Rhumbline

This is so. A maintained airplane, however, used to be the icon or "poster child" of durable goods. It is now descending into the realm of the used car with exceptionally high operating costs. Unequivocally, it is for the owner/operator to determine its worth. The point is that fewer on the outside looking in are seeing any value.

Make it safe and then reliable. Fool around with gadgets after that if you wish.

Under $400 (Kelly Aerospace) though other brands (and colors) ranged much higher. I've no idea whether the expensive brands are worth it but I do not plan on getting 46 years out of this harness...

I replaced the harness (appeared to be the original) on my plane when I had the mags gone through a few weeks ago. Though there was no noted performance degradation before, the radios are now crystal clear!

Remember when flying (flies) used to be one of those F's that were cheaper to rent?

This is unquestionably at the core of the matter. Having been out of aviation for some time, I bought a clean, low time and solid little airframe on an impulse. Though I had an idea of the cost of maintaining an airplane (ie expensive), I naively failed to consider just why I was getting such a good deal on this little plane. I also failed to realize how quickly all the "little" issues affecting a 45 year old airplane begin to add up. The cost of radios, fuel tanks, engine overhauls, paint, interior, etc are all well discussed throughout this forum and, though most may only have to address a limited number of these expenses but once, all of these are quite expensive and will probably add little or nothing to the value of the airframe in the end. The biggest value added now is not much more than that which the current owner places on it. In my opinion, it is not likely to be realized as equity in the not-too-distant future. For myself, I quickly concluded that the airplane would be, in all probability, a throw-away if I kept it for more than five or ten years as I see little hope in recouping much of the total investment. Evident in the level of desertion I note every time I'm at the airport; I recently purchased a hangar with a similar attitude. The losses in these "investments" are merely the expense associated with this increasingly "unique" form of recreation. As I've mentioned elsewhere, were I not already certificated, I would never have gotten into aviation today.

Blasphemous as it may be, I am highly skeptical of Mooney's ability to compete in the long game. If they are able to stick it out long term, I have a feeling that their focus will sooner or later shift to new product development and support of a modern fleet. The antique fleet may find itself orphaned by the manufacturer with a few third party firms specializing in the brand and keeping the diminishing numbers flying as has been the case heretofore. I seem to recall an exodus of used aircraft going overseas in the late '80's & early '90's. If I ever knew the reason for this I have since forgotten. Whatever may have driven that demand, however, the aircraft going were much newer at the time and likely had far better support.

I agree with much of the above. The suggestions in this and the parallel thread relating to materials, re-engineering, squeezing a bit more out of the design, etc may have merit. I don't know. What I do know is that however fast the thing moves, I still have to take a whiz every 2 to 3 hours if I'm amply hydrated and I'll collapse on the ramp if I can't limber up at comparable intervals. There is no room or facility in these things for the "walk of shame" or the stretch that constitutional affords. In my most humble opinion, huge fuel tanks, magnificent range and big engines are for record challengers and swinging dicks. I prefer the simple, efficient, economical and increasingly timeless airplane envisioned by the designer and promulgated again and again by concerns who see the value in the basic design.

Nope. Just flew my C today at around 1430 hrs.

Sorry about the tough luck with the KX-155's. Out of curiosity, were they sold as removed or reconditioned/yellow tagged? If the latter, who did you get them from so they may be avoided?

I've made the assertion before and reiterate it again; if you're worried about parts availability, the used market will probably be very favorable in the years following 2020.

Not quite. The CRT TV I'm watching is an RCA but the VCR feeding it is a Sony!

If ever there was a case for the use of prop wash...

Same thing happened with me soon after I bought my plane. Overhaul or replace are probably your only options. You might try a search of the forums for information on the topic as I recall that there are at least a couple threads with good information relating to the options available depending on the route you wish to take.

...you're kidding. Laws are for the law abiding. The executive, legislators, jurists and bureaucrats show the color of their stripes.

Yup. Whether engineering or marketing, I read somewhere (probably in Those Remarkable Mooneys) that the Mooney management folks back in the '60's estimated a typical service life of 22 years for their airplanes. I doubt they'd ever have believed that large numbers of their planes would still be kept in airworthy condition well over a half century later.

For what it's worth; I've seen this video and, though it may be useful for a few, I suspect it will be academic for most and it features a Mooney somewhat incidentally. The instructor and student are stilted and awkward in the presentation. Though it may represent an actual lesson and training flight, far too much detail is missing. Much of the video is shot in the airplane by someone in the back seat and, consequently, there is a poor view of the panel and forward view. Moreover, the communication between instructor and student during flight is drowned by ambient sound or is muted and it is apparently the student who dubs the narration. Some of the video focuses on location specific information and airport details not useful to anyone not on the western panhandle of Florida. Though there may be other errors, I recall that while describing the instrumentation the narrator identifies the fuel pressure/manifold pressure gauge as a fuel flow gauge with no mention of manifold pressure half of the gauge. I don't think that these were ever visible to the viewer during the flight portion of the lesson. An egregious error and omission for a video purporting to familiarize one with transition to a complex aircraft in my opinion. Because there are a few Mooney specific tidbits the video may be worth something to the collector of Mooney ephemera but, as a substantive guide to even the M20C specifically, it is much too general.

Agreed. Just bought a new $1,250 CJA pump a year ago. I wouldn't balk about new drop in alternative for a few hundred less.

I agree. I would not take off or climb at peak EGT. Back in the "good ol' days" when I was instructing, the procedure would be to lean during the run-up until the RPM dropped or the onset of engine roughness (usually simultaneous and the latter is the best indication with a constant speed prop), enrich back to peak RPM or engine smoothness and then further enrich by 1 1/2 turns on a vernier mixture control or 1/4" (I find that 1/2" or a bit more is best on my plane) of travel on other mixture controls. A crude and inaccurate way to go but better than a setting too rich or lean. A more accurate method is to do a full power run-up and find peak EGT and then enrich to whatever value ROP you intend to use. I personally do not do this as I am concerned about prop FOD among other things so I use the crude method and make certain I'm a little richer rather than leaner and tweak it a bit if the EGT looks high or low on the take-off roll and then carefully monitor CHT after takeoff and during climb. In an effort to keep my CHT reasonably low, I had been using 200 ROP during the climb and accepting the consequent power loss. After conferring with a relatively well known engine and maintenance guru after watching one of his webinars, however, he strongly advised using a setting around 125 ROP at the altitudes I'm operating at (field elevations above 6 & 7 thousand and DA's often much higher) as there is a great likelihood the richer setting will lead to fouling problems. I've found that I can lean to 125 ROP (as opposed to 200 ROP) without violating most of the other rules of thumb. Disclaimer: I'm imparting what I know on the matter and that ain't much so do your homework. Please bear in mind that, in my case, I am referring to a normally aspirated and carbureted motor. Shouldn't matter much for the injected folks but this is obviously not for the folks with turbos too.

I can only attest to a C but I jest with anyone who is curious that my plane is a two-place airplane with four seats. Both the wife and I prefer the aftermost seat-lock position for flight. That makes an easy reach for the "storage bench" rear seat but would be a miserable ride for anyone who had to sit on it. I've tried it out of curiosity and it would be impossible for me to occupy the rear quarters unless I had it to myself and could use the whole rear seat. The density altitudes I operate at add another wrinkle to the utility of the back seat.

The Johnson (Flintstone) Bar is, in my opinion, as close to foolproof as it gets. I wish Mooney built them that way with four bangers and round dials today.

As I said, I was probably exposing my ignorance. It looks like the NOTAM was issued not long before I left the airlines. All of the intercept procedures got hammered in during recurrent following 9/11 but the "on guard" thing eluded me. I must've glossed over it in the PIFs if the company ever poignantly disseminated the information. Our SELCALs were the cheapest money wouldn't buy. Not sure I ever received a valid notice... plenty of falsies.

Perhaps I'm displaying some ignorance but I'm not familiar with "on guard". On occasion ATC would ask us to monitor 121.5 for an ELT but that's about it. We were required to monitor AIRINC or another company frequency at the carriers I worked for. The last company I worked for was in the process of equipping the fleet with ACARS but, as I recall, the requirement to monitor AIRINC remained.

Looks like it's the February 2014 edition and the tolerance was corrected in the article.