MikeOH

Hmm, it looks like the Nickson's Machine Shop/president was playing fast and loose with the employees' 401k funds! https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ebsa/ebsa20140820

This wouldn't bother me a bit, but I'd sure use it during negotiations. For reference, when I destroyed my elevator in an embarrassing hangar rash incident, it cost me $2K to find a used one, shipped to me, stripped, painted, rebalanced and installed.

Plus one to finding a depiction of "proper setup." At first glance the spring in the foreground looks like it might be rotated 180 degrees. It looks like there is very little clearance between the vertical portion of the spring and the pipe. Rotating the spring would put that part of the spring clear of rubbing on the pipe.

Very wise...getting the right plane the first time! Just realize the F J and K have the same space. And the F and J are both the same 200HP. Finally, newer Fs may not be much older than some of those Js and Ks! We're talking nearly 50 year old aircraft....condition and recency of use are more important than calendar age, IMHO.

I'm going to pile on with recommending an F. The way you've described the conditions you will fly in there's no need for a K and I think a J is just spending money you don't need to. The F will perform nearly the same. Further, I don't think the K is going to, practically speaking, reduce your commute time significantly. I paid around 1/3 of your budget and got WASS and A/P...but no fancy glass stuff; just wasn't important to me. Rags is spot on with the annual budget: you need to be good with 20K per year. I've been a bit under that, but I am willing to get my hands dirty.

I suspect one of the reasons for 6 is the false claims of "facts" by lawyers as exemplified by 5. There was NO evidence the vacuum pump died per the NTSB report. According to the report the copilot AI was operating and there was other evidence of proper vacuum. Yet, IIRC, Parker-Hannifin got stuck with paying out! They exited the vacuum pump biz after that. i can't blame them.

I just knew GILL batteries were good for something!

I must question that logic on two fronts: 1) Lack of any evidence that the time involved 'is a wash.'. You certainly CAN spend months looking, but if you have realistic expectations (you will NEVER find a plane EXACTLY like you envision in your dreams) and are truly committed to buying (not just kicking tires) there is no reason for the buying project to take the time a complete avionics upgrade requires. 2) If you spend the time in the shop you WILL be spending money WITHOUT the benefit of actually flying the plane. IOW, the fixed costs are going to be with you from the day the sale closes.

Hmm, only in the world of over priced aviation products would a 1000 ppm failure rate be deemed good Thanks, but I'll stick with the massives.

Probably implied in many of the above posts, but if you choose to 'roll your own' rather than buying with what you want already done is DOWNTIME! Depending upon the complexity of the avionics install not everything is going to work right initially...are you ready for several trips back to the shop (especially if not conveniently close) and attendant aggravation? And, after all that you will likely only get 50% back when you sell to the next guy. YOU want to be that 'next guy' I made sure I bought with what I wanted (basically just wanted a WAAS GPS, but the plane had an A/P. Really glad it did; that will be on my list next time as they are incredibly expensive to install)

Darn it! Flight Aware showed me at 736kts on Friday; looks like I've been beat

Let's rephrase that a bit, "The quality of the PAPERWORK matters little. Success depends upon the man who sits in it." IOW, I wouldn't pay $2k-$3K just to legally 'use' the capability I have now. If I felt comfortable I'd use it now; the paper doesn't change a thing (the gear isn't what I'm concerned about).

Hmm, seems the ONE part, the elephant in the room that "allows" the gross weight increase, is the IO-550 ENGINE, would dispute that ALL parts are landing gear components

DAMN! I'd call that a freak show!!

I went up Friday when it was "cool"...100F at 4500. SkewT shows the temp following the dry adiabat to over 15,000....looks like 6000 to 7000 should do it!

Hmm, because we always recommend using the seller's A&P to perform the PPI

EXACTLY! Excellent example

Well, by that logic, why have the POH at all? As the pilot is already responsible for making decisions, isn't he?. Hell, if this supposed STC is just to beef up the gear, and you're an ace pilot that always gets a squeaker, then what's stopping anyone from flying over gross as it is if it is cold enough? Isn't there some exception for over-gross operation in Alaska where it's cold? This is just another example of legal/safe, smart/dumb. The plane doesn't know you've got a piece of paper or not. This 'piece of paper' may encourage pilots to take off under conditions they shouldn't; I'll be the lawyers won't be shy about bringing that up...after the fact. My point was merely that I don't see this as a 'product' that will sell well for 200 HP Mooneys.

EXACTLY! My comments were limited to the 200HP machines. The newer models have excess power and a 'paper' STC, or beefing up the gear as required, would be a very marketable product!

@Tim Jodice Correct! Add more POWER with an engine upgrade, and you've got a product that will SELL! You're NOT going to do that with a $2K-$3K paperwork STC, however. You, apparently, missed where I specifically stated, "without a concomitant POWER increase."

I guess what I'm getting at is that I just don't think there's a real market for that. How many E/F/J owners fill the seats and get to gross on a regular basis to say, wow, I wish I had another 150 pounds and can live with anemic performance? BWTHDIK?

Hmm, I'm not one to believe a car salesman, but if he tells me it's used, I really don't need him to Certify it

No argument with those points. But, if the parachute is the reason for the weight increase, that is a sad and bad decision, IMHO. And, with the same power, you're still going to take the performance hit.

I think Chino airport hit 118 yesterday...today's shaping up for more of the same. Ruined my flying this weekend...no way I'm going up in this heat.

I'm not sure I understand the attractiveness of the gross weight increase without a concomitant POWER increase. At my M20F's current gross weight on what is typically, here in southern California, above standard atmospheric conditions, it is not a stellar performer. I just don't see myself wanting to takeoff with another 150 pounds on-board! I like some safety margin in my performance. YMMV, I suppose.