philiplane

Because they're fun, but also mysterious, sometimes unpredictable, and they require lots of attention, or they will give you trouble.

well, VG's would be part of the solution for increased gross weight, rather than new flaps. Keeping under the 61 knot stall limit makes the whole exercise a lot cheaper. VG's will do that. Oleo struts are not hard, just figure what weight you expect, CAD model them, prototype a set and install. Then the hard part begins. FMEA of the wing structure for the higher weight, flight testing of a VG equipped plane at the higher landing weight, and if the margin is insufficient, figure out how to get more flap travel or more flap area to stay within the desired landing stall speed. VG's would be the quickest and cheapest way to meet several goals.

Weldon works very nicely. It re-melts the plastic and it is a permanent repair. It is also used to join pieces of plastic together where multiple parts are required.

You might try calling an aircraft supply house who subscribes to PartsBase. The spring might turn up at a parts house that buys and sells all brands. I would bet that very few MSC's would subscribe to a parts locator service. Shops that service different makes of turbine equipment will usually subscribe.

Oddly enough, you can have each one off by the max allowable limit, in opposite directions, and they will be legal and you will have a split of no more than 40 feet. The limit for each altimeter is 20 feet at sea level. But 200 feet off means the shop tested them but did not adjust them, meaning that they should not have issued a certification because they are well out of limits. Some shops will certify one as the primary altimeter, and not even test the other. You should expect to pay extra to have both tested, adjusted if needed, and you will have two altimeter cards in your log entry. If you only have one, they only did one.

What's letting them get way, is that the holes have worn and the retainers are no longer retained. Creativity with custom washers is in order.

I favor the Artex ELT345. It accepts GPS coordinates from most GPS units. It's lightweight and easy to install. It's more rugged than the ACK ELT-04, which suffers from false alarms due to a twitchy G-switch. The ELT345 is reasonably priced, and has a long battery life, cutting the costs of maintenance.

The fuel efficiency problem with a turbine engine is insurmountable. Intermittent combustion (piston) engines handle low power situations more efficiently than continuous combustion engines. Turbine engines are suited for operations that Mooneys are not designed for. Mating the two just turns into massive compromises with disappointing results.

Back in 2007-2008, Mooney contemplated a 500 HP version of the RR250 (420 hp) engine. It needed too much fuel, cost too much, and required a tail redesign for the added HP, for starters. It would have been more viable on the M22 airframe. although a PT6 would have been perfect for that. https://www.avweb.com/air-shows-events/mooney-rolls-royce-look-at-turbine-single/ And shortly after, the bottom dropped out.

a friend of mine did a Florida to the West Coast trip, it all went great, until the landing at Catalina. He landed long, couldn't stop, and took his Cirrus off the end of the runway a bit. Prop strike, nose gear collapse, all on a place with no services. Needless to say, the insurance company owned the plane at that point. Catalina Island airport needs the respect it deserves, lest it rise up and smite thee...

All my friends who have boats and planes say that the planes are a far better value. Boats are money pits. Bigger the boat, the bigger the pit.

Don't forget to compare weights among tire selections. You want the highest quality tire at the lowest weight. Most times, those are not available in the same tire. A 600x6 Airhawk is much lighter than a Goodyear Flight Custom for example, although the Goodyear will outlast the Airhawk by a wide margin. And the Goodyear is more robust, so it handles better on the ground in crosswind landings. The downside of most retreads is the weight. The Monster retreads are much heavier. Multiply times three, and you may be carrying an extra 10-15 pounds in tires that you don't realize.

Condor tires are made by Michelin as a lower cost tire, not unlike private label tires made by automotive tire companies. Condors come from the lower cost plants in Brazil and Thailand. I would rank the Condors just below Goodyear and Michelin, and well above anything Specialty Tires makes (Airhawk & Airtrac) for quality and durability.

yes, it only gives five beeps if no position data is present during the self test. There is no easy or cheap way to read what is broadcast. You can make a tap to go between the ELT and the harness plug, to read the RS232 Packet that is being sent from the GPS. Then you'll need a serial port reader.

artex_elt345Manual.pdf

the self test is easy. You push the switch once you have GPS, and it will beep to acknowledge it has good position info. If it doesn't, it beeps five times.

They are great for high wear environments like primary trainers. But with recent price increases, there is less difference between a high quality retread and a new Airhawk or Condor tire. For your own plane, you are better off with Goodyear Flight Custom III tires and Michelin Air Stop inner tubes. Sure they cost the most up front, but they wear better, don't dry rot like the cheaper tires, and your chance of a flat due to the inner tube failing is about zero. I can't say that about any of the other inner tubes. The Leak Guard tubes don't leak much, but they do tend to split at the seams, or at the valve stem.

There are certain communities that are that are avoided by many mechanics, due to a reputation of being cheap above all else, rather than seeking good value. Mooney is high on the list, Comanches are too, and Grumman singles also come to mind. These owners need to understand that at some point, fairly soon, there will be no one to sign off their planes. You can only be so cheap for so long, before no one will work for you. There are very few young people getting into aviation maintenance, and there are not many highly experienced guys who are available. Over the last five years, highly experienced & productive mechanics have become a hot commodity. The best can write their own ticket, and they command a premium. They are also the best value, because their efficiency makes them cost effective. You can hire a monkey cheaply, but in the end he will cost more than the best guy who charges $150 an hour. My recommendation is to look at the overall cost for the value that you get, and not nit pick over each item. Like a marriage, a good owner/mechanic relationship requires work and communication from both sides. Each owner and mechanic will have different circumstances that influence the cost of each job. This is not Amazon. Going only for the lowest price is guaranteed to cause problems down the road.

What is included, is only what is on the annual inspection checklist as published by Mooney. There is no G5 on that list, so it becomes a separate billable task because it has Instructions for Continued Airworthiness that have to be followed. Pretty nearly every piece of avionics will have some ICA. Air-oil separators have them, batteries have them, inflatable door seals have them, Challenger air filters have them, etc. All of those are in addition to the factory prescribed maintenance items. Without a clear list, a new to you shop will have to go through the logs and over the plane to determine what accessories have been installed and what maintenance requirements apply. That's why it's in the owner's best interest to compile that information, and provide it up front, rather than complain that the shop billed time to do a myriad list of tasks that they were not anticipating. It's not any different from doing AD research, to see what has been done, what needs to be done, and if any new AD's just came out. Against the plane, and all the added equipment. As the number of A&P's continues to decline, it is more important than ever to develop a good working relationship with one. Part of that is talking through the work scope in advance, and being a pro-active owner that helps with the documentation, and gives a detailed squawk list as needed. The cheaper that owners try to be, the fewer A&P's there are to work on light aircraft. Corporate operators, and large shops scoop up decent A&P's and pay them very well. You as a Mooney owner are competing for that same labor pool when you try to find an independent A&P to come to your hangar.

Because shops have to create work orders, assign a tech to specific tasks, follow the procedure in the manual, verify the tasks were done, and make log entries, Which means they have to open the installation or component maintenance manual as well, to make sure the procedure is done correctly. Some ICA's have multiple items that are tested as part of a component check. Garmin's manuals have grown dramatically in the last few years.

When we're talking about 35 to 40+ year old planes, nothing on it owes you anything. Plastics crack, windows need replacement, rubber parts are dried and cracked. Corrosion is a constant battle. Tanks leak. Bolts and bushings wear. All of these things don't happen on new planes. Which of course cost $750k. If you want sub $3k annuals, you need to spend enough money at one time to completely refurbish the plane. Paint, interior, avionics, engine, prop...and every hose, switch, bolt bushing, etc. $200K ought to cover that. Even with that amount, the plane still won't be new again, and there will be something that crops up. But it will be less often, till time catches up once again. Brings to mind the old saying, if God intended man to fly, he would have given him more money...

15,000+ hours of fleet experience with IO-550N's shows that LOP results in cleaner valves & piston ring grooves. The LOP engines go to TBO with their original cylinders. The mixed use and ROP engines get topped at least once in 2000 hours. LOP results in cooler valves and less deposits on the valve seats. Hot valves with contaminated seats burn easily. Lycomings don't have this problem since their top mounted pushrod design cools better. Continentals are always going to be problematic because the pushrods, and the oil they bring, are below the valve. They get less oil on the valve stem, and on the exhaust valve spring rotocoil. Once the rotocoil stops working, the valve is doomed. ROP just kills it faster with all the lead build up on the seats. If you could run unleaded fuel, the valves would last much longer. Ask George Braly if you want engine test stand observations of LOP versus ROP engine health.

yes, the SR22T series will do over 200 KTAS above FL180. Up to 215 KTAS at FL250, on 17-18 GPH. Not a whole lot slower than the Acclaim, but with a bigger cabin and often a higher useful load. That's the main reason the M20V was unable to generate enough sales to keep the lights on at Mooney. 15 knots faster over 800 miles is all of 15 minutes. Even if you could reach the 242 KTAS M20V claim, it's still only 24 minutes, in a much smaller cabin, with less useful load. Maybe Mooney should try the TEO-540 FADEC Lycoming engine along with a 3800 GW in the M20V body. That would be interesting. When I was more involved in new aircraft sales, I got to observe buyers evaluating similar planes first hand. One of the deal breakers was easy entry to the cabin. The Cirrus won easily over the Mooney, even after the V model came out with two doors, and bigger ones yet. The older Mooney door simply isn't big enough for easy entrance. Especially of the older pilots who are buying new planes. The V model was a huge improvement. Heck, I love the Bravo, but I hate getting in and out of the dang thing. The Cirrus is even easier for back seat passengers, they just step in and sit down. It's about the same with my Aztec. They love it. When I take people in the Mooney, it's a feat to get them in the back seat. So the Mooney better be faster, to offset the lack of space while seated.

You must have flown the world's slowest SR22 then, since even the FIKI n/a models will turn in 174+ KTAS on 17 gph at 9000 feet. The clean wing models will top out around 180 at 7000 feet. For reference, 1000 + hrs in all models of SR22, 22T, 22TN, and M20M through Acclaim. Have not flown a V yet.

One important point- Continentals need to be run LOP in order to get any reasonable life from the cylinders. They have more problems with exhaust valves when run ROP, resulting in 800 hour top overhauls.