Seanhoya

I always flight planned for 135kts in a G model, which is known to be the slowest of Mooneys. Like the C model, it also uses the carbureted Lycoming O-360. It seems like 135 or 140kts would be a conservative estimate.

You might consider a Brackett air filter. The only downside of a Mooney on unpaved strips is that the air filter is located perfectly to collect dirt! On a windy day, you might actually notice that your oil turns brown because of all of the dirt! So, anything you can do to make changing the filter easier is good. Also, if you can replace the original with a more efficient filter, all the better (thus, the Brackett air filter comment). If paving is out of the question, you might consider rolling the dirt occasionally - anything to keep the dirt down.

William - those are impressive maintenance records! Do you have any rules of thumb for staying out of the "red box" in a turbo-charged engine? Do you not lean as aggressively? And what about LOP in a turbo-charged engine? Thanks - Sean.

The $10,000 to $15,000 estimate includes everything I did annually, so it definitely includes small upgrades or reconfigurations. Frankly, I know a lot of people claim to have $2,000 annuals, but I never saw it except when working with a local A&P - certainly not with Mooney services centers.

Larry - Do you see a significant speed advantage of the K over the J? I recognize that this has a lot to do with altitude. I have traditionally done most of my flying down low up to 8000', although I took a normally aspirated Mooney up to 11,500 and even 12,500 once out West. So it is hard to say whether I will do more flying in the FLs, because I have never really had a need to, in the past. But I do a lot of long-distance flying, so if the benefit is there, I might start flying higher. Thanks, Sean.

I am considering my next Mooney, and I wanted to ask if anyone has any thoughts on annual maintenance costs between non turbo-charged and turbo-charged Mooneys? I know the conventional wisdom - that turbo-charged Mooneys are more expensive to maintain, but does this hold true when put to the test of actually comparing numbers? I spend $10,000 to $15,000 annually to maintain a 1968 G to my standard of maintenance. Does anyone have estimates for Js or Ks which might be data points for comparison?

That is just too good - mixing two passions in life - a Mooney and Gangnum Style!

I had good luck with the fine wire, aggressive leaning, and I also changed out the carburetor. For me, it was worth the extra expense.

Hello 3914N. I dealt with static line issues in my 1968 M20G for years. I rebuilt the aft static drain using a kit from Lasar. I replaced the alternate static and tubing under the pilot-side dash (because I didn't know how to use the one that was already installed - it was a somewhat rare pull-type model). In the end, it was a really talented mechanic in Melbourne, FL, who brought to my attention that all connections in the static system have to use small plastic sleeve-like connectors. None of those were present in the system aft of the cockpit. So he installed those, closed the system, and the system passed the leak-check with flying colors. A couple of thoughts - clearing both static-line drains was always part of my preflight. Make sure you are doing that. Find a mechanic who understands static systems and ask him or her to check to make sure that yours is actually installed correctly. Consider rebuilding your aft drain. And check under your pilot-side dash to verify that you don't indeed, have an alternate static port already installed. If not, I highly recommend to install one. I once had my static system freeze in-flight, and it was not an experience I would like to repeat. Also, remember that in extremis, you can break the VSI glass to allow cabin air to be your alternate static. One last thought - when my static system froze, it did so at 4000'. That flight, I was the most talented pilot in the world. Nothing I did would cause me to be off-altitude! When I descended, though, something unexpected happened. My airspeed indicator started showing greatly increased airspeed. Once I got down to 1600', though, the system started to thaw, and everything eventually returned to normal. So expect the unexpected in terms of indications. Clear Skies! Sean

Hey Gitmo, Potomac is a great field to fly out of. A couple of recommendations: make sure you shoot the GPS approach a couple of times during daylight and VMC, and do your first nightime arrival in the twilight - it is hard to pick out the field being nestled in the trees. Also, having commuted from Potomac to Linden for a year (just South of Newark), I quickly learned that flying low under the airspace is by far the fastest way to go - IFR traffic often causes you to add a half an hour to the flight. BTW - I would always fly over Cecil County on my way North and South. Also, bear in mind that, While David does a great job clearing the field, the snow can cause airfield operations to come to a grinding halt in the winter. Also, I would recommend pre-heating in the winter, and the extra cost of a paved space goes a long way for your back. Finally, numbers, numbers, numbers! Airspeed control is paramount at a small field like Potomac, and especially so for Mooneys. I flew a G model, and I would be at 80 MPH on approach, 75 on short approach, and around 72 in the roundout, depending on weight and wind. I have gone around more times than I like to admit at Potomac, and made one landing where I thought I was reaching the plane's physical limits to handle a crosswind (Don't worry about go-arounds in the FRZ - they are free - just keep your squawk!). If the crosswind (GUST!) is greater than 15 KTS, I would recommend not flying at Potomac, even if our Cessna brothers are. BTW - I know that I am biased, but Potomac is the best field in the DC area - hand's down - great choice! Clear Skies! Sean

Hey ladies and Gents, No missionary work in Ukraine - I am at the US Embassy. I have flown a couple of times - a Yak 52 and last weekend in an Aeroprakt A-32. Miss my Mooney (Alex's Mooney - glad it is in good hands), but thinking about getting something with a bit more push next time and flying it across the pond. We'll see. Until then, thank God the spring is here! Do zystrichi! Clear Skies! Sean

Clean it and touch it up with touch up paint. Always use the tail cover (never let the plane sit without it - especially in the Spring) - no birds should be able to nest with the cover on. The Velcro goes through the tail to connect both sides and the cover should be snug around the vertical portion of the empannage. There are two areas of the cover that you need to make sure are flared out within the tail to not allow birds to pass (in the tail by the control rods, as seen looking into the tail from behind, pull the netting left and right to cut off access to the inside). You might also consider putting up a fake owl on the tie-down space, although they are only partially effective.

Don't forget leaning. Rember, fuel cools the cylinders, so if you are aggressively leaving, you will run hotter. While I always aggressively leaned on the ground, on the air if I was running hot, I didn't. Minimize your time idling and running up on the ground - this always caused the engine to run hotter. Put the cowl on the horizon for a good cruise climb. This will force more air into the engine. Accept whatever airspeed this gives you. Consider replacing the oil cooler and modifying your intake...The guppy hole of old Moonies just isn't good for cooling. I don't know that you can totally "solve"this issue...I struggled with it for 8 years with a G model which didn't have cowl flaps.

I know that the aeronautical engineers will chime in on this one, and of course "wing loading" will come up... But let me answer entirely subjectively simply as a Mooney pilot.... I'm a word, "No." What you get with a Mooney is speed, efficiency, and race-car style handing. Yes - the control forces are a little heavy in the roll, but a Mooney is definitely a step up from a Cessna in terms of handling. But you sacrifice stability for this in the design of the Mooney. You can depart controlled flight in a Mooney in seconds if you aren't paying attention. I think you would have to try to do the same in a Cessna. In terms of afternoon Texas chop, just don't try to overcontrol the plane, and all will be good (accept some deviations that you might not on a beautiful day). And tighten down on your seatbelt, lest you wack your head! Clear skies...

How about this: You accidentally turn off the engine when you are done with the check, vice returning to the Both detent. Nothing has to fail - just pilot error. Does anyone have specifics regarding this course?

Am I the only person scratching his head on this one? Just wondering about the benefit of doing a mag-check in-flight? Doesn't the risk (engine failure) outweigh any diagnostic benefit?

Hey Turtle, I have been very happy with my 1968 G model. I have flown it across the US and back, to remotes strips in Mexico and Canada, at altitudes up to 13,500 feet and in all kinds of (scary) weather! As I am in Ukraine now, I have listed it for sale. Climb rates vary considerably with OAT and loadout. On a cool day on the East Coast with just me aboard, I will climb at 1200 FPM. A hot day out of San Jose at Max Gross Weight saw only 300 FPM, and once at Big Bear (8000' DA), I saw only 150-200 FPM. Generally, I see 700-800 FPM climbs. Overall, I have been very happy with my G Model. I true out at around 135kts, which, while a little slower than some other Mooney pilots claim, is an honest airspeed and a great value for 9 gallons of fuel per hour. Incidentally, I have listed it for sale on www.airmodsflightcenter.com. Clear Skies! Sean

I had a similar experience as a new Mooney owner eight years ago - this should be part of the standard passdown.... I bought a tail cover which has served me well through the years, although I don't know if Planecover still makes them (www.planecover.com). Also as an aside, make sure that you have a pitot cover. This may seem like a no-brainer, but my plane didn't come with one, and being from out West, I didn't think this was a big deal until I spent some time up in Vermont and got acquainted with "Mud Dobbers.'"

Where are you? A good paint job will run from $10,000-$20,000. I got mine done at T & P in Salinas, California, and it is gorgeous, but I paid about $15,000. A big consideration is how far you have to travel to get the paint done. Of course, you can pay less, but you get what you pay for....

Hey - I fly a 1968 Mooney M20G, and I fly most of the time at altitude at 22" and 2400 RPM. When I want to go fast, I fly at 24" and 2400 RPM. Rarely, I fly at 25" and 2500 RPM (I reserve this for sustained climbs). At 22" and 2400 RPM, I lean to roughness, then back off the fuel mixture just a bit. At 24" and 2400 RPM, depending on altitude, I might lean just a bit. I know that the manuals say I can use all the way up to 2500 or 2600 RPM sustained (depending on the manual), but I simply don't - it's a bit loud, and I don't see much improvement in airspeed for the increase in burn. A bit about cooling and the G model - I run a bit hot in the summer months in the climb (sometimes running ~420 until I level off). Most of the time, this is after an extended taxi. I have never had problems in cruise (Usually no hotter than 350-380 on hottest cylinder), but i never push the prop or engine like you are talking about. Look - the G is a great airplane, but it is a little underpowered in the climb and in my experience, is prone to cooling issues. I run between 700 and 1200 fpm in the climb generally, but on a really hot day, it can be pretty bad (like being in a sustained descent at altitude despite having full throttle due to downdrafts). I rarely fly at gross weight, and can count on one hand the number of time I have had more than 2 people in the plane. As a 2-person cruiser, though, it is great! Finally, fuel = cooling. So if you are hot, enrichening the mixture a bit should help. And at the power settings you are talking about, you can't lean much (if at all). In terms of cooling issues with the G model, I have replaced the oil cooler, did the Lake Aero cowling mod, and rechecked my doghouse multiple times, and the cooling still is not great. My experience is that you will burn about 9-10 GPH and you should see around 130-135 KIAS in a G. Clear skies! Sean

Johnny, High CHTs are a problem for vintage carbuerated Mooneys, and the problem is more confounding because not everybody is afflicted by the problem. Look - at max gross weight and above 90 degrees, you are going to be hot. The best remedy is to fly early in the morning and climb at the max IAS allowable.The fact that your airframe sat for a few years and had the cylinders rebuilt (to me) is problematic, and especially so because it is a 1965. Is this always an issue? Absolutely not, but you clearly are experiencing high CHTs. Make sure you are at full rich on the mixture (helps with cooling), and also basic things - when was the last time you cleaned your oil cooler filter? When was your last oil change? Are the fins in your oil cooler still intact? This is a hard, probably unsolvable problem which many vintage Mooney pilots deal with (I did the Lasar cowling mod, replaced my oil cooler and carbuerator, and still have high CHTs from time to time). But if you still have high CHTs, I would verify your compressions, order an oil analysis, and really look at your engine health. In any situation, you are still probably cruising at 140 KIAS on 9 GPH...not many can claim that! Clear Skies! Sean 1968 M20G N6907N

Goterminal, Welcome! In terms of being new, just avoid the use of exclamation points, fonts, colors, strong language, and absolutes(comments like "Never, Never, Never..."), and all will be well! ...and I would also avoid ever commenting on Lean of Peak operations.... Sean

Par, If the engine starts to turn over and coughs, I might lean by 1". Usually, when it is really cold, though, I stop, let the engine sit for 5 minutes, and start the whole procedure over. BTW - have you looked into the possibility that all 8 plugs aren't firing? I ask because there is only so much technique can make up for, and it sounds like you might have an actual ignition problem. I say this after having changed every piece of my starter system out to finally realize that my starter switch (the actual switch) was bad. Or maybe you have an issue with your carbuerator - was it rebuilt during the last overhaul? Because I don't think accessories have to be rebuilt, and in my case, no accessory on the engine was (yes - I have subsequently changed out my carbuerator, oil cooler, starter, battery, and replaced my alternator). You've got a lot of recommendations here. An easy answer is to put the plane in a heated hangar. But it sounds like you might not have worked out all of the bugs with the plane yet, and my gut feeling tells me something else is going on with the engine.... Sean

Par, I echo the previous comments, and BTW - I am in the DC area, so I am dealing with the same weather issues right now you are. I preheat to 40 degrees in my carbuerated 1968 M20G. My technique on a really cold day is four pumps of the throttle without the fuel pump on, then turn on the fuel pump and crank to engine. Sometimes, you have to lean the mixture as it starts to turn over. I don't rely on FBOs to know the slightest thing about preheating. I have an oil sump pad and carry a 100' extension cord. Usually an hour is all it takes to bring up the temp to 40 degrees. I worry more about engine wear and tear than actually getting it started in the cold. Oh - one more thing. Technique only. Make sure the master power is off and the front wheel chocked, and hand-crank the prop three times. I do this religiously now, even in warm weather. Anecdotally, it "loosens up" the oil and engine parts. In practice, I have no idea why this helps start the engine, but it does! Clear Skies! Sean

Marauder - The chain cover comes with the bike. In addition, it has an internal hub which is seven-speed. In terms of 20 miles, I think that you could do it, but I think that it would be a little far. I wouldn't recommend a folding bike for those distances simply because they just aren't as fast as a regular bike - they get unstable at higher speeds. That being said, the Flyby is remarkably stable and easy to ride, and especially because of the unique hub-based gear system. If you are an avid cyclist, there are professional and competitive folding bikes (like Bike Friday), but I don't think that you will get much more out of them than the Flyby. So you are faced with the same issue I have struggled with - whether to break down your regular bikes and pack them in the rear seat (kind of a pain), or to accept the decrease in performance and go with a folding bike. I have chosen the latter, and am really happy with the bike. I would recommend that you actually go ride a few different folding bikes to get an idea what I am talking about. One thing - the Novara has 20" tires - this is about as big as you can get without going for a full-size. This gives you better speed and stability. And it folds in literally 15 seconds. BTW - the Citizen bike looks like a great deal! Sean