MikeOH

I think you're on the right track. I, too, valued recent use over just about all else. Beware the 'hangar queens' and 'ramp rats' with low time engines. The need for an OH shortly after purchase could easily eat up half your purchase price! I bought my '70F with 2100 SMOH from an owner who had flown it 100 hours per year for the 13 years he owned it. You may be surprised how hard it is to find a plane at the lower price range that has been flown adequately. I'm three years and nearly 300 additional hours in with no problems (2400 SMOH). Thing is, I got a run-out engine price so if it goes TU tomorrow I've had three years of 'free engine time.' Read Mike Busch's publications regarding maintenance on condition; I think he's run Lycoming's to over 3000 hours! Do you automatically rebuild your car's engine when it reaches an arbitrary number of miles? I'm with KLRDMD, though. I really wanted manual gear, but when the 'right one' came along I accepted the electric gear. Frankly, it's been trouble free even though the required 100 and 200 hour lube intervals/inspections add a bit to the maintenance cost. Note that the electric gear in the '70 M20F (and, I think later Fs) does NOT suffer from the notorious $1000 no back spring issue; just the lube/inspection AD. Other advice is to buy with the avionics you want; GPS and, for certain, the AP. Adding these after the fact is ridiculously expensive (you could drop $20-25K on the AP, alone!). And, you will be lucky to get half that back on resale. Finally, you'll likely have around 1000 pound useful with an M20F, which has 64 gallon tanks, leaving around 620 in the cabin. With four on board (even kids), luggage, and full fuel you'll be pushing gross. Be careful if the DA is high!

Just curious why no comments regarding jetdriven's rather rude, crude, and socially unacceptable post? Or, was his diatribe ok merely because "he didn't start it." Looking for a little less bias, and more equity.

Data point: Mine had similar intermittency and I, too, first suspected poor connections at the Sonalert. Turns out it was the Sonalert, itself! I believe it is an SC628N available in the aviation aisle at DigiKey for around $25.

It's not amazing when bright people disagree on new and unknown/poorly supported science. Don't confuse political motivation/posturing with actual science and well established facts. And, do let me know when you come up with an example of pretty much any individual human activity that does NOT affect others. The argument that an individual's action affects others, thus justifying limitless control, leads to totalitarianism whereby every aspect of an INDIVIDUAL's life is controlled by group-think because it would all so selfish to do otherwise. That is the slippery slope we are on and, that is NOT freedom. Life is a risk and part of that risk IS living with the actions and consequences of others; like it or not. I am NOT saying COVID is to be brushed off, but I do think it has become a poster child for FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) resulting in politically motivated overreach. Meantime, please don't trot out the tired guilt trip on me. I'm going to continue to wash my hands, stay home if I'm sick, and wear a mask when I'm forced to (inside businesses), but NOT out of fear, and poorly established 'science.' Generations may well look back on this 'pandemic' and wonder why we stopped living, and destroyed small businesses over a virus!

They both should be judged EQUALLY harshly: they screwed up and landed at the wrong airport. Once equipment starts entering the picture it's a short slide to MANDATING equipment, and MANDATING its use, claiming it's for SAFETY. The safety glasses situation is NOT an analogy. It is a situation where NOT using or NOT having safety glasses is a VIOLATION (i.e. a MANDATED requirement) of established policy. Do you want an FAA that makes it MANDATORY to categorize avionics as SAFETY equipment and MANDATE it's installation and use? I'd prefer to just hold the pilot responsible for his mistakes, not drag what equipment he had, or did not have, used or did not use, into the fray. Or, to put it another way, it is disturbing to me that a pilot that doesn't use some equipment is a 'bad' pilot because it rather strongly carries the connotation that the pilot that does NOT choose to have that equipment is ALSO a bad pilot. Pretty soon if you don't install synthetic vision and the 'Blue button' A/P you're going to be judged a bad pilot...

The troubling thing about rulings like this one is the broad and overreaching nature of quips like, "Because Ferguson's conduct had clearly foreseeable consequences, it demonstrated a gross disregard for safety and created an actual danger to life and property. Thus, the conduct was reckless within the meaning of § 91.9.". Now tell me, exactly what is an example, especially judged AFTER the fact, of something that was NOT foreseeable? It today's law, EVERYTHING is deemed foreseeable AFTER the fact. It is part and parcel, and the 'go-to' argument the Feds use to hang anyone they wish. Pilots have been, and likely will continue to, land at wrong airports, unfortunately a consequence of being human and making mistakes that others have made before them. You can do it with all the fancy INS/GPS/FMS or with map & compass. Thing is, this thread is a scary reminder of the slippery slope we are on where we will be FORCED to purchase ALL the technology that is available! Yet, mistakes will continue to happen. My point is, should a pilot that lands at the wrong airport be judged more harshly simply because had equipment that he did not use than the pilot that did not have said equipment? Be careful how you answer.

Geez! Youse guys have been on lockdown too long

We perform BOTH shock and vibration testing of our electronic assemblies at my company. There is a big difference in each one's effects on the hardware. You can pass vibe and fail shock. Granted electronic assemblies are NOT airplane wings, but I think the principle still applies. To me, in flight turbulence is much more akin to vibration than shock, although I admit to having a few "shock" type hits in rough air! Either way, the nature of turbulence is going to spread its effects across the entire wing whereas the landing shock load on a Mooney wing is applied in a localized area through a compression spring (the donuts) which absorb some of the shock (reduce transmitted 'g'), UNLESS they are as hard as a rock. So, it makes sense that donut condition and smoothness of landing directly affect the stress the tanks are subjected to. Not so with the Cardinal where the gear is NOT bolted to the wing and, I suspect, has much more compliance than our donuts. All, IMHO, of course

Ah, so that means it "never was"...got it

Hmm,....

@carusoam Turns out they were installed in March 2011. Kit invoice was dated February 2011.

PO put them in. I don't have the logs handy, but it was after 2005. I'll post when I look up the exact date.

I have Precise Flight. Here's my dual-button setup:

Sigh....I've been following the "auto engine" in an airplane is "just around the corner" saga and debating with its fan-boys since the 1970's. Every decade the latest auto engine is touted as the cure to aviation engine woes (which, frankly, is just their high prices!). Ah, you say, those just were not sophisticated/modern like today's auto engines...I've heard that EVERY decade as the 'cogent' argument. So, now we're hearing how BOAT engines with CAST IRON cylinder heads the size of small cars provide plenty of cooling with closed-loop heat exchangers with an unlimited heat sink of WATER! Yeah, no doubt that proves auto engines will work great in aircraft Five decades and going...pass some more of that Kool-Aid!

Why salt water?

FTFY

I must have the same friend

So, how many pretty pennies for such a pretty face?

Agree. I just wonder about longevity at continuous high power levels even if the temps are controlled. Mass produced auto engines were NEVER designed to output high levels of power for continuous time periods; that kind of specification would make NO sense for an automotive application. It would amount to over engineering which would add cost... and I'm pretty sure Detroit would kill to save $0.10 an engine This is the logic that further convinces me that auto engines will never be more than an experimental niche. To think otherwise implies that an engine designed for short bursts of power will somehow maintain longevity at continuous high-power levels. There is more to it than just temperature control. That is, longevity is NOT independent of time X power AOC (area under the curve).

1) EXACTLY my point! The auto engine was NOT designed with max power at the proper RPM to match a prop! 2) Oh, puuhhleease! That's a cop-out...you boast 25,000 life at 430 HP and come back with that?? Sorry, a convincing argument that is not 3) See 2 above. Additionally, my point was NOT that the environment is the same, but that cooling aircraft engines has always been difficult and throwing in a water cooled auto engine into an aircraft doesn't have the advantage of unlimited weight for cooling systems sufficient for the heat load. Funny, I've spent more time managing to keep CHTs under 400 on warm days (high DA)...not too much experience with -25 OATs in my normally aspirated Mooney. 4) No, I did NOT assume anything. I asked a question. Your answer is actually what I assumed: the engine continues to turn over with only three cylinders firing. That sounds just swell for an aircraft. Now, we're talkin'

Probably not that hard to get the temps under control long enough to run 24 hours Let me guess oversize radiator, bigger fans, high-flow water pump (maybe electric)...wonder how much weight that system would hurt in an airplane? And, for 24 hours??? Nah, I'll pass, thanks! 100% agree with your second paragraph! Here's two of us 'not holding our breath' for the LSx 'miracle cure' for aviation

Sure the torque curve is relevant, otherwise you would not need a gear reduction drive. Please cite the data which shows an LS3 will run for 25,000 hours at 430 horse power. Also, what is the weight and extent of the cooling system used in those applications? Finally, educate me: Doesn't the LS3 use coil over plugs? How do you lose 5 coils and the remaining 3 fire all the plugs?

Yes, and how long do race engines last? At one extreme are top fuel dragsters...I believe they get about 3 runs before the engine needs rebuilding...so, less than 10 seconds total life! Look at the 24 hours of Le Mans, most of the field is gone due to mechanical failures... and those cars and engines were the best money can buy...and many won't make 24 hours! Absolutely, industrial engines run continuously for a very long time at high power...that is EXACTLY what they are designed to do. Every check out the WEIGHT on those puppies?? Good engineering is a delicate balance of many variables for the SPECIFIC requirements for a PARTICULAR application. You truly can't have everything...technological advances incrementally improve the trade-offs, but that balance remains. Trying to adapt a design to other than it's intended application is very difficult and commonly an exercise in futility.

Ah, the old "it's only physics"...well, yeah, but the devil is most definitely in the details! You hit the nail on the head with "surmounted"...there are MANY obstacles to be surmounted in the forced adaptation of an engine which was NEVER designed to be used in an aircraft. You mention the issue Merlin and Allison had with getting high continuous power (for a very SHORT life span) with water cooling....and THOSE engines were designed for AIRPLANES! I've read the supposed "wonders" of adapted auto engines since the 1970s...odd, with all that 'potential' for success you'd think they'd be prolific by now...gee, I wonder why?

I'd be VERY interested to see MTBF data for an LS3 at, say, 200 HP continuous (around 50%) at 10,000 DA....my gut says it won't make 2000 hours.