Vance Harral

This is pretty easy to visualize in the comparison photos, because both aircraft have horizontal striping that follows the fuselage side skin lap joint used as the level reference for the airframe. On the M20F, that level line is parallel to the strip of white between the red and gold stripes. On the M20R it's parallel to all the gold striping. There's no question the M20R "squats" relative to the M20F. Just look at the ground relative to the striping.

Thanks Matthias!

I borrowed this picture from a for-sale ad, hope the owner doesn't mind. What is the purpose of the large exit scoop on the bottom of the fuselage, aft of the wing? Saw an airplane similar to this one on the ramp this week, and it's the first time I've seen a Mooney with this feature. Looking at a gallery of photos, some long bodies have it, some don't. Guessing it has something to do with a factory A/C option?

For reference, here's a comparison photo of long vs. mid-body at rest. I realize the M20R is 12" longer behind the gear, but that doesn't really account for why the tail is so much lower. Look at the line of the fuselage bottom behind the wing. It's essentially parallel to the ground on the long-body, but distinctly rising on the M20F. Every line on the long body is tilted rearward, relative to the ground: bottom of the fuselage, chord angle of wing and horizontal stab, vertical stab, top of cowl, prop arc, etc. If the difference in the gear leg design is just the thickness of the tubing, that doesn't change the overall geometry. The difference in sitting-on-the-ground angle has gotta be the greater weight compressing the shock disks more, right?

Interesting. What exactly is different? I got my information about greater compression on long bodies causing the tail-down/nose high attitude from this LASAR article, which specifically says, "You may notice that the long bodies are “dragging” their tail -so to speak- but that’s usually due to the more extreme compression of the main gear shock biscuits, due to their weight." I was under the impression the greater gross weight allowed on long-body Mooneys is due to more robust brakes and slightly higher stall speeds, rather than a change in the leg design. But all I really know is the part number and count of shock disks appear to be identical for all Mooneys, other than the very ancient models that used the Firestone disks (of which essentially all have been converted to Lord). When you order shock disks from LASAR or other sources, there is not one type/count for long bodies and another for older airplanes. So I'd like to understand how the landing gear leg design is different on long bodies, while still using the same type and count of shock disks.

I see this assertion a lot here. But having replaced both main and the nose gear pucks twice over 17 years of ownership, I'll offer a contrary data point: we couldn't tell any difference at all with new pucks vs. old, either during taxi or on landing. Note that we didn't replace the pucks "just because", we replaced them because they exceeded the prescribed limits in the maintenance manual. Still, no detectable difference reported by anyone in the partnership before/after, and that's from multiple partners with varying levels of skill and seat-of-the pants sensitivity. Possible explanations: Puck flexibility may be more of a feel factor on heavier, later model Mooneys, vs. our lighter vintage model. I was actually looking at this just yesterday. Someone parked a late model long body on the ramp next to the fuel pump, and compared with ours at fuel up, it sits considerably lower on the same gear. The tail in particular was about 8" closer to the ground, which I can only assume is due to greater compression of the mains. We replace pucks as soon as they exceed tolerances, and we've gotten about 10 years of service per set. But I occasionally see owners here talking about replacing 20-, 30- even 40-year old pucks. Who knows how far out of tolerance those have gotten? I'm sure it's possible to let them get in such horrible condition that they're effectively made of stone, in which case there will obviously be a noticeable difference when replaced with new. Anyway, the point is not to dispute others observations. Just want to reassure owners - at least of vintage era Mooneys - who follow the maintenance manual recommendations, that they didn't get swindled just because changing out the gear pucks doesn't automatically produce greaser landings and luxurious taxi rides.

I think it depends a little on where you're based. Here in the Denver area, humidity is almost always very low. Things dry "instantly" in bright sunshine, and pretty quickly even in shade. Still, I was cautious for many years, until I saw the local flying club's semi-annual "plane wash". At said event, student pilots and other somewhat uneducated enthusiasts hose down the airplanes with spray nozzles and wild abandon. No pitot tube covers, no tape over the static ports, no real guidance about where and how to spray. I asked the club president if he was concerned about it, and he said something to the effect of, "Maybe, but we've been doing it this way for over 20 years with no problems". I wouldn't necessarily take off into 200' ceilings immediately after, but the airplanes look nice and it's apparently not a serious issue in practice. That said, I'd probably be more cautious in Houston, or Orlando. I used to live in South Texas, and have vivid memories of towels not being dry even 24 hours after the last shower. I think there's probably a reasonable middle ground. I'm not advocating a careless attitude, but I find advice to "never use water to wash the airplane" to be silly.

The KA-134 is an audio panel, so I'm assuming you're talking about "interfacing" audio output from the GNX-375 to it. Per the linked thread below, pins 46 and 47 of the J3751 connector on the GNX-375 carry audio output. A shop can certainly connect these pins to an input port of the KA-134, but there are two potential issues I can think of. 1) Impedance matching. I found a post that says the KA-134 presents a 500 ohm impedance to the device driving it, which is conventional, so probably no issue. But modern audio panels typically have automatic gain controls that ensure audio received from just about any device is held within a reasonable volume range. The KA-134 will not have this. Garmin keeps their installation manuals private, and I wasn't able to find the output impedance of the GNX-375. It's possible there will be a volume issue, but it's likely it will work fine with no engineering involved other than connecting the wires. 2) The KA-134 has no "unswitched audio" inputs, which IMO is a bigger deal. You'll have to connect the 375 to a switched input, likely the DME or ADF, assuming you don't have both a DME and and ADF installed in your airplane. This means it will be possible to accidentally disable audio output from the GNX-375. That arguably defeats the purpose of having audio warnings in the first place - it would bother me a lot to know a traffic or terrain warning could be lost simply because of how my audio panel powers up. I suppose you could put a placard on your glare shield that says something like TRAFFIC AND TERRAIN ALERTS REQUIRE DME SOURCE TO BE SELECTED ON AUDIO PANEL, but that seems klunky to me. Pins

Sent you a PM with details. Rapid shipping is somewhat expensive if you need them quickly, but happy to send them if there are no closer alternatives.

I'm nowhere near local to Tampa, but I've benefited in the past from others loaning me gear rigging tools, and would be glad to pay it forward. If someone else doesn't pipe up here, send me a PM and we can probably work out a deal to ship them back and forth. When's your annual?

It's stiff enough that I can't easily push it in by hand, at least not in the installed location. The other thing is that if you look closely, you'll see the forward arm of the rocker is a little shorter than the aft arm. So the force exerted by the discs and the gear swing arm is mechanically attenuated. i.e. i takes even greater pressure on the forward side of the rocker to close the switch than it would if you pushed it directly. The whole mechanism is bulky and somewhat Rube-Goldberg-ish. I'm not sure why it was designed this way, except to guess that it's "industrial strength" because it is situated in a relatively harsh environment

Below are photos of the mechanism in the left main. In the annotated photo, the electrical switch is outlined in red. It is a spring-open, push close switch. The spring is quite firm. The switch is actuated by the rocker arm outlined in green. When the disks are compressed on the ground, the forward arm of the rocker is pushed up by the rod outlined in blue, and the aft arm pushed down, such that the aft rocker arm loses contact with the switch. The spring-loaded switch opens, which breaks the circuit that allows the gear to retract. At takeoff, the pucks expand, which moves the rod down, in turn moving the forward arm of the rocker down. This is supposed to push the aft arm of the rocker up to push against the spring-loaded switch, thereby closing it and allowing the gear to retract. As I said, the spring in the switch is quite firm. The weight of the wheels pulling the rod down is insufficient to close it. The mechanism only works if the expansion of the pucks pushes hard enough against the swing arm to draw the rod down with enough force - through the rocker - to push the switch closed.

If we're going to speculate, I can think of several reasons why four pilots of identical experience flying 50 hours apiece might be riskier than one pilot flying 200 hours. An obvious reason is the potential for miscommunication about the state of the airplane: fuel, squawks, required inspections, etc. Sure, these risks are mitigated by careful pre-flight inspections by each pilot, but we're talking about humans, not robots. All partnerships have at least some minor inefficiencies in communication, and some partnerships are quite sketchy in this respect. Next, since no pilot operates an aircraft exactly the same as another, the likelihood of an incident involving some gizmo being set to an unfamiliar mode by another pilot increases, especially in an airplane with fancy modern displays and navigators. Fuel totalizer again comes to mind, but could also be that one pilot de-selects the weather layer on a moving map, leading the next pilot to think the weather ahead is clear. Next, having a partnership airplane means a change in one pilot's plans due to weather, illness, etc, can adversely affect the plans of another partner - probably one they like and respect. That can increase get-there-itis pressure to negative ends. Finally, since we're dealing with humans, there are going to be cases where one partner commits some personal mistake they try to hide: minor overtemp or overboost of the engine, extending the gear or flaps above their limit speeds, etc.. At least some of those folks might have taken the airplane to the shop immediately as sole owner, but are inclined to let it ride to the next annual in a partnership. These are all reasons why some people would never consider being in a partnership. I don't think any of these risks are large, and I'm not saying they justify any particular increase in premium. But it's not unreasonable to think a multi-pilot partnership has an elevated risk profile vs. a single named insured, even when the average experience and total hours flown in the partnership is identical to that of the single owner.

The main benefit of good fuel gauges in an airplane with an accurate fuel totalizer system is to cover failure modes the totalizer can't "see". The obvious one is failure to program the totalizer correctly. Another is a bad or missing gas cap that allows fuel to be siphoned out of the tank in flight. Another that's applicable to Continental fuel injection is a leak in the fuel return system. It's fair to argue that even the old, original, "inaccurate" senders give you pretty good protection against these sorts of problems. But some people want better accuracy than those old senders can provide even when they're in good shape. Longevity is another selling point, though it's unclear to me whether the CIES senders are demonstrably better in that respect.

Based on anecdotal reports from individual owners with a single pilot on the policy, I think that's about what the market is actually charging. Our partnership premiums have always been substantially more expensive than what sole owners with only one named insured on the policy are paying. My understanding is that when you move beyond 4 pilots, the insurance companies switch from treating you as a "partnership" to treating you as a "flying club", with another substantial jump in premiums.

Right. One thing that's happening in this thread is people mixing quotes for individual policies with one named insured, with partnership policies that name multiple insured pilots. I posted my data point because moontownMooney posted a premium for his four-person partnership that was considerably more expensive than our four-person partnership. KLRDMD says his premium for a twin is close to ours and he's happy with it, but I presume that a personal policy that covers only him.

My data point is 6 months old, which is an eternity given current market behavior. Still, we added a 4th partner at the end of December with *no* instrument rating, *no* complex endorsement, and *no* time in Mooneys (or any other complex aircraft) other than a couple of demo flights. Other three partners have IR, lots of time in type, etc. $58K hull value, pretty close to yours. Total premium was $2787 with Avemco. That was dramatically less expensive than options our long-time broker was able to find with other carriers. We're not quite old enough yet to worry about sticking with a single broker "forever", so with apologies to our broker, we switched to Avemco.

I like the cut of your jib, 1980Mooney. I also don't think I should pay more to subsidize others' risk taking. So... here's a list of risky behaviors many Mooney owners do not engage in: flying at high density altitude flying over mountains flying over water flying at night flying in instrument conditions flying IMC with less than 3 independent attitude indicators flying IMC at all, regardless of equipment flying without an engine monitor flying without ADSB-IN for traffic and weather flying without an angle of attack indicator choosing not to sump the tanks before every single flight choosing not to run a specific W&B calculation before every single flight taking off or landing on runways with less than a 50% margin vs. book performance performing touch-and-go's in a complex airplane It's easy to find accident reports associated with each of these behaviors. So please let us know which of these actions you engage in, and how much it's appropriate to raise your rates, so the rest of us are not paying to subsidize your deliberately risky behavior. Yeah, yeah, I know... the risks you take are perfectly reasonable, it's only the risk others take that are unreasonable and should put them in a separate insurance pool. I hope the list above illustrates the problem with this way of thinking. Shared risk is the bedrock of insurance, and separating buyers into smaller and smaller pools eventually kills the whole concept. You already pay an adjusted rate that takes into account the type of airplane you choose to fly, how much it's worth, your ratings, and your experience. How much more do you really want to carve up that pool? Are you sure doing so is actually going to benefit you?

We've had the 7000B for about 9 years and have been happy with it. Installed it to replace a KMA-24 just like you're contemplating. I don't long for IntelliAudio, but that feature sure seems to get a lot of press. I've only experienced it on the ground, in a marketing booth at a show, which probably is not the environment where it would really shine. I find that in almost all cases, old-school patience is sufficient to distinguish one audio source from another. But sometimes that requires shutting off one of the sources for a few seconds while waiting for the other to quiet down, and that can be an annoyance. The Bluetooth audio output seems like a nice feature for those who want to Youtube their flights, but that's just not our thing. And the variety of Bluetooth music input options seem superfluous in the modern era, where nearly every passenger has their own audio source and connection to their own headset. Having said all that, the incremental cost of the hardware is almost nothing compared to installation costs and general flying costs. If we had the work done today instead of a decade ago, it's very likely we'd choose the 450.

The point is that loose connections of any type (ground, power or signal), at any location, can cause audio noise. As Yetti says, they "may" (or may not) change with engine RPM. I'll say it again. Check for loose wiring first. It's tedious, but cheap, and absolutely can be the cause of various types of audio noise. It's as good a place to start as any.

On the contrary, this is a completely reasonable guess. Over our years of ownership we've had two "alternator whine" incidents that were not solved by noise filters, or even replacing the alternator. In both cases the culprit turned out to simply be a loose ground wire. Always check the wiring connections first. It's tedious, but cheap, and absolutely can be the cause of various types of audio noise.

Like all retract pilots, I've pondered the gear-up vs. gear-down ditching question from time to time. The problem as I see it is that what many pilots think is an "obvious" positive or negative consequence of gear up vs. gear down is (1) not obvious if you start thinking more critically; and (2) there's no evidence in the actual data to support the "obvious" position. As an example, everyone knows you should leave the gear up if you have to ditch in the water, right? Otherwise the gear will catch, turn you upside down, and drown you? Well, not so fast. Leaving the gear up makes you more prone to catch a wingtip at first contact, which is a more severe impact event due to the ensuing side load (or in the worst case, cartwheel). In fact, wing-first contact with the gear up is practically guaranteed if the water is anything other than smooth, at least in airplanes like Mooneys with relatively little dihedral. Next, putting the gear down may or may not result in the airplane flipping, but the only study I'm aware of that actually tries to look at this concluded there's no measurable difference in survivability: see Myth #5 at https://www.nanaimoflyingclub.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/EQUIPPED-TO-SURVIVE-tm-Ditching-Myths-Torpedoed.pdf. Note also in that study that there's no meaningful variation in survivability for high- vs. low-wing, or fixed vs. retract. More generally, I think a lot of retractable gear pilots have this idea that gear down "catches" anything other than a smooth paved surface, resulting in a high-G stop; and gear up is safer because you'll "slide" on that same surface with a lower-G stop. I'm unconvinced. It's equally likely a gear-down landing on rough terrain will simply tear the gear off the airplane during the impact sequence, fortuitously absorbing some of the impact force while allowing the cabin to continue moving forward; and/or that trying to "belly it in" on water/mud/whatever actually winds up with a worse sudden stoppage than gear down due to catching a wingtip or whatever. We all have to make our own decisions (ideally ahead of time), and I don't think there are clearly right or wrong answers. But I think about this stuff every time I see someone question another pilot's decision about gear-up vs. gear-down in an off-field landing.

Depends on what else has to be done to get the G5 installed. I'm sure some are being installed for the $1500 201Steve quotes, but none of many shops within 50 miles or so of the Denver area would do our airplane for that rate. The place we wound up actually having the work done a few months ago billed 27.5 hours of labor total, for the following invoice detail: Removed attitude indicator, mounted G5 instrument, plugged vacuum system lines going to attitude indicator, removed RH side C.B. subpanel, relocated Autopilot C.B. to lower bus bar, installed short throw 5amp CB for G5 installation, fabricated G5 wire harness and installed, replaced Garmin GTN650 P1001 Dsub connector, tapped into pitot/static system for G5 instrument, adjusted vacuum to 4.8 IN, performed system configuration. At $95/hour that's $2612.50 for the labor alone. I don't think we got a particularly good deal, but I don't think we got grievously gouged, either. A lot of the cost depends on the hourly rate for labor where you're having the installation done. Mooney speeds allowed us to consider shops further away with cheaper labor cost, but then you have to weigh that against the potential need to return to the shop in the event of a problem. We decided having the work done nearby (in fact right at our home field) was worth a premium. So in summary, the single G5 installation itself is only part of the labor. In our case there was re-work of the existing vacuum system (either you pay to remove it entirely or you pay to plug lines and readjust the vacuum regulator), a circuit breaker had to be relocated in order for the G5 breaker to be installed, and a Dsub connector on the GTN650 we used as a GPS position source for the G5 wound up needing to be replaced (your guess as to whether it "wore out" vs. the installer "breaking it during the work", it's essentially impossible to tell). Anyone who tells you what the installation cost should be without going into at least a little detail on ancillary work isn't giving particularly useful information. Finally, if you fly IFR, note that 91.411(a)(2) requires a fresh static system check "following any opening and closing of the static pressure system", and installing a G5 certainly counts. If you happen to do this around the same time your IFR static system check was coming due anyway, there's no extra cost. Otherwise, add a few hundred bucks for a static system check you would not have otherwise needed.

Ah, that's a big difference. Agree there is "barely" enough energy to fly a typical rectangular pattern. The CFI that was training me at the time showed me a power-off "180" with squared corners once, just to prove a point, but there's no room for mistakes... or headwinds.

Sure, but Shadrach specifically said "there is barely adequate energy to fly a tight pattern in light winds". Again, just not my experience in the same airframe. I don't have a good handle on the change in descent rate with change in density altitude, I could easily believe you're right that thin air is no better than thick. Something we probably all agree on is, if the goal is survivability rather than meeting ACS standards, turn toward the runway ASAP. Landing long/hot and running off the end of a good surface and/or into a fence at low speed, is a very survivable event. Coming up short and stall/spinning trying to stretch the glide is not.