wombat

What I had been planning was that there is no tow bar, the nose wheel will go up on a platform like the Aircraft caddy: https://www.djproducts.com/product-category/aircraftcaddy/ or the Best Tugs Bravo line: https://www.besttugs.com/bravo The main difference in what I was planning was that when loaded, the platform the nose wheel was on would rotate so I'd be able to turn the aircraft sharply without exceeding the nose wheel turn limits. Loading the nose wheel onto the device makes the traction problem much easier since the tires will have significantly more weight on them and there will not be further rolling resistance from the nose wheel.

I have strongly considered it and did a few sketches on a design for how it would work. The biggest problems I faced were: How to pick the nose of the plane up without throwing a strap around the nose gear and pulling it up onto the platform. How to then swivel the platform the nose wheel is on, while keeping the nose wheel held on. How to force the nose wheel back off the platform. Some things I decided were not problems: Load limit of the chair; while the Mooney nose might be heavier, it's unlikely to get as much rough use as a 350# person rolling down a random sidewalk. Traction/force/battery power; the Mooney will be on mostly flat ground and it doesn't need to go fast. I could even give it an assist with my body. Basically, it'll only ever be easier/better than it is right now with just me pulling it by hand.

My expected total 1st year budget, which includes acquisition cost. I was talking to a guy I work with that has a meridian... He had a $100k annual in 2021. That really turned me off of the Malibu/Meridian line and back to Mooney.

@tracer773 I think your budget is adequate (approaching excessive) for your goals. That's great and I wish you the best of luck! I had an extremely similar budget and goal as you. I've got the single alternator 12V (14V) system on my M20K 231 airframe that has been modified to the 305 "Rocket" and have the non-FIKI TKS system. It has a modern(-ish) panel with a G500, 750, G5, and EI MVP-50 engine monitor. I typically run all the exterior lights (LEDs) in all phases of flight and have not noticed any power problems even when running TKS and/or extending/retracting the gear. I don't think I've ever extended the gear while still running the TKS pumps though. I bought it earlier this year and it's in annual right now. I expect my first year expenses including some immediate maintenance (resealing all fuel tanks) and annual which started today will not exceed $300k. So far, so good! If I do exceed $300k, believe me, all of Mooneyspace will know because the annual will have been 2.5X my expected budget!

It sounds like you need to hire a commercially rated pilot to fly the aircraft for you sometimes. As long as the pilot has a commercial single engine certificate with complex and high performance as required and class I or II medical, you can legally hire them to do it. Be careful that insurance covers you while they are flying it for you and it might be kind of you to remind them that unless they are named on your insurance policy, your insurance company might try to recover any losses from them or their insurance. Also of note is that loggable pilot time is compensation and even if you don't pay them money, that is still compensation and they need a commercial certificate if they are going to log the flights. One more word of caution: They would be subject to federal taxes on their net income as well as a 15.3% self-employment tax on net earnings above $400. Kind of sad to be debbie downer about this but it's a legal minefield.

If you are operating your aircraft at all (even taxi) above the max gross weight you are in violation of the limitations in the POH. It's unlikely to be a big deal. If anyone asked me (nobody has) I'd recommend against it in the weakest possible terms. But because I'm a problem solver..... @Rick Junkin If you really wanted to take off at max gross weight and not operate outside of the POH's limitations, you could have a passenger walk down to the end of the runway, and when you are lined up to take off, you will have burned off your 9# of fuel and the passenger can get in. If anyone asked me (nobody has) I'd recommend relatively strongly against having people get in and out of an airplane with the engine(s) running. So this method is more legal but in my opinion, less safe.

For the max gross STC part of the Rocket mod there is a limitation that all weight above 2,900# must be fuel. Slightly different in name, but it is effectively a 0 fuel weight limitation.

For amusing reference, FAR 23.1447 which is about oxygen delivery systems has a requirement that any cannulas can only be certified below 18,000'. Therefore all of the manufacturers of certified cannulas prohibit their use above 18,000'. So if you have a certified cannula, you are prohibited from using it above 18,000'. HOWEVER: Use of uncertified cannulas or other oxygen delivery systems is probably not prohibited so you could probably just put the end of the tube in your mouth and breathe in through that.

This should probably be reported to the FAA. If they have done this to others, they're putting them at risk.

No, with the gear down I need 27" to maintain level flight at 105 knots. That seems high to me too.

My position on this: Midair collisions are horrific and often fatal and sometimes happen to pilots who do everything right. I would like to reduce the frequency of midair collisions. Despite those statements, I am willing to continue with some risk of midair collisions in order to maintain some level of freedom of flying and to maintain some level of affordability of flying. Exactly where that balance falls is not clear, but I'm relatively happy with the current balance. The data I am using: The risk of midair collisions is very small. Since 2013 we've averaged about 200 fatalities per year in non-commercial fixed wing (1) and collisions are a very small part of them. In 2020, there were. 5 with 4 having fatalities. (1)(1.1) In 2019 there were 8, with 7 having fatalities. (2) In 2018 there were 12, with 7 having fatalities. (3) In 2017 there were 7, with 5 having fatalities. (4) Fuel management kills ~10/year, maneuvering kills about 28/year, and poor IFR technique and VFR into IMC kill. about 30/year. (1) The behavior I see that bothers me: People on here and other pilot forums placing outsized importance on the reduction of midair collisions through ADS-B in cockpit displays and undersized importance on the reduction of risks that are more significant. Specific examples: A PPL co-worker was so freaked out that they got within 2 NM of another aircraft they said they will never again fly without ADS-B in, despite knowing that they fly in airspace with no TIS-B and where ADS-B out is not mandated. A PPL I was conducting a BFR for in day VFR became so fixated on making their ADS-B in work that they lost situational awareness and entered an unusual attitude. A PPL I was flying with just for fun was so heads-down in the cockpit they hadn't looked outside at all in over 5 minutes despite being day VFR as we were approaching KEAT. When I asked if they were scanning for traffic, they said "Yes, I have my ADS-B as part of my instrument scan." My hypothesis: Midair collisions usually have someone who has made a mistake and is at fault or at least who was taking more risk even if they were following all of the regulations. For example by flying without using a radio. This gives other pilots a focus where they can expend effort and money that demonstrates their dedication to safety without significantly changing their behaviors. By doing so they relieve the stress of the actions they knowingly and secretly take that are risky such as flying with inadequate health, maintenance, preflight action, or poor fuel planning and management. My recommendation: Evaluate the different risks that each of us are exposed to in all aspects of our lives and expend effort where the effort will have the most reward in terms of safety/life/health. (1) https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/air-safety-institute/accident-analysis/joseph-t-nall-report/nall-report-figure-view?category=all&year=2020&condition=all&report=true) (1.1) Note that each aircraft is counted separately. The reason there are odd numbers in these is that one of the aircraft is the collision is not a non-commercial fixed-wing aircraft. In 2020 the other aircraft was commercial and in 2017 the other aircraft was a rotorcraft. (2) https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/air-safety-institute/accident-analysis/joseph-t-nall-report/-/media/Files/AOPA/Home/Training-and-Safety/Nall-Report/28thNallReport2019 (3) https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/air-safety-institute/accident-analysis/joseph-t-nall-report/-/media/Files/AOPA/Home/Training-and-Safety/Nall-Report/27thNallReport2018 (4) https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/air-safety-institute/accident-analysis/joseph-t-nall-report/-/media/Files/AOPA/Home/Training-and-Safety/Nall-Report/26thNallReport2017

I don't know MiraChek.... It sounds like a significantly different type of electronic checklist than I'm thinking of when I say tech is not a good fit. Not saying I think it is good, just that I don't know enough to say one way or the other.

It's not electronic, but I have checklists that I've made for my rocket that you can look at here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1g503KgnMVXarCNgaluQcTtDE1adBbmItshkxSoDBG7Q I print them out and laminate them. I like having a separate piece of paper for the preflight and the rest of the stuff before takeoff, so I don't have to fumble around in flight with the preflight checklist stuff. My 'in flight' checklists are quite simple which leaves me more time for controlling the aircraft. Always so weird when people have the sheet with everything in the world on it and then they try to use that in flight.... "What tiny bit of the giant sheet of paper with 6 point text in a dozen colors is the before landing checklist on?... Oh, wait, that's the section about oil changes.... Nope, that's the advertisement for the checklist company..... Where is it again????" Also, not sure why someone would want to use the electronics for checklists.... Every screen in the plane (G500, GTN750, MVP50, iPad) has stuff on it I want to see basically all the time. Don't want to cover that up with checklist junk that will require button presses to get out of to get back to the more important things. And it's not like I'm some 75 year old luddite stick-in-the-mud. I'm still under 50 and am a technology/computer professional by education and profession. But there are some things where I don't think tech is a good fit and this is one of them.

Is the RPM actually dropping to zero (the engine dies), or just the indication and the engine continues to run?

Cruise at FL210 and take advantage of tail winds to get a ground speed of 280KT. Do this for 4+ hours and have a single leg of more than 1,000 NM with IFR reserves.

@GeeBeeThat may be true, but I don't think it's because it spends more time against the seat. Also, a note about that article..... I don't know any tractors that produce significant power (> 20HP) that are gasoline.. I grew up on a farm and while I don't know everything about agriculture these days, the fact that he's talking about gasoline tractors makes me suspect something isn't right. Also, most tractors run at 1,800 RPM, not 1,200. So that is a bit weird too....

How can the plugs get fouled if there is no lead in the fuel? I've been told that the fouling was lead from the fuel. @GeeBee How do you figure that the exhaust valve spends less time against the seat at high RPMs? I would think it would spend the exact same percentage of time no matter the RPM. The idea that there is liquid or solid lead passing through (or condensing on) the exhaust valve and providing a cushioning effect and as a thermal conductor is interesting. The boiling temp for lead is 3.180F, but coming out of the fuel solution and tetra-ethyl compound it could easily be vapor that condenses on the valve.

Good point... I could see a daytime soap opera version of an insurance adjuster say "Well, your husband was not IFR rated, and the accident was caused by inadvertent IMC, so at the time of the crash, they had failed to comply with the cloud clearance requirements of part 91, therefore the claim is denied, because he was in violation of the regulations."

I agree with pretty much all of what you've said here. It could be that the fuel exhaustion was caused by a fuel leak which would have been discovered if they'd performed an annual inspection on the aircraft... but you could say that about *ANY* flight where there was not an annual inspection immediately before. An annual inspection does not (as far as I know) include filling the tanks and checking for leaks. If the top 1/2 of the fuel leaked out at 5 GPH once the aircraft moved after being fueled, due to old sealant, that could easily have caused what was otherwise a successfully planned flight to end up like this one did, through no fault of the pilot's other than cutting it close enough on fuel that a fuel leak small enough to be non-obvious right after filling was enough to cause the plane to run out. But you could say that about any flight that takes you into the last 1/8 of a tank of fuel.... Or last 1/4. Or last 1/2. I'm pretty sure that my insurance policies require that I follow all regulations so if I was flying and the plane was out of annual or I was not current, they could deny a claim. The underwriters could put whatever conditions they wanted into the policy, such as 'no flights on a ferry permit' or 'must have a BFR within the last 12 months' or 'no commercial activities'. For them it's probably a balance between having enough exclusions to stop really risky behaviors but not take up too much time and effort to manage, and how many potential policy holders they would scare away by having that growing list of restrictions.

Talked to my local A&P about this, and said "Who was it at the FSDO that did that? Was it X? That guy's a <derogatory term>." And yes, it was the person he thought it was. But due to the timing that rejection was not worth fighting. We got it fixed a week or so later but my student was already gone for the summer.

@1980Mooney Thanks for the clarification of why you were calling this a ferry flight! That all sounds consistent and I can't find any information that would contradict this set of assumptions. So getting back to the underlying topic..... What is your goal here? Do you want insurance companies to remove coverage for flights using special airworthiness certificates and thereby lower your insurance premiums? Have you considered doing a full analysis of the percentage of flights with and without accidents/incidents that are using special airworthiness certificates Vs. those that don't to quantify the actual difference in risk? If so, an estimate of the insurance payout for the incident based on aircraft damage and number of persons injured or killed would be interesting...The special airworthiness certificates I've gotten (and have heard about in details) all required that the flight be conducted with only the required crewmembers and were in aircraft capable of single pilot operations, so just the one person. The insurance risk of flying with more people is higher, so it could be that the per-flight insurance risk is lower on special airworthiness certificates because the chance of multiple people being hurt is lower. It doesn't seem likely to me that it's actually lower because of this, but that factor would lower the overall expected risk of special airworthiness certificate flights. An analysis or report like Ron Wanttaja did here would be great: https://www.kitplanes.com/homebuilt-accidents-reassurance/ or his other reports here: https://www.avweb.com/author/ron-wanttaja/ Amusingly, I applied for a special airworthiness certificate earlier this year and was denied. The tach cable had broken and I wanted to fly the airplane to a nearby airport that has maintenance services. The application was denied because the FSDO said "A Special Flight Permit is not an authorization to deviate from the requirements of 14 CFR Part 91."... What I didn't reply with was "What, you mean like 91.409?" which is the part 91 requirement for an annual inspection, which is the single most common reason for application for a special airworthiness certificate and is very often approved. I'm a little bitter about it because it delayed my student's first solo by 4 months but I didn't want to start a fight with the FSDO.

I was assuming that they made the aircraft airworthy before trying to fly it and therefore needed no ferry permit. I don't know if my insurance would cover me on a flight where I had a ferry permit instead of normal airworthiness; I'd assume the answer is 'no'. But I'm relatively conservative in this regard and I'd call and ask first. The times I have purchased aircraft, either currently airworthy or not, I got a normal insurance policy for them and followed the applicable regulations and the stipulations from my insurance company. It is my assumption that the owner of this aircraft did the same thing. What indication do you have that this flight was on a ferry permit? Also, it sounds like you disagree with the FAA's stance on ferry permits, which is that the aircraft is safe enough considering the conditions of the aircraft and the flight(s) to be performed. That's fine, but it's also the FAA that says it is OK. Is just the fact that hiring a pilot to do something makes it a 'commercial activity' that is somehow excluded from part 91 rules? Pretty much every jet owner and the majority o turboprop owners that can't fly their own airplanes would be pretty disappointed with that. Really not sure what you are going for with all of this. You are maybe looking for other people to blame for the cost of insurance because you are unhappy with having to pay but not having any claims? You want to be in a pool with only those that make as good of decisions as you? Remember though that at that point you'll be the bottom of the barrel of who is in your pool. Just self-insure! Start your own insurance company and exclude repositioning flights from what you cover. Only cover aircraft that have > 100 hours in the last 12 months. If they drop below that level, they are not covered and have to buy another policy until they reach 100 hours in the last 12 months before they are covered by your company again. This is all the same issue as the A La Carte vs. Plate Entree at restaurants, and airline tickets that include luggage and overhead bin space Vs. RyanAir and Spirit's pricing... And of course health insurance. I'm very healthy and there is a part of me that is irritated that I pay WAY more in health insurance than I'll ever use. But that's how insurance works. It sounds like you want just part of what's offered as part of a whole insurance package and are upset that other people are covered (and sometimes have claims for) activities that you don't do. *shrug* Don't know what to tell you other than that is not the kind of attitude I think makes friends.

@1980Mooney If it was covered, they probably did it the same way they do every other policy.... Ask about a bunch of pilot information for the named pilots, and the basic information about the plane (N number, model, serial, etc) and then price and write the policy. Your comment "That can't be a sustainable return for the insurance company." puzzles me..... Why would you say that? The whole point of insurance is that it is collecting the risk into a large pool. Of course some claims will happen to be larger than the payouts made so far to the insurance company. That's how it works. Other payers will pay and never make a claim.... Would you also say "That can't be a good decision for the insured pilot!" ? If the ferry pilot is liable for this loss depends on if there is a policy that covers them performing this flight. Either as a named insured on N1167J's policy, or covered under some other policy like a non-owners policy or if a policy they are already named insured on includes flying other aircraft (One of my policies does cover me flying other aircraft). If none of those are true, then the ferry pilot is likely personally liable for the damages. If the ferry pilot did not meet the open pilot minimums on the aircraft's policy, the underwriter may choose not to pay. If the ferry pilot did, the underwriter might attempt to recoup their losses by getting reimbursed by the ferry pilot. And if the ferry pilot's coverage (if any) is lower than the owner's coverage, the ferry pilot might be liable for the difference. The same way they do every other policy.... Ask about a bunch of pilot information and then price and write a policy. Seriously, non-owned coverage is really common. Usually not by type, but non-owned coverage changes significantly between single engine, multi-engine, seaplane, rotorcraft, etc. And price varies a lot based on the amount of coverage you want. It seems like you think there may be some sort of single-flight insurance policy in place. I've never heard of such a thing being done for cheap little GA planes like ours. Where have you heard of policies like this?

@1980Mooney Whew.... Nope, I don't know of any aviation claims that have been denied due to a fraudulent application regardless of it the fraud was intentional or not. My sample of aviation claims is quite small however and I don't think of them as being worth considering. I only know of two. My comments about the risk pool splitting based on the willingness to share extensive data was about @Hank's reply to your message about automobile drivers, not pilots and I stand by my comments on that topic. Overall, I think I disagree with you a little. I think the aviation insurance companies are trying to determine the risk of any given pilot before they offer an insurance policy for them by asking such things as the pilot's age, last BFR, hours flown in the last 12 months, accident/incident/claim history, ratings, and so on. And they are rewarding the 'safer' pilots with lower rates and punishing the more risky pilots with higher rates or even declining coverage. Is this 'big data' analysis? Nope. But is it an attempt to determine risk and price accordingly? Yup. Is this 'voluntarily sharing information' with them? Yup. Try *not* doing that and see what they say.

No, they don't. But they've determined that the people who are willing to share that are willing because they know they are only going to places safely. If you take 6 of the best dozen apples out of the box, the rest of the box is less good as a whole. So the half dozen who self-selected to share that info get better rates, and everybody who didn't gets worse rates. Sure, you can tell them whatever you want. And if you were not being truthful and you make a claim and they have evidence that indicates you were not being truthful, that's very valid grounds for denying your claim and more. Didn't actually get your medical? Claim denied. Not current? Claim denied. Only flew 25 hours a year but claimed 250? Claim denied. They only offered you the policy at the price they did because of your claimed facts. So don't get it wrong or what you'll find is that you are not actually covered by insurance. If you hurt or kill someone else with your aircraft you won't have your insurance company's lawyers protecting you. You bend the plane, they won't pay out or fix it. And they might even come after you for the time and money they spent figuring this out. Insurance fraud is serious business.