Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 09/01/2014 in all areas

  1. Really? You are going to fight the laws of physics using faulty logic? That won't work very long, especially when you visit an airport that is high or hot. It is best to remove old weighty objects I would think... No arrows required... Real Mooney pilots use proper logic. Best regards, -a-
    3 points
  2. From the album: 6099Q

    65 m20c with 201 cowl
    1 point
  3. I am one of three partners in N6630U out of KSTS, Santa Rosa, CA. Les, our primary partner, originally purchased her two years ago. She sat outside in the Bay Area for 15 years without being flown. Les did a lot of work with a mutual friend, Cris, on bringing her back to life. Thankfully, the engine had been overhauled and was in great shape. I, along with the other partner, Dave, joined Les about 4 months ago. Both Dave and I let our licenses lapse decades ago thinking we'd never get back into the air again. Les talked us into joining him as partners and a mutual friend of ours, and airline instructor, got us both recertified and back up flying again. 30U flies beautifully and seems to be elated she's in the air again. So are we. A while ago Cris did some exhaustive research on how many fixed gear birds are still flying. With the information he's gathered, it's very likely there are only three left. All the others have either been converted or salvaged. Recently we also discovered the third one near Baltimore currently for sale on Ebay. It's possible there might be another one out there but all indications are these three are it. Dave has developed a friendship with an engineer at Mooney and they do correspond via email. We've been trying to get more POH Manual-type information on this model, such as more detailed weight and balance, range, etc. The test flights 45 years ago were not nearly what they are today and there's a lot we don't know. I have contacted both other fixed gear owners. We don’t know much about the one on Ebay and only received a short reply from her owner. However, the other owners are brothers from Princeton, NJ. Their bird was also found in rough shape and is currently getting a complete makeover. In an email to me they said, “It's still not flying yet but is getting a pretty complete makeover: engine overhaul, new prop, Tanis heater, new pitot tube, engine analyzer, Aspen glass unit to replace the AI/DG, new panel with a complete Garmin stack, refinished yokes, new insulation and interior, new windshield, fuel bladders, and probably more that I've forgotten about. The project didn't start off to be that ambitious but it's a slippery slope to fix up an old plane!” Our Mooney needed corrosion work that was the most extensive in the tail. We stripped and resealed both tanks and replaced her rudder. This year we’re looking at replacing the rubber landing gear donuts. We are very resistant to making the modification to retractable gear. She flies fast enough for us even with the gear down. In fact, yesterday I came “downhill” from 5,500 ft and reached 170 without blinking. She wants to stay in the air and you really have to work to get her slowed down and back in the hanger. To people who know what they’re looking at, she’s quite the novelty. We’ve even received comments and suggestions from controllers about forgetting to put our gear up. It’s fun telling them it’s a fixed gear Mooney and listening to their reactions. We also show her frequently at the Pacific Coast Air Museum at KSTS. General aviation buffs love her. Mooney built 100 M20D models in 1962 (serial numbers 101-200). The factory price was $13,995. In 1964, they built 51 more (serial numbers 201-251). The last fixed-gear Mooney aircraft were produced in 1965. It was a very limited run of only 8 aircraft (serial numbers 252-259). We have #125 built in 1963. All the rest have either been converted or have been salvaged. We would love to find out if any more exist. We’ve exhausted all available avenues of research available to us and have multiple messages out on various sites. If the weather cooperates, we’ll be flying her to the Vintage Mooney fly in at Reid-Hillview in January. Otherwise, if you’re in the area and would love to see her in person, we have her hangered at KSTS and would be more than happy to show her off.
    1 point
  4. The size of the space in a Mooney is strictly in the perception. Planes with big doors and where you sit up high seem to have a lot of room. Actually, the width of the cockpit in a Mooney is as great or greater than most. But because the door is small and you climb down into it, the illusion is that it is small. I admit the getting into a Mooney is a bit more difficult than a Bonanza or 172, but once inside, there is room for anyone but the heaviest of people.
    1 point
  5. Go for the Aspen I installed the Aspen 1000 Pro in my M20D, N1916Y, Master (fixed gear/fixed pitch prop) and it works great.....a real capable IFR aircraft now. http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/aircraft/Single+Engine+Piston/1964/Mooney/M20D+Master/1770409.html RonM ronmacewen@hotmail.com
    1 point
  6. Ftlausa the hood is a bit annoying I like foggles better. I am pretty comfortable in simulated instruments but I think it's like you said, I have been doing it consistently. I want to fly cross country next weekend to get more hood time plus cross country time concurrently. I just passed the knowledge test today and am glad to have it behind me. Did you take that yet?
    1 point
  7. You could have it reweighed to ensure that the last weighing was correct, but weight is weight and you can't just disregard it because you don't like the number. Brian Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    1 point
  8. $10,000/month plus $1,000 dry/hour. After all if they sell it for $800K it would be a fair deal. José
    1 point
  9. From the album: 1968 M20F Rebuilt completely 2015

    Finally home after restoration
    1 point
  10. Why not have an agreement to have owners of late model Mooneys just get paid for appearances at events or demos. They might even trade for expenses plus goodies.
    1 point
  11. Airlines will hire with 50 hours Multi. I would buy the time rather than risk an expensive mechanical meltdown from a 50 year old twin. It's reasonable to expect $300/hr operating a twin. If you fly a lot, a vintage Mooney might cost you between $80 and $100/hr. My M20J was less than $100/hr over 300+hours
    1 point
  12. Not all of them come with built in O2, mine has a portable tank, which is fine and as for mask and canula, I would imagine you want to get new ones as they are cheap if you have the regulator, since it is more of a personal item ( I don't want anything that has gone in anyone else's nose )... What I find expensive is the refill, what you save in fuel by going high, you kind of spend in O2 refilling, unless you build your own refill station, something that I'm looking into right now. btw, enjoy the rocket, it sure flies fast for a civilian single piston...
    1 point
  13. Welcome back, George! Congrats on the new job. This is an excellent post that I have recommended several times to prospective buyers. Wonder if Craig could make it a sticky? It's chock full of great information and things to look for [positives and negatives]. To the OP, have fun looking for a plane. There's no need to rush, enjoy the process and fly often after you bring one home, so that you will learn its systems, habits and numbers. Trainers are very forgiving, but being fast on final in a Mooney is a bad thing. It can be corrected with a go-around and a slower second try; otherwise you risk either going off the end of the runway or forcing it down, porpoising and having a prop strike. Flown correctly, with attention and at the right speeds, Mooneys are great traveling machines and are not hard to land. Five knots/mph too fast, though, and that landing will be a challenge.
    1 point
  14. Generally, I agree. However, my son got his first jet-job specifically because of all the Mooney time in his logbook. Apparently, this employer thought a Mooney was a good building block and mentioned it several times.
    1 point
  15. If you're serious about the professional pilot career, my advice would be to not get too attached to your new Mooney and don't do any upgrades, improvements, or mods. The reason why is, assuming you have the money, I think you should take advantage of the ridiculously depressed twin market and buy a light twin, get your MEL and build as many hours as possible. This means you would be selling the Mooney likely in about a year. Any money you put into it, you will not get back. In professional aviation, complex hours mean nothing, multi engine means a lot. The only thing better is turbine, but the turbine market is likely out of reach for ownership and time building.
    1 point
  16. Years ago I was in a similar position with an E model and partners. After the plane was sold I decided I would acquire what I wanted which was a J and then look for a partner. It worked out just fine and I got the plane that I wanted and a new partner. At the time I justified the expense as a golf club membership on an annual basis. As it turned out the plane cost nothing as it was a time of increasing values on used aircraft but I expected and planed for a loss.
    1 point
  17. As a general rule of thumb, keeping your power settings the same, you will gain 2 KTAS per thousand feet you climb in a turbo'd plane. So, take the # of feet in thousands you are thinking of climbing, x 2, and you know how much airspeed you will gain going up. Compare that to the forecast winds aloft to decide if it's worth climbing higher. Example: My plane does 170 KTAS at 10k feet. It does about 186 KTAS at FL180. That's a gain of 16 KTAS. If the winds at FL180 are more than 16 KTAS worse, I don't go up. Also, because of the time spent climbing and descending, and the need to put me and all the passengers on oxygen, it has to be significantly better up high before I will go up. I won't climb 8k feet and use up my O2 for a 5 knot gain in groundspeed. As a practical matter, above 10k, it seems like the winds almost always gain strength faster than I gain KTAS. I almost never climb into a strengthening headwind, and only go up for a tailwind. But I really love those tailwind days...
    1 point
  18. An easier way to think about the problem is by using TAS at 10k, 15k, and 20k feet...which in my plane is ~175, 188, and 198 kts respectively at normal cruise of 30/2400. So subtract the headwind at each altitude from TAS and determine which altitude gives you fastest ground speed...that is the answer. Fuel burn is the same at each altitude for a given power setting. Of course, trip length also factors into the equation since it takes a long time to get to FL200 at cruise climb.
    1 point
  19. Target EGT is an NA technique not relevant to turbo ops. NA loses MP and therefore power as altitude is gained and must lean to keep the mixture from going over rich. Turbos make 100% HP and MP all the way to critical altitude. Over leaning is a good, quick way to kill a turbo, you can see some remarkable temps. GAMI/APS recommends 100%hp full rich to altitude which works well for me in my 231. That said, nothing wrong with a cruise climb leaned out a little so long as CHTs stay cool. 400 is my max for climb, and that would be one or two cylinders. If all are that high it is time to do something. Go richer though, not leaner, to cool temps. Leaner will have the opposite effect. I think you will find that in hot summer temps, such as phx in July, you will want full rich. I never see anything approaching 1600 tit at max rich.
    1 point
  20. An STC is a supplemental type certificate, basically a modification (Major Alteration) developed by someone who is then granted approval to sell this mod to others. The stc holder grants you a license to use the STC on your plane. They prove to the FAA that the mod is safe when installed and used per the directions. The STC data is considered "approved data". If you wish to pursue a 337 field approval you must basically do what an STC applicant did, which is supply acceptable data to the inspector who then approves your (Major alteration) mod. Basically a 337 Field Approval is a one-time STC for your own plane. Minor alterations require no field approval. Minor and major alterations and repairs are spelled pretty clearly in the FARs but it is vague enough for some mechanics and IAs sometimes may call a minor alteration, a major alteration. IDK WRT a one-piece belly panel but it smells like a major alteration.
    1 point
  21. You could make the original panels as an owner produced part, but going to a one piece belly will require you to buy one that is STC'd or do a field approval with your FSDO. Since they are available as an STC, I doubt any FSDO will do a field approval. David
    1 point
  22. I bought a one pound container of 1 um molybdenum disulfide powder on line about 10 years ago. it will make enough actuator grease to last me a life time.
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.