectors had to be used for engine break-in. The plan was to install GAMI's at the first annual after break-in and the first stage of that process has now been completed, that is, we have good working GAMIs in the engine and I will be conducting some tests to see if we need some fine tuning or if they are going to work as they now are. The process was not without hiccups. I thought it would be helpful, since over the years there have been many questions about how to run the 231 LOP, if I document what has been done and the fine tuning work I will be doing. The purpose of this post is to just lay some groundwork, and then I will write posts about the progress. I bought the plane in 2009, shortly after getting my PPL. It was in Scottsdale, and I flew home with my then-instructor (not a Mooney instructor). The engine was not in great shape. The turbo was rebuilt that summer at about 700 engine hours. A couple of years later I experienced a loss of oil pressure due to the quick drain eating a piece of plastic (I have written about it here ). That resulted in an emergency descent from 19k to a landing in Canada and shortly after the engine was IRANd because of piston slap at around 1200 hours. I then went to the GAMI live course in Ada, OK to learn how to run the engine and figured out a good way to run it LOP. From that point on the engine made it to nearly 2400 hours before it was replaced, and probably could have gone on living for quite awhile longer, but it was at that point more than 20 years old so I elected to replace it. Engine break-in is 50 hours, during which TCM wants the engine run ROP with their injectors. At cruise they want the engine to alternate every hour between 65 and 75% HP. That is what I did over a good part of last year, until the engine was well broken in. When I run ROP, my fuel flow is normally 13.3 gph or higher, RPMs 2450, MP at about 30". If the CHT's and EGTs start to go higher I ran the engine at as high as 14.5 gph to keep them cool. The engine was looked over by my A&P and borescoped once last year. He found that the break-in was going great and the cylinders were in very good condition. I have a Merlin wastegate controller and a Turboplus intercooler.On one or two occasions I tried to run the engine LOP to see if the TCM injectors were up to the task. I read that TCM has been putting "positionally tuned injectors" in engines and had some hope that the factory injectors would work but they did not, the engine would immediately go rough once on the lean side of peak and it was difficult to keep the temps down, so I waited for the chance to put in GAMIs, which came over this past winter. A few things about LOP operations in a 231. I have excellent instrumentation in my plane, a JPI 930 which has updated at least once by JPI. A GTN 750 TXi is my major GPS, and it is connected to dual revisionary 275's which drive my KFC200 AP through an Icarus SAM GPSS. It all works really well, and of course I see separate EGTs and CHT's for each of the six cylinders as well as TIT. My 930 also provides both Compressor Discharge Temp (the temperature of the induction air coming out of the turbo) and Induction Air Temp (the induction air temp after it has passed through the intercooler). IAT is the temp of the induction air when it is introduced into the engine. When the new engine was installed I also had new baffling put in and that has helped tamp down some of the CHT differences I saw in the old engine. The difference between the hottest (#2) and coldest (#6) in the old engine was generally around 85 dF and higher. It is now about 40 dF. The #6 cylinder sits in the big cowl hole that is unobstructed and tends to run cooler than the others, the others are within roughly 20 dF of each other in the new engine. Running an engine LOP in the 231 requires a clear understanding of what LOP is and how engine monitors generally operate in "lean function" mode. LOP is an air/fuel ratio, it is not by itself a power setting although it can certainly be used to make a power setting that is easy on the engine. As has been written about before in this forum and is taught by the GAMI people, there is a formula that can be used to determine %HP when operating LOP. The formula is fuel flow in gph times a constant that is dependent on the engine compression ratio, divided by rated horsepower. In the 231 the formula is GPH * 13.7/210. However, it needs to be emphasized that this formula only applies if the engine is operating on the lean side of peak. It does not apply at all if the engine is operating on the rich side of peak. %HP on the rich side must be determined from the POH tables. On the lean side, %HP is driven entirely by the fuel flow - increasing and decreasing the MP will not change the power output it will simply change the air/fuel ratio. More on that later. On the rich side, changing the MP definitly changes the power output. An engine is operating properly lean of peak when the EGT of the cylinder that is closest to peak starts to go down when the fuel flow is further reduced. If a reduction in fuel flow causes the temp to go up, then you are still on the rich side of peak and the power formula does not apply. There is a footnote to this which we saw when conducted the GAMI lean test on my new engine, which is that if the engine is already well on the lean side of peak and the pilot continues to lean it well out, there will be a point where the EGT may rise. However, this second rise is not the lean of peak point. An engine is operating rich of peak when the EGT of the cylinder closest to peak falls when more fuel is introduced. "Peak" of course, is the point where the EGT of a cylinder is hottest. It is preferable to use the temperature of the cylinder closest to peak, whether on the lean or rich side, because that means that all the other cylinders are running comfortably further away from peak EGT. Engine monitors have a "lean function." As has been said many times in this forum, the lean function operates using an internal algorithm that makes certain assumptions. The primary assumption is that the pilot starts the lean function while the engine is operating on the rich side of peak. When a pilot engages the lean function and begins to lean the engine, the engine monitor makes the assumption that all other parameters, mainly manifold pressure, remain where they were at the start of the lean function and only the fuel flow is changed. If the MP is materially changed then the entire lean function test is invalid. As I will write later, we ran into this issue in spades when ordering the GAMI injectors for the new engine. Also, when the engine monitor is put in ROP mode, the monitor assumes that the pilot is starting the lean function on the rich side of peak and leaning back towards peak, and because it is desirable to find the cylinder that is operating closest to peak, it finds the first cylinder to peak and uses that to display a "degrees rich of peak" number. Similarly, the monitor assumes that when conducting leaning in the "LOP mode" the pilot starts on the rich side of peak, leans across peak, and the monitor then finds the last cylinder to peak, which is the cylinder operating closest to peak on the lean side. It is important to understand that the monitor has no way of knowing whether the engine is actually running ROP or LOP, it is making assumptions. So ---- putting the monitor in ROP mode simply tells the monitor to find the first cylinder to peak, and putting it in LOP mode simply finds the last cylinder to peak, and that is all. If you have allowed the MP to change during this process, the process is invalid and the monitor has no idea whether the engine is running LOP or ROP. This is important in the 231 because the Merlin wastegate controller is not a truly automatic controller. It is a differential controller; it maintains a set difference between the induction air going into the engine and the air coming out of the compressor. The purpose of that is to tamp down bootstrapping (increasing the MP increases the exhaust flow into the turbo which then increases the MP even further). The Merlin does not maintain a set MP, it is up to the pilot to monitor and set the MP. Changes in the fuel flow in the 231 will change the MP for two reasons. One, there is an interlink in the 231 fuel system that is specifically designed to link fuel flow to MP, so that if the pilot makes a power setting and then decides he wants to slow to let's say, approach speed, he/she can simply pull back the MP and the interlink does its best to maintain the original air/fuel ratio by also pulling back the fuel flow. This does not work quite as well in the opposite direction, that is, when pulling the fuel flow back the relationship to MP is not maintained quite as well, but it does operate. The other factor is the turbo itself. If you pull back the fuel flow you reduce the exhaust flow to the turbo which further reduces its output, meaning the MP is reduced. The point is, if the 231 pilot starts the leaning process with a rich of peak MP and fuel flow and then leans the fuel flow back and does nothing to adjust the MP, the MP will start coming back as well, invalidating the "lean function" process. These are challenges in running a "GAMI lean function" in the 231 and in making power settings, but although it sounds complicated, it can be very much simplified in operating the aircraft. However, the 231 pilot needs to understand what is going on in this detail to operate a healthy engine. Next post: engine break-in of the new engine and ordering new GAMI's, and the mistakes we made and fixed.

I am pretty sure that is what we did with the GAMI's, returned the old and got new in exchange, but I left that up to the A&P. I will try the lower power setting to get the spread. I have often wondered about how well that works with the very untuned induction system in the 231. Just a "log" that ends abruptly at a flat plate with droppers to the cylinders at intervals along the log. One might expect a pressure wave (back pressure) to build off the end plate of the dropper and extend back a varying length depending on the power being output, toward the droppers, affecting the pressure at the dropper, among other variables dependent on power. Also, the first dropper obviously is alot closer to the air source than the last. So it has always intrigued me whether the fuel spreads in the 231 would be the same at, say, 22" of MP as they would be at 34". No way to measure though except try them and see. I was impressed that we took our measurements at 25 inches and seem to have very even spreads at 34" so I am not going to worry about it. Thanks as usual Paul. When I get the engine all settled down I will send in some data under my Savvy subscription and start watching what it is doing in more detail.

I'll leave @Jetpilot86 to speak for himself, but yes, we both run our Bravos LOP. I run 30"/2200RPM at 13.2gph, which is 70%. My TIT stays below 1600, typically ~1585, for a nominal 175KTAS in the mid teens. 14.2gph yields 75% and that's about where Bret runs in cruise. I'm sure he'll be by shortly to provide his parameters.

The traceability card is always played. The problem is there is very little traceability in airplane parts. I am currently dealing with the aileron control link AD. https://mooney.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/SBM20-264.pdf There were two manufactures for these for Mooney. One of the batches had a bad welder or bad welds. The AD covers the whole fleet. From model Bs to Model Rs. Which means they had no batch control or parts traceability.

Did this ever happen? I am a new Mooney owner and would love to have a copy of this book.

I live in Las Vegas and fly regularly (160 hrs+/yr) to Socal, Nocal, Oregon (KEUG), Houston (KCXO) and Denver (KAPA). My Ovation (310HP) fits the mission perfectly - haven't had a need for a turbo. Just a matter of preference. Maintenance costs are a wildcard depending on the condition of the bird you buy. I average about 12.5 GPH for my flight and financial planning. My average TAS is around 174kts. My wife (the CFO lol) allocates about $65/hr for maintenance allocation (annual and maintenance reserve) and add to that 12.5GPH at around $5.60 per gallon (obviously varies) and that's another $70. So allocate about $135/hr for fuel and maintenance. That's excluding hangar, insurance, and Mooney branded apparel from Sportys (lol). I would guess add about another 10% to the maintenance reserve for a turbo but that's just a guess.

Engine break-in and ordering new GAMI's: Engine break-in of the new engine went smoothly. I used Philips XC 20W-50. There were a few long trips involved, which are ideal because the break-in instructions want you to change %HP from 75% to 65% and back roughly every hour. Takeoff and climb was always full power full rich. The principal idea behind break-in is to run the engine with strong compression, which forces the rings against the cylinder wall. The cylinder wall has micro-ridges from honing, and the idea is to smooth the top of the ridges and mate the rings and walls to each other. I made one trip last spring from Minnesota to SoCal for a Mooney PPP, with stops in Albuquerque and some backtracking over AZ to wait out weather. As mentioned, the cylinders were borescoped by my A&P last summer and I was told the break-in was going really well. The engine broke in in less than 50 hours, but I had about a hundred hours when the plane went into this year's annual and we moved to install GAMI injectors. Also as mentioned, during the late stages of break-in I tried to run the engine LOP with the factory injectors in it, but once on the LOP side it was too rough. My old engine had had GAMIs and they worked really well for LOP, so I elected to go back to GAMI's in the new engine at this year's annual. The A&P ran the GAMI lean test and ordered injectors from GAMI, which were installed, and I got the aircraft back in February. I went to test fly it but elected not to leave the ground. The engine was running rough even at idle and while rich. There were major differences between the EGT's in a couple of the cylinders, again, even at idle. I reported these back to my A&P and also had a text message discussion with them about how the GAMI lean test had been conducted. They found an induction leak and fixed that. The lean test had originally been done in the classic way, setting a ROP power settings, then leaning the engine back across peak by only reducing the fuel flow and letting the MP do what it wanted, then downloading the data and sending it to GAMI. The A&P said they assumed the GAMI guys had seen enough engine data to be able to interpret the result. I explained all the stuff I put in my first post about how leaning is different in a 231 from all the other Mooney turbos that I put in my first post. We decided that the A&P would reinstall the TCM factory injectors and we would fly the lean test together, recording the result manually on paper. My A&P flew and I manipulated the fuel and MP controls and did the recording. Unfortunately, it was all on a handwritten sheet which I left with my A&P so they could immediately fax it to GAMI so I did not keep a copy, but I can tell you the significant results. The GAMI instructions are to start the lean test at approximately 65% power and with fuel and MP on the rich of peak side. We started at 25 inches of MP and 10.5 GPH, which I know from past experience is about that. The instructions say to lean in increments of 0.3 gph, so that is what we did, leaning all the way down to 7.5 GPH. The first thing we noticed were the changes in MP that occurred as I reduced the fuel flow. Roughly, a reduction in fuel flow of 0.3 gph did not have a material affect, the MP might go down .1 or stay the same. However, making the second reduction (two increments, that is 0.6 gph) caused the MP to go down by about a half inch. The controls in my aircraft are a vernier for the fuel flow and a straight stick for the MP. I would generally roll the fuel flow down the prescribed 0.3 gph, give the fuel flow and MP a chance to settle, adjust the fuel flow just slightly if needed to get back to the 0.3 increment, and then address the MP. As those who fly a 231 can appreciate, hitting an MP number to the tenth of an inch with the straight stick and variable response from the wastegate controller and turbo are a bit of an art. With persistence, I was able to keep the MP within 0.2" of the original 25". Cylinder #6 peaked nearly right away, at 10 GPH, and cylinder #5 peaked one increment later. The other four cylinders peaked well down from that, a full gallon per minute plus. As mentioned, we did the test all the way down to 7.5 gph, where the engine was getting a little unhappy and there were a few cylinder misses. We did notice that, particularly 5 & 6 saw a second slight rise in EGT when the fuel flow got down around 8 gph. As I understand it, this happens right before the flame goes out. We sent the lean test in to GAMI and got a new set of injectors back in a couple of weeks. Those went into the engine. I have been able to fly the plane three times for a total of about 5 hours since then. The engine is now really smooth and the injectors are working very well. My standard LOP setting in the old engine was 34"/2450/11.1 GPH and I am immediately able to go to that setting with the new GAMI's. Although I used EGT's in the first testing I did to arrive at this setting, I use TIT in practice once the power setting is made. I want to keep TIT at or under 1600. My past experience was that if TIT drifts up over about 1610 it tends to run away and pretty soon you are looking at TITs that are knocking up against the "continuous operation" redline of 1650. So if a LOP cruise the TIT starts moving over 1600 plus a few degrees, I adjust the fuel flow down a tentho or two. Around here, standard maneuvering altitude is about 3000 MSL/1000 AGL and I have not tried higher altitudes yet. On the simple operation side, the fuel flow/MP interlink in the 231 makes operations really eas in the 231 once you understand how to get to a good LOP cruise setting. I will make my 34"/2450/11.1 setting, which gives me very good speed at 3,000, about 141-142 KIAS and a little more TAS. I cruise from one western MN airport to the next at that speed and practice VFR instrument approaches. To slow for an approach all I need to do is to pull the MP back to 24.5-25" and the plane will slow to about 120 TAS. I do not adjust the fuel flow at all, the interlink adjusts it down to about 8.5-8.8 GPH automatically. I find that the exact MP to use for this varies with OAT and the time of year, and rather than use a fixed power setting (i.e. 25") I pull the power back to about that and then adjust MP as needed to get to 120. Next up, in the next few flights I intend to run a GAMI lean test with the new injectors to see if we need any fine tuning, but the engine is running very well and I don't think so. I will also test to see how many degrees lean of peak my power setting is in the new engine and report back. Testing for degrees LOP is a little challenging in the 231. As stated, you can't just make a ROP power setting, put the engine monitor in lean mode, lean down until it give you a signal, and use the degrees lean of peak that the engine monitor reports. The MP is changing by an inch or more when you do that and the result you get is from changing the power settings, not changing the air/fuel ratio. The trick is to pull the engine over to the lean side and then put the monitor in ROP mode, you read that right, ROP mode. Since you are already on the lean side and are going to enrich back to peak, you want to know the first cylinder to peak and that is what ROP mode gives you. The advantage of this is that while there is some movement because of the interlink it it not nearly as much and you can get a decent number for degrees lean of peak. I can already say that EGT's go up when LOP, as they are expected to, and CHTs go down. Where normally my CHT's would be in the vicinity of 380 dF when ROP, they are down about 40 degrees when at LOP cruise.

Sooo.... Thanks to @Parker_Woodruff my insurance cost dropped from $4,063 to $2,666 His knowledge of the Mooney models and insurance underwriter procedures led him to reach out to an underwriter that had previously rejected my application with additional information they approved it this time at a much lower rate than other underwriters. Thanks, Parker!! If I get down to Dallas I'll look you up and maybe we can go fly!

I would have made him sign a receipt for them that stated if any or all are not returned, he and the FAA is liable for the reduction in value of the aircraft.

I have a Bravo, and I’m a little under that number, but I’ve been pretty lucky on hangar cost for where I fly. Much is dependent on what you start with. I’m the second owner on one that averaged 70 hr/yr and had just been put back together after a gear up landing so it had 10 hours since FOH, 12 on a new prop. After getting a clean bill of health from Maxwell, other than me going off the deep end on paint, interior and molding the panel to my desires, she’s been cheap to operate. She needed a major paint touch up and the plastic was what you might expect for nearly 30 years old, but still serviceable when I upgraded all of it. I’m running $225/hr dry so far for ~150 total time, not counting hangars. I flight plan at 15gph so call it another $90/hr for gas. My cosmetic spending spree is not included in that number.

“VFR flight not recommended”

Mine is all the way left on the bottom row and the numbers are a bit small. It would be nice to have a bit more obvious of an indicator when temps start getting near the danger zone instead of the first warning being 30deg passed a much more reasonable redline for the engine.

This is correct, or at least it was in 2021 when I got a rebuilt IO360 from Lycoming. On my engine, case was cracked and couldn't be repaired. Also previous OH, done by well known shop in CA, screwed up and mixed the narrow deck camshaft and accessory case on my Wide deck engine. This and few other things was found out after the shop I intended to use (forgot the name: in Kamloops, BC) took the engine apart for OH. Basically, they told me Factory rebuilt would be a better deal (Lyc OH was not an option). They placed the call to factory sales rep and so factory accepted the engine in pieces, even I've heard often that can't be done. It can! It sure helped they were decent size shop and dealer of the engines and had a great relation with factory.

Just make sure you stay far away from the boot heel of Missouri. Do not under any circumstance find an old thread on here and consider Jewell Aviation Kennett, MO unless you want to walk away with a high probability of parts falling off, or blowing off, your engine. My safety contribution for the day. Sorry I don’t have any positive recs in the area but others will. I will say, call several shops to compare prices and time. It seems the turnaround time can vary widely.

Ok, it was approximately 3k to supply and install the flight stream 210. I had an available breaker that was used for a CD player, and I had the .37 software. I’m sure there will be some variances for each plane, but I double checked with Brian and that is a reasonable budget. The best 3k I have ever spent for an upgrade. This was the single best upgrade that was in the NXI. If you don’t fly ifr much, you won’t likely see the value in this upgrade, but where I live involves a minimum of four reroutes regardless of how I file, and atc never provides transitions for airways which makes entering them in the g1000 a challenge. with the flight stream all you have to do is type it your phone or tablet and send it to the gps. MUCH easier!

Awesome, how much did it end up costing you if you dont mind me asking ?

I transitioned from a Cessna 172 into a 1989 Mooney M20M Bravo, but I had another 50 hours in the right seat in my friend @John Orcutt Rocket. I also spent many hours with a knowledgeable instructor who trained me appropriately in the Bravo. I eased into the plane and gradually increased my cross country flight distance over a year or so. I am approaching 700 hours and really enjoy the plane. It ain't cheap tho. I the last 3 years, I have spent over 125K ++++ on MOH, landing gear actuator, turbo OH, controller OH, etc etc. The list goes on and on. Oil changes/samples every 25 hrs. You name it, I bought it. My insurance hovers around+/- 3800/yr on a 150K hull value. I am not concerned with insuring 200-250K hull values. I'll self insure. That's another reason I like the Mooney M20M. Additionally, safety is very important to me and I do not mind spending money on deferred maintenance. Planes are a money pit, but it affords me the ability to travel back and forth to Ohio and Louisiana from Tucson when I want to (weather permitting). Flying is a challenging, rewarding and fun hobby for me. That's why I love it. @donkayeis correct, plan on 40K a year

As everyone says it’s got more to do with mission than anything else. the challenge is really understanding what the actual mission will be, vs the one you imagine it will be. my actual mission was 600ish miles. I let hangar talk and anecdotal chatter convince me not to get an acclaim, so I got an ovation with about 14 hours total time and finished my ppl and IR in that plane. My first year insurance was about 3k more than it was the following year. It was probably 50/50 time in model and my IR. I do not regret it, and it was absolutely the right choice for me. 3k extra is a rounding error in aviation. Extra money for insurance is not a reason to avoid the plane you want. I would say if you can’t fly at least once a week when you are learning, a Mooney will greatly extend your training time, because it will take you longer to become comfortable. in my case I was doing instrument training anyway, so it really didn’t cost me anything extra, but I flew several times a week for almost a year, and I believe a high performance plane will require this kind of commitment for a newbie.

Agreed...the only reason I would go Cirrus is if the maintenance costs were substantially ($8,000/yr +) lower than Mooney. One thing I am learning (being new to this) is that Mooney retractable maintenance tends to be cheaper because of the relatively simple design of the gear vs other manufacturers. This is probably a "duh" statement for most people on this forum, but when someone else with my level of experience reads this it may be helpful. Correct me if I'm wrong here. Turbo - I think it's a strong want, because of speed and altitude capabilities. Beyond the Bravo the other model that piques my interest is the K 305 rocket. I'm more and more convinced that I should flesh out my logbook in a simpler aircraft (Cherokee 180, Grumman) and then trade up once I've got the experience to stay ahead of a mooney (and save money on insurance premiums). Does anyone know if insurance companies give you a cost break on retractable gear after you've logged a certain number of flight hours? Or retractable flight hours specifically? Or a combo?

Forget out maintenance costs, insurance is going to be your major cost until you get somer retractable time under your belt.

I would just say Ditto to all the above, with 1 addition. If you are considering maintenance as a primary consideration for inclusion or exclusion for an aircraft, I think you must consider the $1500-$2000 yearly cost of just having that chute in a Cirrus. Must be redone every 10 years, just do the math good luck, and enjoy your journey

You are going to get a flood of opinions with this topic, so I will start by saying that you should think about your primary mission before choosing. I think the main reason many of us buy a Mooney is to go fast. Not for the hundred-dollar hamburger, but for destinations commonly hundreds of miles away or even across the country. I doubt that a well-cared-for Mooney will cost any more to maintain than other brands, and I would bet lunch that the Cirrus will cost more to maintain. Also, if you are concerned about retractable gear, a 210 is probably not for you.

An acquaintance I used to race with bought a UH-1H out of a museum and flew it around for a while. He was not a very responsible-type of person and flew it in what was evidently a bad configuration in ways it should not have been flown, and he was told as much by more than one person. Repeated mast bumping ultimately caused rotor separation and when the rotor came of it sliced the crap out of the airframe, including chopping the tail off as well as neatly slicing off the entire right side of the helicopter which separated with the main door still in its tracks. If you want to go down a rabbit hole of learning how not to do things with a Huey, you can follow the links through the NTSB report to the supporting documents, etc. https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/wiki.php?id=160816