Leaderboard

My wife took a great picture without editing believe it or not. Something about having the wing in there just balances a good photo.

It's official! I'm the proud owner of N231BZ! We flew 3 hrs the first day and all I kept saying was "man, I love this airplane". I can't wait to get her up high and do some serious traveling. Thanks to everyone for the support! ...I think I'm a Mooniac...

Ha! That's hilarious. Either it was that Citation pilot's first day, or he thought it was yours. I'd love to know how he defined "priority". I suspect Philly said "Cleared visual, squawk 1200, frequency change approved". If so, I am a high priority flight virtually everywhere.

This was recently addressed in the updated AC 90-66B Non-Towered Airport Operations https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_90-66B.pdf 9.5 Straight-In Landings. The FAA encourages pilots to use the standard traffic pattern when arriving or departing a non-towered airport or a part-time-towered airport when the control tower is not operating, particularly when other traffic is observed or when operating from an unfamiliar airport. However, there are occasions where a pilot can choose to execute a straight-in approach for landing when not intending to enter the traffic pattern, such as a visual approach executed as part of the termination of an instrument approach. Pilots should clearly communicate on the CTAF and coordinate maneuvering for and execution of the landing with other traffic so as not to disrupt the flow of other aircraft. Therefore, pilots operating in the traffic pattern should be alert at all times to aircraft executing straight-in landings, particularly when flying a base leg prior to turning final.9.6 Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) Traffic. Pilots conducting instrument approaches should be particularly alert for other aircraft in the pattern so as to avoid interrupting the flow of traffic, and should bear in mind they do not have priority over other VFR traffic. Pilots are reminded that circling approaches require left-hand turns unless the approach procedure explicitly states otherwise. This has been upheld by prior FAA legal interpretations of § 91.126(b).9.6.1 Non-instrument-rated pilots might not understand radio calls referring to approach waypoints, depicted headings, or missed approach procedures. IFR pilots often indicate that they are on a particular approach, but that may not be enough information for a non-IFR-rated pilot to know your location. It is better to provide specific direction and distance from the airport, as well as the pilot’s intentions upon completion of the approach. For example, instead of saying, “PROCEDURE TURN INBOUND V-O-R APPROACH 36,” it should be “6 MILES SOUTH … INBOUND V-O-R APPROACH RUNWAY 36, LOW APPROACH ONLY” or “6 MILES SOUTH… INBOUND V-O-R APPROACH RUNWAY 36, LANDING FULL STOP.”9.7 No-Radio Aircraft. Pilots should be aware that procedures at airports without operating control towers generally do not require the use of two-way radios; therefore, pilots should be especially vigilant for other aircraft while operating in the traffic pattern. Pilots of inbound aircraft that are not capable of radio communications should determine the runway in use prior to entering the traffic pattern by observing the landing direction indicator, the wind indicator, landing and departing traffic, previously referring to relevant airport publications, or by other means.

After reading through this thread you all make the case that by the numbers the 252 Encore is the definitely the sweat spot in (turbo) efficiency. With a useful load of 1134 lbs and fuel burn in the NA range of 12-13 flown ROP or 10-10.5 GPH flown LOP and doing over 180+KTAS at 16K its at the apex of Mooney efficiency. Nor it does it really give anything up with its 75.6 Gal Tanks which are extended-able to 105.6 gal. But with plenty of time in the longbody's its fair to say its principal drawback is that it needs to go high even more so than the Bravo and Acclaim to get its performance or to put it another way the higher horsepower Bravo and Acclaim will allow faster lower level cruise by as much as 20 knots and steeper climb gradients yet with considerably higher fuel burn rates. But the Encore is still climbing at 700-800'/min too the flight levels. With Dual alternators and being FIKI capable, the only other con in IMO is that its still not a long body. I do find that each successive stretch of the Mooney airframe has led to a more stable platform with the Acclaim at the top. If operational efficiency wasn't a concern for me I'd trade my Encore for an Acclaim in a heart beat since I do feel its Mooney's ultimate achievement, but I appreciate the miserly fuel flow of the 252/Encore with flight level turbo performance which makes the Encore Mooney's ultimate in effeciency. And has been said above, turbo isn't just for high density altitude takeoff's and topping mountain ranges; it provides so much more capability to cross country flight in finding smooth air and enabling flying above weather in VMC - I don't think I could ever go back to a NA aircraft unless I was limited to making hamburger runs.

WOW is all I can say. I can't believe the level of help that fellow pilots are willing to provide, especially the information and assistance from pilots on Mooneyspace. In my pursuit of becoming a Mooney owner, I have received a ton of advice and guidance from @KLRDMD, which is a benefit because he isn't that far away, here in Arizona. He has offered to fly up to Phoenix and look at a local Mooney with me. Additionally, in one of my posts, I mentioned needing a recommendation for a mechanic near Knoxville, TN. In that conversation, @AaronDC8402 sent me a message and said that he lives in the area and regularly makes approaches to Crossville, TN and offered to look at the plane and give me "pilots opinion" of the overall plane. I was surprised that someone would offer to do this for a complete stranger. Well, not only did I get Aaron, but he brought along another Mooneyspacer, @Browncbr1, to also provide a pilot report on the plane. I offered to contribute to their gas fund but was refused, Aaron, saying that he just wanted to help. WOW!! I love this site, and love learning from all of the experienced Mooney pilots - thank you!

I had 117.5 hours when I soloed in 1976. I was a lineboy and got paid in flight time and couldn't solo until my 16th b-day. By then I knew the entire PP program and all the commercial maneuvers, too, plus a bunch of other stuff (e.g., spin training) as the instructors just figured they'd keep teaching me new stuff once I had something down reasonably well. I think I've only run across a few people who beat me on that one.

I lack the perspective of a plaintiff's lawyer, but I know what it is like to be a defendant in a large lawsuit. That experience is shared by all of my colleagues in Philly who have practiced in my sub-specialty for more than a few years, with most accumulating multiple suits. I also have taken a few select opportunities to offer expert testimony. The overarching commonality of the suits I've been involved in are catastrophic patient outcomes where the alleged professional negligence likely had no causal relationship to the outcome. These scenarios seem closely analogous to Lycoming getting sued over an imperfect magneto design that likely had no causal relationship to this pilot's unfortunate demise. Also the venue does matter profoundly. None of the plaintiffs or defendants in this aviation case are based in Philly, and the accident occurred in Kansas. This suit was filed in Philly for a very specific reason by exploiting some technicality. It's the very same reason I have to pay >10-fold more in med mal insurance in Philly than I would to practice in Dallas. I have no desire here to categorically bash lawyers or claim that most civil suits are frivolous. However there is certainly a specific breed of ambulance chasing scumbag that flourishes in my hometown. Their modus operandi is not carefully developing the merits of a case but rather haphazardly throwing every conceivable allegation out there to see if something will stick. Some of the med mal filings I've seen are laughably nonsensical to someone with a real understanding of the specialty practice. Likewise, there might be some hidden substance to this particular aviation case, but it's certainly not easy to conjecture what it might be.

That was my experience as well - 3.5 hrs exactly! Although a long time ago, I was already commercial SEL and instrument current and got my Multi commercial instrument add-on in that time - just also like @N201MKTurbo experience over a weekend. Although doing it that quickly I didn't get the benefit of ever flying the twin with both engines running- or maybe it did include one takeoff with both engines without a engine failure. At the time I wondered how they could charge full twin hourly rates when all you did was fly around with just one engine.

Bought this one today , will fly it home tomorrow , or Thursday.... 4100 TT 1950 SMOH , good paint and interior , annual expires next month.... Will be just north of 20K ...

Or he could have been a jet pilot that doesn't have time for the piston and used the "priority" bully his way in. Sounds like if he had a true priority, he would have announced something more when questioned instead of being snarky. Being courteous goes a long way on both sides. My home base is full of corporate fast-movers but they communicate well and give way to whoever is closer (or lower).

You can always turn base, drop full flaps and make a nice slow approach in front of him. While talking to him on the radio. And roll slowly to the far end of fhe runway, after stopping to raise your flaps first . . . But he'd have to really piss me off for this treatment. FYI, I have cooperated with jets and fast twins who don't think they own the airport, modifying my approach to land after them or speeding up to get out of their way. I have yet to hog the runway to block an arrogant @ss, but it sure is tempting . . . . . I've only insisted on a straight in landing in front of someone who wanted to take off when pax were throwing up in bumpy air, and I offered that information while still a couple of miles out. Share and share alike, I always say. But hogging the runway to force the jerk into a go around still sounds better than beating him up on the ramp . . . .

I wonder how the people in the back of the Citation would have felt about their pilot catching a beat down on the ramp when they opened the door?

Thank you, gents. No issues with CHTs, so sounding like the vernatherm. Oldguy, mine is older by a week maybe...24-1491.

Yes but never without waking it first. Many strips I’ve taken the Aeronca in i would never consider taking my Mooney. It depends on how deep the gopher holes are. -Robert

A straight in approach is completely acceptable as long as the straight in does not interfere with aircraft established on the downwind/base. While it can be somewhat contentious, anything beyond 4 miles can be considered straight in. As always...in these discussions, we must remember there is a reason why airports are called "uncontrolled" and most rules quoted by the local pattern police are not rules, but recommendations. Courtesy and good sense go a long way toward maintaining a safe operation.

I personally don't see any similarities between loosing a turbo charger and a clogged injector. First off, recognize clogged injectors happen at different various levels of clogging. Its the small obstruction at takeoff that is the concern or troublesome. While a severe clog is going to reduce power in that cylinder to the point of being below 65% or even cease combustion. So what you need to be primed for is responding to partial clog on takeoff or in full power climb. Its not going to make your other cylinders too rich but the one cylinder will be too lean driving up both that cylinders EGT and TIT. As a result the one cylinder is in danger of detonation from the reduced FF to it at high power. (If you see the high EGT become erratic and drop off while CHT escalates its in detonation with severe harmful IPC levels.) With a partial clog keeping the cylinder still near peak or on the ROP side at high power, CHT will be escalating to well above 400F quickly; and even faster north if detonation begins. So your action is to reduce power ASAP to avoid the escalating CHT and chance of a pre-ignition event taking over. Quickly reducing power to under 65% power will ensure the cylinder is not harmed and you'll still have the other 5 cylinders producing normal power enabling you to not to continue on but get you down safely without rushing. If a clog appears in cruise its that much more easier to deal with since it will be that much easier to get power below 65% to avoid harmful high CHT escalation; plus you'll have more time to recognize it more likely as a escalating CHT. Again a severe clog with just take the cylinder offline from going too lean. (Loosing one of 6 cylinders may not be that noticeable, but 4 cyl rajay installation would be a whole other matter!) A couple of times I have noticed a partial clog occur in a cylinder during the runup by seeing an abnormal increase in EGT as RPM is brought up with throttle; a high EGT that is not erratic or not from misfire. If you catch something like this don't takeoff unless you can get it too clear. To attempt to clear, go to full power with brakes on and see if the full fuel pressure/fuel flow clears it or not. If it does, your good to go. If not taxi back - you just averted risking destroying a cylinder and possible takeoff emergency by being tuned into your engine analyzer. Regarding a turbo charger failure. Keep in mind this is much greater emergency than you may realize because it may include a huge exhaust leak ready to create a fire which is the greatest eminent threat at altitude. Once spooled down, its very unlikely you'll get it re-started again till the lower teens anyway, which is now just to help you make it to your emergency airport of landing. But yes, without the turbo spinning and the simplicity of the TCM fuel injection which doesn't regulate FF based on air density, the FF will be much too rich and will require more MAP than available at high altitude before you'll have much chance of getting it restarted; even with a leaned mixture. What is a bit similar to loosing a turbo-charger is loosing the engine driven fuel pump, since with the loss of a fuel pump you loose the ability to regulate FF based on throttle - you have to be careful to accompany throttle changes with mixture changes. Depending on the airframe/engine you may also loose the ability to get sufficient FF for full power with only the aux pump as well.

I really like the license plate on this truck, what's the 910 for?

When I did my multi with instrument it was at Sheble's in Bullhead City, AZ. It was a one day course. We started at 7:00 AM with ground school. It lasted about 45 min. We flew to Vegas to pick someone up. Flew to Barstow CA. and did a bunch of landings and approaches with one turning. A bunch of engine failure, stalls and VMC demos. I did the check ride at 4:00 and was a multi instrument pilot by 6:00. I think it cost $1500 for everything including the check ride. That was in 1990.

Peter Garmin was right. Antique technology should be discarded. I feel for these owners. I think the G1000 was introduced in 2004. Not a long time ago in avionics terms. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Not in a Mooney, but I resemble that remark in my last plane..... And to think I am contemplating it again.... Tim

For Harley, the OP- why not just check which screws you actually need and order a full set yourself? You'll save money and you won't get a bunch of hardware you don't need. When I was actively working in a shop as an A&P, we had owners come in with the SS screw kit they bought from AS&S, Wag aero, or Chief, and want us to put them in during their annuals. I've never seen a SS screw kit that was completely accurate. Sometimes they weren't even close.

ACF 50 and a fogging gun. Did this to the C185's and C206's we were flying on floats in salt water. They got treated pre and post float season, and fared well. Land based mooney, probably get away with a treatment every 2 years or so.

My summary is. Things corrode. The plane has lasted for 40 years without corroding away. Original paint job too. Lube everything that pivots at annual. Replace anything that is worn or loose. keep flying it. If an engine overhaul costs $40K and I can get another full plane for a little bit more, maybe I will scrap this one when it needs and engine. The OP said he wanted to read up on things :-)

I am based at a grass strip and love it. It even has pilot controlled lighting.

I do the dremel tool removal. dremel tool cut off wheel. cut a slot using one of the Xs from the phillps and then use one of the big snap on flat blades. Anit seize is messy and gets all over everything. and then everything everywhere you go. My dad loved the stuff. I hate it. I shoot the screws with triflow. seems to work.

We had a kid like this at one of the local airports. His father made a conscious choice to buy an airplane for his business and so his son would hang out at the airport rather than places where he could get into trouble as he hit his teenage years. Celebrated several birthdays by getting new ratings. Graduated college with an engineering degree, an ATP, and a job flying. Living the hard life in Hawaii flying for the airlines in his late 20's.

Hello All, I am in the process of purchasing my first Mooney. A '79 M20K 231 that has been sitting here for sale at my local airport (1T7) for over a year. Sounds bad but as you may know 1T7 is the home of All American Aircraft so I get to see a lot of beautiful mooneys come and go. This one has the looks, the maintenance logs and engine upgrades but lacks in the avionics department. Which I believe is the reason it has been sitting for so long. After discussing the plane at length with the on field mechanic, I decided to take the plunge and put a contract on it. I have to say, after flying the past two years in the training/rental planes and then my own C-172rg, this thing is amazing to fly and unless something ridiculous comes up in the pre-buy...it will be mine. I plan to fly it with the lacking panel as-is for the time being and then sell one of my other toys (39 Ford w/blown 502...hit me up for pics if your interested) to invest in the avionics. Anyway, that's my story and I'm glad to be here. Thanks, df

I use a small artist’s brush.

With several hundred hours in my C (600-ish), I picked up the HP Endorsement on a flight review, with just over an hour in a 182. Flew a couple of practice approaches, showed control of rudder, didn't lose control during descents (it accelerated much less than my little Mooney!). Only made one landing, at night, with drained battery and 10° flaps from a failed alternator. But the light gun signals were clear!

Those where good times! I have a Cessna 205 now. Can't wait to explore new places and take a load with me! Just at a slower speed haha

Oh I think that is Charles cable company service truck...dial 910?

I long for the good old days when you had to use your noggin. Growing up I didnt require a label on electronic devices warning me to not use the hair dryer while I was in the tub, I used my ole noggin. I never ironed my clothes while wearing them, I used my noggin. Not once did I attempt to check my fuel level using my Bic lighter as a light source, I used my noggin.... Seems people today don't use their noggins anymore. They expect every product to be completely safe. Let someone else do the thinking for them and provide a safety label. If they get hurt, call John Morgan, for the people, because "it''s not my fault, I'm a victim". Glad I still have my noggin and know how to use it.

Thank you for pointing out these facts.... This particular topic is a pet peeve of mine. Quick summary of the details for those who are aware of them. The woman suffered 3rd degree burns to 6% of her body, and lesser burns to %16 of her body These burns completely destroyed her external genitals: Her clitoris and both sets of labia were not existent after this incident She was hospitalized for eight days She required a further 3 weeks of medical attention during her recovery She received significant permanent disfigurement McDonalds had conducted an internal study of their policy on coffee temperature as the result of numerous smaller cases their findings were Customers were overwhelmingly drinking the coffee immediately, rather than after arriving at their destination None of their competitors were keeping coffee this hot These temperatures were resulting in numerous complaints of burn injuries to the mouth and lips The conclusion of this study was that keeping the coffee at this temperature served no profitable purpose, and was likely to seriously injure someone Despite the results of this internal study, McDonald's leadership made the decision to continue keeping the coffee as close to boiling as possible Further, during the trial one of McDonald's executives testified that, despite having received over 700 reports of customers receiving third-degree burns from their coffee, and having previously paid out as much as $500,000 in individual settlements, McDonald's had no intention of altering their coffee policies in the interests of safety. This demonstrated such a clear reckless and malicious disregard for the safety of their patrons that the Jury decided to award two days worth of coffee sales revenue as punitive damages, which was justified by finding that McDonald's was aware of the hazard for burns, that burns were happening, and that the willfully chose to pursue a course of action which would result in more burns. Unfortunately, McDonald's PR team has done a fantastic job of spin-doctoring this to look like the case was the complete opposite: The general public largely and genuinely believes that McDonald's was serving coffee at normal temperatures (they weren't), that the cup was adequately labeled (it wasn't), that the woman's injuries were minor (they were severe), or even that the woman somehow deliberately spilled it on herself (she didn't).

You had me curious on my solo...You probably beat me, I was 8.5 hrs before solo. Went on later to a Warrior and then hung up my headset by the end of the same year. Wish I would have stayed with it, but on a cops salary in NH during that time it wasn't going to happen. Had to retire from police work before I could make enough money to afford to fly again..ironic lol -Tom

Jack points sitting in the nut. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just spray some WD-40 on the AI glass and all your troubles will pass. Seriously: First, is your vacuum system ok? If it’s sucking about 5” of Hg that’s not the problem and you need an AI overhaul. Second, if you fly actual IMC get a backup Attitude gyro. They’re cheap now, both used mechanical gyros and newer solid state AHRS units. No one flies IMC now with just one AI. We old guys used to, but we don’t have to any more (me, I have 4 independent AHRS now....) If you can’t afford a second AI send me a PM and I’ll give you one.

Another weight consideration is available payload at max landing weight. MTOW in the long body planes is 3368, but lax landing weight is 3200#. so a 900# useful load at t/o is only 732# landing. With 600# of people and stuff, that's 22 gallons max on landing, with no consideration of divert/alternate fuel. Precise flight planning is a must! @gsxrpilot: I doubt the FIKI certification would transfer from 252 -> Rocket. I know that tip tanks in the Bo are disqualifying. You'd still have all the equipment, but it would probably not be "FIKI," for whatever that's worth.

Happy to help!

I just removed and measured the common screws, and ordered 100 of each. On my C, there are only three with any quantity: spinner, belly panel [with recessed washers, pricey but I forget the name of the washer], and wing / tail inspection panels. Then I ordered a few of the [very pricey!] nut plates in the wings. Who needs a kit, whose contents may or may not match your airplane? While I was doing it, I ordered Teflon washers to put under the screws in the wing and tail panels, as I noticed the paint was gone under the heads and I didn't want to lose any aluminum. They are only a penny or two apiece.

that beamer had some HP, not your typical 320i! Bill

10-12 hours of flight time seems to be typical in my area nowadays. Plus a fair amount of ground. Of course weather is rarely an issue where I live. There are a lot of reasons those numbers vary, of course. The bottom line is, you train as much as you need. There is no "one size fits all".

Tom, I checked my old log book: Aug. 8-12, 1980: 3 flights in a PA23-250, 13 landings, 3.5 hours. My memory is that at that point my instructor contacted the DPE and scheduled a check ride. It's possible that we were going to fly another flight before the check ride, not sure. I am/was not a super pilot by any stretch, I'm just curious to learn how much the thinking has changed. I do know that when I did the PPL in '69 soloing at less than 10 hours was the norm. I had 40.5 hours when I took that check ride. (The extra 0.5 was a short cross country to the examiner's field. ) (A PPI on the Aztec revealed some problem, I've forgotten what that was, but the seller and I could not agree on how to pay for the fix so I never did take the check ride.)

VR... Fabulous Pirep! You are going to love how this works... One day you will be carrying a load of first hand knowledge... and some knowledge you have acquired along the way... Somewhere in The days that follow... Somebody will ask a question... You may be the first person to hear it... You may know the answer or know somebody that knows something about the question.... You deliver some guidance the best you can with what you have... Some days you may be rich with knowledge... Some days you might not... Some days you have plenty of time to deliver... Some days only time enough to read a post or two... Once you have been here a while... The screen names become real people... Real people are here all the time... helping each other out. Find your way to help... everybody has a different type of skill or knowledge that can be helpful... MS is an interesting community. Sort of a neighborhood, that is spread around the world... To quote one of my favorite aviation authors...’Fly it forward...’ - @mooneygirl (hope I got that right) Best regards, -a-

It never ceases to amaze me how the most raisin hearted anti civil justice folks do an about face when it is their wife, husband or child that is catastrophically injured or killed. I have seen it time and time again in 31 years representing both defendants and plaintiffs in personal injury and wrongful death cases. Rest assured there is usually more to the story than you think. Lawyers are not in business to go broke, and that is what happens if a so-called frivolous lawsuit is pursued , especially one too many times. There are both statutory and other barriers to a case even getting to a jury if the evidence does not warrant the case going to a jury, such as the Daubert standard which deals with scientific and other technical evidence.

And now I can give my update, although it's many months before my plane will be flying again I did get my new AeroLEDs SunSpot 36 4596 Landing Light and the SunSpot 36 4587 Taxi light installed finally. Replacing the existing pair of GE 4596 lights in one wing. I also cleaned up the cover considerably. Subjectively the Landing light is brighter than the original with a larger pattern. The Taxi Light is slightly dimmer than the hot spot on the original but with a much larger pattern. Once the plane is flying again I'll try this somewhere outside where the differences are easier to test. Taxi Landing

I gotta find a cooler crowd to hang out with.

The first step to any airplane ownership is to throw all rational financial thoughts out the window and only focus on the fun of flying.

You might want to have a Mooney owner endorsement requirement. Someone who has had an annual (or many) with them, or major work in the case of avionics and engine.

Now my plane doesn’t suck....... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk