cctsurf

I don't believe that is a GPS Antenna, it is a cover for an old comm antenna that was installed there. You'd have to check the installation instructions from Garmin or wherever you are getting the GPS. I looked at them once, however, I have forgotten what they said, I did not consider that position on my plane because it is still occupied by comm2's antenna. I believe they want a flat area and this would be too close to a curve. It would be nice, wouldn't it...

I don't believe so. I'm speaking only from experience as a diy who works under supervision, my IA has never worried about testing them. You do realize that the AN Aeroquip or Stratoflex lines we use for oil are rated at ~3,000 psi, and what does your oil pressure run at? ~60psi? they are WAY overkill. The assembly methods for the lines are fairly idiot proof, so very little danger there as well.

I can't imagine reusing those oil lines, but it does seem that the service bulletin indicates that they were reused. Replaced my lines and added fire shielding to them...the hose is really not that expensive. IMHO, be safe, just replace them

Toddlers grow up mighty quickly... I know that personally. Mine are growing up very quickly. I wish I had a long body for my family.

A couple of things I note here. How many people on the weekend trips? If you are going to carry more than 2 and 2 double amputees, the smaller -C model is very tight (despite what @Marauder does with his girls...) As to IFR training, at least I would want to rearrange that instrument panel into a standard 6-pack configuration for that. If you look around, you may be able to get a better equipped C or E model or even an F or G in your price range. As to price range, you should also remember that after paying for the plane, there are almost always a number of things that we don't catch in pre-buy inspection that will require a number of dollars to keep the plane airworthy.

A few things: Damage history can be a lot of things. A light gear-up can be repaired completely and can have some advantages. Things like a new prop and a one-piece belly. A bad gear up can twist the airframe and never be put right. Check for corrosion, especially on the wing spars or on the cockpit cage. Corrosion on those can be immensely expensive. 500 hours on airframe since 1966 is approximately 12 hours per year. That really concerns me. I would rather see an airplane that has been flown. That low of hours requires a great deal of explanation. On the other hand, 500 hours on the engine with a decent amount on the airframe would be a much more desirable situation. A 500 hour engine is in its prime. I would honestly be looking for another option. I would think that much better C models can be had for 45k if that is what you meant. Look for something that has better avionics, etc. As to the interior, that can be fixed fairly cheaply.

Mooneyspace seems to like to do that.

Honest opinion... It's upside down.

Having read Mooneyspace for over a year, I see certain topics coming up on a -VERY- regular basis. One of the other forums I have used (I believe it was the Taurus Car Club) have a FAQs section that link to posts which are on that topic, specifically noting ones that are most helpful. I think this would be helpful on this site.

I did the throttle cable last year on my johnson bar C model. It was original and the sliding sheath broke between the mount and the carburetor. If yours are truly original, I can't urge you to replace them hard enough. I was quite thankful for the easily removed radio right above the cables. I worked through there and some from underneath. I didn't find it to be too difficult. Much less difficult than a number of other projects I've had to do on airplanes. I had more difficulty running the cable on the forward side of the firewall than I had behind the panel. Do it now while you have your engine out. Are you cleaning, inspecting and painting your motor mount? I'd suggest doing that as well while the engine is off. There are SO many things you have access to now that you won't have until the next time you remove your engine...which I hope is a VERY long time. I wish those things had been done on mine when the engine was off.

How about this afternoon?

You can do mine for practice...

My understanding is that you will have to replace the control shafts as well... I believe they changed them for the J and later models.

Please, Sir, can my sad little Mooney have one?!

Sadly, no johnson bar.

Sorry... This is why I'd prefer to go experimental... If I don't like something, I could just change it, or try something new just for the sake of it. But no time at the moment. I've got to say, I love that intake, I looked at the Van's website and they don't have one for my 'c model, but hopefully sabremech will rectify that situation... 'course I've got the older 'c model, so that's another step of extending the mod...

From what I've seen across the history of watching this site, etc. is that it works similar to a ram air for boost by getting rid of the corners, etc. that are involved in the original induction system. From what I've read in this thread is that they hope to have ~.25inhg lower manifold pressure than the ram air as it was originally working, yet not have the problems associated with the ram air system.

That's obviously not how you're doing the carbureted models...

I'm trying to imagine how a pitch changer (by this do you mean a "load leveler") would be attached to our engines. Would it be connected to the engine lift point (on the crankcase bolt) at the back and to the propeller lift strap at the front? BTW, this is what I am thinking when I say "Load Leveler"

Looks like it is a direct replacement for the Garmin GMA-340, so if someone has that tray, it should work for you.

I appreciate your experience, I have to say that I would have anticipated much more adverse effects. I had not seen the speed brake video, but I believe here it is: This was another video that recently brought this question to mind, at first it appeared to me that the plane was covered with cameras. I reviewed it and found that they only used a couple of cameras outside. I didn't think the side view could possibly be from the same camera mounted mid-wing viewable say ~2:16 into the video among other places. but upon review it seems it was.

I'm just curious on the reasoning, because I also don't see incidents as a reason, let alone most of the other reasons I mentioned. That's why I asked the question. I guess I can see arm-chair flying, but usually I have enough projects to fill any arm-char time I have, so not a reason here. I understand the logic on the mounts, however, I can't imagine that even these stick-on mounts do not adversely affect the flight characteristics of the planes. I can barely touch an aileron without an A&P signing off whatever I did, but I can disrupt airflow over it with a comparatively huge camera mount that also affects the laminar flow over the wing. I have difficulty believing that.

Quick question: Is there a reason to fly with cameras all the time? Is it perhaps for insurance reasons (like a dashcam) to show that it was the other guy's fault or for some other reason, or is it just to post to social media or to have a video of the flight to review? What sparks this question is that I just noticed on one of the checklists posted here: https://mooneyspace.com/topic/24059-fancy-smancy-checklist/, turning on go-pro cameras was part of the checklist! It just seems to be very common and I'm curious as to the reason. Considering that external go-pro mounts may need to be certified (though most people fly with totally experimental mounts), I guess I'm kinda surprised that it is so common. Thanks,

I guess I can't quantify it, however, the engine seems stronger than it did with the old cylinders. I've run a lot of hours on old chromed rebuilt cylinders and the Millenniums just seem stronger and run great. My dad just installed a set on his Mooney and his comment was exactly that, he felt like the plane is peppier. This set I have is 700 hours old and about 15 years old, it's running great (I'd hope so, good grief). I hope what tigers2007 has to say isn't true that the bean counters have lowered the quality.

I can't say that, I'm really not up on the Garmin stuff, however, the ones I have been told about can accept position sources from internal as well as external. At that point it should be just software. 'course that doesn't mean it would work automagically.