Andy95W

I think most people here will appreciate your two recent posts, and we all see that communicating in a forum type atmosphere like this can quickly escalate in ways that would never happen face-to-face. The hurt feelings recently are because we lost a contributor who provided thousands of posts to answer people’s questions, free of charge. He didn’t provide his time to generate business for his shop, he already serves as the primary MSC for a huge region in Canada and gets plenty of business. Frankly, most of us couldn’t understand why Clarence (M20Doc) would spend so much time helping others for no benefit to himself. But we were all glad he did. I myself have been an A&P/IA for more than 20 years, and I learned a lot from him. I’ll be the first to admit it: 98% of his posts were good and helpful, 1% extolled the virtues of the Piper Comanche, and 1% could be off putting when he got annoyed. Unfortunately, you experienced that last 1% before seeing the 98%.

No, he did ignore you, but since Echo quoted your post, Lance can see that you were a part of the conversation. Your response above is reinforcing our opinion of you, however.

Contact the STC holder. They should have a record that your N# had the STCed modification installed. They can reissue the STC paperwork with the N# annotated on it.

After flying last month in the 172, it sounds like you’re at least legal- 3 takeoffs and landings in category and class (airplane single engine land) in the last 90 days. I’d say be careful, have fun, and probably review your POH, speeds, etc. before going.

Please make sure you’re current with at least 3 takeoffs and landings in the last 90 days before taking him up.

I’ve been using the McFarlane PropGuard for over 25 years. I’ve never had a problem with it if applied properly. And with the nicks and cuts it accumulates over time, I’m incredibly happy I didn’t get that damage to my prop blades. EDIT- a friend tried it on his Hartzell scimitar prop and it didn’t do as well. The curvature on the leading edge was too great. On my standard Hartzell it stays put nicely.

The trim system can be significantly out of rig, to the extent it can kill you. And even if it is rigged within non-lethal limits, the indicator can still be significantly off.

This must be some sort of record for thread drift. From missing belly screws on a vintage Mooney to Maule tundra tires in less than 1 page.

@EricShr- please listen to M20Doc. He knows what he’s talking about. If you adjust your aileron the way you describe, your ailerons will still find their aerodynamic balance, you’ll still have a right roll tendency, but now your yokes will be crooked also.

I just installed a Trig NAV/COM that has a continuous readout of the radial from the VOR, so it kind of has what Pinecone is talking about. But from a “legal” standpoint, could I compare my VOR indicator to that digital readout and count that as my VOR check? I don’t have an FAA sanctioned VOR checkpoint near me.

Makes me want to name mine “Marvin”.

I have absolutely no desire to lose the redundancy and readability of my old airspeed indicator and altimeter. That fact on its own supports my desire to have G5s. Lower price, better battery life and greater screen size make them even better to me. I saw a guy who installed 2x GI-275s and nothing else. It looked ridiculous.

As a commercial pilot, it’s 100% legal for me to be reimbursed as a ferry pilot and fly someone else’s airplane. But when you are being paid by someone else to fly your own airplane, it gets hinky. I was just wondering if Paul could provide some info from his end (if he had any). But yeah, like @hubcap said, these questions are usually resolved without issues.

Basically, are you allowed to be reimbursed for flight and ground time without being a part 135 or other type of commercial operation?

Paul- you make a really good point. If a potential buyer was really interested and was a good “fit” for my airplane, I wouldn’t hesitate flying it to a reputable shop for a PPI. And if he/she really was a good fit, I’d do what I could to facilitate his completing the sale. A less-than-serious buyer is a different matter, just as a less than reputable shop would be. But I don’t relish the idea of flying to a shop 2 hours away and sitting for 8 hours, and then have the deal fall through. How could my time be accounted for without violating the FARs?

For everyone who questions why an owner wouldn’t want to take his airplane to an unknown mechanic, and everyone who thinks that is a “huge red flag” to a potential buyer, I’ll refer you to a thread from just last week: ‘More Maintenance B$’. It covers 4+ pages of questionable maintenance by “reputable” shops. (I’m not talking about Dugosh, BTW.) How do I, as owner, prevent some crappy mechanic from using an electric screwdriver and putting sheet metal screws into machine screw nut plates? OTOH, a buyer can bring an independent mechanic to my hangar, use my tools, and look at whatever he/she wants. I’ll even do most of the working opening it, jacking it, and closing it- saving the buyer a good amount of PPI money. And if the deal goes through, I’ll provide 5 hours of my time as CFI doing the insurance check out.

I’ll break my recommendation down into how much time it takes to perform. In general, you need to look at the main spar, the stub spar, the tubular steel frame (covered in SB M20-208), and then general surface corrosion on the skins and corrosion on the angle aluminum pieces. Phase 1 (about 30 minutes: You can see a good bit of the main spar and stub spar in the wheel wells. The main spar is the heavy frame work where the forward landing gear pivot point is. The stub spar is the rear pivot point. Look at as much of those as you can in the wheel wells. You can google search for “aluminum corrosion” and see some good pictures. Surface corrosion isn’t as important as intergranular corrosion, which leads to exfoliation (picture below). Next, look inside the tail cone (see below, marked in yellow with arrow). That panel comes out in less than a minute with 1/4 turn fasteners. Look for exfoliation on the angle aluminum pieces and surface corrosion on the inside skins. While you’re there, look at the pushrods- they are steel and often rust. That isn’t terrible, but does need to be addressed. Phase 2 (about 1 hour): If that initial look is acceptable, then you should dig deeper into the wings. Open up some of the inspection panels and you’ll see more and more of the main spar (red highlight). Look inside inspection panels #11 (see picture below) and you’ll be able to see a good bit more of the stub spar (green highlight). The main spar actually runs wingtip to wingtip, but I’ve noted the location of the extruded angle aluminum pieces that can corrode badly. Phase 3 (about 2 hours): If that seems acceptable, you’ll want to take a look inside the cabin. If possible, remove the back seat and pilot side wall. There are square panels under the back seat- remove one and you can see the inside view of the main spar (red arrow on picture below). Inside the pilot side wall, you’ll see the tubular steel structure that is the subject of SB M20-208. You’re looking for regular rust, particularly below the window frames. On the picture below, the steel tubes are painted green with zinc chromate paint- but you can see at least one tube with a lot of rust on it. That tube will have to be replaced. I’m sure others will chime in with additional suggestions. Good luck! I’m keeping my fingers crossed for you!

My gut tells me that as two professional pilots, you guys would likely enjoy meeting each other in person at OSH or MooneyMax, and you’d probably find a lot to talk about (and agree on). But the impersonal nature of the internet caused this spiteful discussion. Sorry to interrupt, I’ll butt out now.

I guess looks really are in the eye of the beholder- I like it! Not as good looking as any Mooney, but I’d love to have one, even for the looks.

If you re-tire the carcass, isn’t that the same as a recap? Sorry, it just struck me as funny.

⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️ THIS +1! (Unless you have a CFI with you- which is also a good idea) Just flying your new Mooney will be excitement enough!

@Vance Harral - Please read the last sentence of my previous post. I specifically said, “Spending money on training is far more effective than adding avionics- and part of that training should be the effective and proper use of automation.” As a CFI-I myself, I have always agreed with your point- training is more beneficial than technology. In the airplane I fly at work, we use the autopilot and we are well trained in the automation. Unless it was inop (unlikely), the Ovation had an extremely capable autopilot already installed in it. Owners of such aircraft should be as proficient in its use as they are with hand flying. My point remains that airplanes are crashing due to spatial disorientation even though they have capable autopilots already installed in them.

Strongly disagree. Used correctly, it’s a huge safety tool. There’s a 73 year old Ovation owner that just crashed and died today after departing in low IFR conditions. Don’t you think he’d likely still be alive if he’d used his autopilot? Or looking back 20 years, that the same could be said about JFK Jr.? The rest of your post was spot-on IMO. Spending money on training is far more effective than adding avionics- and part of that training should be the effective and proper use of automation.

Careful. Advocating for heterosexual spade connectors opens a whole other can of worms.